MULTI-REVIEW!!!

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.

ORPHAN (2009) - Jaume Collet-Serra

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

PUBLIC ENEMIES (2009) - Michael Mann

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

ANGELS & DEMONS (2009) - Ron Howard

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

WATCHMEN (2009) - Zack Snyder

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

LAKEVIEW TERRACE (2008) - Neil LaBute

Neil LaBute was once known as a director who made gritty, misogynistic films that definitely weren’t family fare. His films were dark and menacing. So when it came to an unnecessary remake of the classic Wicker Man, LaBute seemed like a choice that may bring that menace to the film. Unfortunately for all involved, The Wicker Man remake was a complete disaster, widely derided for it’s unintentionally hilarious moments and ridiculously over the top performance by Nicholas Cage. LaBute needed a film to redeem him, and thus, we have Lakeview Terrace.

Chris and Lisa Mattson are a recently married couple. They buy a house in a part of Los Angeles that is well-off but infamous for the Rodney King incident of 1991. The couple move in next door to Abel Turner, widower and father of two. Turner is a Los Angeles cop by day and neighbourhood watchman and less than ideal neighbour by night. Turner is incensed when he oversees Chris and Lisa having sex in their backyard pool. He’s not angry at their antics. It’s the fact that Chris and Lisa are an interracial couple that causes his consternation. And so Turner embarks on a campaign of intimidation in an attempt to drive the couple away from the neighbourhood he has lived in for twenty years.



Lakeview Terrace could easily be seen as a pretty average thriller. The premise has been done before and is pretty familiar. However, the protagonists and their motivations are different here and that’s what sets the film apart from other similar films. In Lakeview Terrace, the antagonist is Samuel L. Jackson. And thus, the film raises questions that wouldn’t have been too easily derided had Turner been a white man. We now live in a world where the United States has it’s first elected black president, so Lakeview Terrace’s timing couldn’t be better. It’s just a shame for the film that it isn’t a widely-seen film. The film plays on the notion of white man’s guilt, which really emasculates Chris’ character, played by Patrick Wilson. He’s almost helpless to defend his home against Turner, who sees his anger not as intimidation but as righteous indignation.

The film draws it’s strength from a wonderfully creepy performance by Samuel L. Jackson. When it comes to roles, Jackson is bit like the man from Del Monte. He say yes... to literally every role. His performances can sometimes be flat and dull. But when a film requires more, Jackson can deliver. And he does so here. Turner’s definitely not someone I’d like to mess with. He’s creepy, intimidating and cold, and has the muscle to back it up. Jackson literally seethes with anger and looks like he’s ready to explode at any given moment. Compared to Turner, Wilson’s Chris Mattson is even meeker than he would seem against a regular guy. But Wilson’s got the meekness maintained at the right level. You know he’ll stand up to you. However, he won’t get violent. It’s something that Turner exploits throughout the entire film. Kerry Washington plays Lisa Mattson. It’s not an exceptional role, but Washington does enough to play the wife who loves her husband, but still recognises the difference in their cultures.



The film isn’t perfect. In the last act, it does resort to the conclusion you’d expect from a thriller like this. It’s a shame because you hope throughout the film that it won’t go down that road. Having said that, it’s not a bad thriller. Had it been another actor in the role of Abel Turner, I don’t think the film would have worked. Jackson does elevate it to something more than it should be. For LaBute, it almost makes up for the incredible disaster that was The Wicker Man. Almost.


7/10

BODY OF LIES (2008) - Ridley Scott

Ridley Scott was once, and still is to some respect, one of the greatest directors working in the industry. In the seventies and eighties, he created some of cinema’s most iconic worlds and directed some classic films. They were few and far between, but when a Ridley Scott film arrived in the cinemas, people sat up and paid attention. However, in recent times, Scott’s output hasn’t really matched his earlier work. In between some pretty decent films (Black Hawk Down, American Gangster), Scott’s films just weren’t didn’t seem to live up to his status. The films became more frequent, but the quality was up and down. Body Of Lies, released this month unfortunately follows this trend.

Roger Ferris is a CIA agent stationed in Iraq. While on assignment, Ferris uncovers evidence linking terrorist leader Al-Saleem with a series of bombings in London. Ferris devises a plan to infiltrate Al-Saleem’s network using contacts under his superior Ed Hoffman, stationed in CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, and Jordanian Chief of Security, Hani Salaam. However, as Ferris gets drawn into the case, he finds his loyalties divided, and his life at risk. Things go from bad to worse as Ferris finds himself falling in love with Iranian nurse Aisha and his case puts her too at risk.



A thick and politically-charged plot, two stellar leads in Leonardo Di Caprio and Russell Crowe, and director Ridley Scott at the helm, Body Of Lies has all the elements for something great. So why does the film feel totally underwhelming? Firstly, Ridley Scott is a master of creating worlds. Alien and Blade Runner are so visually unique and have rarely been matched in terms of style and production. And yet, here in Body Of Lies, it feels like the Ridley Scott who created these worlds is nowhere to be seen. Sure, it’s a slick movie. But films with high production values and a talented director are always going to be slick. Comes with the freedom of cash. There’s nothing outstanding about the film and even the action scenes, which are few and far between aren’t that outstanding.

The performances are rock solid. You can’t really fault them. DiCaprio separates himself even more from the teen icon status he achieved with the truly awful Titanic. Despite his youthful looks, DiCaprio can pull badass off, and he does so here. Russell Crowe does that thing he does every so often to get into a different, non-butch role. He piles on weight. Fat Crowe is just as good as trim Crowe, so it baffles why he feels this is necessary. His Ed Hoffman is a pretty unlikable guy. And I suppose if Crowe feels the belly helped him get into this role, so be it. But the stand out performance is by Mark Strong as Hani Salaam. Strong’s been making quite a name for himself recently, and he excels here. His Salaam is slick and charismatic. But you know underneath his slick exterior brews a creature of real danger. We rarely see this side of him, but we don’t need to. Strong makes sure we know how dangerous a guy he is without needing to resort to stereotypical evil twitches.



The story in Body Of Lies is pretty intricate. There’s a lot going on, and plenty to keep your brain ticking over. Yet at the same time, it’s nothing outstanding. If you took out the stars, and took away Scott’s slick direction, it’d just be a pretty standard thriller. It just feels like an average film with really big names attached. And a huge let-down is the ending. The film seemed to be going in a bold direction, setting up something quite shocking. But at the last moment, it took a u-turn, letting what had just happened down and confusing plot elements that had taken place earlier in the film.

It’s not a terrible film, but I do feel Body Of Lies could have been a lot more. Take out the stars and there wouldn’t be much. Ridley Scott’s recent output hasn’t been groundbreaking, and this film certainly doesn’t buck the trend. Nothing terrible, but nothing particularly special either. Letter to Ridley Scott’s parents- Ridley must do better apply himself more.


6/10

TAKEN (2008) - Pierre Morel

Luc Besson used to direct movies. He made one of the greatest western action films ever in Leon. Commonly known as The Professional in the US. But in the last while, Besson has spent most of his time writing and producing. Oh, and making Arthur and the Invisibles... Some of his recent projects haven’t exactly set the world on fire, but maybe Taken, directed by Pierre Morel will buck the trend.

Bryan is an ex-agent of some sort. We’re not given any indication as to what agency he worked for, but you can bet it involved shady operations. Whatever it was that Bryan did, it cost him his wife and daughter. Bryan is retired and now lives close to his daughter in order to build a relationship with her. He objects when she comes to him looking for permission to travel to Paris. He eventually changes his mind, but tells his daughter to keep in contact. The girl arrives in Paris. While on the telephone to her father, Kim and her friend are kidnapped by unknown assailants. Bryan leaps into action, calling on old friends and skills and leaving bloody mayhem in his wake as he searches for his daughter.



If Liam Neeson brings one thing to a film, it’s gravitas. But all the gravitas in the world can’t stop Taken from being an grotesque and frankly, hideously racist action film. Morel did a decent job with District 13, an over the top actioner that showcased Parkour, the sport of free-running. However, he’s tried to put brains to the action here, and instead, ended up with a dreadful script, frenetic and confusing camera work and a waste of Liam Neeson. The film tries to be dark as it uses human trafficking as it’s main plot device. It’s sometimes shocking in moments. But the gravity of the situation is somewhat lost by the ridiculous amount of bodies Liam Neeson leaves behind him on his quest.

It seems there are no consequences to peoples’ actions in Taken. No matter where Neeson goes, no matter who he batters, stabs or shoots, he’s able to walk away with neither a scratch nor a reprimand. And that’s even weirder considering one of the top policemen in Paris knows Neeson’s the one killing his way around France. The other thing that is baffling about the film is the level of racism. Not a single European or Middle Eastern person is portrayed as anything other than stupid, evil or corrupt. It seems everyone exists solely to get in Neeson’s way. At one point there is an American bad guy. But he’s dispatched with little more than a minute of screen time.



Neeson deserves, and can do better. Hell, he even made the woeful Phantom Menace entertaining. There’s no real excuse here. Unless Neeson thinks he’s getting on a bit and has to get the last few punches he can manage out of his system. But he’s still a massive, imposing presence on screen. It’s just a shame his burly nature wasn’t given more to do here. The rest of the cast are inconsequential. Seriously. Maggie Grace is purely a plot point as Neeson’s daughter. Famke Janssen just plays a bitch. Everything else is just set up for Neeson to act like Jack Bauer. If it’s agency-trained violence and torture you’re after, you’re better off watching a season of 24. Taken? Taken the piss more like.


4/10

THE X-FILES: I WANT TO BELIEVE (2008) - Chris Carter

The X-Files was one of those television shows that comes along once in a while and seems to bridge the gap between cult and mainstream. It was a very popular show, but as with all good things, it came to an end. In 2002, the show finished up, and the franchise seemed to be dead. Rumours of a second film (the first being The X-Files, released in 1998) floated about but it wasn’t until last year that something concrete came about. And so The X-Files: I Want To Believe is released.

The X-Files: I Want To Believe abandons the alien conspiracy that ran so heavily throughout the series and instead attempts to create a stand-alone film, similar to the episodes of the series. Mulder and Scully have left the FBI behind. Scully is now a doctor, Mulder continues to investigate the paranormal, but by himself. Scully is approached by FBI agents seeking to find Mulder. They need his help finding an agent who has gone missing. Mulder’s reluctant, but he agrees to help. A psychic paedophile priest has been having visions of the missing agent. But are these visions paranormal phenomenon or is the priest a charlatan. Scully thinks the later, but Mulder can’t help falling into old habits.



Where The X-Files: I Want To Believe fails as a movie is that it feels like nothing more than an extended episode of the series. I understand that the Chris Carter wants to create a movie franchise that is basically an extension of the ‘monster of the week’ episodes that were so popular in the series. But to give the series the big screen treatment warrants a story that deserves big screen treatment. And unfortunately, that’s not the case here. If this had been a double episode of The X-Files, I’d have not noticed otherwise.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I really enjoyed the series, and own up to season 6 on DVD. It’s great to see the wise-cracking Mulder and the serious and doubtful Scully back together again. But the film feels like a TV movie. There’s little in the way of special effects and the story isn’t anything that really needed to be projected onto the cinema screen. The acting is perfectly fine. David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson slot back into their roles perfectly. The heart of the film lies with Gillian Anderson’s Scully, and she certainly carries this part of the film fine. Amanda Peet and Xzibit feel like nothing more than guest-stars, and Billy Connolly, while perfectly fine in his role, doesn’t really add anything in the way of a devastating performance to the whole affair.



The film just feels like it’s something rushed, just for the sake of getting Mulder and Scully back on the screen. I’d have preferred if they had waited a while and gotten a story with a bit more substance to it. As it is, the film doesn’t even stand up to the better episodes of the television series. It’s a bit of a wasted opportunity, to be honest. Because the poor box office of The X-Files: I Want To Believe means that a sequel is unlikely. Which is a shame. The series had some really excellent stand-alone episodes. Had Carter taken inspiration from them, instead of going down a route that really lacked something compelling, we might have been treated to some of the old magic of The X-Files.


5/10