THE BLOG FORMERLY KNOWN AS **** , BUT WAS FORCED TO CHANGE TO KRITIKUL MAZZ!

MULTI-REVIEW!!!

2010-12-07T09:33:00.009Z

I've let this place go to the dogs after being threatened by lawyers reprisenting big business. But that doesn't mean I have stopped watching movies. Although 2010 has been pretty bad apart from one or two absolute gems scattered throughout. Anyway, this is what I've seen recently-

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010) David Yates - I haven't been a big fan of the last few Harry Potter films. In fact, I haven't really thought they were great since The Prisoner Of Azkeban. However, this film bucked that trend. There are some really quirky choices in direction which let the film down a bit. And even after seven films, Daniel Radcliffe still really sucks at acting. But Rupert Grint and Emma Watson are excellent, the film feels tonally like Fellowship Of The Ring. And it sets up really nicely for Part 2. Good job everyone!

9/10

The Social Network (2010) David Fincher - David Fincher is one of the few really really special directors working today. His films are worth looking out for as soon as they're announced. So it comes as no surprise that he could make a film about computer coding so damn exciting. Charting the early meteorical rise of Facebook, focusing on the relationships between Mark Zuckerberg, Eduardo Saverin and Sean Parker, The Social Network is like All The President's Men for the 21st Century. Superbly written by The West Wing scribe Aaron Sorkin, and featuring excellent performances from all, but primarily Jesse Eisenberg as Zuckerberg, The Social Network is one of the best films of 2010.

9/10

R.E.D. (2010)
Robert Schwentke - Based on Warren Ellis' comic book of the same name, RED is about retired assassins who are being targeted by an unknown source, possibly connected to the CIA. Bruce Willis, Morgan Freeman, John Malkovich, Helen Mirren and the rest of the cast are clearly in it for the fun, and that's what the film is. It's not outstanding by any measure, but it is entertaining and easy to watch.

7/10

Centurion (2010) Neil Marshall - I'll admit, I really just watched this out of morbid curiosity. Neil Marshall's films can go either way. And going in with zero expectations probably saved the film for me. It's absolute schlock. And Marshall loves his gore. It's rubbish, but again, there are worse ways to spend 97 minutes. Worth it for Michael Fassbender actually doing a decent job with a terrible script, Dominic West chewing up the scenery, Olga Kurylenko being terrifyingly hot and seeing a head being chopped in half the same way about 3 times.

5/10

I Love You Phillip Morris (2009) Glenn Ficarra and John Requa - This was surprisingly decent. It's the true story of a conman who basically took the piss out of George W. Bush's Texas penal system continuously for years. All in the name of love of another man. Surprisingly funny and with two really great performances from Jim Carrey and Ewan McGregor, it's a very over-looked film. Really entertaining.

7/10

Jackass 3D (2010) Jeff Tremaine - Awesome. There's not much to say really, you know what to expect. Except in 3D. Nearly puked. Laughed my ass off. No apologies!

8/10

Four Lions (2010) Chris Morris - I'm a big fan of Chris Morris. So when I heard he was doing a comedy about four suicide bombers, I chuckled away to myself. The film is pretty shocking in parts, but then having seen Morris' other work, that comes as no surprise. Very well performed low-budget comedy about a subject most people wont touch, Four Lions is exactly the right type of satire in this current climate. Really excellent.

9/10

[REC] 2 (2010) Jaume Balagueró and Paco Plaza - I thought this would suck. It takes place roughly five minutes after the first REC finished, and picks up exactly where that film left off. It's incredibly creepy, gory, and features quite a few jumps. A horror sequel that expands on the original in a very inventive way. And while some complain that it takes a bit of the mysetery out of the first film, which admittedly, it does, it doesn't rest on it's laurels and instead expands on the story. Proper horror done really well.

8/10

So there you go. Some more films I've watched recently. The end of the year review will be coming soon, which should cover a few more of the films I've seen. Some good, some rotten. Hopefully I'll get a full top and bottom 10. But I wouldn't count on it! The cinema is costing more and putting out crap, so it really puts me off going. However, we shall see.

INCEPTION (2010) - Christopher Nolan

2010-08-03T23:05:00.004Z

You know, it’s a wonderful thing when somebody or something continues to surprise you, no matter how much you think they’ve reached the pinnacle of their ability in whatever field that may be. These people are rare, and when they give the world something, it’s a joy to behold. One such person is Christopher Nolan. Every time I watch one of his movies, I think ‘well, that’s it. He’ll never top that film.’ Sure, it could be argued that Insomnia was a blemish on an otherwise incredible resume. But even as thrillers go, Insomnia is better than most.

After The Dark Knight, I thought Nolan couldn’t possibly do better. Oh, how wrong I was. His first original film since Memento, which in itself was adapted from his brother Jonathan’s short story. So it could be argued that Inception is Nolan’s first true original since his first feature, Following.

The story centres on Dom Cobb, incidentally, also the name of the protagonist in Following. Cobb specialises in ‘Extraction,’ which is essentially the theft of an idea. But to steal this idea, Cobb enters the dreams of the target, and manipulates them into giving him the information. After a botched theft, Cobb’s latest target, Saito has a proposition. Help him implant an idea in a rival’s mind, and he can help Cobb with an event from his past that keeps Cobb away from his family. This ‘heist,’ called ‘Inception,’ is theoretically impossible. But Cobb thinks he can do it. So he gathers his team and embarks on the mind-crime.

Sounds complicated. And in true Christopher Nolan, the film requires absolute concentration. It is so rare nowadays that a film maker treats the audience’s intelligence with respect and demands work in order to understand the film. This is what Nolan works for, and we, the audience reap the benefits. Inception is one of the most enjoyable films I have seen in years. It really cannot be described as it has to be seen to be believed. Nolan quoted a movie mogul from the early days of cinema when he said he wanted to ‘start with an earthquake and build to a climax.’ And that’s pretty much what Inception goes for.

Some have complained that the early part of the film features a lot of talking. And it does. The world of Inception has to be created, and Nolan uses his characters to do that. Yet, it never gets boring. While there is explaining to be done, Nolan keeps you hooked with both ideas and execution. There are moments when you can’t help but be blown away by how these ideas are presented. Nolan understands science-fiction and what makes it so damn cool. And he delivers his ideas with gusto. And then there are the action sequences. I’ve seen the film twice now. I thought the impact would be lessened on second viewing. But I found myself giggling with delight at how these scenes are shot. And when really just makes them all the more spectacular is that the sequences are done physically. Nolan only uses computers when something is physically impossible. And so, there are scenes you know are done in the real world, and they leave you guessing at how they are pulled off. And that’s just more fun!

The cast are brilliant. Nolan has the ability to cast his films perfectly, taking risks where the average schmuck (you and me) may question the casting. I refer in particular to the back-lash that came from some quarters when Heath Ledger was cast as the Joker. Leonardo DiCaprio has the difficult task of carrying a film built on some pretty far-out ideas. And he delivers with gusto. Ellen Page has an equally difficult task of playing Basil Exposition, but she handles the role admirably. The rest of the cast, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Thomas Hardy, Marion Coutillard in particular is brilliantly creepy, Ken Watanabe, and Cillian Murphy are all fantastic.

Inception is the best science-fiction film in years. And after how good 2009 was for science-fiction, that certainly is saying something. And mercifully, Nolan has no time for 3D. I feel it certainly would have detracted from the experience. And an experience is what Inception is. It’s multi-layered. You will discover things on multiple watches that you missed previously. The sound design is amazing. Hans Zimmer’s score is as close a composer can come to actually delivering on a vision set out by a director. This is rewarding blockbuster cinema viewing. Hopefully studios will take notice of the quality of the film, the reviews and the box-office takings and green-light many more ambitious projects such as Inception.

I say this now. And I hope I eat my words in years to come- Inception is Christopher Nolan’s masterpiece. I sincerely hope he bests it some day.

10/10

TOY STORY 3 (2010) - Lee Unkrich

2010-08-03T22:55:00.003Z

It’s been a while. To be honest, the cinema has been vomiting up some pretty poor fare over the last few months. But over the last week, I saw what will probably be numbers one and two on the top 10 list of 2010, so I figured I should say something about them. The first film on the list is the latest from the greatest studio now in production. Toy Story 3.

It’s been fifteen years since Woody and Buzz first hit the big screen, kick-starting the Pixar revolution into gear. Since that time, Pixar have gone from strength to strength. And in one way, Toy Story 3 is a fitting bench-mark to see just how far the studio has come. Both in technical ability, and in terms of story-telling.

Andy, the human key to the Toy Story world has grown up. He’s finished school, and is about to leave home for college. And by doing this, he must leave his childhood toys behind. But what is to come of Woody, Buzz, Jessie, and all the rest of the toys? Woody, Andy’s most cherished toy, will accompany him to college. But the rest of the toys will go to the attic, a sort of rest-home for toys until they are rediscovered by Andy and given to his own children. But a mix-up in packaging results in the toys being sent to day-care, a seemingly heaven for toys. But all is not what it seems in day-care. And the toys must escape, while Woody struggles to reach his friends and help them escape.

Being the final part in the Toy Story trilogy, Toy Story 3 packs quite the emotional punch. Like Andy, we’re leaving the characters behind. They’ve given us some cherished memories, but like all good things, they must be fondly remembered, and passed on to the next generation. Toy Story 3, really does make you laugh, but it’s laughter tinged with sadness. As with all Pixar movies, the film’s strength lies in it’s story. There are many studios that produce technically brilliant animated films, but few reach the heights of Pixar’s films. It’s Pixar’s ability to pack an emotional punch that has made films such as Toy Story, Wall-E and Up such incredible films.

And yet, I find myself going against the general consensus. I don’t think it’s the best of the trilogy. Don’t get me wrong. Toy Story 3 is both technically astonishing and brilliantly written. But there were parts of the film when I though I’d seen it before. There are some recycled story elements. Sometimes these work as winks and nods to what came before. But it is nit-picking. Toy Story 3 is (Buzz) Light-years ahead of it’s competition. In fact, it’s light-years ahead of most films. The voice-work is as usual, brilliant. In particular, the addition of the Ken doll, voiced by Michael Keaton is hilarious in both vocal performance and animation.

Toy Story 3 is probably the best closing chapter of any trilogy. And the Toy Story trilogy itself is near-perfect. The Pixar team are just awe-inspiring in their ability to craft stories that assault your emotions as well as your eye-balls. And with Toy Story 3, they really have knocked it out of the park. Again.

9/10

What the....?!

2010-07-20T23:22:00.003Z

As some of the more discerning readers (if there are any left...!) may have noticed, the title of the blog has changed. To gibberish. This isn't really out of choice, but necessity. For you see, I write this blog as a hobby. It's not something I make money out of, though several opportunities have arisen since I started the blog. That's not why I do it. I just like movies, and like writing about them. It's not my job, although it'd be spiffing to be paid to watch movies. So it's something I do for the joy, and the love of movies.

But last week, I received a delightful email from the legal arm of one of the major studios, demanding I change the title of the blog, or face legal action. No 'hey, how's it going. Fair dues to you for positively reviewing some of the movies of the studio I represent, but the title of the blog is infringing on a copyright' etc etc. Just an email threatening me personally with legal action. And since I don't earn megabucks and wouldn't have a leg to stand on anyway, I've had to change the title. It's not the actual changing of the title that's bugging me, but the manner in which it was carried out. And three and a half years after the blog first appeared. Cant accuse the legal firm of not being on the ball!

I did want to change the title to '**** ****** CAN KISS MY HAIRY BEAN BAG' but I thought that might also bring the wrath. So the title is now changed. Cheerfully! As for actual content, I may get around to reposting soon. But it's been a busy year, and the cinema certainly hasn't been attracting me with mediochre to poor titles, extortionate prices and sequels, remakes and bullshit 3D. Hey-ho! That's the way the industry's going!

Oh, by the way, if the author of the other Critical Mass blog out there is reading, gimme a shout. I'd love to know if you got a similar threat! Cheers!

EDEN LAKE (2008) - James Watkins

2010-02-16T21:09:00.003Z

Occasionally, two of my friends and I seek out the darkest, most disturbing films we can find and spend a night putting ourselves through these finds. Grim Night, we call it. Two nights ago, I had a Grim Night on my own. I got hold of James Watkins’ Eden Lake and sat down to watch it on Valentine’s night. Christ. It was dark. The British horror film manages to take common fears and magnify them with horrific results.

Jenny and Steve are a young couple, looking for a quiet weekend away at a picturesque flooded quarry which will be soon turned into a holiday resort. They pack up their four by four, bring a tent and head off. Unfortunately, the quiet seclusion is disturbed by a group of young teenagers, bent on mayhem. At first, the teens are a nuisance. But Steve’s pride leads him to confront the teenagers. This serves no purpose but to enrage the teens, who embark on a vicious vendetta on the couple.

The major success of Eden Lake is that director James Watkins creates an air of tension that is palpably uncomfortable. From the moment the first teenagers appear, you instantly feel uncomfortable, aware that these teens can turn nasty very quickly. They’re fiercely territorial, and Steve and Jenny’s intrusion on their turf will only lead to confrontation. Watkins never lets the tension drop, indeed it escalates steadily throughout the film.

The violence in the film is sporadic, but incredibly disturbing. We’re not talking ridiculous Saw-levels of blood spilling, but violence which, taken in context is quite realistic. Michael Fassbender’s performance as Steve just adds to the nastiness of the events as he (once again) delivers a brilliant piece of acting. Kelly Reilly also does very well, however, her character reacts to situations that at times feel rather contrived. But Jack O’Connell’s performance as the lead teen in the gang is by far the shining light of the film. Brett is a vicious, angry, nasty piece of work. However, there are reasons behind who he is. And O’Connell manages to convey these reasons without ever being obvious. It’s his performance with Watkins’ writing that is the success of the role.

Eden Lake is one of those nasty little films that you hear little about, but leaves quite the impression on you. It’s relentlessly grim, and the tension builds to an incredibly nasty climax. It does play on the fears of Daily Mail ASBO hysteria, but that’s necessary for the purpose of the film. It’s a great little British horror film, and shows the big-budget American films how it’s done properly. Great performances and incredibly nasty. Just the type of film to be watched on Valentine’s Day!

8/10

SHERLOCK HOLMES (2009) - Guy Ritchie

2010-02-07T14:00:00.004Z

Sherlock Holmes is one of the world’s most famous fictional characters. He’s iconic and has been the subject of many films. But since it’s the 21st century, the powers that be in Hollywood have decided that the famous detective deserves a reimagining. And who better to do this then Guy Ritchie, director of such cinematic greats as the remake of Swept Away and Revolver? Who better? Probably a lot of people. Anyway, Sherlock Holmes is Holmes for the MTV generation.

The film opens with Dr. John Watson and the London Police racing through the streets of London, on their way to some operation. They’re loading weapons, looking focused and ready to kick ass. On the roofs above, like some sort of X-Man, Sherlock Holmes runs, leaps and rolls his way towards the same goal. They’re on their way to break up some satanic ritual and human sacrifice conducted by the mysterious Lord Blackwood. And they succeed. Holmes retreats into 221B Baker Street and isn’t heard from for months. The day before his execution, Blackwood requests Holmes’ presence, during which he warns Holmes that the game is most definitely not over. Blackwood is then executed. But it would seem Blackwood’s warning is real as it appears that he escapes his own grave. So Holmes and Watson leap onto the case and try and stop Blackwood’s nefarious scheme.

Holmes is an interesting character. In Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s stories, he’s a brilliant investigator who constantly outwits not only his nemeses, but also the police. I’ll admit, I don’t have a great insight into the character. So Guy Ritchie’s film could very well be the greatest depiction of the character put to screen. But approaching it as just a stand-alone film... it’s not very good. There are great elements in the film. The production design is brilliant. It’s not perfect. The team seems to have hummed and hawed over whether the film should be steampunk or not, and decided it shouldn’t. And this is a shame. There are steampunk elements to it, but not enough. Robert Downey Junior and Jude Law have a great report in the film, and certainly seem to be having a good time.

And yet despite these things, the film falls flat. It’s packed full of stylistic camera shots and bits of editing, and while I’m a huge fan of really different cinematography and direction, I found the constant slow-mo and sped up footage incredibly annoying. The style is definitely Guy Ritchie’s, but I don’t think it works in the context of the film and events, and really bogs down the film. And with a story that really doesn’t resonate, this is a real problem for the film. I just didn’t care what was going to happen. It’s a strange case (heh), because some of the choices, I liked. The dirtiness of old London, the violence that didn’t feel subdued, the sense of history surrounding the city, all great. And yet something was missing. And once again, this missing element boils down to poor writing when it came to the story.

Robert Downey Junior has been doing some great work recently. He was incredibly entertaining in Tropic Thunder, and was perfectly cast as Tony Stark in Iron Man. And yet, for some reason, he feels miscast in Sherlock Holmes. It wasn’t a terrible choice. Downey’s definitely got the cockiness they were going for in the character, but again, something felt off. Maybe it’s because they made Holmes too much of a rogue, I’m not sure. But there is something not right about this Holmes.
Jude Law is perfectly fine playing Watson. In fact, the choices they made for that character certainly felt more right. Watson is a war veteran, and carries the injuries associated with that. But it also makes him tough as nails. I’m not sure if this is an accurate depiction of the character, but next to the Holmes of this film, it did feel right. Mark Strong’s Lord Blackwood, however, was not a well-written character. Strong’s a great actor, but he’s all sneers and bellowing vitriol here. There is absolutely no depth to his character. And as I’ve said before, a hero is only as good as the villain he’s up against.

Overall, Sherlock Holmes misses more times than it hits. It’s not awful. And certainly isn’t the worst film Guy Ritchie has ever directed. But it’s a great disappointment. In bringing the character into the 21st century, it feels like the crew spent far too much time concentrating on making the film look modern, without giving him a modern context and decent story to justify the modern direction. It’ll keep you mildly entertained for 2 hours, but it’s not in any way a great film. Maybe the teasing introduction of Professor Moriarty will provide a decent antagonist for Holmes’ next adventure. We’ll have to see.

6/10

UP IN THE AIR (2009) - Jason Reitman

2010-02-02T20:11:00.004Z

We live in times which are rich for satire. It’s easy to poke fun at the state of the world, but sometimes satire can wander into the territory of cliché. Yet Jason Reitman’s latest film, Up In The Air manages to be satirical without ever being patronising. It’s a film that is perfectly timed for the world today. A world of unemployment, foreclosures and a society struggling for identity and direction.

Ryan Bingham has possibly the worst job in the world. He is the person companies hire in order to fire their employees. All he sees every day is people on the verge of nervous and emotional breakdown. And yet, he loves his life. He is constantly moving, working out of a suitcase. He travels the US, lives in hotels and counts air miles as achievements. And yet, he is alone. He barely talks to his two sisters, and has few friends. But his life is on course for a change. His company are introducing video conferencing, which would allow it’s employees to fire people from one central location. This threatens Bingham’s lifestyle. So he takes his company’s wunderkind, the developer of the video program, Natalie Keener, on the road to see what exactly it’s like to fire a person.

As I’ve mentioned, Up In The Air is the perfect film for these times. It deals with themes that many people can relate to right now. Unemployment is rife, companies are closing, and people just feel a sense of constant loss. It’s to Reitman’s credit that he uses real people to depict the people being laid-off by Bingham. Apart from a few actors who depict more plot-central characters, everybody Bingham fires are people who recently lost their jobs. Reitman instructed these people to tell the camera what they would have liked to have told their former employers, and the emotion really carries over. It adds gravitas to the film and makes the emotional impact more palpable.

George Clooney has found the role he was born to play. Ryan Bingham is suave and charming. Yet he seems detached from proceedings. It’s isolation he’s chosen, and perhaps, being a movie star and not interacting with ‘normal’ people like the rest of us, Clooney brings some of himself to the role. It’s a great performance from him, and indeed, the rest of the cast. Newcomer, Anna Kendrick plays Bingham’s charge, Natalie Keener. Keener is straight out of college and has something to prove, and yet is incredibly vulnerable when it comes to personal issues. She breaks Bingham’s isolationism down as he shows her that people aren’t just statistics. They’re perfectly cast against each other and lend real credibility to the film.

Jason Reitman’s career has taken off very well. His first three features, Thank You For Smoking, Juno, and Up In The Air are commercial and critical successes that deal with issues people can relate to. Up In The Air is probably the best film he’s made so far. It manages to capture the mood of the average person, while managing to tell a well-rounded personal story. It’s a very very good film, and worthy of the nominations it has received.

9/10

2010 Academy Award nominees

2010-02-02T19:31:00.003Z

Well, it's that time of year again. The Academy of Motion Pictures Arts & Sciences have announced their nominees for this year's Oscars. It's a fairly predictable list of movies, with the big news being the listing of 10 films for Best Picture instead of 5. And yet, they still cant get it right. There is not one nomination for one of last year's best films, Moon. Swing and a miss.

BEST PICTURE

AVATAR
THE BLIND SIDE
DISTRICT 9
AN EDUCATION
THE HURT LOCKER
INGLORIOUS BASTERDS
PRECIOUS: BASED ON THE NOVEL PUSH BY SAPPHIRE
A SERIOUS MAN
UP
UP IN THE AIR

BEST DIRECTOR

Avatar - JAMES CAMERON
The Hurt Locker - KATHERYN BIGELOW
Inglorious Basterds - QUENTIN TARANTINO
Precious: Based On The Novel Push By Sapphire - LEE DANIELS
Up In The Air - Jason Reitman

BEST ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE

JEFF BRIDGES - Crazy Heart
GEORGE CLOONEY - Up In The Air
COLIN FIRTH - A Single Man
MORGAN FREEMAN - Invictus
JEREMY RENNER - The Hurt Locker

BEST ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE

MATT DAMON - Invictus
WOODY HARRELSON - The Messenger
CHRISTOPHER PLUMMER - The Last Station
STANLEY TUCCI - The Lovely Bones
CHRISTOPH WALTZ - Inglorious Basterds

BEST ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE

SANDRA BULLOCK - The Blind Side
HELEN MIRREN - The Last Station
CAREY MULLIGAN - An Education
GABOUREY SIDIBE - Precious: Based On The Novel Push By Sapphire
MERYL STREEP - Julie and Julia

BEST ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE

PENELOPE CRUZ - Nine
VERA FARMIGA - Up In The Air
MAGGIE GYLLENHAAL - Crazy Heart
ANNA KENDRICK - Up In The Air
MO'NIQUE - Precious: Based On The Novel Push By Sapphire

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE

CORALINE - Henry Selick
THE FANTASTIC MR. FOX - Wes Anderson
THE PRINCESS AND THE FROG - John Musker and Ron Clements
THE SECRET OF KELLS - Tomm Moore
UP - Pete Docter

So there ya go. The major ones. Surprises include (pleasantly) District 9 for Best Picture and the amount of nominations for Inglorious Basterds, the most over-hyped film of last year. The only other film to come close in the hype stakes was The Hurt Locker. It certainly wasn't everything the critics made it out to be.

Also, a special congratulations goes to Nicky Phelan, my class-mate from college on his nomination for best Animated Short, Granny O'Grimm' Sleeping Beauty. I sincerely hope it steals the show!

THE ROAD (2009) - John Hillcoat

2010-01-18T21:34:00.003Z

Cormac McCarthy is currently viewed as America’s greatest living author. His books are bestsellers and No Country For Old Men, released as a film in 2007, was a multi-Oscar winning film. His Pulitzer Prize-winning novel The Road, a post-apocalyptic road story has now been turned into a film by The Proposition director, John Hillcoat. The book was outstanding, but can the adaptation live up to what is viewed as a modern classic?

The world is dying. After some unnamed apocalyptic event, society has crumbled, millions are dead, and those who survive face a hopeless, grey, dark future. A man and his son travel alone along a road, heading for the coast. They don’t know what they will find there. But they will do all they can to survive the journey. Along the way, the encounter gangs of violent killers, people forced into cannibalism, and lone survivors, trying to find a life but without much hope.

Sounds like a pretty upbeat and joyful film, eh?! It is a grim and relentlessly downbeat film, however there is plenty of beauty to be found within. Central to this are the performances. The cast is populated by very few characters. Other than the man and the boy, most other humans they encounter last barely a few scenes before they are dispatched, or go on their own way. And yet there is not one performance that is in any way weak. The whole film hinges on the relationship between the father and his son. It is through their eyes that we see this dying world. The father is a pragmatist, and will kill to protect his son, the light of his world, and one of the few pure things left in their world. Yet despite his pragmatism, his humanity is been sapped by the fear, paranoia and hopelessness of their situation, and it is up to his son to keep him from losing his humanity completely.

This was the overriding theme of the book, and Hillcoat has successfully managed to retain this vital element in the film. Central to his success is his superb casting of Viggo Mortensen and Kodi Smit-McPhee as the father and son respectively. Mortensen conveys his desperation to instil good values in his son while fighting a situation that brings out the worst in humanity superbly. He successfully manages to be the average man stuck in extraordinarily grim circumstances. Newcomer Kodi Smit-McPhee mixes the wide-eyed innocence of a boy who is aware that the world is a dangerous place, but still has the innocence that comes with wanting to be the good guys. And he manages to balance these two elements perfectly. These are two remarkably subtle performances and embody the characters of the book superbly. Also making appearances are Michael K. Williams and Robert Duvall. Both are brilliant in two tiny, yet pivotal roles, and in particular, Robert Duvall does outstanding work with so little to go by.

The Road could very easily have been a disaster of a film. Yet Hillcoat’s brilliant direction finds beauty in what should be a hopeless and somber film. There are few special effects. And yet the world looks like a post-apocalyptic landscape. It’s a film of remarkable subtleties and at times gut-wrenching harshness. And it’s this balance that is what makes The Road such a success. Brilliant performances, a sparse and yet poignant script and outstanding direction make The Road an outstanding start to 2010. We can only hope it’s the beginning of a trend.

9/10

I love it when a plan comes together!

2010-01-12T09:18:00.001Z

I pity the fool who doesn't like this trailer!

Fuck you, 2009. Don't let us down, 2010

2010-01-07T01:01:00.010Z

2009. What a year. By June, I’d given up hope on finding any film worth celebrating. In fact, it was fast becoming the worst year I could think of in terms of film. By December, nothing much had changed. It was an awful, awful year. So bad, I lost interest in seeing a lot of the films released in the cinema. Hence the paltry 52 posts in the entire year. That, and laziness.
But there was hope. Despite a truly awful year for film, there were some highlights. And those highlights were fantastic. Those films that really stood out were genre pieces. In fact, out of my own personal Top 10, only two films weren’t genre pieces, or animated films. 2007 was the year of the western. 2009 was the year of sci-fi. And the differences between the sci-fi films showed that big-budget genre pieces work when thought is put into them, and small-budget genre pieces work without the need for massive budgets.
So, here’s the real Top 10 of 2009. I’m in a belligerent mood as I write this (thanks very much weather and Irish Rail), so if you don’t agree, well... go to hell!

The Critical Mass Top 10 of 2009

10. Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs- CWACOM may not be the top animated film of 2009. It won’t beat Up to the Oscar. But it is a brilliantly surreal, beautifully designed and animated, bit of laugh-out loud fun. At times it’s like a kid’s version of Silent Hill weirdness. But there’re jokes here for everyone. And a voice cast that is made up actors chosen for the role, not for their name; they’re all great as their characters. And who wouldn’t be happy to see a film in the Top 10 that features both Mr. T and Bruce Campbell?!

9. The Wrestler- Released way back in January (here), Darren Aronofsky’s film about a washed-up wrestler, played by a once washed-up actor is the perfect storm. A brilliant script, a savagely personal and brilliant performance by Mickey Rourke, and a director who is a contender for the best director working today, The Wrestler is the personal film at it’s best.

8. In The Loop- A British comedy that at the same time does and doesn’t feel like a British comedy, In The Loop is a brilliantly-written piece of savage satire. Peter Capaldi’s Malcolm Tucker is a prime contender for the character of 2009, and is supported by a cast of characters who are all brilliantly written and performed. It’s rare that a film surpasses it’s television version, but In The Loop often does.

7. Star Trek- Purists may have many problems with this ‘reboot.’ But what can’t be argued is the Star Trek franchise was dead on it’s feet. In steps J.J. Abrams to give the series a shot of adrenalin. The story may not have set the world on fire. But it was fun, accessible for non-Trek fans, and Chris Pine makes for a great Kirk. Sci-fi came back with a bang.

6. Paranormal Activity- Little can be said about this film without spoiling it. And it deserves to be seen without knowing anything. A tiny budget, simple set up and terrifying pay-offs, it’s horror at it’s best.

5. Let The Right One In- I don’t like vampires. At least, I don’t like what vampires have become. They’re fucking everywhere now. But Let The Right One In is a vampire film that does away with the clichés and distils a horror film to it’s bare essentials. As much a film about fear of children as fear of vampires, Let The Right One In is lauded by those who’ve seen it. And rightly so.

4. Moon- When I saw Moon, I declared that no film would top it in 2009. It’s a brilliant debut from Duncan Jones and has two top actors at the top of their game, both of them Sam Rockwell. It’s a 1970’s paranoid sci-fi film for the 21st Century, all story and performance, with a concept that’s not that wild. And it proves you don’t need big computer effects to deliver brilliant sci-fi.

3. Avatar- But then sometimes big computer effects can blow you face off. 12 years in the making, and worth every second and penny, Avatar brought James Cameron back to what he does best- big budget, balls-out action sci-fi. Hyped to be ‘the future of cinema,’ Avatar could very well be the future of the blockbuster. A huge step forward in technology, with a world that is jaw-droppingly real, and some of the best special effects ever put to film, Avatar proves that if you want mega-budget, action-packed spectacle, put a bit of thought and care into it. Not the top of 2009, but certainly a huge step forward for the industry.

2. District 9- Simply put, the best science fiction film of the last 10 years. Alegorical, funny, tense, with both human and alien characters we can identify with, District 9 is what happens when a very talented no-budget filmmaker is picked up by a hugely successful filmmaker who also made the transition to big budget. District 9 started as a brilliantly-made short. Peter Jackson saw it and gave the director, Neill Blomkamp the money to turn it into something bigger. Blomkamp never lost his original vision and the result is a brilliant piece of sci-fi.

1. Up- It was a difficult choice between District 9 and Up. But in the end, Up is just such an achingly beautiful story, that it really just had to take the top spot. Pixar are technical geniuses. Each of their films is flawlessly executed. But none of the films have had a story quite like Up. After the first 10 minutes, the entire cinema was stunned into tearful silence. Later on, we were all creased with laughter. This wide-ranging emotional impact is rarely seen in films, let alone animated films. Pete Docter delivers a film so brilliantly executed, the real tragedy is that it wont be recognised as the best film of 2009 by the academy. There’s still a stigma that surrounds animated films; ‘ah sure they’re just for kids.’ Fuck you. Up proves that animation is no less of an art-form than live-action. A perfect film.

So, not bad all in all. Couldda been worse, I guess. But I’d like to thank the film industry for throwing out such a large proportion of films that ranged from incredibly average to just plain awful. The list above really are the diamonds in the rough. And now... ugh... onto the dregs of 2009. While I’d like to list 10 films that really bugged the shit out of me, truth be told, I avoided a hell of a lot of films this year. So you won’t see the likes of The Time Traveller’s Wife, Year One, The Ugly Truth or 2012 on this list. The last of which is actually a shame. Emmerich’s becoming something of a regular fixture on the worst-of lists, so it feels kinda lacking without him. Anyways, here are seven films I wish I could erase from history, all of which were released in 2009.

7. Orphan- Whoah, nelly, is this a stinker. It’s a tense psychological thriller. Or else, it wants to be. But the scene where a ‘nine year old’ seduces her adopted father is both jaw-droppingly misguided and unintentionally hilarious at the same time. Still, the 12 year old Isabelle Fuhrman makes for one hell of a villain.

6. Knowing- What a wonderful thing it is to watch Nicholas Cage single-handedly destroy his own career. Why? Because when he’s good, he’s very good. But when he’s bad, he’s the Wicker Man. And Knowing continues the trend of gravitas in the face of laughably stupid premise. Knowing is bad M. Night Shyamalan. Which, after Lady In The Water and The Happening is pretty fucking awful. While I watched this ludicrous film of disasters leading to an ‘event,’ as I witnessed Cage’s character race stupidly into the middle of a plane crash, I couldn’t help but smile. Art imitates life.

5. X-Men Origins: Wolverine- What happens when you take a well-established, much-loved genre character, $150 million dollars and give them to a director who clearly has no idea where to point the camera and what special effects should look like? You get Wolverine. Terrible script, worse director and CGI that is so shockingly poor, I thought I was watching the internet-leaked workprint. I know Hugh Jackman loves playing Wolverine, but Christ, the man deserves better than this.

4. Angels And Demons- They’ve stolen a Higgs Bosun particle from the Large Hadron Collider! Need I say any more?

3. Terminator Salvation- If this list was about the films that had the most potential, the most expectation surrounding it, and still managed to turn the film into one giant cluster-fuck, Terminator Salvation would win. The first time I saw it, I’ll admit, I thought it was all right. But I reckon I was suffering from swine flu... or something. What can I say about McG? I’ll refrain from mentioning the fact that his name is absolutely fucking shit. The only thing going for it is it takes longer to type the word shit than it does ‘McG.’ Anyway, Terminator Salvation. A film made up of stupid decisions. The omnipotent and brutal Skynet keep their distance and don’t really bother the humans instead of wiping them out in one quick operation? Skynet has human-sized corridors and human-friendly interfaces? They build USB ports into their killer-bike things? They have killer-bike things? They allowed the director of the Charlie’s Angels films get his talentless mits on this? Either James Cameron is still wiping the tears of laughter off his cheek after seeing this mess, or else he’s wiping a tear off his cheek after witnessing what’s become of the iconic franchise he created.

2. G.I. Joe- How does Stephen Sommers still have a career? His resume reads like a list of war crimes. The Mummy, The Mummy Returns, Van Helsing and now G.I. Joe. This ghastly pile of garbage is just a load of clichés, badly-written characters, flash-backs (the talentless writer’s crutch to avoid putting thought into writing) and inexcusably poor special effects. Marlon Wayans used up any credibility he gained by being in a Darren Aronofsky film a long, long time ago. Any director, other than his equally talentless brother, Keenen, who hires this ‘actor’ should immediately hand in his DGA membership. The only redeeming thing about G.I. Joe is that I saw it on an airplane and didn’t have to pay to see it.

1. Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen- Michael Bay. Essentially a pornographer with a budget of $200,000,000 but a strict warning to keep it PG13. Treats his female characters with all the subtlety and chivalry of Ted Bundy. Treats the audience like they’re drooling idiots. And in some way, they are. Including me. For paying for this inexcusably bad film. Megan Fox. Somehow missed the bus for pornography central and wound up in Hollywood. Has as much talent as a pair of tits whittled from wood. Has dark, soulless eyes, not unlike those of a shark. Can’t even manage to run convincingly. Shia LaBeouf. Fuck him. He contributed to killing Indiana Jones. John Turturro. Oh my god, how the mighty have fallen. Has gone from being a Coen Brothers darling to stripping down to a g-string for a cheap laugh.
There is so much wrong with Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen that it actually hurts my brain to try and remember it all. Logic is thrown out the window. Geography is bafflingly ignored. The pyramids at Giza are wilfully destroyed because, ya know, fuck the Egyptians. America has shit to blow up. Robot testicles. Robot heaven. Also, side-kicks and incidental characters are so incredibly racist, even George Lucas must shake his head in disbelief. I’ve said it before, and I’m saying it again. FUCK YOU MICHAEL BAY.

Four bad, and three awful films. Have to congratulate Michael Bay though. He’s managed to make the film I most hate in the world. I have a list of bad films. But they’re just bad. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen actually makes me angry.

And in a change to regular programming, since I couldn’t come up with at least ten bad films of 2009, I’ll share with you some things that made me smile in 2009. You lucky people! Little bits of media that made the year that little bit more pleasant. They may be worth checking out, you may hate them. But they made me skip, jump, head-bang and shriek with delight! Also, these are in no particular order.

TV-

Charlie Brooker’s Newswipe- After five seasons of Screenwipe, the foul-mouthed, yet incredibly insightful TV pundit turned his eye to news on television. Informative, eye-opening and always hilarious, it thankfully returns to television in January. Sometime.

David Attenborough’s Life In The Undergrowth- Yeah, yeah. It was released in 2005. But I only got to see it this year. And fuck me, is it crazy. A more appropriate title would have been David Attenborough’s I Swear, We’re Not Making This Shit Up. It’s absolutely engrossing and at times, completely unbelievable. Fantastic viewing.

The Office- The US version. I thought this series would have run out of steam a long time ago, but Season Five still seems fresh, mainly thanks to Steve Carrell, Rainn Wilson and Ed Helms. It’s pretty clear a lot of what these guys do is improvised, but that just makes it even better. And Steve Carrell is actually a pretty damn fine actor.

Flight Of The Conchords- Season Two of this brilliant series aired this year. The comedy was sharper, the songs catchier and Murray had more to do. The series is over now, but at least it went out on a high.

Battlestar Galactica- I know, a lot of people were disappointed in the ending. But I wasn’t. Sometimes we don’t need to be spoon-fed answers, and life doesn’t always deal in absolutes. And while it’s clear Ronald D. Moore had a bit of a hard time trying to tie up loose ends, the series was so strong overall, that I’ll forgive it it’s faults. And also, The Plan was a damn fine watch.

It’s Always Sunny In Philadelphia- Good lord, it doesn’t get more low-brow or vulgar as this. And that’s what’s so good about it. And it’s absolutely incredible to see how far an Oscar-nominated actor like Danny Devito is willing to go. Frank Reynolds, I salute you!

Music-

Gallows- Grey Britain- Anger-infused punk is back. And it’s fucking awesome.

Florence And The Machine- Lungs- Helluva debut album. Full of really catch songs, and Florence Welch has a helluva voice.

Dan Deacon- Bromst- Great album, even better live gig.

La Roux- La Roux- Only discovered this in the last week or so, but it’s pretty damn good.

Fuck Buttons- Tarot Sport- These guys create a sound that is incredibly epic sound. Loud, bombastic electronic noise. Brilliant.

Susan Boyle- I Dreamed A Dream- Simply incredible. No, really. Nah, just kidding. If I have to hear about this ‘phenomenon’ again, I may just put a skewer through my ears.

Games-

Street Fighter IV- There's no need for any other fighting game to exist. As close to the perfect fighting game as any game has achieved. Maybe Super Street Fighter IV will perfect the game.

Batman: Arkham Asylum- The best super-hero game ever made. One of the most solid, well-designed, brilliantly written games I’ve ever played, it’s also a game I flew through in a week as it was so addictive. The combat is simple, yet unrelentingly fun, and both Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill reprise their roles of Batman and The Joker respectively. Amazing fun.

Left 4 Dead 2- Improved on it’s predecessor in many ways. Simple premise. Multiplayer gaming in it’s purest form. Funny, gruesome, often terrifying, always action-packed.

Assassin’s Creed 2- Got this for Christmas. Played it nearly every day since. Free-running is pure fun, the violence is brutal and savage, and it’s an actioner with puzzle elements. Could end up being crap. Most likely won’t.

Canabalt- Have you got an iPhone or an iPod Touch? Then get Canabalt. The premise is simple. Jump over obstacles while the city crumbles around you. But it’s incredibly addictive. Hell, even if you don’t have one of Steve Job’s gadgets, go here.

Other-

Sheikra, Busch Gardens, Florida- I visited Busch Gardens 10 years ago. It was (and remains) the best theme park in Florida. And Sheikra, the latest roller-coaster in the park is balls-out terrifying. I hate heights. So a coaster that drops you from two heights is right up my street. It's brilliant, and worth checking out if you go stateside.

So there you have it. Some of the shit I liked in 2009. So what’s there to look forward to in 2010. Well, first up, The Road. It’s an adaptation of Cormac McCarthy’s novel, and while stateside, they’ve already seen and done this, it’s our turn here in Europe. The book was brilliant and painfully beautiful. Can The Proposition’s John Hillcoat do it justice?

Peter Jackson’s ambitious The Lovely Bones could go either way. It’s not a massive release like Lord Of The Rings, or the upcoming Tintin, but the guy does special effects very well, so it could be very good. The old monster, The Wolfman gets revisited. Benicio Del Toro, Anthony Hopkins and Hugo Weaving headline, so on paper, it looks good. But Joe Johnston has his ups and downs, so it could go either way.

Leonardo DiCaprio has two pretty big films coming out this year. First of all, there’s Shutter Island, the new film directed by Martin Scorsese. To me, judging by the trailer, it looks like a very stylish Wicker Man (the original and best one. Not the balls remake).

And then there’s Inception, the film I’m most looking forward to. Word has it, it cost more to make than The Dark Knight. It’s Christopher Nolan doing original again, and nobody knows anything about it. My And considering that every new Chris Nolan film is his best film, I’m already pretty excited. Especially after seeing that second trailer.

Other stuff I’m really looking forward to is... Matt Damon, Bourne goes Baghdad in Paul Greengrass’ Green Zone... Legion looks rubbish, but high-concept fun rubbish... Ridley Scott does medieval once again with Robin Hood. And with Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett on board, it’ll at least be acted well... Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant, always at their best when working together release Cemetery Junction in April... Liam Neeson plays Hannibal Smith in The A-Team. I dunno how that cannot be good... Sam Worthington tries to solidify his name as the blockbuster go-to guy with the frankly awesome looking Clash Of The Titans... and Harry Potter begins his final school year with Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows: Part 1... Oh, and some other Pixar film called Toy Story 3. Never heard of it.

2010 on paper, looks a helluva lot more promising than 2009. I, for one, hope it proves to be better. At least Michael Bay can’t put a taint on it with some awful abortion of a film. Thank heaven for small mercies.

AVATAR (2009) - James Cameron

2010-01-05T18:47:00.005Z

Twelve years ago, James Cameron released what was to become the biggest grossing film of all time, Titanic. Unfortunately, box office receipts and 11 Oscars don’t necessarily add up to a decent film. Titanic was shite. For the next few years, it seemed Cameron was obsessed with the sunken ship, and filmmaking became a side-line to his obsession. Rumours persisted that Cameron was working on a film that would change the face of cinema. It’s been well over a decade, but that film has finally arrived. Avatar.

It’s 2154. Humans have spread out into the galaxy. The RDA Corporation have set up shop on Pandora, a moon of the planet Polyphemus. RDA are after a mineral that exists on Pandora named Unobtanium. However, the indigenous species of Pandora, the Na’vi come between RDA and their mineral. In order to understand and come to some sort of agreement with the Na’vi, RDA has setup the Avatar Program. Jake Sully is the brother of one of the scientists in the Avatar Program. When his brother is killed, Sully is offered the opportunity to take his brother’s place. He steps up to the challenge and is approached by the mercenaries hired to protect RDA to infiltrate and influence the Na’vi. But Sully meets Neytiri, a princess of the Na’vi. She is charged with teaching Sully the ways of the Na’vi, and Sully soon finds himself torn between his job and the natives of Pandora.

It’s almost impossible to know where to start with Avatar. It’s not easy to just call it a film. It’s a whole lot more than that. These days, it’s almost unheard of to have a movie experience in the cinema. Everything is made to make money. We occasionally get a film that has love, care, blood and sweat pumped into it, and those films always stand out. But Avatar seems to transcend even that. It’s a film that not only tells a story, but literally creates a world, it’s inhabitants, flora, fauna and mythology. Cameron is known for his attention to detail, technical ability and immersive worlds. But here, he’s outdone even himself.

The story is pretty much what you’ve heard of by now. It’s Dances With Wolves in space. It’s not that original, you know from the first half hour where things are going, and you’re not surprised when they get there. And usually, this would piss me off to no end. But Avatar is so much more than that, that all story faults can be forgiven. At the heart of it, Avatar is an invader goes native story. The characters conform to archetypes and there’s a clear line between good and evil. There’s a lot sitting on Sam Worthington’s shoulders. For a man who a year ago was relatively unknown, it’s a pretty hefty cross to bear. And while not reaching Daniel Day Lewis heights of acting prowess, Worthington does a pretty good job of being the man with the moral dilemma.

Zoe Saldana is quickly becoming the thinking-person’s sci-fi girl, and she does a great job as Neytiri. Despite that she’s about 12 foot tall, blue and looks like a cat, the combination of Cameron’s technology and Saldana’s performance creates a fully rounded and believable alien character. Cinema depends on connecting with a character. In Wall-E, the audience connected with a pile of circuits and wires. Here, it’s hard not to connect with this alien. Sigourney Weaver is the veteran in the young main cast. Having worked with Cameron before, Weaver clearly knows what the director wants and delivers a very solid performance. But for me, the stand-out performance was Stephen Lang’s Colonel Miles Quartich. Quartich is a man of ambition and singular vision. He’s remorseless, violent, seething with menace and an absolute joy to watch. He’s the perfect foil for the Na’vi.

But the real star of the film are the visuals. Avatar is unlike anything you’ll have seen before. Everything in the film seems to have been meticulously thought-out and created with the highest possible attention to detail. Pandora is incredibly stunning. It’s absolutely believable and somewhere you will completely forget is created by technology. The ideas that go into creating the world are incredible, yet logical if you go so far as to thing of the physics and evolution that might be involved in such a place. I’ve seen the film twice now. The first time I watched it, I was so immersed in the visuals that I felt like I had been in the cinema for a week. Which is not a bad thing. Like Weaver’s character, I wanted to take samples, observe the wildlife and learn more about Pandora. The second time I saw the film, the entire thing flew by. It’s a very well paced piece of science fiction.

3D is quickly becoming a staple of cinema. For better or worse, it doesn’t look like the format is going anywhere any time soon. I was previously unconvinced, enjoying the few films that were presented in 3D, but ultimately dismissing it as a fad. Having seen Avatar, I can safely say 3D definitely has a place in the film industry. The 3D in Avatar is simply mind-blowing. Despite one or two moment, it’s not about stuff pointing out of the screen. Avatar shows the 3D can give depth to the screen. At the beginning of the film, there are a few 3D moments thrown in there to make you aware of the 3D. But soon, it becomes just part of the film. It’s been said before, and I scoffed. But it’s true. Avatar is the next great step in film.

Every time James Cameron takes a step forward in technology, the industry sits up, listens, and then follows suit. Avatar isn’t a step forward. It’s a massive leap forward. The twelve years Cameron took to make the film was worth every day. And I can finally forgive him for Titanic. Cameron’s back doing what he does best. Science fiction. In a resume that already includes The Abyss, Aliens and Terminator 2, Avatar takes it’s place among Cameron’s finest films. It’s not just a film. It’s an experience.

9/10*

*I really wanted to give this a 10. But the story is a little weak. Otherwise, it's the finest example of what a combination of film and technology can achieve.

Face-palm of the week

2009-11-23T09:32:00.004Z

The Twilight Saga: New Moon burst into cinemas in the States last weekend, and has had the biggest opening of all time, beating last year's The Dark Knight. Now, I know box-office means nothing in terms of quality of film, but those soul-less jackals in Hollywood will see this as a green light to make more shit for the multiplexes.

Well done, you masses of teenage girls. Thanks to your obsession over a story that involves a hundred and eight year old who hangs around schools and seduces teenagers, the apocalypse is proceeding right on schedule. Let's see your shiny, glitter-skinned vampire save you when the seas boil and and the skies rain blood. You'd probably get a kick out of that last part though.

[/rant]

Excuses, excuses.

2009-11-16T23:09:00.001Z

Okay, it’s been a hectic 2 months for me. With trips to the US, work and... general laziness, I’ve neglected updating this blog. No, wait! I’m gonna blame it on my jadedness with the extremely piss-poor year we’ve been having in terms of film. But I’ve seen a few new films, and I’m gonna do truncated reviews for each of em in one big post. Based on the order I saw the films. So, here’s REVIEWFEST 2009!

It’s just lazy reviews.

THE MEN WHO STARE AT GOATS (2009) - Grant Heslov

2009-11-16T23:05:00.003Z

Based on the book by Jon Ronson, The Men Who Stare At Goats tells the true story of the US Army’s attempt to create a battalion of paranormal spies who use remote viewing to complete missions for the army. When Journalist Bob Wilton meets Lyn Cassady, he seems to have stumbled upon the story of a lifetime. Cassady was the golden child of The First Earth Battalion, an experimental battalion set up by Bill Django, a Vietnam Vet. But when a fork-bender named Larry Hooper is drafted into the battalion, he destroys it from within. Is Cassady telling the truth, or will Wilton find out he’s following a madman?

Military affairs make for savage satire. You only have to look at Dr. Strangelove to see that. The Men Who Stare At Goats seemed like the kind of film that would fully exploit this fact. And in some respects, it is a pretty good satire. But it’s a little too tame to be all that memorable. It has a great premise, and some really funny moments. The cast, which includes two actors who delivered brilliant comic performances under the Coen Brothers are all pretty solid. George Clooney (who also produces), Jeff Bridges, Kevin Spacey all deliver performances we’ve come to expect from these actors. And even Ewan McGreggor (apart from another dodgy American accent) is better than usual. But I expected something more. It’s entertaining, but ultimately forgettable.

7/10

THE FANTASTIC MR. FOX (2009) - Wes Anderson

2009-11-16T23:01:00.003Z

If you grew up any time in the last 30 years, you should know the story of Roald Dahl’s The Fantastic Mr. Fox. But for those of you who spent your youth under a rock, three farmers, Boggis, Bunce and Bean want to evict (and kill) Mr. Fox for stealing chickens, geese and apple cider belonging to the three farmers. They try to dig Mr. Fox out of the home he has set up underneath a tree, and in the process also disturb the other animals living there. Mr. Fox, feeling responsible for the other animals’ lives, strives to set up new lives for himself, his family and his animal friends.

This film had a winning formula. A well-loved and widely known story. The idiosyncratic style of Wes Anderson applied to stop-motion animation. And yet somewhere, something didn’t connect. There are brilliant, and truly original aspects to the film. The animation is gorgeous. The story, while transported to the US from England is close-enough to the original story with a few tweaks that can be forgiven. The voice acting (Clooney again, Meryl Streep, Bill Murray, Jason Schwartzman) is lively when it needs to be but retains that droll nature we’ve come to expect from Anderson’s films. But something isn’t right with the film. It just didn’t do it for me for some reason. Maybe on another viewing, the film would click with me. But despite my love for Anderson’s films, I just think he missed the mark here. It’s good. It’s just not as great as it should have been.

7/10

G.I. JOE: THE RISE OF COBRA (2009) - Stephen Sommers

2009-11-16T22:52:00.003Z

Okay, quick plot summary. Weapons manufacturer wants to take over the world. A team of soldiers specially trained in various skills, and powered by super-suits need to stop him or else blah blah, blah blah blah blah. It took me about a minute and a half to write this paragraph. Probably a lot longer than it took Stephen Sommers to come up with the plot for G.I. Joe: The Rise Of Cobra.

Well done, Sommers, you’ve done it again. After The Mummy films, and Van Helsing, you’ve created a film of such unrelenting stupidity that every single moment of watching it made me want to tear out my eyes in merciless rage. I know the argument can be made that GI Joe: The Rise Of Cobra doesn’t take itself too seriously. But to hell with that. The film is packed to the brim with clichés. Not just script clichés, but also directorial clichés. It’s like Sommers got a bunch of action films and bookmarked shots from them that he could rip off. And if you don’t see the ‘twist’ ending coming from pretty much the first half hour, then you’ve obviously nodded off and slept through the entire sorry film.

The special effects are inexcusably shoddy. The acting is at best cringe-worthy, at worst ham-fistedly pedestrian. Even from the likes of Dennis Quaid, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Christopher Eccleston. And I think the United Nations needs to put through a resolution stopping any Wayans brother from ever appearing in front or behind a camera again. For the good of humanity. Add to this that over half the running time of the film was spent in pointless flash-back and you’ve got absolutely no redeeming quality anywhere in the film. It’s insultingly dumb and unforgivably bad.

1/10

PARANORMAL ACTIVITY (2007) - Oren Peli

2009-11-16T22:47:00.004Z

Paranormal Activity was made two years ago, but is only now seeing a release. Very little is known about it, but through word of mouth, it is already the most profitable movie of all time. Is they hype justified? I had heard about it before I headed to the States. And I was sceptical when going to see it.

Katie and Micah are a young, attractive couple with a bit of a problem. Katie’s house (which Micah recently moved into) is plagued by strange occurrences. After purchasing a video camera, the couple begin to chronicle the activity in the house. But as the nights progress, the activity escalates. Katie is convinced it’s an evil force. Micah refuses to buy into anything Katie says. What is going on in the house?

As I’ve said many times in this blog, I love horror films. I’ve seen all manner of horror, from the so-bad-it’s hilarious tripe of Zombi Holocaust to modern greats like Let The Right One In and The Mist. If it’s horror, I’ll watch it. Few films actually scare me. The first time I saw Hideo Nakata’s Ringu way back in 1999 was the last time I was generally frightened by a movie. And then along came Paranormal Activity. I’m not going to say much, but where the film excels is what it doesn’t show you. It’s all about atmosphere and sound. And for that reason, it is a tremendous success and one of the best horror films I’ve seen in years. Genuinely frightening.

9/10

WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE (2009) - Spike Jonze

2009-11-16T22:42:00.003Z

Max is a lonely young boy. He lives with his mother and sister, but plays alone. He has no friends and lives and plays in his imagination. He’s also angry and disruptive. After he is sent to his room without dinner, Max runs away from home, finds a boat on a pond and sails to the world where live the Wild Things, giant beasts whom Max befriends. But Max’s nature creates tension within the group, and their relationship gradually breaks down. Especially the relationship between Max, and the group’s ‘leader,’ Carol.

Where The Wild Things Are had a troubled production. Some even questioned whether or not the film would see a release. But it was released and it’s a fascinating film. It’s brilliantly made. No other director than Spike Jonze could have created such a real world without resorting to solely computer generated imagery. The production is of the highest quality and Jonze has created yet another absolutely unique film.

However, make no mistake, this film doesn’t feel like it’s aimed at children. I’d go so far as to say it’s not in any way a kids’ movie. It deals with quite adult themes and is quite a dark film. It’s also quite sad and won’t have you skipping out of the cinema. But then not all films are happiness and joy. Sometimes you need something dark to even things out. Having said that, Where The Wild Things Are is a brilliant piece of work.

8/10

UP (2009) - Pete Docter

2009-11-16T22:38:00.004Z

It feels kinda redundant to review this film now. But I love it so much, I had to say something about it. It’s been out for a while, and if you haven’t seen it yet, well then, shame on you. When his wife dies, Carl Fredricksen seeks to fulfil his, and his wife’s life-long dream. To see Paradise Falls in South America. After being threatened with eviction from his house, Fredricksen comes up with a plan. He attaches thousands of helium-filled balloons to his house and floats south. Unbeknownst to him, a young and chipper wilderness explorer named Russell has stowed-away Carl’s flying house.

Pixar are known for the quality of their films. No matter the story, the quality of the images and execution are second to none. But with Up, writer-director Pete Docter has created Pixar’s fines film in terms of story. Up is the perfect storm for Pixar. It’s absolutely stunning to watch, and almost perfect in it’s writing. It’s not the most visually inventive of Pixar’s films. But what it does do is invoke a range of emotions that most live-action films could only hope to deliver. At times it’s absolutely hilarious and at others, it’s heart-breakingly sad. And if, after the first 10 minutes, you’re not blubbing like a baby, there’s something wrong with you.

Up is the finest film Pixar have released, and is the best film of 2009. If this isn’t the film that earns Pixar it’s Best Picture Oscar, then the whole Academy should be abolished. No film in 2009 is going to come close to it.

10/10

Oh for f....

2009-09-15T15:20:00.004Z

You've got to be kidding me.

And yes, I'm aware the picture has nothing to do with the article. But I think it perfectly sums up my.... hairline....

Alive In Joburg (2005)

2009-09-07T20:50:00.002Z

And this is the short that inspired District 9...

DISTRICT 9 (2009) - Neill Blomkamp

2009-09-07T20:45:00.005Z

Four years ago, an unknown South African director named Neill Blomkamp released a short film called Alive In Joburg. The film caught the attention of Peter Jackson who, having obtained the rights to the Halo game franchise, offered Blomkamp the directorial duties on the adaptation. The movie was eventually put on hiatus. However, Blomkamp, with Jackson’s backing, wrote District 9, a feature that expanded on the ideas and themes put forth in Alive In Joburg. And now, we have that feature.

In 1990, a massive alien mother-ship came to a halt over the city of Johannesburg in South Africa. The aliens within the ship became refugees, looking for a new home on Earth. Initially, the aliens were welcomed by the human population. But soon the people of Johannesburg grew tired of the aliens and confined them to a camp, known as District 9. Twenty years later, and a corporation known as Multi-National United wants to forcibly move the residents of the now militarized ghetto away from Johannesburg and it’s citizens. The man in charge of serving the eviction notices is Wikus Van De Merwe. What he finds in District 9 will change his life forever, and draw the eyes of the world on the slum.

The best science fiction films don’t deal with situations, but with themes. The fantasy setting serves to drive the story. And District 9 is a film that manages to merge allegory with action and deliver something quite fantastic. The film is part mocumentary, part actioner, and to Blomkamp’s credit, he manages to merge the two elements almost seamlessly. The early part of the film deals with themes of displacement, apartheid, and xenophobia. The aliens, derisively nicknamed ‘prawns’ by the people of Johannesburg are the lowest on the social scale. They are regarded with suspicion and hatred. Where as once the black citizens were those that were looked down upon by the white citizens of South Africa, now the aliens are those who suffer the racism. It’s Blomkamp’s critique of apartheid that is the central driving force to the film.

But that’s is only one aspect of the film. The focus of the story is on Wikus Van De Merwe, who we are introduced to via the mocumentary footage at the beginning of the film. We follow him as we are introduced to District 9. As the film progresses, the mocumentary footage dwindles and the film becomes more narrative-based as Wikus struggles with an incident that threatens his life. (I’m trying desperately not to reveal too much here!) The last act of the film is where Blomkamp lets loose with the action as District 9 becomes embroiled in a frankly stunning gun fight involving humans and alien technology. It’s no loss that Blomkamp lets the allegorical side of the film take back seat to the action, as the action is absolutely nail-biting.

One of the other great strengths of the film is Blomkamp’s attention to detail. There are so many little smile-inducing moments of detail that just contribute to the overall success of the film. Little narrative and visual flourishes that show how a bit of dedication to quality really draw you into a film. The script moves at a blistering pace. There are moments where logic is abandoned and tiny plot-holes appear. However, you barely have a moment to dwell on these as Blomkamp keeps things moving towards a blistering climax.

District 9 cost $30,000,000 to make. Sounds like a lot. However, when you take into account that most Hollywood blockbusters cost somewhere in the region of $200,000,000+, it really makes you ask where the money in these films actually goes. The special effects in District 9, designed by Weta Workshop and created by Image Engine are staggeringly good. The CG aliens blend in with the live action footage without ever looking out of place. The effects serve the film, and not the other way round, and this is essentially what all CG should do. That it’s done so well in this film should serve as a lesson to other filmmakers who pack their films with all flash and no substance.

Sharlto Copley, an unknown actor from South Africa plays Wikus Van De Merwe, the man caught between following orders and doing what’s morally right. Copley delivers a fantastic performance, changing from a man who’s naive, a bit dim, but upbeat to the man of action as the story progresses. That he does a great deal of acting against unseen CG characters is a testament to his acting abilities. He’s initially somewhat of an unlikable character but you do engage with him and care about his story as events unfold. While some of the ‘villains’ of the film are a tad clichéd, they serve the purpose of the story and all the actors involved throw all they have into their performances.

Blomkamp draws upon a lot of influences in making District 9. However, combining these influences, he has delivered what is probably the best science fiction film of the 21 Century. A bold statement considering Children of Men, The Matrix, Moon, The Fountain and Primer all fall into that category. But District 9 really manages to edge all these films out. Great sci-fi makes you take a look at the world you live in. And while District 9 makes you do this, it also has one of the great climactic battle scenes of recent times in terms of cinematography and ideas. This is science fiction at it’s best. And Blomkamp is the new wunderkind of the genre.

10/10

FUNNY PEOPLE (2009) - Judd Apatow

2009-09-07T18:49:00.004Z

Judd Apatow’s films could never have been accused of being poignant. Sure, there’s a lot more to them than the average comedy. The 40 Year Old Virgin and Knocked up certainly contained more substance than all the Wayans Brothers and Scary/Epic/Date Movies combined. But none of his films have been as personal as his latest, Funny People. And a great deal of this is down to the fact that the film is more of a drama than a comedy. Despite starring Adam Sandler and Seth Rogen.

Sandler stars as George Simmons, a former stand-up comedian and now star of empty-headed vacuous family movies. He’s got money, success and fame. He gets any woman he wants. And he has a terminal blood disease. After finding out he’s not got long, Simmons goes off the rails. And he wants to return to stand-up. After gate crashing a stand-up gig, he meets Ira Wright, a struggling stand-up comedian. He hires Wright to be his assistant and introduces him to the world of a successful Hollywood star. But Simmons begins to resent the trappings of his success and wants to get back the one thing he never held onto. His ex-fiancee, Laura.

It’s clear from the get go that this film is different to Apatow’s other films. It’s far more personal. To a degree that the opening titles are scenes Apatow shot of Sandler when they were roommates and yet to hit the limelight. Apatow was a stand-up comedian at one point, and he injects a lot of his own personality into the characters in the film. It also contains quite a few Apatow regulars, including his wife, Leslie Mann, Rogen, and Jonah Hill. So it’s clear the writer/director wants this film to be something from the heart.

But is it good? Yeah, I suppose it is. It’s not as funny as The 40 Year Old Virgin. In fact, it is more of a drama than a comedy. In certain respects, Funny People shares a lot in common with Kevin Smith’s Chasing Amy. Both writer/directors are known more for their comedies. And both films are the most personal of their work. The dialogue in Funny People is as strong as anything Apatow’s done, and is where the comedy of the film lies. The actors are very familiar with each other and this helps the witticisms and delivery. So this isn’t a situational comedy.

The performances are for the most part, pretty excellent. Adam Sandler’s always done his best work when he isn’t doing mad-cap films. In fact, his best role was in Paul Thomas Anderson’s Punch-Drunk Love, a dark drama-comedy. So Sandler’s on fine form here. I’m sure he and Simmons have a lot in common, so Sandler could draw a lot on his own experiences for the role. Seth Rogen, while not playing a slacker here, seems to fit into the mould he’s forged in Apatow’s films. And while the Jonah Hill, Leslie Mann and Jason Schwartzman are all great in the film, the show is stolen by Eric Bana who appears at the end of the film. Bana is the only actor who isn’t playing a ‘funny’ character. But he slightly overplays the character, and gets the most laughs. That’s not a criticism as I’m sure that’s what Bana was going for.

The great criticism of the film is it’s length. The film is essentially two films tied together, and as such pushes the running time to a whopping two and a half hours. There could have been two films made of the story. And this is somewhat of a drawback for the film. But it’s perfectly entertaining none the less, and Apatow’s most grown-up film.

7/10

THE HURT LOCKER (2009) - Kathryn Bigelow

2009-09-01T20:21:00.005Z

The Iraq war is a sensitive subject in... well, every medium. It’s a shady conflict with no clear and definable enemy and despite it being in the news nearly every day, it’s a subject filmmakers are hesitant to touch. The majority of films that deal with the war concentrate on the effects of the conflict on the soldiers or the families and friends of soldiers once they have returned from the conflict. Few films actually deal with the war on a day to day basis. But now we have The Hurt Locker, a film that deals with a bomb disposal unit, stationed in Iraq in 2004. Does it shed any new light on the war?

SSgt. William James newly appointed to an Explosive Ordinance Disposal unit in Iraq. He’s seen his fair share of duty in Afghanistan and has disposed of countless explosives. Iraq is littered with Improvised Explosive Devices. James is teamed up with Sgt. JT Sanborn and Spc. Owen Eldridge, soldiers just counting down the days until they go home. They hate Iraq and fear for their own safety. But James is reckless, and doesn’t care for his own safety, nor that of his fellow soldiers. And his recklessness puts him at odds with Sanborn and Eldridge.

Well, The Hurt Locker has arrived on a veritable tidal wave of positive reviews and unrelenting praise. And as I walked out of the cinema I couldn’t help but ask... why? Before the film began, I was sure I was walking into something that would... blow me out of my seat. Heh. But I was very underwhelmed. The first hour of the film had me gazing through the screen as the film failed to grab me by the balls and force my attention on the screen. It seems to follow the consensus that films that deal with the Iraq war are just not that very good.

Now don’t get me wrong. There are some great moments in the film. A lot has been made of the tension that runs throughout the film. And there are some extremely tense moments in the film. But overall, I felt the film just fell a little flat in places and didn’t really hold my attention for long enough. And at a running time of 131 minutes, that is a problem. To the film’s credit, it doesn’t present the three central characters with an enemy they have to hunt for. This would have been cliché. Instead, their enemy is boredom and the situation they’re in. There are themes of heroism, fear of death and brotherhood in the film, but these aren’t touched upon nearly as much as they should have been. Maybe the canvas is too big, or maybe the writing wasn’t strong enough, but I felt there should have been more.

The performances, on the other hand, are excellent. The three central actors, Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie and Brian Geraghty all play their roles with conviction. None of the characters are too similar, and they all have their demons to battle with. Despite glossing over a lot of these, other than for Renner’s James, the actors do their best with what they have and are convincing. There are cameos from heavyweights like Ralph Fiennes, Guy Pearce and David Morse, but these cameos are fleeting and don’t give the actors much to work with.

Kathryn Bigelow is most famous for Point Break, a film that is basically testosterone on screen. And there’s no shortage of it in The Hurt Locker. But in no way is The Hurt Locker a comparable film to Point Break. It is far more serious. As it should be. Bigelow’s direction is sketchy. At moments, she builds the tension brilliantly. And she does get great performances from her actors. But her cinematic flourishes aren’t anything incredibly innovative. And the very last shot of the film is shockingly misjudged and out of place within the context of the rest of the film.

Overall, The Hurt Locker isn’t a bad film. It’s just a little better than average. It’s saved by it’s actors. And yet the first great Iraq war film hasn’t been made. It certainly isn’t this film. A far better document of the war is the television mini-series, Generation Kill. Obviously, being a mini-series, it has a greater canvas to work on. But many great individual films have been made about World War 2, and wars don’t get bigger nor more complex than that. Ignore the hype and maybe you won’t be disappointed like I was. It’s good, but not great. I just hoped for more from The Hurt Locker.

7/10

IN THE LOOP (2009) - Armando Ianucci

2009-08-24T21:34:00.005Z

British comedies tend to be one of two things. Parochial fare that even I have trouble getting, despite living in the country next-door to Britain. Or else rom-coms that even the most effeminate male will have trouble mustering a chortle to. But occasionally, they get things right. And when they do, the results are often fantastic. Enter Armando Ianucci, one of the co-writers on Alan Partridge (which, if you haven’t seen or even heard of, close this page down immediately and seek it out). His 2005 sit-com, The Thick Of It was critically acclaimed but seen by few, and I must admit I’m one of those that missed it. God bless downloading. In The Loop is a companion piece to the series and it was released earlier this year.

British Minister for International Development, Simon Foster makes a gaffe while on national radio. He says that a war, which the British PM and US President are currently secretly pushing, is ‘unforseeable.’ While this may seem trite, it doesn’t tow the party line, and the Director for Communications, Malcolm Tucker marches in to sort the mess out. Little known to either men, US Assistant Secretary of State, Karen Clarke plans to use Foster as a meat-puppet to stop the march to war. And so begins the satire of Anglo-American politics in this modern day.

What is most apparent from the start of In The Loop is the frankly shocking amount of profanities. While this may offend some, the profanities are so vicious, cutting and inventive, that they end up leaving you laughing your arse off. In The Loop is one of the finest comedies I’ve seen in quite a while. But it’s not just down to profanities. That’d be a stupid reason to like a film. But not an unforgivable reason!

The performances in the film are all fantastic. The stand-out performance is from Peter Capaldi. He plays Malcolm Tucker, one of only two characters who makes the transition from The Thick Of It (although a great many of the actors in the film were also in the series as different characters). Tucker is one of the nastiest, most cruel characters you’ll ever see on screen. And his abrasiveness makes him highly watchable. Tom Hollander plays the hapless and Simon Foster, literally a puppet to all those around him. He’s pathetic and useless and Hollander carries this very strongly. His scenes with Capaldi are a vicious version of Laurel and Hardy. James Gandolfini is on the American side, as Lt. General George Miller, a man who has seen war and wants to do everything in his power to prevent further war unless absolutely necessary. Unfortunately he has only one scene with Capaldi, but it’s memorable.

It’d take forever to give everyone kudos for their performances, as they’re all equally brilliant. But a cameo by Steve Coogan in particular is a lesson in comedy performance. It’s a highlight. Ianucci’s script is the star of the film, and it’s to his credit that he gets such brilliant performances out of the actors delivering his lines. In The Loop is one of the best comedies of the last few years and well worth seeking out. With the new hope politics in the US, it may seem that the film arrived a little late, due to it’s savage cynicism. But in spite of this, the film is still outstanding. At this moment in time, it’s by a long shot, the comedy of 2009.

9/10

INGLORIOUS BASTERDS (2009) - Quentin Tarantino

2009-08-24T20:49:00.006Z

Whenever Quentin Tarantino releases a film, the nerd world goes hay-wire. Some fanboys are so inherently loyal to the man that no matter how bad a film he releases, they will sing it’s praises, even if they have no idea as to why they’re praising it. To be honest, I haven’t really liked a Tarantino film since Jackie Brown. The films he released before this were classics. The films after Jackie Brown are far from classics. But the Tarantino dream project that is Inglorious Basterds finally hits the screens after over a decade of speculation. Worth the wait?

France. 1944. The war is going badly for the Germans. D-Day is coming. For some reason that is never explained, Lt. Aldo Raine has gathered eight Jewish-American soldiers to undertake a mission in Nazi-occupied France. They are to kill, and scalp one hundred Nazi soldiers. The strategic value of this mission is moot. It makes for pure pulp story-telling. Meanwhile, a young Jewish-French girl named Shoshanna, who escaped certain death at the hands of the Jew-hunter Col. Hans Landa has come into possession of a cinema in Paris. It is here that she and the Basterds will cross paths on the night of the premiere of Josef Goebbels’ latest propaganda film, Nation’s Pride. A night that could provide the revenge Soshanna has sought for the murder of her family and a prime opportunity for the Basterds to end the war.

The name Inglorious Basterds has been bandied about Hollywood for well over a decade. It was Tarantino’s oft-mentioned dream project, and sounded like something only the nerdiest of film fans could hope to see. After all this time, it’s a little bit of an anti-climax to see Inglorious Basterds. It’s not a bad film, don’t get me wrong. It’s very enjoyable. But like Avatar is in danger of suffering come December, the film never lives up to the hype. Inglorious Basterds after all has a number of incredibly large flaws. And a great many of them are down to the casting.

Firstly, Eli Roth. I know he and Tarantino are friends. That’s great, and good for them. But casting as Donny Donowitz, the Bear Jew was a bad mistake. The guy cannot act in any way. Every line he delivers is worse than primary-school nativity play over-acting. It is a prime example of why directors cast their characters and don’t just pick randomers on the street to flesh out their characters. Secondly, and most damningly, Brad Pitt. For some reason, as the film progresses, Pitt just plays Aldo Raine as Marlon Brando in the Godfather, but drunk and lairy. It’s less a performance than a series of bad acting decisions strung together with a ludicrous southern accent. However, having said that, he does have the best line in the film. One word. Which had the entire audience doubled-over with laughter. So fair dues to him for that. And finally, Mike Myers. What in the name of all that is good and pure was Quentin Tarantino thinking when he cast Myers as a British general. It’s hands-down the worst piece of out-of-place casting I’ve ever seen. You literally expect Myers to burst into Austin Powers mode at any moment he’s on screen. It’s shockingly bad and something I wish I could purge from my memory.

Having said all that, the rest of the cast is quite excellent. The entire film is stolen by Christoph Waltz as Col. Hans Landa. He’s the embodiment of grinning menace. A sort of Cheshire cat with a luger and a hatred for enemies of the state. His performance is fantastic, creepy and the best thing in the film. Also well worth mentioning are Michael Fassbender as the British soldier, Archie Hilcox, Diane Kruger as German actress and spy, Bridget Von Hammersmark and Mélanie Laurent as Shoshanna Dreyfuss. When these characters are on-screen it takes the stink off the performances of those listed above.

Tarantino’s script is both excellent, and a problem at the same time. When it’s good, it’s very, very, very good. When it’s bad it’s either dull or baffling. The film is split into chapters. Some work, some don’t. The opening chapter, Once Upon A Time In Nazi-Occupied France is a masterpiece in tension and drama. It’s Tarantino at his best. No obscure pop-culture ramblings. Just unbelievable tension, reminiscent of any of the great moments in Pulp Fiction. It’s stunningly good. And then you have comedy moments that fall flat on their faces. You’ve the Basterds. I sincerely hope you’re not going to see these guys kick-ass. It doesn’t happen. In fact, most of them appear for a moment on screen and aren’t heard of again. It’s a shame. I had half-hoped for a Dirty Dozen-esque men on a mission type film done by Tarantino. That’s the fanboy in me struggling to break free. But this doesn’t happen. Like the last few of Tarantino’s films (and the next few if IMDB is to be believed), this is a female-revenge movie primarily. And while that isn’t necessarily a bad thing, it’s getting a bit predictable at this stage.

So after all this waiting, Inglorious Basterds is great, but at the same time, a disappointment for a number of reasons. Ludicrous casting, a sometimes genius, sometimes weak script, and an ending that is so far beyond ridiculous that you just buy it for what it is all adds up to an enjoyable if not classic experience. You get the feeling the film is slightly rushed. It starts so well, has some fantastic scenes that merely involve characters talking to each other and the tension is thick. But it’s let-down by the fact that Tarantino is never quite reigned-in. It happened to a terrible degree with George Lucas and Star Wars. Thankfully, though, Quentin Tarantino can actually write something half-decent. And despite how good the film is, it’s just disappointing to think of what Inglorious Basterds could have been.

7/10

ORPHAN (2009) - Jaume Collet-Serra

2009-08-18T20:28:00.004Z

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. I am actually flummoxed by this one. Orphan, directed by Jaume Collet-Serra seems like it’s meant to be a psychological thriller, but having watched it, the only conclusion I can come to is that it’s the cleverest advertised comedy of recent times. The trailer makes you think it’s a thriller, or even a horror, but it will have you rolling in the aisles! It’s ludicrously bad, and yet I was highly entertained. Oh, the confusion.

Kate and John Coleman seem to have the idyllic family life. They’re not perfect. He nearly had an affair. She’s a recovering alcoholic. But they live in an extremely opulent house with their two kids. They’re all grins and teeth. The perfect all-American family. But there’s something missing. Kate had a miscarriage. But she and John still have love to give. So they decide to adopt. While at Orphan-Con 09, an open house where couples come to shop for kids, they meet Esther, a precocious nine-year-old who seems to be highly intelligent, artistic and well-mannered. They’ve found their orphan. So they adopt the girl and take her home. And slowly, things start to go wrong. As the poster says, ‘there’s something wrong with Esther.’ And the Coleman’s are about to find out just how wrong things can go.

Every year, a few friends and I attend the Horrorthon in Dublin. A three-day festival of horror movies. Some outstanding, some utter tosh. Orphan is the kind of film that would perfectly suit the later part of one of the days. When the audience has sat through four movies and needs a pick me up. The kind of film that everyone is wary of, yet ends up just getting stuck in, cheering at the cheese, and laughing at the ridiculousness of it all. And often times, these can be the best of all movies. They may be rubbish, but they’re damn fun. And there is no doubting, Orphan is rubbish. It’s ludicrous, ridiculous, unbelievable and badly executed. But despite all this, it was just fun.

The script is so far beyond logical that to actually be pissed off with it also defies logic. I’d imagine writer David Johnson had a ball writing it, imagining the looks on the audience faces as they watched the stupidity unfold. Either that, or he’s insane. The performances are pretty bog standard for this kind of film, except for that of Isabelle Fuhrman, who is outstanding. If she is not cast as a Bond villain in the next 007 outing, a prime opportunity has been missed. Her Russian accent and cold malice is perfect for the role. But in all seriousness, she’s by far the highlight of the film, and the only real reason to watch it. Vera Farmiga and Peter Sarsgaard are both pretty well-known faces and good actors. So you wonder why they, and Leonardo DiCaprio, who is on-board as producer are doing being associated with the film. Maybe they’re in on the joke.

Like I said, Orphan is rubbish. It’s packed full of clichés, predictable and ludicrous. And yet, I had a great time watching it. So that leaves me in a bit of a quandary. It’s shit, but it’s not as shit as Transformers 2. It’s nowhere near as good as some of the even disappointing better films of the year. Pfsh. Fuck it. Five out of ten.

5/10

MOON (2009) - Duncan Jones

2009-07-29T13:24:00.004Z

It’s amazing that films like Transformers 2 and Terminator Salvation make truck loads of cash. They’re empty-headed, dull, idiotic movies yet they have mass idiot-appeal and therefore bring the feckless masses into the cinemas to gawp at the screen and marvel at the shiny things and ‘splosions. And then you have a film like Duncan Jones’ Moon. A film that is playing in three cinemas in this country, yet is probably one of the best films you’ll see this year. Have the general public heard of it? Unlikely. It’s a sad indictment of the cinema industry.

Moon takes place, surprisingly, on the Moon. Sam Bell is the sole operator of a mining operation on the dark side of the moon. His three-year stint in charge of the operation is coming to an end, and he is looking forward to returning to his wife and daughter on Earth. However, after an accident involving one of the mining machines, Sam wakes up to find he isn’t alone in the station. The other person in the station is himself.

You don’t need hundreds of millions of dollars in order to distract attention from a badly-written story and hold the audience’s attention. Start of with a well-written screenplay and the audience will forgive all the little mistakes or limitations your budget will have when it comes to special effects. Moon has a brilliantly-written script, effects that involve miniatures instead of computers and a superb dual-performance from Sam Rockwell and it’s a genuinely brilliant film. Along with Sunshine and Children of Men, Moon is the best Sci-Fi film of the last ten years. It’s a film about isolation and identity and yet still manages to have a solid story that keeps you guessing.

Sam Rockwell’s performances as two versions of the same character are integral to what works about this film. I can’t say too much without giving story elements away, but his performances are essentially the same person with major changes, which affect the characters differently. It’s his ability to differentiate between the two characters that really grounds the film. Duncan Jones really captures the mood and feeling of the paranoid sci-fi films of the 1970’s, yet the film doesn’t at all feel dated in any way. Jones writing and directing certainly make him a name to watch in the future.

There’s not much else that can be said about Moon without giving away story elements, so I’ll keep it brief. It’s brilliant. Finally, a film that breaks the monotonous parade of shite that has been this summer’s films. Sci-fi at it’s very best, Moon will be in the top 10 of 2009. It’s a really, really great film.

9/10

SOUTHLAND TALES (2006) - Richard Kelly

2009-07-29T12:38:00.005Z

When I first saw Donnie Darko way back in 2001, I was, like many other people, pretty blown away by it. It had all the right elements, and appealed to that dark, lonely side my of us have when trying to figure out who we are. So I eagrely awaited Richard Kelly’s Director’s Cut version. Which I bought upon release, watched once, and vowed never to watch again. Kelly had managed to completely suck all that was great out of the theatrical cut of the film. It was dreadful. So I was a little wary when Southland Tales came out. Through a series of unfortunate events, and warnings from friends, I never got to see the film. Until now. I was kind of hoping it’d turn out to be good. When you have certain expectations from a film, sometimes you can be pleasantly, or otherwise... surprised...

It’s July 2008, three years after a number of nuclear attacks on the United States. The US is at war, the draft has been reinstated and most of the country is a police state. A new substance called Fluid Karma has been developed to replace the need for fossil fuels. However, Fluid Karma and it’s application has caused a rift in the space-time continuum that threatens to destroy the world. Meanwhile, an amnesia-stricken actor named Boxer Santaros and his new girlfriend, porn-star Krysta Kapowski have developed a film script that begins to mirror events in Santaros’ real life. And police office Roland Taverner is really a neo-marxist impersonating his own twin brother in order to use Santaros as leverage for the neo-marxist plans to blackmail Santaros’ Republican senator father in law.

Sounds complicated? Yeah, it is. It’s also one of the most pointless, muddled, incoherent and needlessly dull films I’ve ever sat through. It’s mind-numbingly idiotic. If you read about films, you’ll have heard about Southland Tales’ adventure at Cannes. How it was booed, and some even went so far as to say it was probably the worst film ever to compete at the festival. That was before the film was cut by Kelly himself in order to make it less lumbering and more accessible. And THIS is what he was left with?! In some sado-masochistic way, I’d love to see what the original cut was like. Thought I really don’t think I could put myself through this film ever again.

The film attempts to satirise the course that the US was headed down directly after the attack on the World Trade Centre. The increase in security and the clamp-down on liberties of the average citizen. However, Kelly’s ham-fisted attempt at subtlety goes nowhere fast. His vision of the near-future (which is now actually the past) looks nowhere near believable. Visually, it’s pretty close to Paul Verhoven’s future in Starship Troopers, but where as that film’s satire fit in with the aesthetic of the film and was actually funny, Kelly’s vision (especially with the bafflingly dour narration by Justin Timberlake) is a mess of ideas that don’t gell.

The script... good christ, the script is a disaster. Most of the actors clearly don’t have a clue what their characters are babbling on about. The characters themselves are a mish-mash of cliches, and cardboard-cutouts that are neither believable nor edgy, nor funny. Events unfold in a way that either leaves you confused, or without caring an iota about what happens. And then, in the middle of the mess, Justin Timberlake’s Pilot Abilene bursts into a drunken mime of The Killers’ All These Things That I’ve Done, which makes for one of the most infuriatingly ill-judged and pointless scenes of recent cinema history. It’s up there with the emo-strut scene from Spiderman 3.

The actors. To be honest, you’re not going to really give a shit what their performances are like. You’re too busy writhing in agony at the sound of the dialogue to worry about how it’s delivered. I actually felt sorry for Seann William Scott, Dwayne Johnson and Sarah Michelle Gellar. Clearly they saw Kelly as some sort of visionary genius and leapt on board thinking that it didn’t matter if they didn’t understand the script, Kelly knows what he’s doing. Nope. He didn’t. And the performances are ground-breakingly bad. But I really don’t think it’s the actors’ fault. The characters are just so poorly written.

Kelly’s a director who got sweapt up in his own hype. He attempts to out-Lynch David Lynch and instead falls spectacularly flat on his face. His writing is an incoherent mess of biblical proportions and his direction is pedestrian and in no way innovative. At certain points in the film, I wondered if Kelly had ever even seen a film before making Southland Tales. The film didn’t kill his career, but in an age where people like Roland Emmerich, Stephen Sommers and Brett Ratner still have careers, that’s not really all that surprising. I should have listened to the warnings. Don’t make the mistake I did. Southland Tales is unwatchable.

Oh, and there’s a scene in which two cars have sex through their exhausts. I shit you not.

1/10

HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE (2009) - David Yates

2009-07-21T12:27:00.007Z

Right, so we’re at film six in the Harry Potter saga. Harry Potter And The Half-Blood Prince is the penultimate book, but not the penultimate film, as The Deathly Hallows is split into two parts, in order to fit all the story elements in. Or all the dollars they can squeeze out of us. But that’s probably just the cynic in me speaking. Taking place six months after Harry’s godfather Sirius Black was unceremoniously killed off, it’s a dark time for the kids of Hogwarts. Looks like bad boy Voldermort’s gonna wreck things up something awful. But while a dark tone overtakes the series, does the film hold up against the previous films?

Sirius Black is dead. Voldermort is gaining strength. And Harry can’t get a date. All in all, things aren’t exactly great for teenager Harry Potter. But we’ve all had to deal with those awkward teenage years where the undead murderer of our parents is trying to kill us with magic. Ho-hum! But the Dark Lord and his band of Death Eaters aren’t the only threat to the kids of Hogwarts. Raging hormones are sweeping through the halls of the school like the smell of a hundred unflushed turds and nobody’s safe. Harry’s fending off love-potion wielding wenches with a pointed stick... eh, his wand. While the real object of his affection is his best friend’s sister, and she has her tongue down the throat of another guy. While making eyes at Harry. It’s all very Dawson’s Creek. Meanwhile, Harry’s come into possession of a potions book that belonged to someone known only as the Half-Blood Prince. While the book does help Harry ace his potions class, his professor is a man of a questionable history, whom Dumbledore wants Harry to get to know. There is something in Professor Slughorn’s past that links him to Voldermort. Harry must find out what that is.

I’ve never been a huge fan of the Harry Potter series. I pretty much hated the first two films, and while the subsequent three films were far better, there’s always been something a little twee about the series. Maybe it’s the names of the characters and situations, that they’re all head-slapping puns. Maybe it’s the fact that all the heroes are kids. But then, you did have characters like Sirius Black and Mad-Eye Moody who were pretty badass. Anyway, it was with a sense of relief that I was told by a Potter-fan friend of mine that this story ups the ante somewhat. But that was the book. Something was lost in the film translation. I was aware of a pretty big story element that was going to happen and was ready for some gut-wrenching emotion. But really, I was left cold.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, but it does have quite a few flaws that, when added up, detract from the overall experience. Primarily, there is a distinct lack of urgency in the film. Voldermort is gaining strength and his agents are attacking even the muggle world now. Yet, nobody in Hogwarts seems that worried about it. Sure, there is some talk about how the parents of the students are concerned about sending them back to school, but that’s about it. Dumbledore isn’t too concerned with Harry’s safety and stays in the background for most of two thirds of the film. It’s only in the final third of the film that he really leaps to life. And that in itself is a big problem. The majority of the film doesn’t seem to deal with any of the overall plot that runs through the entire series. I thought that Harry Potter dealt with the sole survivor of an attack by the evilest wizard in the history of magic and his attempt to defend himself and ultimately defeat the Dark Lord. What we have for the majority of the film is a series of bumbling encounters with kids driven by their discovery of hormones and the opposite sex. The whole Half-Blood Prince aspect is merely mentioned and feels like even a tertiary subplot. A more appropriate title would have been Harry Potter And The Sexual Awakening. But then that wouldn’t have gotten past the draft stage.

The great characters played by heavy-weight actors are also sadly missing from the film. There’s no Gary Oldman’s Sirius Black. There’s no Brendan Gleeson’s Mad-Eye Moody. There’s no Jason Isaac’s Lucius Malfoy. Even Ralph Fiennes, Voldermort is missing for Christ sake. Now, other than Moody, there are legitimate reasons as to why these characters are absent. But the film feels like it’s missing something without these characters. Only David Thewlis’ Remus Lupin and Alan Rickman’s Severus Snape pop up, and even those are mere cameos. I was informed Snape really comes into his own in this story, and after seeing the film, you can see how he would have, but his character feels castrated. It’s kind of a big disappointment.

I have to say, most of the actors who play the kids have really come into their own over the course of the series. In particular, Tom Felton who plays Draco Malfoy and Rupert Grint who plays Ron Weasley have come pretty far. Felton in particular has a pretty important role in this film and he carries himself very well, even when playing off a seasoned veteran like Alan Rickman. Even Emma Watson pulls of her wide range of emotions very well. The same can’t be said for Daniel Radcliffe, however. His acting started off bad and hasn’t gotten any better really. At one point, I thought I’d missed a plot point where somebody sucked out Harry’s soul, because Radcliffe emoted with all the soul of a marionette. Thankfully Radcliffe is surrounded by a pretty heavyweight cast, so he’s naturally propped up by that.

David Yates’ direction is good enough for the series. It’s not exactly ground-breaking as he seems to have lifted bits from Alfonso Cuaron and a great deal of other directors for this film. Which is ironic, as in the last film, I felt his direction was dull at best. In this film, however, at moments, I felt like a was watching a best of compilation of other directors’ work, and in one particular scene which shall remain unnamed, I thought somebody had accidentally spliced in some footage from Fellowship Of The Ring. Naturally, there are elements of each series that are similar. But for a director to use a shot that was pretty much identical to another film is just lazy. And it’s down to Yates that there was no sense of urgency in the film. Sure, there was a lot of plot to get through, and fair dues, the film never really ground to a halt at any moment. But the best bits were flashbacks, moments that involved Severus Snape and the Death Eaters. All of which were secondary to the main plot.

Harry Potter And The Half-Blood Prince isn’t a great film. And it is nowhere near as good as The Prisoner Of Azkaban, which is still by a great deal the best film of the franchise. But The Half-Blood Prince isn’t terrible either. I realise that there was a hell of a lot of plot to get through. But other films have had the same task and handled it far better. There is just something inherently lacking in this film. Maybe it’ll become clear after seeing The Deathly Hallows, which this film feels somewhat of a set-up for. But this film is just a massive anti-climax. As the film ended, I wondered where the hell the action that was in the last film went. Especially after the huge plot point that had just passed. If Harry was to get a report card after this year in Hogwarts, it would read ‘A lot of potential wasted. Must do better.’

6/10

BRUNO (2009) - Larry Charles

2009-07-21T11:19:00.004Z

Sacha Baron Cohen has reached the zenith of his satirical interview technique. There’s nowhere else to go. When he first appeared on British television in his Ali G guise, the possibilities were endless. Nobody knew who he was, and people gave themselves over fully to his ridiculous interviews. But Ali G grew tired quickly, so to keep things fresh, Cohen created Borat, the Kazakh television interviewer and Bruno, the gay Austrian fashion icon. With Larry Charles, Cohen took Borat to the big screen in 2006, and in 2009, it’s Bruno’s turn. Borat was a huge success, but can lightning strike twice?

Bruno fronts the show Funkyzeith Mit Bruno, a fashion show where the titular character interviews the movers and shakers in the fashion world. But after a disastrous incident involving a Velcro suit at the Milan Fashion Week, Bruno is fired from his show, and loses his Philipino midget boyfriend. So, in an attempt to get back to the top, Bruno and his assistant, Lutz, hit the United States in order to propel Bruno back to the top of the celebrity ladder.

Plot details are really play second fiddle to the real draw from these films. And that’s the awkward situations Cohen sets up to play with his targets. And after seeing Bruno, it’s really amazing how far some people will go before they snap and can’t continue with the interviews. Borat set up some pretty outrageous situations. And got some pretty decent laughs out of them. But Bruno takes things to a whole other level. There are things in the film that leave you agape with shock that Cohen had the balls (no pun intended) to pull them off. There’s no question that he is pretty committed to his art and will gladly sacrifice his own safety in order to carry out an idea.

But is the film funny? When the film attempts to drive plot forward, no. Obviously, there has to be a plot, no matter how thin, to keep the film from just being a series of increasingly awkward interviews and situations. These moments can feel a little contrived when put next to the real-world situations. But when those situations arise, the film hits it’s stride. And when at these moments, it’s outrageous, shocking, and hilarious. There is one moment in the film that was so funny, I can’t remember a time when I laughed harder in the cinema. I won’t give anything away, but I had tears of laughter running down my face at the sheer craziness of the situation, and the thoughts that must have been running through the people who were the targets of the prank.

There’s not much that can be said about the film without giving too much away. It’s funnier than Borat, and at times, funnier than most written comedies. But reality is always funnier or more shocking than fiction. When the film deals with fiction, it’ll make you chuckle at best. But when it comes to the ‘reality,’ Bruno will have you cringing in horror and guffawing with laughter.

8/10

PUBLIC ENEMIES (2009) - Michael Mann

2009-07-07T13:27:00.003Z

I’ll start this off by saying this- Michael Mann is one of my all-time favourite directors. He consistently makes quality, intelligent films, and even his weaker films are streets ahead of most of the competition. I really enjoyed Miami Vice. Despite the negative reaction to it from some people, it’s still a very good film. And Heat is one of the greatest heist films ever. So, in a summer that has so far proven absolutely abysmal, the prospect of a new Mann film had me pretty excited. Public Enemies brings together two great modern actors playing out the story of 1930’s bank robber, John Dillinger.

It’s the 1930’s, and the depression has hit America hard. A wave of crime spreads across America and the criminals are becoming celebrities in their own rights. The leading name amongst the bank-robbers is John Dillinger. J Edgar Hoover is struggling to create the Federal Bureau of Investigation in order to investigate crime across the United States. His primary goal is to take down Dillinger. In order to do this, Hoover gives the task to Melvin Purvis, a young agent who has just taken down Pretty Boy Floyd, another notorious bank robber. Dillinger wants one last job in order to disappear off the map with his girlfriend, Billie Frechette. And Purvis is determined to bring the criminal to justice. At any cost.

There are similarities that can be drawn between Heat and Public Enemies. Both films focus on two men, from different sides of the track. One a master criminal, one a lawman. Neither film paints the criminal as a simple bad guy. And both films have kick-ass gun fights in them. However, Public Enemies is by far the weaker film for a number of reasons. The main problem with Public Enemies is that none of the characters in the film are explored enough. The film is a presentation of facts that misses that very important to film detail, character development. Perhaps it was Mann’s desire to stick to the facts, but the lack of character development unfortunately leaves the film without much in the way of emotional impact.

Mann has recently decided to make the move to digital filmmaking. His first major foray into digital came with Collateral, a contemporary thriller about a hitman. He shot Miami Vice in digital. And in both those films, the digital worked very well with the story. Both were glossy films set in modern day, and the realism that digital brings complemented the stories. However, it for some reason fails in Public Enemies. At times, the digital works very well. At other times, it is a little to jarring. In one particular shoot-out, set at night, the action jumps from a wood, to inside a hotel. While outside, the digital works. However, when we cut to inside, the film looks like it was shot by somebody with a digital camcorder. It’s moments like this that confuse the viewer. And while the scene is action packed, it still takes you out of the film momentarily.

One thing that’s great to see is Johnny Depp finally acting again. After the rubbish pantomime performances in the appalling Pirates of the Caribbean series, Depp finally goes back to what he does best, acting. He’s cast very well as Dillinger. Dillinger was somewhat of a celebrity in his time, so it makes sense to have one of the most famous actors of our time playing him. While the character could have had more depth to him, Depp takes what he’s given and makes the most of it. Which is something that can’t be said for Christian Bale. Don’t get me wrong, Bale has delivered some great performances. But I’m beginning to have my concerns about his acting. After Terminator Salvation, and quite honestly, a flat performance here, I hope that it’s just the scripts that are letting him down. He’s not terrible in Public Enemies, but he’s just not as good as you’d hope.
Marion Cotillard, however, probably delivers the strongest performance in the film. Again, there’s not much for her to do. And after her lengthy enough introduction, she disappears for a great deal of the film. But in the second half of the film, in one scene in particular, she steals the show.

Public Enemies isn’t the great film I’d hoped it would be. But it isn’t terrible either. When measured against the likes of Heat, The Insider, Manhunter and even Miami Vice, it’s not close to Mann’s best. However, Michael Mann’s weaker films are still far better than other filmmakers’ best. And after weeks of what can only be described as shit, it’s nice to have a film that isn’t ludicrously bad. 2009 is proving to be a stinker of a year. But Public Enemies is one of the better films so far.

7/10

TRANSFORMERS: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN (2009) - Michael Bay

2009-06-22T13:34:00.006Z

Heh heh heh. Hee hee hee. Ya know, there’s a part of me that is secretly relishing the prospect of writing what I’m about to write. I’m excited at the catharsis I’ll feel having vented about Michael Bay’s latest piece of cinematic art. Because for the last twelve hours... minus the few hours sleep I got... I have stewed slowly. I’ve allowed what I witnessed last night to seep slowly into my brain, and I’ve attempted to arrange the images and sounds into an understandable and comprehensible series of sequences so that I can give Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen the review it deserves.

Okay, it’s been two years since Optimus Prime and his little human buddy Sam Witwicky (having still not changed his name by deed poll) defeated Megatron and the Decepticons. Sam is now ready to head off to college. He will be leaving behind his parents, girlfriend Mikaela, and best buddy and Autobot, Bumblebee. However, once Sam hits the campus, things go wrong. It seems the Decepticons are searching for Megatron’s body in order to resurrect him. It turns out Megatron is only second in command to another Decepticon, The Fallen, who wants to return to Earth (he was here at the dawn of civilisation.... don’t ask) to destroy our sun in order to get the power to give birth to more Decepticons.... Queue explosions and all manner of utter bollocks for two and a half bloody hours.

There is so much that is wrong with Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen, that it’s difficult to know where to start. I’m not that easily offended by movies. Admittedly, I actively seek out the films that create controversy and make people walk out of theatres. It’s not that I enjoy being repulsed. Though there is some sick fascination with the depth to which some directors stoop in order to shock. Take Martyrs or Cannibal Holocaust as examples. They’re both pretty reprehensible films. But they’re made for a specific type of viewer and don’t in any way try to be entertainment for the masses. What I absolutely object to, however, is a director who is so low-brow, he makes Rob Schneider look like the 21st Century’s Lawrence Olivier. Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen is the freak bastard child that would emerge if Nuts magazine got absolutely twisted drunk and had sex with Top Gear and a military recruitment video. Michael Bay is the sick voyeuristic neighbour filming it all to jerk off to later.

The film is incredibly misogynistic. There are three female characters in the film. Bay treats them with all the subtlety and depth of a slap-happy pimp. When not filming Magan Fox as is she’s in the opening few scenes of a hard-core porno, he’s getting up-skirt shots of some other starlet or treating Sam’s mother with sneering disdain for her kooky antics. Were he able to get away with it, I’d imagine Bay would have had Sam’s father go Ray Winstone on her ass and beat her into the ground a la Nil By Mouth... although with swooping camera moves and slow motion impacts. All Megan Fox has to do for the entire film is wear a low-cut top, keep a permanent pout on her face and occasionally run awkwardly from an explosion. Which, thankfully for her, encompasses the entirety of her talents. She is a dreadful actress. And I’m pretty sure she was born without a soul. Whenever the camera stared, nay, leered into her unquestionably beautiful eyes, you can’t quite help but feel there’s a deep, gaping, black void of humanity staring back. I don’t know whether that’s Bay’s work, or Fox herself, but it was somewhat unnerving.

Then there’s the xenophobia. Good christ, there’s plenty of that. Bay has made some sort of deal with the US military, because the last hour of the film is just an army recruitment video shot, again, as explosion porno. Planes, tanks, trucks, guns, missiles, aircraft carriers, high-tech weaponry are all wheeled out and fired at the enemy, who, for the record, are completely ineffectual against humans. I mean, THEY’RE GIANT FUCKING ROBOTS. Yet none of them are capable of defeating a small platoon of squishy humans with guns that fire tiny bullets. Anyway, all this ordnance is fired at the Decepticons in the last battle, which takes place in the Valley of the Kings in Egypt. And as a consequence, pyramids and thousands of years of history are wiped out and reduced to dust. And do the Yanks care? Not a jot. Bay may as well have gone the final step and had one of the GI Joes prance to the top of the crumbled remains of the pyramids and jam an American flag into place. In one spectacularly ‘look how stupid Johnny Foreigner is’ moment, Sam and his pals try to cross the Jordan-Egypt border. It is here that they encounter Johnny foreigner’s army, which has a midget in charge. Yup, a midget. I thought crossing borders was a difficult thing in today’s political climate. But apparently shouting ‘NEW YORK’ in an American accent gains you access to any country. Stupid foreign army. Trey Parker and Matt Stone parodied this attitude in Team America World Police. But Bay obviously doesn’t get parody or irony and took that film as a serious appraisal of American Foreign Policy.

The special effects are spectacular. There’s no denying that. Hundreds of millions of dollars were pumped into the film and it shows. The team at ILM and Digital Domain are top-notch and you can feel the heat in every explosion. But special effects should be there to help tell a story. Not be the centre-piece that the story is written around. And that is how this film feels. The story is all over the place. Every few minutes, everybody has to stop to explain to one-another what’s going on. When that’s not happening, logic is thrown out the window. One scene takes place in the Smithsonian Air And Space Museum. The characters crash through a wall, and are in the desert. The wall was obviously some sort of portal through space-time, because the last time I checked, the Smithsonian is in the middle of Washington DC. A FUCKING CITY. It’s this utter contempt for the intelligence of the audience that I really have a problem with.

The problems with the film are innumerable. It’s indefensibly bad. The script is a bloody mess of confusing decisions, illogical situations and ludicrous events that defy reality; I know it’s a film about giant robots, but when a man rings an aircraft carrier and gets them to use a top-secret experimental weapon without any question of authority, chain of command or procedure, you’re going too far from reality. The acting is terrible. It’s really shocking to see John Turturro slumming it so badly. The guy was a darling of the Coen Brothers. What the fuck is he doing in this crap?
There’s also the question of the Autobot twins, two of the most ill-conceived and insulting sidekicks since Jar Jar Binks. Every moment of their screen-time sucks out a bit of your soul. They aren’t funny. They’re cringeworthy. Shame of the writers for creating them, shame on the designers for making them look like they do. Shame on all involved.

Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen is a film made by idiotic scumbags for the entertainment of imbeciles. If you think two small dogs fucking is hilarious, then this film right up your alley. And for that, fuck you. It is the intellectual equivalent of a home movies television show. It’s a lads’ magazine filmed for the big screen. It’s like climbing into the mind of a hyperactive thirteen year old boy who’s been sitting at his Playstation for too long. I don’t object to a bit of entertainment for entertainment’s sake. But I do think that this kind of film sums up exactly what’s wrong with the industry. It’s a prime example of what happens when film companies aim to squeeze as much money out of the audience’s pocket as possible. The executives at Dreamworks and Paramount may as well drop to their knees and start giving blow-jobs for pennies. Because there is infinitely more dignity in that than having your name attached to this film. And I’m an idiot for spending money I worked for on this shit.
Fuck you Michael Bay. Fuck you Dreamworks Pictures. Fuck you audience around me who laughed at all the incredibly unfunny jokes and stared slack-jawed at the shiney things and ‘splosions. Fuck you universe for allowing this film to happen.

Oh, and just before I forget... Decepticon testicles... Fuck you, Michael Bay.

1/10

THE HANGOVER (2009) - Todd Phillips

2009-06-22T11:25:00.005Z

You’ll have to excuse the briefness of this review as I’m writing it, and my thoughts on Transformers both in one sitting, and I’m just dying to get onto Transformers. The Hangover is a comedy from Todd Phillips, the writer-director of Old School and Road Trip. In a way, The Hangover is like a melding of those two films. It’s part road movie, part grown up guys having a good time with consequences film, although in this film, we only see their partying.

Doug is due to get married. Two days before his wedding, his best friends, Phil and Stu, and Doug’s soon-to-be brother in law, Alan take him on his bachelor weekend in Las Vegas. Phil is a married teacher and wants to party hard before he has to settle for good. Stu is a man on the verge of proposing to his girlfriend, a thundering bitch who keeps tabs on him twenty four seven. And Alan is a bit of an idiot, but well-meaning at the heart of it. Things go awry when Phil, Stu and Alan wake up after the party with no memory of what had happened and no sign of Doug’s whereabouts. So they must begin an odyssey to find their friend before the wedding.

There’s not much that can really be said about The Hangover. It’s a really entertaining, genuinely funny buddy comedy that relies less on gross-out humour and more on situational comedy. It’s too easy to just gross the audience into laughter in comedies these days. But rather than rely on that, Phillips lets his characters and the messes they get themselves into create the laughs. Ed Helms, who is a central character on The Office seems most at home when it comes to comedy. He’s a very funny performer, and while Stu, his character in the Hangover isn’t as ludicrous as The Office’s Andy Bernard, he still handles the situations very well.

Zach Galifianakis plays the idiot of the piece, which, along with Bradley Cooper’s pretty asshole character, is a staple of these types of comedies. It’d be too easy to mess this character up, but Galifianakis gets some pretty big laughs throughout the film. He spends most of the film with a blank expression on his face, but the is part of his schtick, and carries the character.

The most uncomfortable part of the film is a cameo by Mike Tyson. It’s impossible to separate Tyson from the controversies that have dogged him throughout his career. And when he does turn up, you can’t help but feel he’s going to lose it, step out of the screen and punch you right in the face. However, seeing Tyson singing and air-drumming along Phil Collins’ ‘In The Air Tonight’ is worth the price of admission alone, and much more entertaining than a drumming ape in a chocolate advertisement.

A very solid and entertaining comedy, The Hangover shows that resorting to lowest common denominator laughs isn’t the only way to garner a chuckle from the audience. Far better than Phillips’ other two hits, The Hangover is a quality film amidst a swathe of really terrible summer blockbusters.

8/10

TERMINATOR SALVATION (2009) - McG

2009-06-09T14:30:00.005Z

Let’s face it. There are very very few people who don’t like the Terminator franchise. And when I say Terminator franchise, I mean Terminator and Terminator 2: Judgement Day. Rise of the Machines was a Terminator film only in name. Otherwise it was a dreadfully misjudged film that should be cast into oblivion and forgotten about. However, it did prove that the series still had some pulling power. And thus, six years later, we have Terminator Salvation. The McG film takes place after Judgement Day and chronicles the struggles of John Connor and his band of merry resistance fighters as they attempt to overpower Skynet and gain control of the planet once again.

As mentioned, Judgement Day has been and gone. The world is very different. Humans are an endangered species and struggle to survive and fight back against the machines. John Connor is the man fated to lead humanity back from the brink. But something has changed. Connor sees his present as different to the future he was told about by his mother. The appearance of Marcus Wright further complicates things. And when Connor discovers that his father, a teenage Kyle Reese has been targeted and captured by Skynet, he must learn to trust Marcus Wright, defy his superiors and infiltrate Skynet in order to free Reese. All this while the humans are planning to mount their largest attack on Skynet.

Terminator Salvation is a difficult film to nail down. It has some great moments. The first 50 minutes are really enjoyable. And it’s even got Michael Ironside in it, for Christ sake. But for some reason... some three-lettered reason, the film fails. Let’s start with the good. The first 50 minutes. In this section, we see the lengths the resistance are going to in order to fight Skynet. We saw briefly in flash... backs... or is it flash-forwards, in the previous films what the post-Judgement Day world looked like. We saw the fight against the machines. Terminator Salvation expands on this, and shows us John Connor leading a raid on a Skynet R’n’D facility. Now, unfortunately, while the entire film is set in this world, we don’t see enough of what you’d expect from the post-Judgement Day world. A glaring problem is that the lines are too clearly drawn. Skynet stays on their side, the resistance stays on theirs. Occasionally, each side will venture into their enemy’s territory, but this is not what we were expecting from this world. It just feels... wrong.

Sam Worthington is brilliant as Marcus Wright. He is, but a long-shot, the best thing about the film. If you’ve seen the trailers for the film, you know the big ‘surprise.’ If you haven’t, skip this paragraph, as it’s about to give a part of the film away. Wright is a tortured soul. In the opening few minutes of the film, set in 2003, Wright is executed for the murder of his brother and two cops. His body is donated to Cyberdyne Systems. He wakes up fifteen years later and is pretty confused. He hooks up with Kyle Reese (played by Anton Yelchin doing a pretty nifty imitation of Michael Biehn’s Terminator performance) and when Reese is taken, he does all in his power to get him back. When he is revealed as a terminator, Worthington is pretty damn convincing. He’s torn apart by the crime he committed but also by being a monster. This is his film, not John Connor’s. It’s Marcus Wright’s redemption and he carries the film very well.

They are the strong points, but they’re not without problems. And this film has many problems. Primarily the biggest problem is the sense of urgency. There is none. Terminator and it’s sequel kept you on the edge of your seat. They were incredibly tense films with a real sense that if the heroes fail, we’re all doomed. While they’re films that deal with a small story (despite the huge ramifications if things go wrong) they never let you feel like things were easy. The huge problem with Salvation is, you just find yourself thinking ‘so what?’ You’re left feeling that if things go wrong, it’s not the end of the world. And this isn’t just a problem with McG’s direction. It’s also down to the fact that in a world that’s close to being overrun by Skynet, there is very little Skynet presence. The T-600s (the precursors to the iconic T-800s) seem to wander about in single figures, making them very easy to deal with. You get the sense that Skynet really isn’t trying to wipe the humans out. Once Skynet reveals it’s evil plan, it becomes very clear that the AI really isn’t very smart. And where they had countless opportunities to win the war, they just didn’t bother because it that way wouldn’t be elaborate enough. Skynet is like a clichéd Bond villain that won’t just shoot Bond in the head. It insists on a long, drawn-out, elaborate execution plan that does little but provide the heroes with an easy way to escape. It’s bad, lazy, and sloppy writing.

Speaking of bad and sloppy, the editing in the film is terrible. Editing itself is an art form. The audience has watched countless films. It has developed a keen sense of timing. And therefore, bad editing, bad camera-work, bad direction stand out. Even if some members of the audience cannot explain why. It’s just something we’ve become accustomed to. And Terminator Salvation is full of these problems. Scenes are jarringly cut, you feel like sections have been left on the editing room floor, screwing with the logical progression of an idea or sequence and some scenes even feel like they’re thrown in for no reason while some ideas aren’t developed enough. I know there were script problems with the film (a problem that doesn’t seem to have been resolved). And the film definitely feels like it has been cut to make it a PG-13 film. But to castrate a film just for the sake of money is a really sad reflection of the state of the industry. I’m not saying the film would have been better had there been more “fucks”, a tit or two and some splatter effects. But if you are going to cut parts of the film out, it would help things greatly if scenes were tidied up a lot more.

Another glaringly obvious indication that the script and direction are all over the place is Christian Bale’s performance. In one spectacularly badly edited sequence, Connor is imploring the resistance around the world not to attack Skynet until he gives the order. He spreads his message over the radio. At one moment, he speaks with gravitas, utilising the Dark Knight growl. In the next cut, Connor seems to be panic-stricken almost screaming his words through the radio. It’s a small example of the sloppy nature of the entire film. I like Bale. I think he’s a great actor. But he has very little to do in the film other than being pissed off with the whole situation. It’s a very one-dimensional performance and is eclipsed by a far better Sam Worthington.

There are a whole laundry list of problems with Terminator Salvation. At times you feel like McG just made a list of really cool shots and moments from films such as Blade Runner, Lord of the Rings, Black Hawk Down, Apocalypse Now, the previous Terminator films, Minority Report, The Matrix, and a whole load of other films, wrote a Terminator story to tie them all together and then shot a film. It’s a really derivative and poorly-executed film. Like I said, there are some cool moments. And the first 50 minutes work pretty well. But they worked pretty well in other films before this one.
Terrible direction and sloppy editing (surprisingly, from the editor of Terminator 2) and a distinct lack of urgency let Terminator Salvation badly down. It’s more of a Terminator film than Rise of the Machines, that’s for sure. But it is leagues away from James Cameron’s films.

4/10

ANGELS & DEMONS (2009) - Ron Howard

2009-05-26T15:40:00.008Z

The Da Vinci Code was a massive global success. It was one of those books that comes along every so often and you couldn’t help but see people everywhere reading it. I read it myself, eager to see what the big deal was. It was entertaining enough, but ultimately throw-away pulp trash. The film version of the book, released in 2006 was set to be huge. But it was pretty much a mess of a film and while doing good box-office, was pretty much a critical flop. Angels & Demons, the prequel (although filmed as a sequel) is released this year, reteaming director Ron Howard with Tom Hanks as Indiana Jones with no balls, Robert Langdon. The book is seen by many as far better than The Da Vinci Code. Does the film follow suit?

No. It does not. It’s a fucking mess. It is a film so incredibly stupid and ridiculous that I actually felt like somewhere, Ron Howard was laughing at me for being duped into seeing it. In fact, he’s probably laughing at the world. As is Brian Grazer, his producer. Because they are making a shed load of cash from one of the dumbest, idiotic and insulting films I’ve ever seen. It takes place just after the death of the Pope, and while the new Pope is being decided by a bunch of cardinals during what is known within the church as Pope-Idol. Just before Pope-Idol, a particle of anti-matter is knicked from the Large Hadron Collider (I shit you not). This plot point, not in the book, is a blatant attempt to make things up-to-date. The Higgs boson particle has the ability to reduce Vatican City to a smouldering hole. The Illuminati, long thought to have been wiped out by the Church have kidnapped the four Pope-Idol finalists and are holding all and sundry to ransom. Only Robert Langdon, a personality vacuum in human form can stop the Illuminati and help the new Pope take his place as King of the Catholics.

To start off, the plot of the film ranges from snore-inducingly boring to laugh-out-loud hilarious. One of the major complaints that emerged after The Da Vinci Code was released was that everyone stood around explaining things to each other. It proved to be surprisingly boring. Ron Howard took these issues on board, and fair dues, he did ramp things up for this film. Instead of standing around explaining things, now everybody runs around explaining things. Oh yes, by making people both move and talk, the action has been ramped up a billion percent.

However, the first half of the film remains overwhelmingly dull. Robert Langdon, a man of non-action wanders from church to church staring at statues that, and I am not exaggerating here, point in the direction of the next clue. He is literally following a series of really nicely sculpted signposts. The dialogue ranges from boring exposition to dull history lessons, to incredibly clunky lines like ‘GET ME A MAP WITH ALL ROME’S CHURCHES ON IT!’ Tom Hanks, whom I like as an actor is essentially just a face to pull in the crowds. His Langdon is nothing more than a book with a stupid hair-cut. He has all the personality of a damp sock and the daring of a petrified field mouse. In one spectacularly action-free moment, Langdon watches while the main villain kills two policemen. Instead of doing something to save the second policeman, he stands and watches as the killer stalks the cop and very slowly kills him. I was half expecting Hanks to pull up a chair, grab some pasta and enjoy the proceedings.

Joining Langdon on his quest to kill suspense is Vittoria Vetra a sexy and unbelievable scientist who wants her particle back. She is absolutely inconsequential to the plot aside from the fact that her character is also incompetent. She needs to get the particle chamber back before the battery powering it fails, resulting in a matter-anti-matter explosion that will kill millions. Had she brought a spare battery, things would have been a lot easier on all.

But by far the highlight of the film is Ewan McGreggor as Oirish priest, Camerlengo Patrick McKenna. McGreggor provides the comic relief of the film as he stumbles over the script with an accent which is ludicrously bad. From what I’ve seen of McGreggor on The Long Way Round, he seems like a genuinely likeable and nice guy. He does good work for charity. But by Christ, the guy is a shockingly awful actor. Aside from a pretty decent performance in Trainspotting, where he was none-the-less overshadowed by a far stronger supporting cast, he really hasn’t delivered one outstanding role. And Angels & Demons ranks up there with his worst.

As with all action films, the second half of Angels & Demons is where things kick into overdrive. And it’s at this point where logic, believability and reality are ritually burned at the stake. At this point, proceedings become so incredibly stupid that I thought I’d passed out from boredom, hit my head and was seeing things that weren’t there. I’m strongly tempted to spoil the high-point of this carnival of the absurd, but I really wouldn’t want to ruin the surprise. I am just sorry I can’t be there with you to hear the guffaws of laughter that will inevitably ensue. It was with no amount of surprise, that during the credits, I saw David Koepp’s name. From the guy who brought you Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull. You should begin to know what to expect. And, like that film, the main character stands aside and watches everyone else do the work. It would be no surprise if it emerged that Koepp did little writing but took credit for a team of other writers’ work.

Angels & Demons is insultingly bad. Twists and turns are performed with all the ineptitude of a bad slight-of-hand artist. It attempts to distract you with one thing while setting up a twist. But if you take a second to actually think about things, you know exactly where proceedings are going. Apart from that bit I mentioned above. Nobody could see that coming. Set-ups are blatantly sign-posted and pay-offs are subsequently dull and predictable. Characters gleefully (if not literally) announce ‘listen, I have this ability. If it comes in handy at some point, you know where I am’ making plot points as subtle as a Fox News Anchor. It’s really lowest, lowest-common denominator stuff.

Many claim Angels & Demons is a better story and film than The Da Vinci Code. I disagree. While The Da Vinci Code was dull, silly and stupid, at least it wasn’t mind-bogglingly stupid. After watching Angels & Demons, you feel like someone has beaten you with a hammer of idiocy. It’s going to be hard to top this for the worst film of 2009. And it’s still only May.

1/10

STAR TREK (2009) - J.J. Abrams

2009-05-14T13:30:00.005Z

For as long back as I can remember, Star Trek has been around in my life. I remember the first time seeing The Next Generation way when I was about nine years old, and since then, in some way shape or form, Trek has been around. So when the series seemed to die off a few years ago, it seemed like something was missing. Despite the decline in quality since the end of Deep Space Nine, the affection for Kirk, Spock, Picard and all the rest still remained. So it was with a sense of trepidation I sat down to watch J.J. Abrams’ reimagining of the origins of the most famous of the varied Trek casts, with Star Trek, the eleventh movie in the series.

Star Trek opens with the birth of James T. Kirk, a birth literally under fire. Kirk’s parents are crew members of the USS Kelvin which has come under attack from a gigantic Romulan vessel that has emerged from a special anomaly. Kirk’s father is killed and we jump a few years ahead. The young James Kirk is a man seemingly without a purpose. He’s a smart and capable young man, but lacks direction. After a bar room brawl, Kirk is approached by Captain Christopher Pike, a man who served with his father. He challenges Kirk to do better than his father. Something Kirk initially rejects, but then signs up with Star Fleet. Meanwhile, on Vulcan, a young Spock has gained entry to the Vulcan Academy. He has achieved this, despite what his elders view as his deficiency. Spock is half-Vulcan, half-Human. Rejecting his elders, Spock also joins Star Fleet. Three years later, the cadets are due to graduate. However, Vulcan is attacked by the same Romulan ship that destroyed the Kelvin. Kirk, Spock, and eventually all the familiar faces board the Enterprise to rescue Vulcan.

First off, a trend is broken. Star Trek, which is the eleventh in the series falls into the category of the odd Star Trek film. Throughout the series, the odd-numbered films have been the poorer of the series, but despite this trend, Star Trek manages to break free and become one of the best of all the Star Trek films. It seems unfair to put it up against the others, however. Firstly, the film features only one member of the original cast, or even the Next Generation cast. Leonard Nimoy makes an appearance as older Spock. But that’s all that will be mentioned about that. Also, the film sets in motion an alternate universe featuring familiar names, albeit with different faces. So to put this film alongside the others seems redundant.

J.J. Abrams has yet again struck gold with this film. It is by far one of the most purely entertaining films of this year. From the opening battle to the closing credits, there is barely a moment wasted. Abrams fills every frame with a high attention to detail and plot point after plot point. The film is packed full of sly references to the original series, but while these moments are put there for the legions of fans, the film is still totally accessible to the newcomer. It’s a delicate balance that Abrams has managed to pull off magnificently. The only real complaint I have with his production is his choice of composer. Michael Giacchino creates the music for the film, having worked on Abrams’ highly successful television series, Lost. There are moments when the music seem to have been lifted straight out of the show and dropped into the film. For someone who has watched both Lost and Star Trek, it takes you out of the film for a moment. However, this is a minor complaint is an otherwise excellent film.

The most decisive element to the film, which would either alienate or draw in audiences, was the choice in casting. And once again, Abrams has nailed it. Chris Pine takes over the iconic role of James Tiberius Kirk from William Shatner, who has defined his career as the Captain of the Enterprise. It’s a tough and unenviable job for Pine to do, but he really is excellent as Kirk. He nails every nuance of the character, and is extremely watchable. The other iconic role is that of Spock. And in Zachary Quinto, Abrams has found an actor eerily similar to Leonard Nimoy’s early performance. These two characters are the most essential to get right, as they are the foundation of the series. And both Pine and Quinto are perfectly cast in their roles. Eric Bana plays the villain, Nero. Along with Bruce Greenwood, who plays Christopher Pike, Bana is one of the most experienced actors in the cast. But neither of these actors ever overshadow the younger cast. They do enough for the other cast members to showcase their talents and provide ample support. To go through each cast member would take forever, so I’ll just say that they’re all excellent in their roles. Each of them takes enough of the characteristics from the original characters so that we know for sure who they are. But they never descend into charicature.

The only other complaint I would have with the film is that it doesn’t seem ‘big’ enough. What I mean is, I kind of expected a more epic threat to the Federation than one man, his ship and his cronies. When it comes down to it, it was a film about two ships going head to head, rather than a large-scale encounter between two forces. Although, it does make sense to keep things small. Like a great many prequels, this is an introduction film, and as such must concentrate on characters over plot. But this is not to say the set pieces aren’t entertaining. The special effects are top-notch, the action sequences are exciting and the pace is relentless. After seeing a dreadful prequel in X-Men Origins: Wolverine, it’s good to see that when a bit of care and attention is put into a film, the results are fantastic. It’s a damn shame George Lucas couldn’t have let someone like Abrams take the reins on The Phantom Menace. Star Trek shows how it should be done. The saga is in good hands.

9/10

X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE (2009) - Gavin Hood

2009-05-11T13:35:00.004Z

Another month, another superhero movie. It’s getting a little tedious at this stage. The big names, Batman, Superman, Spiderman, X-Men have all been done. And yet, in an attempt to squeeze another few pennies out of a dying genre, the big studious continue to wheel out these movies. Sure, some are entertaining. Some are even genre-defying. And then, you have films like X-Men Origins: Wolverine. An attempt to set up a franchise spin-off from another franchise. Seriously, Fox should just rename these films Cash Cow: Wolverine. Gavin Hood attempts to give us the mysterious back-story to X-Men’s most iconic character, Wolverine.

We all know Wolverine. The nigh-invulnerable, adamantium-boned, claw-slasher. As the anti-hero of the X-Men, he is inevitably the most popular character. But his past is shrouded in mystery. He’s a product of the Weapon X program. Where he’s come from is unknown. But in this film, which is essentially a 2-hour flashback, the missing pieces are put into place. We see kiddie Wolverine, born sometime in the mid-nineteenth century. After a disaster involving his father, Wolverine and his half-brother, Victor, also known as Sabretooth wander the earth, getting involved in the American Civil War, both World Wars, Vietnam until their both recruited into a special ops program run by William Stryker. After a crisis of consciousness, Wolverine leaves the program to lead a quiet life with his girlfriend. But things don’t quite work out when Sabretooth returns to kill Wolverine’s gal and draw him out of hiding. Wolverine agrees to take part in Stryker’s Weapon X program in return for a chance at revenge.

I liked X-Men. I liked X-Men 2. The third film was a dreadful piece of shit, thanks to Fox’s interference in production and a hack director in Brett Ratner. So hopes were high that this film would restore some of the magic that made the first two X-Men films very enjoyable. Oh, how misplaced our hopes were. To put it simply, X-Men Origins: Wolverine is a complete disaster of a film. At every level of the production, the film is a failure. The script is a complete and utter mess. Characters are never fully realised or fleshed out. For a film that explores what makes established characters act and think the way they do, there is very little character development. From the moment the opening titles began, I knew the film was in trouble. But the script is not the only problem.

The production itself is quite shockingly poor. The CGI, which is an essential part of these big-budget special effects fests, is jaw-droppingly bad. At moments, I found myself really asking if what I was watching was a complete film or had the cinema I was in been slipped a copy of the workprint that was leaked to the world. I am not kidding when I say that the CGI in this film is some of the worst I’ve ever seen. At one point, Wolverine is examining his newly adamantium-clad claws in a bathroom. The effects are so bad that the claws look like cartoons. In other moments, they float over Wolverine’s hands where they’re supposed to be protruding from his hand. It’s incredibly sloppy.

The direction is piss-poor. Gavin Hood may have some small amount talent for doing drama, as seen in Rendition. However, if X-Men Origins: Wolverine is a showcase of his abilities for doing big budget, high concept actioners, he shouldn’t be allowed behind the camera again. Scenes are badly composed, action sequences are horribly shot, and the editing is all over the place. At one point, Wolverine knocks Gabit out with a punch. Literally seconds later, Gambit is sprinting across a roof and leaps off, only to land back where he’d just been punched, without any explanation as to how or why he got back onto the roof in the first place. That’s just one is a long laundry-list of badly executed scenes.

The acting in the film isn’t the worst part of the production. Hugh Jackman is pretty comfortable in the Wolverine role, and when he has things to do, he does them well. Otherwise, he wanders about looking dour and waiting for things to explode behind him. It’s unfortunate for Jackman that he’s left with a god-awful script to work with. Liev Schreiber, also a good actor, is given very little to do as Sabretooth. Turn up, growl and leap about. Not exactly a challenging role. Everyone else is barely worth mentioning. Except for Will I Am. Note to future filmmakers- rappers do not make good actors.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine is terrible. It is a terrible, awful, disaster of a film. The number of awful superhero movies vastly outnumbers the good. Maybe it’s time to cease the genre and allow maybe one or two superhero movies come along every few years. Maybe when the scripts are polished, the productions are planned properly and the studios allow creatives to control the making of the film. X-Men Origins: Wolverine is a prime example of a badly executed attempt to cash in on a popular property. It’s just a shame further films from this dying franchise are already in production.

3/10

Moon trailer

2009-04-10T08:12:00.003Z

I know updates are becoming rarer these days, but fear not. I am still working on things! It's just that the big outside world is pretty demanding at the moment! Anyway, here's something you may find interesting. It's the trailer for Moon, Sam Rockwell's next film. Seems to be a sci-fi psychological thriller, something that can put off some but will intrigue many. Not much is known about it, other than what can be garnered from the trailer. Which looks great. Hits screens sometime this year.

KNOWING (2009) - Alex Proyas

2009-04-01T21:02:00.005Z

Dear oh dear. I say that on two counts. Firstly, what on earth happened to Nicholas Cage’s career? Secondly, why in the hell do I pay money to see this guy’s films? On rare occasions, Cage does manage to deliver a good performance. Matchstick Men. Or Adaptation. But in seven years, the guy has delivered shitty performance after shitty performance. They range from pure awful, to laughably ridiculous. Will Knowing, directed by I, Robot helmer Alex Proyas buck the trend? No.

Cage is in po-faced form as John Koestler, a recently widowed father of one. He’s a professor of astro-physics at MIT and failing as a father. His son’s school unearth a time capsule buried fifty years previous that contains letters from the children of 1959. Koestler’s son, Caleb comes into possession of a sheet of paper with seemingly random numbers. However, Koestler discovers a pattern in the numbers. A pattern that seems to have predicted every major disaster in the last fifty years, plus three as of yet unrevealed events. So Koestler begins his mission to stop the final three disasters and keep his son safe from men who seems to be following the family.

M. Night Shyamalan called. He wants his script back. Yes, Knowing, even down to it’s title seems to have been the type of film Shyamalan would have made before he set fire to his career with Lady In The Water. It’s got all the hallmarks. Creepy concept. Check. Intelligent, yet tortured central character. Check. Estranged, or even dead wife. Check. Ludicrous twist. Checkmate. The only real difference here is, the creepiness isn’t as well executed as it would be in a Shyamalan film. Despite his increasingly crappy films, the guy, at one point, could do creepy. Proyas isn’t a bad director. Dark City was a pretty good science fiction flick. I, Robot, while being a complete bastardisation of the source material, wasn’t awful. But here, the concept and ideas overshadow Proyas’ otherwise solid craftsmanship.

And onto the real crippling factor. Nicholas Cage. Good lord, this guy is bad news for a film. If he’s playing a dour old git, he really sucks the life out of everyone around him. He’s like a talent black hole. Rose Byrne, who has gotten consistently better in films like 28 Weeks Later and Sunshine suffers in the vacuum of Cage’s awfulness. One particular scene, set in a petrol station is laughably stupid. Ironically, it’s one of the few scenes that don’t feature Cage. Cage simply cant act. He may have won an Oscar for Leaving Las Vegas, but since then, he seems to be on an odyssey to create the worst post-Oscar career. Forget Cuba Gooding Jnr. Forget Robin Williams. Cage is the man leading the race. Which is ironic seeing as Cage cant even seem to run convincingly like a human. Seriously. Watch the scenes where he's at full pace. He looks ridiculous. Thankfully though, there are no bees in this film.

The whole film just seems rather ludicrous. Character choices are bafflingly stupid. At one point, Cage finds himself right in the middle of a plane crash. He just runs headlong into the disaster without any concept of self-preservation. And the special effects are very ropey. The ending, has the courage of it’s convictions. But then jumps the shark immediately afterwards with a special-effects laden scene that is as stupid as it is badly-executed. It’s just a complete mess.

3/10

And a Wild trailer

2009-03-25T23:22:00.002Z

Having released the poster for Where The Wild Things Are, the trailer for the film has subsequently been released. And man, does it look spectacular. Spike Jonze is one of the most interesting directors working, and his visual style is absolutely unique. Will he do justice to the source material? Judge for yourself...

The Wild Things are here...

2009-03-17T22:06:00.003Z

The first poster for Spike Jonze's new film, Where The Wild Things Are has been released. The film is an adaptation of the book by Maurice Sendak which tells the tale of a little boy and his imaginary monster friends. The production has seen it's share of problems. But it finally hits the screens this year. And being directed by Jonze, should be pretty spectacular.

William Friedkin on the Oscars

2009-03-11T00:52:00.000Z

William Friedkin, director of The Exorcist, The French Connection and Bug, sums up exactly what the Oscars are.

His basic message? They're not worth a thing. Well said.

WATCHMEN (2009) - Zack Snyder

2009-03-09T23:30:00.005Z

In 1986, writer Alan Moore and illustrator Dave Gibbons unleashed Watchmen upon the world. It would change the face of comic books and become the first comic that was hailed by the literary world. Since that time the idea to adapt the book into a film has been bandied about Hollywood. Directors such as Terry Gilliam, Darren Aaronofsky and Paul Greengrass were all attached to direct at different points. The project was considered unfilmable. But two years ago Zack Snyder, fresh off 300, decided to give it a shot.

Watchmen is a deconstruction of the superhero concept. In an alternate version of US history, superheroes emerge in the 1940’s, fighting crime in the US. The superhero phenomenon continues into the 1970’s when the government, led by Richard Nixon, outlaws masked vigilantes. In 1984, a former superhero, The Comedian, is murdered by an unknown assailant. Rorschach, a former colleague of The Comedian’s, and still operating covertly, takes it upon himself to solve the case. But his investigation reveals a plot to eliminate all former Watchmen. Meanwhile, the US edges closer and closer to a nuclear war with the USSR. And only Dr. Manhattan, the only superhero with superhuman powers can stop nuclear Armageddon.

Watchmen has been the holy grail of adaptations for comic book fans. The community was split as to whether the book could be successfully adapted into a film. It is an incredibly dense work and the thought was that there is no way such a convoluted story could be boiled down into a 2 and a half hour film. And... those who said it couldn’t be filmed... were right. Watchmen is a heroic failure. There are elements of greatness in it. But overall, the flaws are too apparent and take away from what could have been the ultimate comic book movie.

To be fair to those behind the cameras, their job of bringing Watchmen to the big screen was monumental. As I’ve said, the book is incredibly dense. It reads more like a novel than a comic book. And a novel that is thick with plot, exposition and character development. The story unravels at a very measured pace, and this is lost in Zack Snyder’s adaptation. The film seems to strip the story of it’s very essence and delivers version of the story that seems to have missed the point. Snyder does attempt to cover all bases, and I think this is where things become unstuck. He does a good job of delivering the back story to Doctor Manhattan. And his adaptation of the Rorschach is the strongest part of the film. Largely thanks to a brilliant performance from Jackie Earle Haley. But the story isn’t just exposition. There is a plot. And while this plot works in the confines of the book, it is just lost on film.

But the structure and plot development aren’t the only slip-ups in the film. While Jackie Earle Haley really excels as Walter Kovaks/Rorschach, and Billy Crudup is great as Doctor Manhattan (for a guy who’s essentially a CGI creation for the majority of the film), the rest of the cast falls rather flat. There is little chemistry between Patrick Wilson, playing Nite Owl II and Malin Akerman as Silk Spectre. And this is a huge problem, as their story is integral to the dissection of the superhero mythos. And Matthew Goode, who plays Ozymandias, is terrible. He mumbles all his lines and floats about like a prat. Some of the make-up effects also seem pretty poor for such a high-budget film.

One of the surprising things about the film is that it’s gratuitously violent. I understand that this is to jazz proceedings up a little. The source material is very character driven and not thick on the action. But it’s window-dressing and does little but distract from the flaws. It’s a shame really. The story really is brilliant. And, as mentioned by a friend of mine, would have made for a really excellent mini-series. But as it is, two and a half hours just isn’t enough time to fit all the complexities of the story into one film. It’s a fundamental flaw and cannot be overlooked. To leave out elements of the story just makes everything seem rushed and stripped of it’s brilliance. Snyder does his best. And when he gets it right, he really does nail it. But unfortunately, these moments are rare. Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach is definitely the highlight and makes you long for the film to focus on him. But alas, it’s not to be. And with an edit that is 40 minutes longer, you just don’t imagine that the film can get any stronger. A failure. But an admirable attempt.

5/10

Oooh, shiney!

2009-03-05T09:41:00.000Z

The final trailer for X-Men Origins: Wolverine has been released. A lot of derision has come from the webz over this film. Personally, I like the look of it. It features the most interesting Marvel Comics character (way more interesting than Spiderman, Jamie) and looks to have lots of jumping, shouting and 'splosions.
Of course, this may all add up to a stinkfest, but Hugh Jackman is one of the most watchable actors working, and Wolverine is a character he's made his own. So really, I don't think there's that much to be worried about...

Conflicting reports hurt my brain.

2009-03-03T12:19:00.004Z

There have been some very mixed reports about Terminator Salvation and the over-all quality of the new film. The on-set shenannigans, spy reports and the fact that McG hasn't really proven to be a top-quality director (or even a good helmsman as the leaked Christian Bale rant proved) makes the film sound like a disaster.

And then they release this trailer. Which looks spectacular.

I dunno what to think. Which is a good thing. Judgment should and will be reserved until I actually see the film.

*All credit goes to Aidan Power for the heads up!

GRAN TORINO (2008) - Clint Eastwood

2009-03-01T16:51:00.003Z

Clint Eastwood is the epitome of Hollywood legend. As an actor, Eastwood, in his fifty four years of working in the industry has become synonymous with the tough guy demeanor. As a director, Eastwood’s unfussy approach to direction has made him a director who knows how to get the best out of his actors. In Gran Torino, Eastwood takes on the dual role of actor and director, something he has done in films such as Heartbreak Ridge and Unforgiven.

Walt Kowalski is a retired Ford motor company employee and veteran of the Korean war. He has spent the majority of his life living in the same house in the suburbs of Michigan. Over the years he has seen the neighbourhood change with the arrival of more and more Hmong people. This is something that causes Kowalski irritation, as he is somewhat of a racist. When Walt steps in on a violent situation and saves his teenage Hmong neighbour (in actuality, Walt steps in just to save his lawn), he finds himself exalted as a hero in the Hmong community. Walt is then forced to deal with the unwanted attention his new celebrity brings him.

There’s two types of people in the world. Those who love Clint. And those who don’t. For those who do, this film is like a glorious epilogue for Eastwood’s career. For those who aren’t Clint fans, this film should turn them. Eastwood’s performance is just fantastic. He a grumpy, seething malcontent. And while that doesn’t sound like something to be entertained by, Eastwood is just so good in the role that it’s impossible not to enjoy the film. Racism aside, it’s easy to imagine Walt Kowalski as a retired Harry Callaghan. Eastwood has stated that Gran Torino will be his last film as an actor. While this is a sad thing to hear, it’s great that Eastwood went out with such a bang. Walt Kowalski is a no-nonsense, shit-kicking badass. And enormously entertaining to watch.

Where the film does fall slightly, it is with the support cast. To be fair, the Hmong actors are all first-timers, hand picked from the community for the roles. While their inexperience certainly shows next to Clint, they do a good enough job not to distract from the film. It’s a minor complaint. But Eastwood’s performance more than makes up for it. The script isn’t flawless. Some of the character arcs are a little questionable. Kowalski’s transition from racist to non-racist happens rather quickly. But aside from that, there’s not much to complain about. Eastwood manages to inject quite a bit of humour into the role that could otherwise be quite unlikable. With his trousers hitched up over his belly and a permanent scowl on his face, Kowalski manages to have elements of many of Clint’s iconic roles, while still being independent of these.

For the film that marks the end of Clint Eastwood’s acting career, Gran Torino is a great swansong. As a film by itself, it’s very entertaining, and questionably overlooked in favour of the more dour and serious Changeling. But it’s a film that surprises you in how entertaining it is. And at 78, Clint’s still got it and looks as badass as ever.

9/10

When are people going to learn? Democracy doesn't work.

2009-02-23T10:03:00.003Z

Mickey Rourke didn't win Best Actor for The Wrestler. The Academy, as always, is wrong.

Otherwise, well done to Slumdog Millionaire for winning 8, including Danny Boyle (couldn't be happier for the guy; he's one of the best working today) for Best Director and Best Film. But when you take into account that Christopher Nolan and the Dark Knight was left out of those two categories, I cant help but feel it's not quite as sweet a victory as it could have been.

Anyway, that's another season of back-slappery over. Look forward to the 2010 awards where Viggo Mortensen and The Road will win. Or else I'll end this blog.*

*or not.

VICKY CRISTINA BARCELONA (2008) - Woody Allen

2009-02-22T21:15:00.003Z

Woody Allen’s career as a director is in it’s fifth decade. With one release every year, it wouldn’t be surprising if Allen’s track record was somewhat patchy. However, he remains one of the most consistent writer-directors working in the industry and his list of successes dwarfs his failures. Vicky Cristina Barcelona is Allen’s 42nd film and his 4th since leaving behind New York city, the muse of most of his films.

Vicky and Cristina are two women taking time out from their busy lives to spend a summer in Barcelona. Vicky is uptight and straight-laced, soon to be married to a stuffy business man who lives in New York. Her life has become everything she’s planned for, and on the surface, she seems to be very contented in her choices. Cristina, on the other hand, is somewhat lost. Having just written, directed and starred in a short film about love, she is still on her search for answers to life’s questions. At an exhibition, the two women are noticed by artist Juan Antonio Gonzalo. He propositions both women, with only Cristina responding positively. But when the women travel to Juan’s home town of Oviedo, they find themselves enamored with the artist. But they are both unaware of Juan’s volatile relationship with his ex-wife, who is about to reenter his life.

Woody Allen’s films are known for their cerebral nature. They are driven more by character than plot. Recently, Allen’s made films that have tended more towards genre films. But Vicky Cristina Barcelona sees Allen return to more familiar territory. The film is in no way nearly as good as Allen’s classics such as Annie Hall or The Purple Rose of Cairo, but compared to the slightly disappointing films of the last few years, Vicky Cristina Barcelona is certainly much more of a success. Like the films he has made in New York, Allen has a knack for filming his locations as if they are as important a character as his humans. And that remains the case here. The first thing you’ll think after seeing the film is how much you want to go to Barcelona. Or return to it if you haven’t been already!

The performances in the film are for the most part pretty strong. Scarlett Johansson is, for once, pretty good in her role as Cristina. She probably would have seemed a lot stronger if a great deal of her scenes weren’t with Penelope Cruz. Cruz, who has been nominated for an Oscar for her performance is excellent as the unhinged Maria Elena, Juan’s ex-wife. Rebecca Hall plays Vicky and has her American accent down to a tee. And Javier Bardem is also very good as the brooding and tortured artist Juan. It’s a very strong cast, as always in Allen films.

While Vicky Cristina Barcelona won’t ever be near the top in the pantheon of Woody Allen films. But it’s still a good comedy with plenty to say. It’s not an ideal picture of love. It’s got it’s share of pain and disappointment. But in the end, it’s surprisingly light-hearted.

8/10

THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON (2008) - David Fincher

2009-02-15T14:02:00.002Z

There are certain films that you know are made for awards ceremonies. Sometimes intentional, sometimes unintentional. The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button certainly comes across as one of those types of films. Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. But watching them, you know exactly the type of audience the film is made for. David Fincher takes a different direction than the dark thrillers he’s known for by directing Benjamin Button. But will the unknown territory work against Fincher’s style.

Benjamin Button is a baby born on the night World War I ends. His mother dies in birth and his father, a rich factory owner is horrified when he sets eyes on his baby son. Benjamin is born with a condition that causes him to age backwards. He is born an old man and gets younger as he gets older. Benjamin ends up living in an old folk’s home, where he simply appears to be one of the people staying there. But as he gets older, and his faculties return, Benjamin wants to get out and see the world. Despite his love for a young girl, the granddaughter of one of the old folks, Benjamin must see the world. And so he sets off, unsure where his travels will take him.

A lot has been made of The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button being very similar to Forrest Gump. And in ways, they are quite similar. They both feature protagonists who are unique in the world. They both long to go out and see different things. They are both in love with an unattainable girl. So, yeah, I’ll admit it could be argued that they’re practically the same movie. But that’s not necessarily a bad thing when it comes to Benjamin Button. Despite all the similarities, Benjamin Button’s still a very entertaining film to watch.

Firstly, it looks amazing. Fincher’s one of the great directors working today. Working with cinematographer, Claudio Miranda, Fincher creates a film steeped in detail and gorgeous colours. Aside from the special effects, which I’ll get to in a moment, the quality of the production is second to none. 1920s New Orleans looks amazing. Russia feels cold and sharp. And the golden era of 1950s America is suitably golden. And the special effects themselves are fantastic. The old (or is it young) Benjamin Button really looks as if they somehow aged and shrunk Brad Pitt. The only thing that still remains elusive when it comes to creating CGI people is they eyes. No matter how expensive and professional the CGI, they still can’t get human eyes right. There’s just something empty about them. I guess the eyes really are the windows to the soul!

Pitt’s performance is good enough for the role. The thing about Button is, he seems to be an observer in his own world, rather than somebody who drives events. When it came to Forrest Gump, while Gump was observing the things he witnessed, he did have a significant role to play in the events. Button seems to be drifting from event to event and allowing things to happen to him. And this reflects in Pitt’s performance. He just seems to be observing and isn’t required to do very much. Cate Blanchett plays Daisy, the object of Button’s affections. While the character does come off as a bit of a bitch, Blanchett plays her very well. The rest of the characters are played by some very good character actors, including Elias Koteas, Jared Harris and Jason Flemyng and are all very good in their roles.

The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button’s not as memorable as Forrest Gump. Nor is it really deserving of the 13 Oscar nominations it’s received. I’m sure it’ll win a good few, but it’s in no way the film of 2008. It’s entertaining, and inoffensive, but it’s not going to set the world on fire. Fincher’s direction is rock solid. It looks amazing, and the performances are good, if not the best we’ve seen the actors deliver. And it should be seen on the big screen. But as I said at the start, some films are made to get awards. This is one of them.

8/10

Inglorious Basterds trailer...

2009-02-11T23:00:00.002Z

So here's the first glimpse of a film that has been eagerly anticipated since first mentioned a decade ago. Inglorious Basterds. Tarantino and World War 2. Sounds like a dream combo. But me, I dunno what to make of the trailer. Some moments look badass. Some look comical. We get a tone of the film from one shot and then a completely different feeling off another. This a worrying indication of inconsistency? I'm sure Tarantino knows exactly where the film's going. Let's just hope he refrains from disintigrating into a sess-pit of obscure 1940's pop-culture dialogue. Enjoy.

GHOST TOWN (2008) - David Koepp

2009-02-08T21:03:00.004Z

Ricky Gervais has forged one hell of a successful career on television. The Office, the show he created with Stephen Merchant has become one of the most successful television programmes of all time, and has made Gervais a household name. Over the last few years, Gervais has taken on a few film roles, always in support roles. Ghost Town marks his first role as a leading man. The transition from television to film has been an easy change for some actors. But for Gervais, it’s somewhat of a gamble, since he is working off somebody else’s script. Is it a successful transition?

Bertram Pincus is a dentist with a big problem. He hates people. He likes his job because it means that he doesn’t have to talk to anyone. His patients’ mouths are packed with cotton wool, making it impossible for them to talk to him. After a colonoscopy that left Pincus dead for seven minutes, the dentist finds himself with an unusual ability. He can see and communicate with dead people. It’s something that irritates Pincus incredibly. The dead need favours and only Pincus can help. One dead guy, Frank Herlihy has a proposal for Pincus. Stop his widow, Gwen form marrying her new fiancé and the dead will leave him be. But as Pincus strives to break Gwen’s relationship up, he finds a new set of problems. The biggest problem being his growing love for Gwen.

Ghost Town is written and directed by David Koepp, a writer who has written successful films such as Jurassic Park, Spider-Man and... um... Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Despite the last film in the list, Koepp has a pretty solid track record. So it’s easy to see why Gervais took the role of Pincus as his first leading role. However, you do feel throughout the film that Gervais had a great deal of input in the Pincus role. He is very comfortable in the role, and having played some very unsavoury characters in the past, he plays Pincus convincingly.

The film isn’t exactly laugh-out-loud. For the first fifteen or twenty minutes, I found myself wondering if Ghost Town was going to be a complete flop. However, once the story takes off, the film finds it’s feet. And thankfully, despite not being one of the best comedies I’ve ever seen, it is a very entertaining film. Playing opposite Gervais are Tia Leoni and Greg Kinnear. While they’re there to support Gervais, they do bring credibility to the film. Gervais didn’t necessarily need actors used to film to support him, but they never overshadow him in the comedy stakes and help ground the film.

Gervais makes for an odd leading man. He’s the first to admit he doesn’t have movie-idol looks. In fact, some of the comedy comes from Gervais’ short, pudgy frame. But the film doesn’t resort to easy physical comedy and instead relies on more subtle jokes. And it’s here that I think Gervais’ input was substantial. It’s a very entertaining film, and provides a good start to Gervais’ career as a film actor, in lead roles. Hopefully Gervais moves into writing as well as staring in films, and then the real test will begin.

8/10

Watchmen Propaganda

2009-02-05T09:42:00.002Z

Nice bit of faux-propaganda related to the upcoming Watchmen. It's a film released 1977 (in the Watchmen universe) warning citizens of the danger of vigilantism and promotes the Keene Act, the outlawing of costumed heroes like the Watchmen. It's a really smart bit of promo video and really fits in with the tone of the graphic novel.

The wrath of the Christian

2009-02-03T09:53:00.004Z

If you're interested in movies and you haven't come across the pretty astonishing clip of Christian Bale's on-set Terminator Salvation: The Future Begins, rant, then you've been in a cave. Bale loses his temper when DP Bruce Hurlbut walks into his eye-line during a take. Professionalism falls apart when director McG pussies out and refuses to take control of the situation. Bale's known for his immersion in roles, so his fury, while over the top, is somewhat understandable. It wont hurt Bale's career at all. However, McG's lack of anything resembling a backbone does cause concern. Jesus man, control your set.

FROST/NIXON (2008) - Ron Howard

2009-02-01T16:05:00.004Z

True life often makes for better drama than fiction. Had somebody written the story of Richard Nixon and his fall from the most powerful political office in the world, few may believe it. But the truth was an unbelievable web of lies and deception with the president becoming one of the most hated people in public life. Despite overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing, Nixon refused to admit he broke the law. After President Geral Ford gave Nixon a free pass, TV presenter David Frost took it upon himself to give Nixon the trial he escaped. Frost/Nixon, Ron Howard’s new film shows us the events that led up to the now famous interview between Richard Nixon and David Frost.

It’s 1977. Three years have passed since Nixon resigned from the office of the President of the United States after the Watergate scandal. People are pissed that Nixon was given a pardon for any wrongdoings by Gerald Ford. David Frost is a television presenter looking for a challenge. He’s not a major player in television, presenting an Australian chat show after a failed attempt to break the US market. Frost sees an opportunity when he approaches the ex-president with a proposal to do a number of interviews. Nixon is interested in one thing only. Money. Frost wants to further his career. But no network wants to touch the interview. And those working with Frost want to put Nixon on trial. As the interview approaches, a number of factors threaten not only the production, but also the integrity of all involved.

Frost/Nixon is the filmed version of the play by Peter Morgan. Michael Sheen and Frank Langella continue the roles they made their own on stage. And it’s pretty clear from the start that both actors are incredibly comfortable in the roles. The problem that can exist when an actor plays a real-life person is that the performance can focus on mannerisms and then become little more than a caricature of the person. But thankfully, that problem doesn’t exist here. Sure, both Sheen and Langella have the little quirks that make both Frost and Nixon such memorable characters. But once these little mannerisms are dealt with, the actors are able to concentrate on motivations and performance rather than imitation.

It doesn’t hurt that Sheen and Langella are joined by four great performances by Sam Rockwell, Kevin Bacon, Oliver Platt and Matthew MacFadyen. They play characters that are integral to the interview, but will never be recognised for it. While Sheen and in particular, Langella are the two actors given the most attention, the support they receive from these actors is vitally important. And none of the actors let anybody down.

There is in the film, a great emphasis placed on the power of television and the close-up. And in one pivotal moment, this is hammered home. Howard’s direction resists the need to be flashy or extravagant. After all, this is the adaptation of a play, and as such, doesn’t need to be anything more than a camera trained on actors. And for this reason, the film is successful. I will say however, that until the actual interview begins to unfold on screen, the film does tend to drag a little. A lot of emphasis is placed on how hard it is to get funding, and the problems that arise when people with different agendas clash. And in this section, I did find myself willing the film to get to the money shot, so to speak. However, once the actual interview arrives on screen, things get very very interesting.

Frost/Nixon is a very interesting look at an interview that has become a part of popular culture. It’s also a detailed examination of the power of television. The performances are rock solid, and Langella in particular is brilliant as Richard Nixon. He refrains from caricature and thus is very compelling to watch. Is it one of the best films of 2008? I don’t think so. But it is still a very solid film.

7/10

Tales Of The Black Freighter

2009-02-01T01:28:00.002Z

Anyone who has read Watchmen will know what this is all about. For the uninitiated, Tales Of The Black Freighter is a support story featured in Watchmen. In the graphic novel, the story is unfolded as a comic, that mirrors the themes put forth in the main story. In the film, Tales Of The Black Freighter is an animated support film for the main feature. While it wont be in the theatrical version of Watchmen, Snyder envisions the animated part being edited back into the extended version of the film when it arrives on DVD. But for now, here is the cover of the support film which will arrive on DVD.

Official Tintin news!

2009-01-27T00:57:00.003Z

Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn has been confirmed as the first in the Tintin trilogy that is currently being put into preproduction by the dream-team of Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson. Cast as the young reporter is Jamie Bell with Daniel Craig playing the pirate Red Rackham. Simon Pegg and Nick Frost will play Thompson and Thompson and several unconfirmed roles are slated for Andy Serkis (heavily tipped to play Captain Haddock), Toby Jones and Mackenzie Crook. It's a pretty excellent line up of actors and with Edgar Wright, Joe Cornish and Steven Moffat lined up as the trilogy's writers, this series is looking better by the day.

Spielberg will direct the first film, The Secret of the Unicorn, with Jackson helming the sequel and another unnamed director lined up for the trilogy cap. We'll have to wait til 2011 for the first installment, but the line-up looks excellent. This could be something very special indeed.

2009 Academy Award nominees.

2009-01-22T14:17:00.002Z

Today sees the announcement of those coveted awards that don't reflect a film's quality, The Academy Awards. Pretty predictable list for the most part. Apart from on... Robert Downey Jnr. as Best Supporting Actor for Tropic Thunder?! Either it's a wickedly satirical jab at the whole acting industry or a slight case of madness on behalf of the Academy. Anyway, here's the list.

BEST PICTURE

THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON
FROST/NIXON
MILK
THE READER
SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE

BEST DIRECTOR

David Fincher - THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON
Ron Howard - FROST/NIXON
Gus Van Sant - MILK
Stephen Daldry - THE READER
Danny Boyle - SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE

BEST ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE

Richard Jenkins - THE VISITOR
Frank Langella - FROST/NIXON
Sean Penn - MILK
Brad Pitt - THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON
Mickey Rourke - THE WRESTLER

BEST ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE

Josh Brolin - MILK
Robert Downey Jr. - TROPIC THUNDER
Philip Seymour Hoffman - DOUBT
Heath Ledger - THE DARK KNIGHT
Michael Shannon - REVOLUTIONARY ROAD

BEST ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE

Anne Hathaway - RACHEL GETTING MARRIED
Angelina Jolie - CHANGELING
Melissa Leo - FROZEN RIVER
Meryl Streep - DOUBT
Kate Winslet - THE READER

BEST ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE

Amy Adams - DOUBT
Penélope Cruz - VICKY CRISTINA BARCELONA
Viola Davis -DOUBT
Taraji P. Henson - THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON
Marisa Tomei - THE WRESTLER

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE

BOLT
KUNG-FU PANDA
WALL-E

THE WRESTLER (2008) - Darren Aronofsky

2009-01-20T21:46:00.005Z

Hollywood is full of comebacks. The rags to riches, to rags and back to riches story is not something consigned to fiction. And with the release of Darren Aronofsky’s latest film, The Wrestler, we may be witnessing a comeback that would be somewhat unbelievable if it were projected on screen. Mickey Rourke’s resurrection is bolstered by his performance as one-time wrestling superstar, Randy ‘The Ram’ Robinson. The accolades have come thick and fast. But is the praise lavished upon the film justified?

Randy Robinson was once a professional wrestling superstar. He was the world champion, the people’s champion and a symbol for the United States of America. But he is well past his prime. His past glories have faded into almost obscurity and the only glimpse he has of his former glory is the occasional fan who looks for his autograph. The only action he sees is in the small, poorly-paid amateur circuit. For the most part, he is alone. The only companionship he has is in the form of a stripper called Cassidy. And that companionship is consigned to the club. And he has to pay for it. But an opportunity arises for Randy to regain some of his former glory. But his failing health stands in his way. He’s alone; his estranged daughter won’t talk to him. But he is just looking for somewhere to belong.

There is no doubt, the film rests on Mickey Rourke’s massive shoulders. He is in almost every frame of the film, and his performance needed to be close-on perfect. And, thankfully, it is. Rourke’s career became a train-wreck in the early nineties. Bored with acting, Rourke returned to his pre-acting passion, boxing. And it took it’s toll on Rourke. Both physically and when it came to his career. He turned down roles, and became almost unemployable. In the last few years, Steve Buscemi, Sean Penn and Robert Rodriguez have given Rourke choice roles in order to bring the actor out of the cold. But it is Aronofsky’s film that is the make or break for Rourke.

Thankfully for Rourke, his performance as Randy ‘The Ram’ Robinson is fantastic. To use a cliché, it’s pretty much the role Rourke was born to play. Or at least, the role he has prepared for for the last fifteen years. Robinson is a broken down man. He is battle-scarred, run down and pretty much down on his luck. But he’s not a bad guy. For the most part, he’s a genuinely nice guy. It’d be too easy to make the character an unlikable kinda guy. But Rourke takes the blows, both physically and mentally with a wounded pride and this is what makes Robinson a compelling character.

Marisa Tomei plays Cassidy, the object of Robinson’s affections. Sure, she’s a stripper, but she’s far from the ‘hooker with a heart of gold’ type character you’d expect from the film. She is a mirror of The Ram. They both take off their clothes and are scruitinized for what they can do with their bodies. But the difference between them is, The Ram wants to return to his former glory. Cassidy wants out of the stripping business. She provides some comfort to Robinson. But she holds back. She can’t get too close to a customer. And Tomei balances these two sides very well.

Darren Aronofsky previously made four excellent films. With each film, the scope of the story increased. He came in for some criticism for the woefully-received The Fountain. But it was a film that some people just didn’t get. Here, he returns to a smaller, more personal story. And it’s just as good as anything he’s done before. Aronofsky was met with some scepticism when he said he wanted Rourke for the title role. But thanks to his tenacity, we as the audience benefit. The film is excellent. The script is very strong, the direction is spot-on. Aronofsky really capture the sub-culture of amateur wrestling. As a companion piece, the fantastic documentary Beyond The Mat should be seen. When viewed along-side The Wrestler, you appreciate on a whole new level, just how well Aronofsky captured the scene.

With Golden Globes won, and rumours of Oscar glory, The Wrestler is a triumph for all involved. Rourke has come in from the cold, and if he continues with performances as good as this, he’ll be here to stay. The second film of 2009 is another fantastic piece of work. Long may this trend continue.

9/10

SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE (2008) - Danny Boyle

2009-01-15T20:54:00.003Z

A lot of superlatives have been bandied about when it comes to Danny Boyle’s latest film, Slumdog Millionaire. People are going about declaring it ‘the feel-good film of the decade,’ and other such clichéd statements. All this does is highlight how little these people know about film. Certainly, Slumdog Millionaire has it’s moments that are uplifting. But it also has some pretty grim and depressing moments. After all, it is a film whose central characters grow up in abject poverty.

Jamal and Salik are two brothers who live in the slums of Mumbai. They spend their days living amongst the poverty of their city. They don’t go to school, but pass the time getting into adventures amongst the rubbish tips of the city, being chased by police for playing cricket on an airfield and generally getting into as much mischief as two young boys can. After their mother is killed in a riot, the boys are left alone. They meet Latika, a young girl who is also alone. We see Jamal as an older boy. He is a contestant on the Hindi version of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? Jamal has made it all the way to the final question, relying on knowledge he has acquired during his life on the streets. But as the final question awaits Jamal’s answer, questions as to whether he has cheated are raised. Jamal has one goal. To find Latika who he has lost contact with due to unfortunate circumstances.

Slumdog Millionaire has garnered praise from nearly all corners of the globe. And rightfully so. It’s a brilliant film. Director Danny Boyle is one of those rare directors who can handle both big budget movies, such as Sunshine, and smaller-budget character driven stories. The screenplay is written by Simon Beaufoy, who was nominated for an Oscar for his screenplay, The Full Monty. As with The Full Monty, Beaufoy is able to craft a screenplay that mixes darker elements with uplifting themes. He once again successfully merges these elements in Slumdog Millionaire.

One of the best elements of the film is the performances Danny Boyle has gotten from his cast. Many of the young actors are first-timers, but you wouldn’t guess that from the brilliant performances from the children. They have grown up in Mumbai, and that has just benefited their acting. Because of the troubles Boyle experienced using a British crew when shooting The Beach in Thailand, the director chose to use local talent to shoot the film. The crew were used to working on Bollywood films, and this experience shows throughout the film. Boyle chose to shoot the slum scenes in the slums of Mumbai rather than on constructed sets, as suggested by the crew. And it’s this attention to detail that adds to the realism of a film that is otherwise fantastical and a little melodramatic.

As mentioned, the film has been bandied about as the feel-good film of the decade. This is a rather incorrect statement. There are some very dark moments in the film. Moments that may make some viewers uncomfortable. It’s not that these moments are unrealistic. But they reflect a side of the slums that (as far as my limited knowledge tells me) is an unfortunate side of poverty. That’s not to say you’ll walk away from the film depressed. If it fails to put a wide grin on your face, there’s something wrong with you. It’s a highly entertaining yarn with great performances held together by lead Dev Patel. And for the first film of 2009 that I’ve seen, it bodes well for what’s ahead.

9/10

Recycling isn't always a good thing

2009-01-09T09:40:00.004Z

I've spoken before about remakes and how they're by and large a load of old cock. And yet, mysteriously my rant failed to make any impact on the Hollywood system. Yes, I'm as shocked as you! Remakes continue to be churned out, with quite a few of them thanks to that stain on cinema, Michael Bay. His studio, the porno-sounding Platinum Dunes, which has already given us an unnecessary remake of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Amityville Horror, and The Hitcher also has Friday the 13th and A Nightmare On Elm Street remakes in the pipeline. It seems that Bay is on a mission to frantically buy up as many old horror titles as possible and rush into production castrated remakes that push gore, but eliminate subtlety, theme and genuine dread.

And speaking of castration, here's a trailer for what looks like a bubble-gum, cheery revisiting of Wes Craven's 1972 horror film, Last House On The Left-

I saw Last House On The Left (which in itself is a remake), or Krug and Company as it was titled in the print we saw, a few years ago. It was a pretty grim and uncomfortable experience. One particular scene involving teeth and a place on a man's body that is only meant to be treated gently was pretty uncomfortable to say the least. Craven made Last House On The Left particularly violent as a response to the reports of the violence during the Vietnam war. Since this remake is being made all glossy and audience-friendly, expect all the things that made the original film unique to be removed. And what's most surprising is that Craven and '72 producer Sean Cunningham are producers on the remake.

It seems that films are in danger of being messed with by even their own creators. I know it can be argued 'well, nobody's making you go see these movies.' But it's a lot more than that. A lot of money is ploughed into these films. Money that could be used to make original films. The talent pool has not dried up. It's just that studios are way more interested in making films with established audiences, guaranteed to bring in cash. Nobody's willing to take a chance any longer.

In a stunning example of bucking the trend, 2007's The Mist was a film that refused to compromise story in favour of money. Frank Darabont was offered a budget a lot larger than he originally had if he rewrote the film in order to give it a more upbeat ending. Darabont refused, and the film, while suffering a few dodgy CGI effects, became one of the best horror movies of the last twenty years. No matter what you think of the film, Darabont's unwillingness to bow to studio pressure is to be commended. But then, this is an exception to the rule. You've only to look at the appalling I Am Legend to see a film that caved to studio pressure for a more audience-friendly ending and how it completely ruined an already weak film.

But this is all redundant, really. For the moment, we're going to have to put up with remake upon remake. Amongst others, Hellraiser, The Taking of Pelham 123, The Evil Dead, Straw Dogs, Escape From New York, The Warriors, and even The Birds are all slated for remakes. Not even Hitchcock classics are safe.

Brand new Watchmen trailer

2009-01-07T00:39:00.001Z

The Japanese trailer for Watchmen has been released. New footage contained within. Fox are still taking legal action against Warner Brothers over distribution rights over the film, but despite this, the film will see a release. And it will be good. Oh yes.

So long 2008, here comes 2009.

2009-01-03T16:58:00.007Z

2008 was one hell of a year. Not exactly an awe-inspiring 12 months of joy. It was a year of uncertainty. The US Presidential election was more entertaining and nerve-wracking than a penalty shoot-out. While the more serious matter of who’d lead the ‘free world’ for the next four years was being questioned, we had someone actually dumber than Bush in the running. Sarah Palin’s antics did entertain us all. There were wars, natural disasters and Zimbabwe became even more of a shameful oversight by the world powers. Right in the middle of all this, the world economy became a giant shit sandwich we’re all going to have to take a bite out of. And then when you didn’t think things could get any worse, this man admitted to having sex with 1,000 cars. Had the world taken leave of it’s senses?!

In the movie world, it was an odd year. An indie director released a film that went on to be the second highest grossing film of all time. Spielberg, Lucas and Ford, once the most powerful cinematic team in Hollywood, proved once and for all that they had lost their mojo. Here in Europe, the year started off very strongly. We got a slew of films that the US had had their time with and were treated to There Will Be Blood, Juno, No Country For Old Men and Lust, Caution. Summer brought the usual crop of blockbusters. Some were instant classics. Others will be quickly forgotten. Autumn and winter, usually a pretty strong period for film, limped by with few films really standing out. It seems the best of this period is coming out in the next few weeks. It is coming close to awards season, after all.

2008 was also a sad year, seeing the loss of, among others, 4 names that were huge in the industry. January saw the shocking death of Heath Ledger. Ledger had just finished work on the role he will forever be associated with. His turn as The Joker in The Dark Knight will go down as one of the great cinematic villains. Ledger was just beginning to hit the big time, having delivered some brilliant performances in Brokeback Mountain, I’m Not There and A Knight’s Tale. In April, NRA spokesman and enemy of everything simian, Charlton Heston died at the age of 84. Heston had courted controversy in his later years due to his association with the NRA, and some selective editing done by Michael Moore for the documentary, Bowling for Columbine. But Heston will always be fondly remembered for his roles in Planet of the Apes, Ben-Hur and Soylent Green.
Stan Winston, creator of some of cinema’s most iconic monsters, died in June. Without his incredible talent for creating creatures, films such as Aliens, Terminator 2 and Jurassic Park would have been a lot less awe-inspiring. And then, in September, we lost one of the greatest actors of all time. Paul Newman, Oscar-winner, humanitarian and one of the few genuine movie stars died at aged 83. Newman was a quintessential film icon, having those movie star looks as well as the talent to back it up. His roles transcend the films they were in with names such as Butch Cassidy and Fast Eddie Felson being among Newman’s most famous creations. A sad year when it came to losses.

But onto the meat of this report. The top 10’s. I haven’t seen everything that was released this year. Due to the global economic downturn, coupled with the frankly ridiculous price of cinema tickets, I can’t possibly have gone to see everything! But from what I’ve seen, I’ve managed to compile the... Critical Mass Top 10 Films of 2008-

10. Tropic Thunder- What can I say? I liked it. I don’t usually like Ben Stiller movies. He’s a name that has brought a little bit of sick to my throat every time I’ve heard it in the last few years. But here, he’s redeemed himself somewhat. The cast were all on top form. Robert Downey Jnr. continued to have the year of his life after the massive success of Iron Man, and Tom Cruise proved that he’s not just Scientology poster boy. Sure, it ran out of steam in a few places. But laugh for laugh, it was one of the best comedies of 2008.

9. Man on Wire- People love lunatics. And they don’t come crazier than Phillipe Petit. In 1974, this crazy Frenchman set up a tight-rope between the two towers of the World Trade Centre. And then spent 45 minutes larking about on the rope. A stunt that was incredibly dangerous and fairly illegal. And in James Marsh’s documentary, it makes for utterly compelling watching.

8. Son of Rambow- We love movies. There’s no other way about it. We just love the escapism and fantasy fulfilment of sitting in front of a big screen. And essentially, that’s what Son of Rambow is all about. A film that is whimsical and doesn’t contain an ounce of cynicism, it’s a tale of friendship that grows between two boys with vastly different backgrounds, brought together by the goal of recreating First Blood. With two brilliant central performances, Son of Rambow is overlooked by many. And criminally so.

7. In Bruges- The only other comedy on the list, this one is vastly different from Tropic Thunder. The screenplay, by playwright and director Martin McDonagh is incredibly dark in places. But everywhere in the film, it’s very sharp. Two hitmen, played by Brendan Gleeson and a career-defining Colin Farrell are hiding out in Bruges, Belgium. One of them wants to see the sights, the other wants to party. But when a call from their boss comes in, things get ugly. It’s a sleeper hit, but one of the best-written and performed films of 2008.

6. In The Shadow of The Moon- These days, I think we take for granted what a monumental achievement putting a man on the moon is. Man hasn’t travelled to our closest neighbour in some time, so maybe that’s why we don’t see it as possibly the greatest achievement man has ever completed. But as this brilliant documentary shows, sending a man nearly 385,000 kilometres to the moon is a monumental achievement. While it doesn’t feature Neil Armstrong, In The Shadow of The Moon remains a compelling and inspiring story of human endeavour.

5. The King of Kong- Many documentaries deal with big, world-changing events. And then you have documentaries like The King of Kong, that deal with small, somewhat insignificant things, like the attempt to break the Donkey Kong world record. In The King of Kong, we have Steve Wiebe and Billy Mitchell, the forces for light and dark; one holding the record, one trying to break it. While the subject matter might turn some viewers off, they’d be wrong to dismiss this film. Full of characters you couldn’t write, it’s compelling, bizarre, hilarious and absolutely entertaining.

4. The Mist- Frank Darabont will always be remembered for his most famous film, and one that tops many best-of lists, The Shawshank Redemption. A tale of hope and salvation, it is the polar opposite of The Mist. Once again, Darabont adapts Stephen King. But this time, the result is a dark, paranoid horror about a group of average Americans trapped in a store while a seemingly world-ending mist surrounds them. In terms of horror movies, The Mist is probably the best American horror movie of the last twenty years. Darabont refused to compromise when the studios pushed for a more optimistic ending. And we, as the audience are better for it.

3. Wall-E- In other years, this film would be top of my list. It just is beaten by two films that, for me, edged it out by a nose. Pixar are world-beaters when it comes to animation. But here, they don’t just create one of the finest animated movies of all time, but they also create a modern classic. The first forty-five minutes feature barely a word of dialogue, and this is where the film is at it’s finest. For plot purposes, humans are introduced, and that’s where I found the film lost a bit of the magic. However, in a film that is of such high quality, this loss is barely noticeable. And as an animator, the animation alone is a marvel. As a film lover, the story is just so utterly fantastic.

2. The Dark Knight- I sat at the end of this film just staring at the screen, jaw agape. Batman Begins was a brilliant reinvention of a series that had become a bad imitation of itself. The Dark Knight took everything that was right about the previous film and pushed everything even further. Heath Ledger’s Joker is no doubt the star of the show. But the rest of the ensemble cast, in particular Gary Oldman, are all on top form. The Dark Knight is the finest comic-book adaptation put to film. But transcends the genre by being one of the finest thrillers put to film.

1. There Will Be Blood- Few films smack you so hardly in the face and leave you reeling for days afterward. Few performances are so instantly awe-inspiring that they will be talked about for years afterward. There Will Be Blood, however, creates both these things. A story of greed, obsession and oil, Daniel Day-Lewis’ role as Daniel Plainview is the embodiment of ambition at any cost. Paul Thomas Anderson’s adaptation of the Upton Sinclair novel Oil! is a career-defining moment for all involved. Rarely do films come along like this. But when they do, they leave their mark.

So there’s the best. But films are only good when you have the awful to sit through too. And 2008 sure had some stinkers. And while I had the foresight to avoid some obviously awful ‘films’ such as Disaster Movie, there were things about these films that made me think ‘they can’t be THAT bad.’ Oh how wrong I can be. The Critical Mass 10 Worst Films of 2008-

10. Martyrs- Again, I still find myself asking ‘where do I start with this film?’ I sat down to it knowing it was the most controversial movie of 2008. And I finished it with a sense that I’d just been raped in the eyeballs. While I don’t agree with the term ‘torture porn,’ Martyrs does for that particular sub-genre of horror movies what Resevoir Dogs did for Otolaryngology. It’s a well-put together movie, but one so inherently nasty that there is very little in it to redeem it. The filmmakers put the audience through 97 minutes of brutality and leave you with nothing other than shock. I’ve never seen so many people walk out of a cinema before the film has ended.

9. Indiana Jones And The Kingdom of The Crystal Skull- The only reason this film isn’t higher on the list is that there were flashes of the old Indy in there, and that alone warrants bonus points. But otherwise, this abomination is not worth more than one watch. And that in itself is a disaster. The Indiana Jones trilogy, despite one or two minor faults, is one of the greatest of all trilogies. But this piece of shit isn’t worthy of the name. Full of jaw-droppingly awful creative decisions, it’s proof that George Lucas should be placed into a home for the creatively retarded, Steven Spielberg should be locked to a chair and made watch his own early films over and over and over again until he sees where his career’s gone wrong, and Harrison Ford should retire quietly before his dignity is entirely gone. Terrible. And it pains me to say that.

8. Quantum of Solace- Casino Royale was entertaining. Daniel Craig proved, as I maintained since he was announced as the new Bond, that he can be Bond. It wasn’t brilliant, but it was a grand romp. Quantum of Solace, the direct sequel, however is awful. Bloody awful. Sure, the second unit director was the stunt co-ordinator on the Bourne sequels. But that doesn’t excuse Quantum of Solace from ripping off that series.

7. Mirrors- The Mist is one of the finest horror movies of the last twenty years. Mirrors is one of the worst. And it has a laughably stupid climax that basically lifts the endings from three types of horror movie- supernatural, monster and action horror. Fucking dreadful.

6. The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian- So desperately wants to be Lord of The Rings, that I almost feel sorry for it. Director Andrew Adamson did such a bad job directing this film that he seems to have killed the franchise. Not even Disney wants to hang onto it. And we’re all better for it.

5. Drillbit Taylor- The Judd Apatow school of filmmaking must be held accountable for this. It’s so bad, I think it’s the real reason Owen Wilson thought of doing something drastic. And as tasteless a joke as that is, it’s still better than anything in this terrible, terrible film.

4. Pathology- I was looking back over the list of films I’d seen this year, and as soon as I saw this title, I instantly became angry. Not just that I’d wasted money on a ticket, but that anybody had wasted money on making it. Full of terrible creative decisions, one of which was to cast Heroes star, the charisma and talent-free Milo Ventimiglia as the hero, it’s a thriller that fails on every level. Worse than actually having an autopsy performed on you while conscious.

3. Max Payne- Every year, at least one computer game adaptation makes it onto the list. Last year it was (s)Hitman. This year, it’s Max Payne. Director John Moore really wishes he made Sin City. So to make up for not making that film, he decided to make Max Payne as if it took place in the Sin City universe. Oh, and throw in some supernatural bullshit for measure. Special mention for Mark Wahlberg who makes it onto the Worst of 2008 list twice. Here’ he mumbles his way through the entire sorry affair.

2. The Happening- Lordy, lordy, lordy. It’s all gone wrong for M. Night Shyamalan. In 1999, he was the next Spielberg. Now, he’d be lucky if he was the next Uwe Boll. Lady In The Water was an unmitigated disaster. Probably the worst film of 2006. Shyamalan can console himself this time as he just missed out on the worst film of 2008. The Happening is so bad, it ends up being laugh out loud hilarious where it’s meant to be horrific. A ridiculous script, terrible direction and some of the worst acting seen in a mainstream Hollywood movie.

1. 10,000 B.C.- How does Roland Emmerich still have a career in the film industry? I guess his films do bring in the dough. But really, the guy should be held accountable for his shocking disregard for the audience’s intelligence. Which doesn’t really say much for me, as I paid to see this crapfest. Firstly, he tried to convince us that an Apple Mac could interface with alien technology. Then came The Patriot. A laughably unconvincing re-imagining of American History. After that, he tried to convince us that another ice-age could happen overnight. And this time, he brings us some sort of utterly ludicrous version of prehistoric history. The film is packed full of dreadful CGI, preposterous story events and gaping plot holes. And with yet another potentially imbecilic film coming out this year with 2012, Roland, we’re reserving this spot on the worst films of 2009 just for you.

That was 2008. Not dreadful. And yet I find myself wondering if it even managed to be better than 2007. Sure, there were no Pirates of the Caribbean films. Thankfully. But it did manage to have a bad Indiana Jones film. Which in itself is pretty awful. Again, the list of films released this year read as depressingly average. Some of the films weren’t even 2008 films, but 2007 releases that only made it to these shores after the new year. The beginning of 2009 looks promising. But again, things could go horribly wrong with remakes, reimaginings and sequels spread pretty liberally throughout the year.

So what is there to look forward to? Well, for us in Europe, the year starts off pretty strongly. With (sigh) awards season just around the corner, the major studios have unleashed all the big contenders. January sees the release of part one of Steven Soderberg’s epic biography of Che Guevara in... Che. Coming hot on the heels of this film is Danny Boyle’s highly praised Slumdog Millionaire. Mickey Rourke is being tipped for Oscar glory for his portrayal of a retired professional wrestler who’s trying to get his life on track in Darren Aronofsky’s The Wrestler, released on January 16th. The following week is pretty packed with the screen adaptation of the play Frost/Nixon hitting screens, as well as Gus Van Sandt’s biography of California’s first gay elected official Harvey Milk in Milk and Valkyrie, the story of an attempt on Adolf Hitler’s life starring a hit-needing Tom Cruise all being released simultaneously. It should prove to be an interesting few weeks.

Then comes The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. The film, directed by the incredibly talented David Fincher has had some mixed reviews in the US. But the trailer looked gorgeous, and Brad Pitt is delivering the best performances of his life at the moment, so it should have something going for it.
When it comes to the big blockbusters, March is the first notable mention. Watchmen is one of the most eagerly anticipated films of the year, and already it’s controversial. 20th Century Fox are seeking to delay the release of the film as it retains distribution rights for the property. The film is financed by Warner Brothers and they are fighting Fox’s legal action. While it’s Warner’s mistake, Fox’s timing is a shitty, cynical attempt to get money from a property they sat on for nearly two decades. But then, that’s business for ya.

April has a new Hayao Miyazaki film for us to marvel at. Ponyo on The Cliff hits screens on the 8th, and if it’s anyway as good as Spirited Away or Princess Mononoke, it’ll be pretty special. Also released the same day is Monsters vs. Aliens, from Dreamworks. While it’ll top Ponyo in the box office, I doubt it’ll be a better film. Pixar also weigh in this year with Up, their animated film about a man who uses balloons to bring his house to South America. No doubt it’ll look amazing. Something quite different in terms of animation is the Henry Selick directed adaptation of Neil Gaiman’s Coraline. Selick directed the brilliant Nightmare Before Christmas and uses this three-d animation style for the film. It hits screens in May.

The blockbuster season kicks off in May with X-Men Origins: Wolverine. X3 was an awful piece of crap, so it’s up to Gavin Hood to redeem the franchise. Luckily for him he’s got the most interesting character to work with, so we get to see how Wolverine became the angry, adamantium killing machine he is in X-Men. But the production had it’s share of problems, so how this affected the film remains to be seen. Competing with Wolverine will be J.J. Abram’s reimagining of Star Trek. Anticipation for this film has reached fever-pitch, and the trailer looks good. Advance word is very positive, so hopes are high for this one.
A month later sees the release of Terminator: Salvation. The series took a serious blow with the terrible Terminator 3. While the film is directed by McG, it also features Christian Bale as saviour of mankind, John Connor. And Bale is known for his ability to pick quality projects. However, it remains to be seen if this film is any good. Quentin Tarantino finally brings his long-awaited World War 2 epic, Inglorious Basterds to the big screen in June. Rumours of this project have been flying around for the better part of a decade, so many will be salivating over this one. However, a bizarre cast led by Brad Pitt and Tarantino’s penchant for delivering films for himself over anyone else means that this project could go either way. Expect 1940’s pop culture references.

The rest of the blockbusters released are dodgy at best. Michael Bay’s sequel to the awful Transformers, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen hits screens in June. No doubt full of empty headed slow motion bullcrap. Roland Emmerich’s stupid-looking 2012 arrives in July. And August sees the release of G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra, directed by the talentless Stephen Sommers. And of course, there’s Harry Potter And The Half-Blood Prince. No doubt it’ll look amazing and will make a truck load of cash for everyone involved. And with the story getting more and more dark and engrossing, hopefully this will be a pretty good Harry Potter movie.

One of the most anticipated, nay, hyped films of the year arrives pretty late. December sees the release of James Cameron’s Avatar. Hyperbolically touted as the film that will change the face of the art form, it’s a sci-fi epic that is an incredibly closely-guarded secret. Whether it’s worth the hype remains to be seen. But it’s still 11 months away, so don’t hold your breath too long!

The rest of the year is peppered with some pretty interesting sounding films. The adaptation of Cormac McCarthy’s prize-winning novel, The Road is due at some point. While McCarthy’s last book to be adapted, No Country For Old Men was a massive success, I doubt the same ill happen for The Road. It’s a very dark grim book, and will make for a very dark film. Also due is the final film in Heath Ledger’s career, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus. Ledger’s untimely death meant he couldn’t complete the role. So in stepped Jude Law, Colin Farrell and Johnny Depp. Which in accordance with the fantasy plot will make sense. And it’s directed by Terry Gilliam. Which always means something to look forward to.
Depp also leads the cast in Public Enemies, Michael Mann’s story of John Dillinger. Depp plays Dillinger, with Christian Bale playing Melvin Purvis, the man trying to take Dillinger down. It’s a lot to expect a 1920’s Heat, but with a strong cast and Mann behind the camera, it should be pretty spectacular. And finally, Peter Jackson’s new film hits screens in December. The Lovely Bones, adapted from Alice Sebold’s novel of a young girl who watches over her family from Heaven, the book is described as un-filmable. So who better to tackle it than Jackson? But don’t expect family-friendly. The book is very dark, with subject matter that will be very uncomfortable. But it should look gorgeous.

So will 2009 top 2008? Theoretically, it shouldn’t be hard. But the state of the film industry isn’t very healthy at the moment. Money is sought more than creativity, so films that look good on paper may end up being awful. We can but hope.

AUSTRALIA (2008) - Baz Luhrmann

2008-12-30T14:00:00.003Z

If Baz Luhrmann will be remembered for one thing, it will be for the striking visual style he injects into his films. While Luhrmann has only so far directed four films, he has become known as a director of big, epic, romantic films. Romeo + Juliet and Moulin Rouge! were highly successful films that pitted two people from opposite backgrounds who find love despite the odds. Not much has changed with Luhrmann’s latest, an epic tale of romance set against the backdrop of World War 2 and how it affected Darwin and the nation of Australia.

Lady Sarah Ashley is married to a wealthy landowner who is living in Australia looking after his cattle ranch. Lady Ashley travels to Australia to oversee the sale of Faraway Downs. She is met in Darwin by Drover, a tough Australia cattle drover who will escort Lady Ashley to Faraway Downs. When Lady Ashley arrives at Faraway Downs, she finds her husband murdered, supposedly at the hands of an Aboriginal man named King George. Her land is under threat from Neil Fletcher, a man once employed by her husband. Fletcher wants the land for himself. Lady Ashley has little choice but to drive 2000 cattle across the Northern Territory to Darwin. She takes with her a half-Aboriginal boy named Nullah and enlists the help of a reluctant Drover.

When I was sitting watching the opening scenes of Australia, I found myself watching a film I wasn’t really prepared for. I had prepared myself for something more... serious. But having thought about it, the film fits in exactly with Baz Luhrmann’s style. While the film deals with serious matters, the film feels like it belongs to another era. It feels like it’s a film that was made in the forties or fifties, but with today’s technology and budgets. Which is what I guess Luhrmann was going for. The film does have the feel of a John Huston epic. There are huge, open vistas, a rich romantic plot and clearly defined heroes and villains. There’s no room for ambiguity here.

However, Australia is quite a flawed epic. While Romeo + Juliet and in particular, Moulin Rouge! were quite solid films, Australia falls down a few areas. It’s a long film. Very long. And in areas, you can’t help feeling that the film would have benefited from a bit of editing in the script stage. One thing that Luhrmann could really have cut back on is cliché. The film lathers on the schmaltz very thickly and thus, falls into a few obvious cheese traps. From the opening few scenes, you pretty much know exactly where the story is going, and surprises are few and far between. Having said that, the film doesn’t suffer really badly from these faults. If you can overlook these problems, the epic nature of the film will suck you in.

Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman are cast as the two lovers from opposite worlds, Lady Ashley and the man known only as Drover. Each of them are suitably different that it’s believable they’re from opposite worlds. Nicole Kidman’s not an actress I’d rush to see. It seems the woman has no soul. It was hard to see her as a romantic lead since her last few films have required her to be cold. However here, she’s a lot easier to warm to. Jackman, on the other hand, once again delivers a great performance. While the film doesn’t require the depth Jackman has shown in The Prestige or The Fountain, Jackman can play tough and he does so here. But the real heart and soul of the film lies in the character Nullah, played by newcomer, Brandon Walters. Walters is the incredibly optimistic and playful Aboriginal child who brings and ties Lady Ashley and Drover together. It’s a great performance from the kid and is the soul of the film.

While Australia is flawed, it’s still very entertaining. It’s huge, epic and hopelessly romantic. And while some of the special effects are a little poor, this is due to the constraints of making a film outside the Hollywood studio system. We’re too used to spit and polish and poor story, but Australia overcomes these minor flaws to remain faithful to it’s goal. Australia looks gorgeous and it’s full of compelling if somewhat clichéd characters. It’s not quite as good as Luhrmann’s other work. But it’s still great to watch.

7/10

THE BLOG FORMERLY KNOWN AS ******** ****, BUT WAS FORCED TO CHANGE TO KRITIKUL MAZZ!