Click Movies

Review - Sucker Punch

2011-03-31T16:35:00.003+01:00

I fear I have an apology to make. For many moons I have been talking up Zack Snyder’s latest action effort Sucker Punch to anyone who will listen, pointing out the legacy built up 300 and Watchmen before it and the potential of the creative freedom his first original project allowed him. I was genuinely excited, waiting for the release with breathless anticipation as perfectly crafted trailers and supplementary material helped to draw audiences closer to the day of release. Well that day has come.

Sucker Punch is a disappointment, fundamentally and at every possible level. Perhaps it is precisely because I had built it up so much in my mind that it feels like such a chronic let down but even when I can fabricate a sense of objectivity, I’m finding it impossible to think of a single element which is worthy of recommendation, let alone praise.

It all starts with a proscenium arch – a clever enough touch which makes it clear that what we are about to see has no basis in reality – before launching into a distinctly operatic introduction that plays out silently under a cover of Sweet Dreams. Immaculately shot, these moments are the most effective (and comprehensible) you’ll find in the tangled mess of Sucker Punch – setting up the events which lead to the incarceration of Baby Doll (Browning) in Lennox House and her imminent lobotomy.

But it’s not long before confusion rears its ugly head as we’re quite suddenly transported to an alternative reality where the imprisoned girls are used in a fanciful brothel as playthings for wealthy clients. In this sub-reality, the inmates are forced to dance and when Baby Doll takes to the stage, everyone is mesmerised by her movements. Naturally, this is an opportunity for Snyder to dive inside her head, imagining symbolic action scenes to portray her escape from reality. But first, you’ll have to wade through awkward speeches from token wise man Scott Glenn – who always signs off his appearances with some utterly random comment, seemingly just for the heck of it.

Thus, we’re treated to a series of over the top action sequences, against the likes of towering samurai warriors, steam-powered Nazis and even Dragons, which uniformly end with a return to the Brothel world as Baby Doll stands perspiring lightly while her male viewers stand agog. Firstly, and I may just be speaking for myself, but I wouldn’t have minded seeing exactly what incredible dancing feats she performs to enrapture her audience so.

Secondly, and far more importantly, what the hell? Is this really a movie from the director of 300 and Watchmen which is about a scantily-dressed young woman dancing a bit while her equally draftily-clothed companions try to steal a random collection of items from the shell-shocked audience? The awkward plotting in the brothel sub-reality is bad enough, focussed on procuring said items in the most laborious way imaginable, but Sucker Punch even manages to miss the mark with its action sequences.

Given the set up of the film, Snyder could literally have done anything with his action moments and, theoretically at least, there’s nothing wrong with the situations he conjures up; pitching his female avatars into World War 1 trenches, high fantasy battles against orcs and dragons and into a bullet train speeding across an alien landscape. But why should we care? It’s clear from the first encounter that these moments present no danger to the girls, as Baby Doll is hoofed around like a football by gigantic samurai with no effect. Once she’s joined by Amber, Sweet Pea, Rocket and Blondie, the (mostly) stunning quintet rip enemies to shreds with ease – often aided by unfairly futuristic weapons, including going up against afore-mentioned reanimated Nazis with a heavily armed mech.

By the time we head aboard a high tech train replete with shiny mechanised enemies for a lengthy, one shot, CG heavy melee it’s already beyond tiresome. Further, there’s little artistry in what’s happening on screen – this shot in particular displaying nothing more than skilful CG work to link several sequences together and even at that it’s rarely convincing. By the time the film locates an ending within its own convolutions it’s likely you’ll either be bored, dumbfounded, or both.
Sucker Punch is an overcomplicated mess, populated by spectre-thin characters thrown into a plot which manages to be underdeveloped and confusing at the same time. And even when it settles into the rhythm you expect, with fantasy sequences furthering the ‘real world’ plot, there’s no concrete sense of how the two connect.

Opportunities to bring symbolic meaning to the action escapades are openly ignored and there’s no consequences outside of these moments – until a late on sideswipe which takes the title of the film too literally. There’s almost no point talking about the acting as the dialogue and characterisations are so abysmal there’s nothing for a performer to hold on to. Browning looks well and delivers her few lines with determination while the young cast appear to throw themselves into the action moments, though only the Nazi face-off allows for any takes long enough to see the results of all their training. Scott Glenn is pointless and annoying, Gugino’s accent caused me physical pain, and listen out for an utterly random moment of paddy-whackery from Gerard Plunkett.

This was an important movie for Snyder, marking his move away from R-rated adaptations with his first original script. And this, along with the messy plotting of last year’s Legend of the Guardians does not bode well for his free-wheeling future. There’s no doubt that he’s a talented filmmaker, possessed of a visual verve virtually unmatched in his contemporaries and with careful management his movies can reflect that. But, by the evidence of Sucker Punch, Snyder unchained is nothing less than a liability and the result is almost staggeringly inept.

IMDB TOP 250 - NORTH BY NORTHWEST

2010-12-30T22:49:00.002Z

With so many movies churned out on a weekly basis, it can be a serious challenge finding something even halfway decent to watch of an evening. A surefire solution then would be to seek out the help of the internet in finding worthy film entertainment and where better to start than with IMDB’s (by no means) definitive Top 250 movies that people bothered to vote for.

Under the spotlight this time North by Northwest.

I’m obliquely aware of Alfred Hitchcock, skirting the edges of his creative output in fits and starts and often loving every minute of it. There’s something overwhelmingly playful about his movies, about the ways he toyed with his audience just as much as his protagonist and the faultless, often dazzling visual style he brought to bear without seeming to dip into the gimmicky. His purpose was entertainment and his process without peer so it’s only natural that many of his films work just as well today as when they were originally released.

And so it is with 1959’s North by Northwest, a fairly standard tale of mistaken identity that enfolds the viewer in layers of spygame hokum, led by a ferociously charming performance from Cary Grant. Here, he effortlessly embodies everything which George Clooney has been striving for for over a decade, the multisexual appeal, the understated physicality and a wit both self effacing and sharply smug at the same time. Eva Marie Saint’s advances may have seemed progressive on paper but onscreen there’s no question that it’s Grant in charge and, sexual politics aside, would you really want it any other way?

It may be over 50 years old but North by Northwest simply rockets along from the shockingly contemporary titles by Saul Bass to the finale conveniently located at a national monument (Mt. Rushmore), there’s a formula here which is still followed by the genre to this day. James Mason’s clipped tone (and equally well tailored suits) make a perfect evil foil and then 31 year old Martin Landau makes an great impression as a slightly effeminate henchmen in only his second big screen role. The gags are still funny (especially Grant playing drunk), the dialogue is punchy without feeling forced and even the action scenes feel far from geriatric – particularly the famous cropduster face-off which ends with a pyrotechnic bang that’s no less effective than a modern day blockbuster. A classic slice of Hollywood entertainment that feels just as fresh today as it did 5 decades ago.

173/250

A couple of options from here – either dive into my first Ingmar Bergman (I know, shameful) with Persona or The Seventh Seal or check out The Lives of Others...

IMDB TOP 250 - THE JOURNEY BEGINS

2010-12-30T21:58:00.006Z

Being mildly addicted to Facebook I recently took the test to see how many of IMDB's Top 250 movies I had seen. The result - 171 out of 250. Respectable enough for the layman but I'm supposed to be a movie reviewer so it simply won't do. The only possible solution (short of completely disregarding the list as an arbitrary series of votes by the mostly American userbase of a website) was to start at the beginning and work my way down, checking out every movie I could along to the way.

First up Rosemary's Baby.

Coming from a pre-lawsuit Roman Polanski in 1968, Rosemary's Baby stars Mia Farrow as a young, pregnant mother to be who wanders around her apartment block in downtown New York, gets hassled by the neighbours, casually mistreated by her actor husband (John Cassavetes) and slowly begins to suspect that something nefarious is afoot. Its attractively shot, menacingly directed and Farrow is certainly fetching (though a little shrill and emaciated) in the lead role. But its didn't work for me in the end because of one fatal flaw - it completely gives the game away in the first 15 minutes. The supposedly shocking finale isn't just subtly hinted it, its boldly drawn onscreen in the opening scenes with a vividly realised demonic rape. The entire focus of the film could have been completely shifted if that scene was moved to the final act and hinted at instead of shown.

The rest is basic paranoia and dread, ratcheting up the tension for no real payoff and almost no scares. Farrow is never in danger, in fact if anything she can rely on the other residents to keep her as safe as possible to preserve the child she is carrying. The ending is reasonably haunting but even then was far less shocking than I was expecting. A disappointment.

172/250

Next on the list - North by Northwest.

REVIEW - Burke and Hare

2010-11-01T16:18:00.001Z

Whatever happened to John Landis? The director of The Blues Brothers and comedy/horror classic An American Werewolf in London has disappeared off the theatrical release radar since the horrendous PG-13 Blues Brothers 2000 back in 1998. Well the 60 year old is still alive and kicking, which is more than can be said for much of the cast of his latest effort.

The film follows the story of real-life Irish born graverobbers and murderers William Burke and William Hare, who profited from a lack of corpses for medical study in 19th Century Edinburgh by killing people so they could sell the bodies to a local medical college. It’s a macabre and honestly horrifying story of just how mercenary people can be in order to make money and the depths they are willing to sink to – the accomplices even started to bump off their own family before the end. Perfect fodder for a comedy so.

In movie land, the villains are played by Simon Pegg (Burke) and Andy Serkis (Hare) so you already know from the start that they are going to be likeable rogues. The film goes out of its way to paint them as human beings, layering on Hare’s browbeating wife (Jessica Hynes) and a love interest for Pegg in the form of the delectable Isla Fisher while pointedly ignoring the genuinely horrific nature of their crimes.

There was room here for a truly black comedy with lashings of over the top gore (courtesy of the many dissections) but the film keeps things far too light, trying to make us feel sorry for the characters – particularly Burke. Sadly, the dramatic attempts are flawed and the laughs few and far between, more often courtesy of the nearly endless cameos from the likes of Ronnie Corbet and Stephen Merchant. Thriller was scarier. Funnier too.

PREVIEW - Tron: Legacy

2010-11-01T16:03:00.002Z

Last night, Disney hosted a special screening of 23 minutes of footage from their upcoming 3D blockbuster Tron: Legacy in Dublin. We went along to check out the movie that will be hoping to recreate the massive success of last year’s Avatar when it hits theatres in December.

Tron: Legacy is the sequel to the 1982 original, focussed on Sam Flynn (Garret Hedlund), the son of Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges) – the hero of the first film. 20 years ago, Flynn kissed his son goodnight and vanished without a trace. Now in his mid 20’s, Sam suddenly gets word that his father may still be alive and returns to the old, boarded up arcade and into a world he never dreamed possible.
The footage began with a message from director Joseph Kosinski, letting the audience know that the scenes are relatively spoiler free and that the sound mix wasn’t complete – while also assuring us that even though the opening moments are in 2D, it’s recommended you watch them through the 3D glasses for the best effect.

The first scene was set in the real world, as Alan Bradley (a returning Bruce Boxleitner) tells the young Flynn off for a stunt he pulled which landed him in jail, and not for the first time. He tells Sam that he received a page from Kevin Flynn’s old office, from a number that’s been out of service for decades. Sam makes his way to the arcade, vintage machines wreathed in dust coats which come alive at the touch of a circuit breaker. Behind the original Tron console lies a hidden office and extremely fancy (for 1989) touch screen computer complete with menacing laser pointed directly at Young Flynn’s head...

Suddenly, we’re on The Grid and the image comes alive. Dark colours are accented by the startling neon detailing of a towering Recogniser, which scoops Flynn up and transports him along with a group of programs to the city. He is selected for the games, with one program choosing to kill himself rather than participate – our first glimpse of the movie’s new, particulate and body shattering de-rezzing effect.

Flynn is undressed and suited up for battle by a team of Sirens led by Beau Garret who has only one word of advice – survive. Then we get the first glimpse of a disk battle, with multiple fights taking place at once in isolated pods. Flynn faces off against a character he recognises from the Tron toys his father gave him (you can catch a peek of one in the second theatrical trailer, see below) but fumbles with his own disk when he’s suddenly attacked. The game becomes even more deadly they he realises that the walls and floor are fragile and a fall means instant death.

Next, we get a brief glimpse of the light cycles as Flynn speeds along in a two man bike, a mysterious helmeted figure at his side. They destroy a wall and go off grid, somewhere their enemies cannot follow, and his companion reveals herself as Quorra – played by a buoyant Olive Wilde. The final scene occurred far from The Grid in an isolated safehouse, where Sam gets reunited with his long lost father and the elder Flynn gazes out across the world, wondering what will happen next.

The preview ended with a sizzle reel, starting with a cameo from Daft Punk as master of ceremonies Michael Sheen asks them to ‘change the mood’ before the music and images launched into overdrive. As neon fireworks explode in time to the music we got tiny glimpses of light jets dogfighting, light cycle battles in a massive arena and Jeff Bridges’ CG-enhanced alter-ego CLU sitting atop his throne.

The Tron: Legacy preview was certainly impressive but if you are choosing select scenes to demo your blockbuster you’re hardly going to create something underwhelming. The most surprising thing about what was shown is that it managed to avoid any overtly spectacular scenes, with almost half of that was shown either taking place in the real world or focussing more on drama than action. It’s clear that Disney isn’t just out to wow us with CG and 3D hi-jinks, instead they are keen to showcase the quality of the entire production. It’s a brave move but one which seems to have worked, there’s a real sense that they might have something special on their hands rather than just another SFX-filled show.

The effects are stunning though, CG and real sets/costumes blending perfectly. This is no doubt helped by the high contrast nature of the world and the generally plastic nature of the surfaces, an effect which CG can handle much easier than the textures of reality. Speaking of textures, the filmmakers have chosen to add a very specific effect to the scenes taking place inside the computer world, a thickness to the air reminiscent of the lines and whorls of an LCD screen. It’s subtle, like the green tinge of The Matrix world, but it makes the image remarkably distinct, and really helps give a sense of depth to the proceedings, which is essential for a compelling 3D experience.

The 3D is also mostly subtle, few moments extending beyond the screen. Colours pop brilliantly, aided by an extremely dark shooting style which looks a million miles away from regular Disney films. If anything, the images might be a little too dark but again that lends the film a unique look which will help it stand out from competitors. The tone might be a bit more problematic – everything seems starkly serious apart from Quorra’s oddly chirpy attitude, as a warrior character I was expecting a much more muted and brooding performance from Wilde.

Lead Hedlund (who played Brad Pitt’s cousin in Troy) looks well in the suit and has a hint of a younger Bridges in his voice but it remains to be seen if he can carry a film. It’s great to see Bridges reprising the role and working on the performance capture for CLU is a massive technological feat – even if it still looks incredibly creepy at times, the framerate of CG simply can’t match the smoothness of a real human being. Perhaps they can explain that away within the world of the film.

Leaving the best til last – the visuals and the music are simply amazing. As a massive Recogniser heads out across the digital landscape, Daft Punks synth score reverberates around in a cacophony of musical bits and bytes. It’s the perfect marriage of artist and movie and the design work takes the template created for Tron back in 1982 and runs with it – imagining a world which has been allowed to grow and change exponentially over millions of cycles to create something truly out of this world.

The world of Tron was always ripe to be revisited, particularly in light of advancements in technology and the public understanding of the digital realm. With this self assured early preview and almost two months left for tinkering and polishing the effects, Legacy could well be the game we’ve all been waiting for.

Welcome to the Grid.

REVIEW - Black Dynamite

2010-09-02T15:09:00.002+01:00

You may never have heard of Black Dynamite but there's a chance it could be the best comedy of the year.

A sometimes spoof of 70s Blaxploitation flicks, Black Dynamite sees the titular character out for revenge after his brother is killed. What follows is a pitch-perfect send up of the genre which mixes straight comedy, self aware spoof and fun action to dazzling effect. The film should be a mess of conflicting styles but everything, from the archive footage which supplements action scenes to continuity errors and some purposefully forced acting, comes together almost perfectly.

Much of this is down to screenwriter and star Michael Jai White, who brings gravitas to a role that could have been ridiculous while also acquitting himself well in the action scenes and creating some bizarre asides which comment on his own awesomeness. It's the perfect marriage of material and performance and the rest all support the carefully balanced tone, which makes Salli Richardson-Whitfield role all the more important as the only straight character in the bunch.

There are moments when the self-aware style begins to wear a little thin and we're not sure we needed an animated Zodiac themed sex scene but Black Dynamite is still the best comedy we've seen this year and worth the price of entry alone for the scene in which the team finally discover the truth behind the villains scheme.

5/5

Black Dynamite is showing exclusively at the Screen Cinema Dublin from the 3rd of September. Go see it!

REVIEW - Jonah Hex

2010-09-02T12:10:00.001+01:00

It's been hard to avoid the negative critical reaction to Jonah Hex since its US release in June, with the film garnering some of the lowest scores in recent memories. Now we finally get a chance to see this box office bomb in Irish cinemas.

It's immediately apparent from the first frames that Jonah Hex's journey to the big screen was a tortured one. The opening animated exposition has the instantly recognisable odour of a desperate attempt by a studio to make sense of a damaged project, making the bizarre decision to skip Hex's origin story and suggest that his main enemy (John Malkovich) is already dead. The animation is shoddy, the voice over vague and it leaves the audience more unsure than they would have been without.

Things do improve marginally when Brolin takes to the screen in his extremely uncomfortable looking make-up and the opening action scene is watchable (wasting no time in whipping out those horse-mounted chain guns) but viewers should note that Hex seems incapable of leaving a building or location without it burning to the ground behind him. You half suspect him to leave an explosive behind when he visits an outhouse. From there, Malkovich's Turnbull resurfaces with a doomsday plot to destroy the United States and Hex shuffles along in his wake, shooting stuff and grimacing while paying occasional visits to unnecessary side-kick Megan Fox. Who actually looks decent with a gun, take note casting directors.

It's all pointlessly convoluted, mixing Wild West action with a never explained supernatural side-story that ramps up to a symbolic fight between Turnbull and Hex in the desert, intercut with a distinctly uninteresting boat-based finale. Only Michael Fassbender makes an impression on the acting front, while an impressively mis-cast Will Arnett struggles to be taken seriously and Aiden Quinn looks positively embarrassed. Brolin seems oddly committed to the role, amid rumours that he fiddled extensively with the crass and ultraviolent script by Crank creators Neveldine and Taylor - which would have been preferable to this limp pseudo Western. Jonah Hex is far from being the worst film ever made but instead wastes a fun concept with shoddy action, terrible dialogue and a backstory that robs the film of most of its drama.

1/5

REVIEW - The Sorcerers Apprentice

2010-08-17T09:41:00.001+01:00

We had high hopes for The Sorcerer's Apprentice and, after an overly complicated historical introduction, it starts well - with young Dave's incursion into a fantastical magic shop recalling 80s greats like The Neverending Story.

Then we flash-forward to Jay Barucehel in modern day New York and things start to get a little ropey. It's not just Nicolas Cage's increasingly unlikely wigs, Baruchel's improbably high pitched voice (seriously, was he chosen because he actually sounds like Mickey Mouse?) nor the pointlessly scientific approach to magic but a combination of all these things and the film serious deficit of fun. It's all the more disappointing because two supporting players, Alfred Molina and Toby Kebbell, perfectly capture the quirky tone we know director Turteltaub is capable of sustaining - their moments together as master and apprentice are the highlight of the film.

Still, some of the magic is impressive and its slightly less limp than much of the child friendly dross we've seen in 2010.

REVIEW - The Last Airbender

2010-08-17T09:38:00.001+01:00

Based on the successful (and by all accounts decent) Nickelodeon cartoon series, the film tells the story of the mythical Avatar who could unite the warring elemental nations of fire, water, earth and air by being awesome. And bald. And a kid who beats baddies up with air.

It's never a good sign when a children's film has to start with a screenful of text to get young 'uns up to speed and throughout Shyamalan takes extended time outs for laboured exposition and backstories. His writing and direction lack any kind of pace or vigour, relying on masses of close-ups and POV conversations which are simply out of place in a blockbuster adventure. The action when it comes is lazy, there's rarely any correlation between the frantic martial arts moves of the combatants and the flurries of elemental powers, while a few slow-motion 300-esque moments seem tacked on. In short; an attractive and utterly boring mess, with shoddy 3D and no sense of fun. Avoid.

1/5

Do you really need an iPad

2010-07-30T14:34:00.002+01:00

My view on the realities of the iPad, which appeared in The Evening Herald on the 28th of July 2010.

The Evening Herald - iPad review page 1

The Evening Herald - iPad review page 2

REVIEW - The Twilight Saga: Eclipse

2010-07-09T14:31:00.001+01:00

As Seattle is plagued by a series of violent murders, Bella and Edward have been reunited, with Jacob pushed to the sidelines once again. But when an army of young vampires descends on Forks, the vamps and werewolves have to work together to keep Bella safe.

Eclipse is easily the most male friendly entry in the series to date with some nice dark visuals and meaty action, particularly in a last act face-off that seems to prove that vampires are made out tin-foil. This all comes courtesy of director David Slade, who knows his vampire action from the not-quite-brilliant 30 Days of Night. The new focus on action means less slushy stuff from the leads and the cutaways to Seatlle are dripping with atmosphere, as are several flashbacks which recount the early lives on the vampire brood - in brief story snatches more compelling than anything conjured up in the movies.
Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson finally look halfway comfortable in their roles, though the romance is still to heavy handed and the clear anti-sex message overwhelming - not only will Edward not be with Bella until they are married but he makes it very clear that the consummation might well kill her. Elsewhere, Taylor Lautner tries some humour and doesn't quite pull it off while only Billy Burke seems intent to point out the ridiculousness of it all. This entry spends minimal time with supporting characters, particularly Bella's school friends which is a big loss as Anna Kendrick was one of the more bearable things about New Moon.

The main problem with Eclipse is a near total lack of story, a negative point inherited by the ponderous book which seemed like nothing more than an excuse to have some vampire on vampire action. It's a shame, because the stylish visuals, strong action and improved effects could have made this the best in the series, but without any character development the finale lacks punch. Still, guys won't be bored and the target demographic will lap up the restrained shirtlessness and some slightly steamier scenes with the personality-free leads.

3/5

REVIEW - Predators

2010-07-06T23:28:00.003+01:00

I have to admit when news filtered through the interweb that 20th Century Fox were re-animating the much abused corpse of the Predator franchise it filled me with dread. Having not only suffered the indignity of a limp 1990 sequel starring Lispy McLisps-a-lot (aka Danny Glover), the character has been further brutalised by two AvP films which surgically removed everything even slightly memorable. But against all odds, Robert Rodriguez and director Nimród Antal have served up a sci-fi action dish in Predators which is almost the equal of the 1987 classic.

It starts badly, following a dumbfounded Adrien Brody as he freefalls towards an endless jungle. The effects are ropy and the opening character introductions a little too broad. But as more chutes plunge into the canopy and the eight strangers slowly band together there’s a sense of logic to the proceedings – of highly trained individuals pooling their resources to survive, or at least biding their time til they get the lay of the land. And as the minutes tick by in wafer thin, but adequate, character development, you suddenly realise that nothing supernatural has happened. Predators spends serious time in the jungle as a survival thriller before ever broaching the possibility of being trapped on an alien planet. The film feels no need for an upfront teaser to reassure the fans that they are seeing a Predator film – quietly confident that it works without the need for overpowering effects and gore.

And it does; eight characters means there’s always a new source of drama and the film avoids reeling out obvious gags to create a forced sense of camaraderie – these people aren’t friends, they are just trying to survive. This slower paced introduction doles out exposition in generous helpings, almost always from Brody, who appears to be the only one with any functioning senses – at one point Braga’s Isabelle points out that there is no magnetic north, while Brody calmly observes that the sun seems to be fixed in the sky. The spoonfed explanations get a little trying, but the dumber members of the group are clearly standing in for those equally sloth-minded audience members, an unfortunate must in blockbuster cinema.

Predators also knows exactly how to play to fans of the original – drawing expertly on our nostalgia in similar ways to Superman Returns. It’s most obvious in the music – Alan Silvestri’s awesome score is referenced subtly in the beat of eerie drums or a brief trill of the theme – but even the structure of the film is carefully planned, creating parallels in the placement of similar scenes, such as the discovery of a skinned carcass. Antal and Rodriguez have created a smarter film here than they will be given credit for.

When the pace picks up, the film is smart enough to reference the real hunting practises which made the original so memorable, introducing new creatures and inverting the formula just enough to remain fresh. In many ways, it’s a more ambitious story, told with a minimum of CG enhancements and some restrained but effective gore.

Naturally, it’s not perfect – Lawrence Fishburne’s character is a little problematic and the final act finds itself with too many bodies left to dispose of, killing off characters in quick succession before an ending that threatens to go off the rails. To the filmmakers credit, it doesn’t and there’s certainly material here for a spate of spin-offs and sequels. Against all odds, Brody is great in the central role of Royce – adding a guttural bark to his normal nasal tone and getting in tremendous shape. The cast in general is surprisingly solid, especially the ineffably cool Alice Braga and a memorable Walton Goggins, who earns most of the films laughs with some off-colour humour. Topher Grace and Fishburne are the weak links but neither is distracting enough to spoil the film.

Predators is easily the best movie in the series since the original. The action is strong, the characters are adequate and, above all else, it doesn’t defecate from orbit on our one of the best sci-fi actioners of the 80s. Watch it.

REVIEW - When in Rome

2010-06-25T16:40:00.002+01:00

When in Rome almost lost me with its staid romantic/comedy intro, complete with Beth’s three demographic-grabbing friends (one fat, one cute, one gay) and a laboured social faux pas. But once the plot finally kicked into gear, things improved dramatically.

This is chiefly because of the leads – even hamstrung by weak dialogue and plotting, Bell is never less than engaging and I was surprised by Duhamel, having only previously encountered him as a prop in Transformers and its travesty of a sequel. The duo have decent chemistry and comic timing, and are introduced in a pair of enjoyable set pieces that actually manage to draw a laugh from tired slapstick.
Once back in New York, the lazy genre requirements have to be trundled out, though at least we have the magically infatuated suitors for a bit of distraction. These cameos are easily the most disappointing thing about the film – throwing up names like Danny DeVito, Jon Heder and Will Arnett but giving them absolutely nothing to do.

The character bloat spoils the final act, as the overcomplicated supernatural goings-on have to be resolved, including an utterly dull and seemingly endless scene of exposition to some couch-bound former funny men. There’s some last minute drama and indecision but it wouldn’t take a genius to figure out the ending.

When in Rome is sporadically charming and hopefully will lead to bigger things for the talented Bell. Director Johnson (who made Daredevil - which isn't as bad as you remember - honest!) keeps things going at a good pace and feels most comfortable with the set pieces – like a crazy action scene in a miniature car towards the end. But the comedy cameos are wasted, the supporting characters dull or annoying (apart from the always fantastic Kristen Schaal and some terrible CG effects threaten to spoil the goodwill of the audience. Oh, and there’s a dance sequence over the credits for no discernible reason.

Charming leads and a few laughs mean romantic/comedy fans could do much worse.

3/5

[and yes, the trailer is hopeless obnoxious]

REVIEW - MacGruber

2010-06-25T16:27:00.004+01:00

MacGruber started life as a Saturday Night Live parody of the 80s TV show ‘MacGyver’, who made complex and non-violent gadgets out of seemingly innocuous household items. In the short sketches MacGruber, along with his assistant and the celebrity guest of the week, would find himself confronted by a ticking bomb with only seconds to live. Inevitably, the segments ended with the bomb exploding due to his ineptitude; cue polite laughter.

Now, despite these sketches being only mildly amusing at best, the SNL powers that be have decided that MacGruber is the perfect character to reignite their flagging success at the box office in a 90 minute action blockbuster.

The film starts well, playing it straight with a bloodthirsty intro before the (forgiveable)puerile title sequence and the following decent parody of the monastery scene from Rambo III, complete with a gravelly voiced Powers Boothe. It’s in these moments that MacGruber is most effective, when the action movie homage is to the fore and the supporting cast are playing it straight – leaving mulleted Will Forte to ham it up as the title character.

It’s a shame then that much of the rest of the film meanders off in search of laughs, more often earning guilty sniggers from recurring gags like Kilmer’s character name – Dieter Von Cunth. Yes really. A few moments could have been hilarious with better pacing and editing, such as an accidental explosion or an inappropriate human shield but both are over-edited and spoiled mercilessly by the trailers.

Forte is certainly committed to the role, even when sporting a celery suppository there’s never the slightest hint of self-consciousness. But the character lacks a single redeeming quality to make the audience root for him. The talented Kristen Wiig reprises her supporting role from the sketches but her solid comic timing is all but wasted, apart from a nearly titter worthy cafe scene, and you have to wonder how far down the list previously-famous Ryan Philippe was. Kilmer is just amorphous filler with nothing to do, despite proving utterly hilarious with the right material and only schlock-veteran Boothe emerges relatively unscathed.

MacGruber at least tries to flesh out its meagre premise by taking a parodic stab at the action genre with some nods to the ‘MacGyver’ series (there’s a court case pending on the legalities) but the budget is too limited for any decent action and to say that the humour is aimed at the gutter would probably be a compliment. The laughs are few and far between – unless you think defecating on a corpse is comedy gold.

Remember when SNL movies were funny? No, neither do I.

1/5

REVIEW - Greenberg

2010-06-18T10:00:00.001+01:00

Ben Stiller goes all indie and dramatic with The Squid and the Whale director at the helm.

Stiller's Greenberg is a man in his 40s recovering from a recent mental breakdown who decides to 'do nothing for a while' and housesit for this successful brother. There, he starts an awkward romance with his brothers assistant (Greta Gerwig) and restrained quirkiness ensues.

Director Noah Baumbach keeps his latest effort relatively grounded, creating a character study of a person who is almost impossible to like. Greenberg is clearly damaged but his endless self-absorption makes it's hard to root for him to get better. Likewise, Gerwig's Florence is so weak-willed and insipid, submitting to sexual advances because it's easier than saying no, that it seems like neither character has any positive forward momentum. You dread the idea of them ending up together as surely she would be utterly subsumed by his egocentric world view.

It's a considerable achievement then that Greenberg remains watchable, even if the plot is limited and the characters insufferable. Stiller has never been better and there's able support from the likes of a wonderfully restrained Rhys Ifans and Jennifer Jason Leigh.

3.5/5

REVIEW - Brooklyn's Finest

2010-06-18T09:59:00.000+01:00

Director Antoine Fuqua tries to recapture some of the Oscar-winning glory of 2001's Training Day with this gritty ensemble drama and is at least partly successful.

The interweaving tale of three unrelated New York City cops takes us into some very dark territory - particularly in the case of Ethan Hawke's character, a good man worn down by the demands of a large and ailing family. He gives a powerhouse performance, easily overshadowing a mis-cast Richard Gere and the inconsistent Don Cheadle and its good to see ever charismatic Wesley Snipes back in a theatrically-released film.

The visuals are strong and the violence overtly grim but ultimately it's the glut of clichés which spoils Brooklyn's Finest - first time feature writer Michael C. Martin peoples his script with overly familiar types right through to the dramatic but utterly predictable finale. Watchable but flawed.

3/5

REVIEW - Sex and the City 2

2010-06-18T09:57:00.002+01:00

HBO fans of the world unite - did you like 'Rome'? How about the superlative 'Deadwood' or the potential splendour of 'Carnivale'?

Well do you know what you can have instead of a satisfying, plot resolving resolution to any of those fine series' - you can listen to an octogenarian harridan screaming 'Lawrence of my labia' while squirming in vomit-inducing pleasure. You can also marvel at the scene where it's difficult to tell the difference between a group of camels and the increasingly leather-skinned ladies or the frankly insulting fiddly-jig which plays every time a braless Irish nanny takes to the screen.

On the small screen, 'SATC' was acerbically sharp, envelope-pushing and BLISSFULLY SHORT! After two and a half hours of adventures in international ignorance and sexual encounters that threaten the gag reflex, you'll be hard pushed to remember what made these girls so fantastic the first time round.

0/5

REVIEW - The Brothers Bloom

2010-06-03T15:23:00.002+01:00

Brick director Rian Johnson delivers up his sophomore effort with The Brothers Bloom – a slick and classy con artist pic with some great performances but too many quirks to be a classic of the genre.

Orphaned brothers Stephen (Mark Ruffalo) and Bloom (Adrien Brody) bounced from one foster home to the next as children – a lifestyle spurred on my intricately-planned cons like that which starts the film. 25 years later, the dramatics have reached fever pitch but the same problems remain – Stephen loves the thrill of the con while Bloom is terrified that he has never had a genuine moment in a life of deceit. Together with their mostly mute explosives expert Bang Bang (Rinko Kikuchi), the brothers take on one last job which Stephen promises will finally give Bloom what he really wants. The target – Rachel Weisz’s Penelope; a rich shut-in with a hundred expert hobbies and no sense of reality.

The Brothers Bloom lays on the charm from the outset – building the symbiotic relationship between the leads through scenes of expertly narrated visual poetry. The first adult con is gloriously unveiled and luring in Weisz heiress is done stylishly and with good humour, as the audience is slowly embroiled in a convoluted plan which sees her join the gang of 'art smugglers' as they set off on a picturesque criminal world tour - taking in Montenegro, Prague and Romania. Inevitable romantic
complications and devilish twists arise as we wend our way towards the dramatic finale.

It’s clear that Johnson has a love of genre films – Brick was his ode to film noir and The Brother Bloom seems just as enamoured with the con movie. The problem is that the best con artist films are as complex as the criminal plans themselves and while the film is technically impressive and all the genre elements are in their proper place there’s one important part missing. The best con films are just as concerned with fooling the audience as the mark, but we never feel that The Brothers Bloom is really getting under our skin.

Thankfully, the cast are excellent - particularly Weisz who captures Penelope's unusual mix of naiveté and experienced hobbyist while looking absolutely stunning and pulling off skateboard and card tricks with aplomb. Kikuchi's near silent performance should be laughable but she brings a huge amount of personality to a mute pyromaniac and Ruffalo seems to be having a lot of fun as the scheming Stephen. Only Brody is a tad disappointing - he's a world class brooder and the intense scenes are note perfect but has some trouble with the films many lighter moments.

The Brothers Bloom is a fun caper flick with some gorgeous images and a memorable performance from Rachel Weisz. But its not as clever as you would like it to be and the endlessly quirky tone ultimately distracts from the potentially dramatic twists of the finale. There's no doubt Johnson is a talented filmmaker but maybe this project was a little too ambitious for an inexperienced director.

3/5

REVIEW - [REC] 2

2010-05-28T16:44:00.004+01:00

Sequel to the 2007 shocker, this second film picks up minutes later, as an armed SWAT team is sent in with a medical officer to find out what exactly is going on in the quarantined apartment building.

Rec was a brilliant exercise in first person terror, playing with the limits of a single perspective to create an unnerving action/horror with a genuinely unsettling finale. The sequel ramps up the pace from the very beginning and changes the rules by sending in our heroes armed to the teeth and forewarned about some of the dangers inside. It's a welcome change, ensuring that Rec 2 isn't a typical horror sequel with the same scares in a different location.

But it also robs the film of some of its tension, forcing the directors to fabricate reasons to make the response team vulnerable. Some work, like a moment when one squad member is isolated in a duct and pursued by a shadowy form, but several other contrivances just make this elite team of killers seem like imbeciles. And don't get me started on the idiotic trio of kids who improbably sneak into the building in a parallel story clearly introduced to pad out the running time. The creeping dread is also lessened by endless scenes of exposition made necessary by the new supernatural, pseudo-religious explanation for the horrors taking place. These elements did make an appearance in the first film but when Rec 2 briefly decides to turn into The Exorcist, it threatens to lose its audience.

Happily, there's still a ferocious energy to the proceedings, and directing team Jaume Balagueró and Paco Plaza clearly had a much bigger budget to play with this time. Squibs explode everywhere, deaths are impressively gory (particularly some underage headshots) and there are several impressively staged first-person moments, courtesy of the SWAT teams helmet cams. But they also overstretch their abilities, particularly as the film draws to a close and nightvision becomes essential to driving the story forward. It's a great concept but, layered on top of so much extraneous narrative and technical feats, it overcomplicates what should be an exercise in pure terror.

Watchable and technically impressive, Rec 2 is so busy trying to impress its audience that it forgets it's supposed to scare them too.

REVIEW - Prince of Persia The Sands of Time

2010-05-28T12:30:00.002+01:00

When adopted Prince Dastan leads his father’s army in a successful attack on an enemy stronghold, he earns the acclaim of the people. But when his father his assassinated and Dastan framed for the murder, he goes on the run with the cities Princess and a seemingly innocuous dagger in tow. Little does he know that together they have the power to erase the terrible recent events, or destroy the world.

Based in part on the 2003 video game and featuring one of the genres most revered characters, Prince of Persia is as close as you can get to video game royalty. After our chat last month with creator and co-writer Jordan Mechner we were confident that The Sands of Time would be a step above the average, video game adaptation.

And it certainly is – arguably marking the first time that a proper narrative film has been successfully inspired by game material, bolstered by some stunning visuals, a massive production budget and a top drawer cast.

It’s a progression for the sub-genre then, no doubt helped by steering clear of the plot of the games, instead focussing on creating a vivid adventure, complete with its own mythologies and supernatural items. Chief among them is the Dagger of Time – in the games it allowed the Prince to steal back a precious few temporal seconds in the event of imminent death. In the film it becomes a doomsday device, protected for centuries by a clan of guardians, with Gemma Arterton’s Tamina the latest in the line. The Dagger is the crux of the film; in the wrong hands it could unleash the sands from the Hourglass of the Gods and destroy the world or rewrite history.

The problem here is that the mythology is opaque and unfamiliar, leaving the audience adrift. The powers of the Dagger themselves are limited, ill-defined and a little pointless. The time-reversing sequences in the film are attractive to look at but nothing more – we aren’t given time to linger on the awesomeness of being able to manipulate time. And the power is rarely used to compliment the action – more often by accident or to prove a point. Apart from one decent moment with a snake attack, it misses the appeal completely of knowing that you have a lifeline, of being able to make an incredible leap of faith without the possibility of death.

Naturally enough, the film looks dazzling, with massive sets and decent CG that is a little cartoonish but makes up for it with the scale of the Persian cities it recreates. But too little use is made of these massive sets and locations and the Parkour-inspired running and vaulting of the games is almost entirely absent, despite its obvious appeal to an action/adventure film. The Prince is too often saddled with a whinging side-kick and further hampered by Gyllenhaal’s minimal physical prowess. He may be newly buff and acquits himself reasonably well in the swordplay but he’s too bulky for the copious acrobatics, forcing the film to resort to judicious editing to make his actions seem fluid. Apart from an opening fortress assault, there are few memorable set pieces and a focus in the final act on remarkably dull one-on-one fights. It’s not helped by the sudden introduction of a band of comically villainous Hassansin warriors who appear to have magical powers just because they can.

When he’s not flailing around like a reject from Cirque Du Soleil, Jake Gyllenhaal is almost brilliant as Dastan. His faintly Cockney accent rarely slips and despite looking decidedly un-Persian he’s an easy-going lead with some decent comic timing. It’s just a shame he shares most of his quip-heavy scenes with the increasingly dull Arterton, who presents all her dialogue without a hint of inflection, irony or humour. Most of the time she stands there looking like a fake-tanned, anorexic guppy while Gyllenhaal tries his best to wring some bitchy rapport from the proceedings. Toby Kebbell and Richard Coyle (that Welsh one from ‘Coupling’) are decent as Dastan’s brothers and Ben Kingsley seems lost as their uncle. The only consistently entertaining performance comes from Alfred Molina’s Sheik Amar, who rails against taxes and conjures up massive conspiracy theories. It may be anachronistic but at least he has some token personality.

And it’s that personality which is missing most from The Sands of Time, particularly if Bruckheimer expect this series to be the new Pirates of the Caribbean. But there’s none of the latter films’ quirkiness here, no bizarre but accessible characters and none of its self-aware charm. But crucially Gyllenhaal, though a fine actor, is no Johnny Depp and the lack of a compelling central character is the biggest barrier to the film’s success.

As a blockbuster summer adventure movie, The Sands of Time is only intermittently successful. While I was watching, I couldn’t help seeing it as a symptom of the increasingly strained relationship between the audience and the viewer, of films that cost so much money to make that they strive to appeal to every possible demographic and end up satisfying no one.

Take, for example, the need to make things complicated. This is fundamentally a kid’s film and yet the filmmakers feel the need for conspiracies and plot twists. The villain changes no less than three times, despite it being obvious from the start that Kingsley will be the eventual evil-supremo – he spends so much time wearing eyeliner and looking arch that it’s almost a relief when he finally reveals his nefarious plans. But it’s supposed to be a family adventure, with clearly defined good and evil. We don’t even get a band of heroes to cheer for until the closing minutes and their eventual demise is edited down to nothing; a better film would have milked a late-on sacrifice to tear-jerking climax but director Mike Newell is too busy rocketing towards the CG overload of the finale.

It would be easy to give The Sands of Time a pass as a mostly competent action adventure which raises the bar for game adaptations but is that really all we can hope for from our summer blockbusters? That they aren’t as bad as we were expecting? The action is pedestrian and edited into rarely coherent shreds and the central conceit of the film, the accursed dagger, actively negates any peril by leaving us assured that even death can be reversed. The heartstrings barely ripple as we see characters fall by the wayside, safe in the knowledge that they’ll return. Oh and the score blatantly rips off better themes from Pirates... and The Mummy.

REVIEW - The Losers

2010-05-28T12:23:00.003+01:00

Betrayed by their government and presumed dead, The Losers drop off the radar to try to escape from their past. But when the opportunity arises to strike back at the man who tried to kill them, they head home to steal back their lives.

Maybe I was foolish to look forward to The Losers. The polished trailer promised slick pyrotechnics and a some action-packed wit, while a browse of issue 1 of Andy Diggle’s comic promised a gritty revenge thriller with a fantastic array of hard-bitten characters.

The film starts well, despite feeling a pointless need to give us comic book panel versions of the leads, as our five man team waits in the jungle, guiding an air-strike in on the camp of an evil drug-lord. The one note code of honour as they break ranks to rescue a bunch of kids was fine, as was the escape through the jungle in a clapped out school bus and the resulting explosion. It was the cloying sentimentality as the kids are led to a rescue chopper that first weakened my resolve, while the event which directly followed shattered it completely with its vulgarity, leaving me reeling for all the wrong reasons.

And that just the first few missteps by the filmmakers. One minute, the leads will be beating the crap out of eachother as a sublimation of camaraderie or sex while the next Jason Patric will be launching people off buildings and shooting them in the face for laughs. The cast are appearing in wildly different films – Idris Elba thinks he’s in a dark drama, Patric’s in a Naked Gun film while Chris Evans is the comic relief in a competent action film. And Jeffrey Dean Morgan, so effective as The Comedian in Watchmen, is still in his trailer learning his lines while watching reruns of his better performance in ‘Greys Anatomy’.

It’s a shame because when The Losers is knee deep in a halfway decent set piece (admittedly all borrowed from the comic) and the ensemble cast are bouncing one-liners off each other it can be a lot of fun. But even then it too often shoots itself in the foot – first by choosing to go the PG-13 route (some violence and bad language would have least given it a little personality) and secondly due to the barely TV-worthy staging. Apart from the haphazard, freeze-frame heavy editing, each encounter is set up with a minimum of style and shoddy effects work, particularly in a last minute plane crash, further lessens the impact. Stomp the Yard director White simply doesn’t have the experience to wrangle this large cast and deliver a flippant actioner at the same time – instead opting to do neither.

The Losers had great potential as an early summer slice of mindless action. The cast is brilliant (though we would have swapped Elba with Morgan), it’s nice to see Saldana has some range and Chris Evans regains his mantle of a budget-range Ryan Reynolds. But Patric’s take on the supposed evil genius Max is insufferable and the film is scrappily directed. Maybe if co-writer Peter Berg had taken the reins we might have had another guilty pleasure like his underrated 2003 effort Welcome to the Jungle.

If you’ve got a problem, if no one else can help... stick with The A-Team.

REVIEW - Robin Hood

2010-05-14T12:55:00.002+01:00

When Robin Longstride (Crowe) returns to 12th Century England from the Crusades to fulfil a promise to a dying man, he finds himself trapped in a country destroyed by taxation and threatened with invasion by France. When the newly crowned King John begins to steal from his own people, the lords of the land unite against their crown – while a greater enemy lurks to the south.

Oscar-winning lead Russell Crowe and director Ridley Scott reteam for the fifth time for a take on one of the most enduring legends in English history. But this is not a story of Merry Men loose in the wilds of Sherwood Forest, stealing from the rich to give to the poor. This re-imagining steps back from that much adapted tale to give us a glimpse at the events which led to the birth of Robin of the Hood.

And who better to tackle a period action drama with a heady mixture of myth and history than the team behind the stupendous Gladiator and almost-worthy Kingdom of Heaven. Scott is a director who creates world’s that feel utterly real and Robin Hood is no exception. From the opening, tactically-rich siege of a French castle, through incredible recreations of medieval London and all the way to the massive final battle, the attention to detail is incredible.

More problematic is the story. While Scott and his gaggle of screenwriters should be commended for giving us a new perspective on the overly familiar tale they simply take their changes too far. The reason the Robin Hood legend has endured for so long is because it is a brilliant tale of a small band of adventurers taking on the might of the establishment. By widening the scope of the story, adding political intrigue and the possibility of French invasion, we lose the thrilling fight of the few against the many and the mythical tale of one man who tried to redress the imbalance between the wealthy and the impoverished (surely a timely theme).

This wouldn’t be such a problem if the period epic we are left with was a little more sprightly. At almost two and a half hours long, there’s little for the audience to sink their teeth into. The more realistic scale means it lacks the awesome spectacle of Kingdom of Heaven and the decision to make it suitable for little ‘uns means there aren’t even delicious scenes of dismemberment to keep us entertained. When Robin Hood ramps up to its historically-fabricated finale (a blatant, medieval version of the Normandy landings) it’s a pretty measly collection of drab soldier types, hacking away in bloodless fashion for a few moments before a hideously easy rout.

Crowe is fine as Robin, with an accent that occasionally takes a holiday around the north of England but there’s not enough meat on the Longstride character to keep the audience engaged. The cast arrayed around him is undoubtedly impressive but the character bloat means few are given time to distinguish himself – even the normally dependable Mark Strong flits by as a one note evil dude with a scar. It’s left to Cate Blanchett to steal the film completely; her Marion may be a little older than the norm but she looks absolutely stunning in the role and hits each emotional and mildly humorous note perfectly, selling the burgeoning romance with Longstride despite limited screentime.

Robin Hood is an attractive period epic which gets by on its performances rather than its spectacle. Scott’s attention to detail is impressive but the film often seems torn between a serious tone and some broad comedy – like Mark Addy’s Friar Tuck who attacks the invading French with bees and saucepans. There are marks of extensive trimming (a montage of towns sacked for taxes looks like something from the History Channel) and the fights are small, bloodless and lacking in any sense of peril. Ultimately, it lacks the enjoyable histrionics and spectacle of Gladiator and proves that the birth of the legend isn’t nearly as interesting as the legend itself.

3/5

Review - Four Lions

2010-05-10T17:36:00.000+01:00

Christopher Morris' feature debut is a typically controversial comedy about Islamic fundamentalism in which four Muslim's decide they want to send a message by blowing something up... they just aren't sure what or how. Four Lions is a brave attempt to use comedy to address the very real fears we have of suicide bombers, and Morris and co make some powerful points about the mindlessness of religious or idealistic zeal. It's terrifying to see this group of people who compare the chance to go to heaven to going on a ride at Alton Towers instead of being stuck in the queue and are quick to reference Mortal Kombat as a murder tutorial, working their way towards terrible violence. It's a shame that these potentially strong messages are smothered by a film that is more intent on reaching for farce than illumination. For what it's worth, there are many hilarious moments in Four Lions but the comedy is so broad that it's hard to see beyond it.

4/5

Review - A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)

2010-05-10T17:34:00.002+01:00

Freddie's back as the Michael Bay-owned Platinum Dunes production company takes another swing at a horror classic. We had relatively high hopes for this revamp, chiefly because the mechanics of the Nightmare series lends itself perfectly to movies which play with the expectations of the audience as much as the cast. 1984's Krueger was a maniacal trickster, flitting through the early scenes in a barrage of fun and often cheesy effects. 2010's version of the character has transformed into a staid movie monster - walking slowly through dank environments before boringly slashing his perma-tanned victims into mincemeat. The jumps are limp, belonging strictly to the cinema of loud noises = scary and an attempt to explain the psychology behind what is going on comes off as merely laboured pseudo-exposition. Worst of all, the kills are uninspired (though the final sting is a winner), the cast utterly forgettable and the modernisation of Freddie's crime more than a little distasteful.

A nightmare you could sleep through.

2/5

REVIEW - Iron Man 2

2010-04-28T14:24:00.005+01:00

Since outing himself as Iron Man, Tony Stark has become the world’s first openly active superhero – ushering the world into the longest period of peace it has ever known. When a senate hearing insists he hand over his potentially dangerous creations, he arrogantly suggests that no one else could possibly harness the technology. But when a mysterious man shows up at the Monaco Grand Prix and nearly kills Stark, it becomes clear that he can no longer keep Iron Man to himself.

As the sequel to the unexpectedly successful 2008 original, Iron Man 2 (it’s refreshing to not have a ridiculous subtitle) had some big shoes to fill and it does so pretty admirably. Rather than following the normal blockbuster sequel formula of the same, only bigger, it delivers a much more rounded, and slightly darker, experience than the first film. 2010’s Stark is boastful but secretly is slowly being crippled by the machines which have brought him so much fame. Robert Downey Jr. brings his trademark sparkle to the character and there’s more quirks here than you’ll find in a regular comic book film.

The best additions are not one but two villains, something which the first film almost omitted completely. Mickey Rourke’s Ivan (yes, really) is wearing way too much eyeliner and his finale is underwhelming but Sam Rockwell brings layers and laughter to flashy salesman of death Justin Hammer. Gwyneth Paltrow gets a more meaty role this time, Don Cheadle is a personality-free replacement for Terrence Howard and Scarlett Johansson looks great but is totally superfluous - her lone action scene feeling utterly tacked on.

As before, much of the charm of the film comes directly from Downey Jr's performance - even if the constant quippy behaviour is starting to seem repetitive. His motor-mouth is ultimately to the detriment of the film though, as it often gets so bogged down in comedy, exposition and ad-libbing fun that it neglects story progression or, more importantly, action. There are only two major action scenes in Iron Man 2 - the much publicised attack at Monaco and a lengthy, metal on metal finale. The first is sharply crafted, taking Stark out of his suit and putting him in real harms way in a smaller scale set piece that actually creates some token tension. The latter is a bloated series of nondescript suits hitting each other for 15 minutes, which manages to be even more insufferable than the vacuous ending fight in the first film. It's clear that director Jon Favreau has a knack for directing comedy but his action is dull and lacking in personality, geography or danger.

Iron Man 2 is a slightly deeper film than the facile original but also suffers from too many unnecessary characters and inexpertly-directed action. The cast is mostly fun and there are some solid comedy moments but those expecting an action-packed superhero extravaganza will be a mite disappointed.

3/5

[Nostalgia trip - check out what I thought of Iron Man back in 2008 here]

REVIEW - Dogtooth

2010-04-23T11:39:00.005+01:00

Winner of Un Certain Regard at Cannes 2009 and Best Director at our own Dublin International Film Festival, Dogtooth tells the story of an unnamed family who live outside of normal society. While the father works in a factory office nearby, his wife and three grown children (known merely as Eldest, Youngest and Son) stay at home in a fabricated commune where the rules and even the language of everyday life have been turned upside down.

The film starts with a voice over where the meaning of words is described, a recurring theme which sees a salt cellar called a phone and a zombie transmuted into a small yellow flower. The corruption of language, and thus the ability of the children to cope outside of the home, is where the film starts – and it just gets more bizarre from there.

The Father has enlisted Christina, a worker at his factory, to help his son relieve some of his baser urges and her invasion into their closed loop of an existence is the catalyst for the Eldest daughter (Papoulia) to begin to question the rules which govern their tiny world.

Dogtooth is often an uncomfortable film, as the terrifying control which the Father wields become more and more apparent over time and the frank way in which he deceives, abuses and socially cripples his offspring is shocking. But underneath the explicit sex and violence, the most surprising thing about the film is the humour. The child-like ways of the young adults are perfectly captured and their twisted beliefs a constant source of hilarity – as in the moment when the Son first comes face to face with a cat or the messages from their so-called ‘grandfather’.

The performances are remarkably committed, particularly Papoulia (who is the main point of contact for the audience) and Christos Stergioglou as the unrelentingly creepy Father and the straight-faced presentation somehow manages to sell this bizarre family unit. It’s undoubtedly a film that requires patience to fully appreciate but once you get over the initial discomfort and buy into the world that has been created, Dogtooth is brilliantly wrought, terrifying and hilarious, all the way up to its shocking finale.

4/5

REVIEW - Date Night

2010-04-23T11:35:00.001+01:00

Arguably two of the funniest comics working today, Tina Fey and Steve Carell are a comedy match up made in heaven in Shawn Levy's Date Night.

Phil (Carell) and Claire (Fey) Foster are 40-somethings with good jobs, two kids and a slowly crumbling relationship, relieved by weekly date nights to a local eatery. When they find out that two of their best friends are divorcing, they begin to question what is holding them together and embark on a massive date in the city to try to save their marriage. But when they steal another couples reservation and are mistaken for a couple of thieves, their night turns out more interesting than they could possibly have imagined.

Date Night is a very likeable film - the plot is overcooked tosh and action-led attempts to break out of the linear comedy set-up are jarring - but the easy performances of the leads are always there to prop up the sagging direction. It's clear that much of the charm, and most of the laughs, come from the pairing of Fey and Carell - as a series of outtakes over the final credits see them adlibbing rings around the rather staid script.

With a more assured director and a higher age rating, this could have made a fantastic action comedy. As it is, there's barely enough content to fill the 80 minute run time, a bevy of underused cameos (Wahlberg is good but what was the point in having Ray Liotta, James Franco or Mark Ruffalo in there?) and some great comedy moments for the add-libbing leads. Fluffy fun.

3.5/5

REVIEW - Clash of the Titans

2010-04-10T21:02:00.001+01:00

This update does little to refine the haphazard plotting of the 1981 original as Perseus runs from one confrontation to the next, relying on divine intervention for progression; he not only gets an immortal guide (Gemma Arterton in monotone mode) but a series of godly gifts such as a sword and the use of Pegasus. This removes any sense of challenge from the proceedings, even as his mostly forgettable troop of eyeliner-wearing soldiers are whittled down – with only Mads Mikkelsen and local man Liam Cunningham making an impression.

Clash is the first major live-action film to be converted to 3D in the wake of Avatar and the result is mixed – non CG elements look like they’ve had a lazy second layer applied behind them while the introduction has the right effect but looks like it was rendered on a home PC. For what it’s worth, the action looks great but lacks any real emotion or pay-off; this is Perseus’ story but the camera rarely lingers with him long enough for us to feel like he’s in any real danger. The music is strong and the locations stunning but an uninspired lead, weak action and unconvincing 3D mar what could have been a fun mythical epic.

2.5\5

REVIEW - How to Train your Dragon

2010-04-10T21:01:00.004+01:00

Dreamworks jump on the bandwagon with their first animated 3D offering about a young Viking (Jay Baruchel) who tries to prove himself by killing the most dangerous dragon in the land but ends up befriending the hulking, scaly, surprisingly puppy-like beast.

Dragon is a pretty average CG show – the animation is nicely stylised but not ground-breaking, the comedy pales in comparison to others in the genre and the action is fun but uninspired and a million miles away from the over the top brilliance of Kung Fu Panda (which, incidentally, would be fantastic in 3D). It also has some of the most lifeless voice acting we’ve ever heard in a cartoon – Baruchel barely seems awake in live-action movies but here he mumbles through every exchange and the only one who makes a real impression is chat show host Craig Ferguson. It’s left to the non-speaking characters to bring any charm to the proceedings and the host of dragons do that admirably but a little more personality wouldn’t have gone amiss. One for the kids.

3.5/5

REVIEW - Shelter

2010-04-10T20:45:00.003+01:00

Julianne Moore starts out spouting psycho-babble and ends up running from a generic monster in this thriller/horror offering from the writer of Identity. Shelter starts well, with Moore’s sceptical psychiatrist lured to a new patient exhibiting signs of multiple personality disorder, played by Jonathan Rhys Meyers. As he shifts from character to character and she begins to explore his background, the film toys openly with our expectations and layers on some creepy chills, enhanced by some excellent staging (like a scene which plays out in both day and night) and a surprisingly good performance from Rhys Meyers in his multiple roles.

Then Shelter, ironically, goes completely nuts – tearing down its twisty thriller facade in favour of cheap J-horror scares and an increasingly ridiculous backstory which loses the audience around the same time that a character converts a video image of black smoke into a sound wave using a home computer. A shame.

In Irish cinemas from the 9/04/10

2.5/5

A Review of Watchmen

2009-02-27T13:03:00.003Z

Everyone Watches the Watchmen...

The opening minutes of Zack Snyder’s Watchmen are cinematically perfect; starting with an intimate and brutal murder and moving seamlessly into one of the best credit sequences in recent memory. Accompanied by Bob Dylan’s The Times They Are A-Changin’ – it showcases a visual and audio collage of events which are significant in the Watchmen universe, told with meticulous attention to detail and providing a peerless introduction to this very different world. As it traces the history from the Minutemen to the Watchmen it captures exactly the right mix of nostalgia and curiousity which will be needed to nourish the viewer through this epic film, while also giving them vital information in a way that is both clear and visually exciting. Then the famous blood-stained smiley face re-appears and we meld with the narrative and Rorschach’s first piece of gravelly narration.
The opening of Watchmen shows how film can be used to represent material from another media in a more efficient and accessible way. It also makes it clear from the first frames that the filmmakers are dedicated to not just making a solid adaptation of a wonderful story but also to using all the resources in their movie-making arsenal to also make the best film they can, with all the requisite concessions to accessibility which are required in a forum that will be seen by millions of people. As such, it should be taken on its own merits, as separate from the source as possible.
Watchmen starts with The Comedian – a long standing costumed hero turned government sanctioned killer whose death sets in motion a series of events which threatens to bring the world to the brink of nuclear holocaust. If the death of The Comedian is the inciting incident, Rorschach is the stories’ twisted guiding light, the oxymoron of a narrator who is possibly insane. He drives the investigation and it is he who reunites the Watchmen as they are galvanised into action by his paranoia. There will be no spoilers here but the tale which unravels is agreeably dark and tangled and filled with the kinds of motivations and events which would be anathema to any other superhero film.
What sets Watchmen apart is its’ characters. Although the costumes may be familiar enough, underneath lies a group of flawed and realistic human beings. They are drawn to a clandestine world for a variety of reasons and find it hard, if not impossible, to adjust once their activities are outlawed. The incorruptible but over-zealous Rorschach, the fearful Nite Owl and the conflicted Dr. Manhattan shine on the screen, with all their complex motivations and excuses given time to breathe, even in a large ensemble cast. The performances are generally excellent, with most of the cast managing to distinguish themselves despite the very real threat of being overpowered by design, effects and costumes. Jackie Earle Hayley gives a great presence to the character of Rorschach but it is Patrick Wilson who most clearly captures the realities of his role. Beaten down by life and unable to explain why he is drawn to the superhero fold, Nite Owl’s conflicts are dealt with carefully in a less obviously showy role. Billy Crudup is doubly handicapped by being rendered totally in CG and speaking in a controlled monotone but still brings a certain amount of pathos to Dr. Manhattan and Jeffrey Dean Morgan manages to make The Comedian the perfect melding of monster and realist. The only weakness in the performances lies with the female characters. In a film which would have benefitted from some strong female presence, neither Carla Gugino nor Malin Ackerman are up to the task – seeming distracted and unsure of the material.
Ackerman may not give the best account of herself in the dramatic sections but her commitment to the action scenes is total. Watchmen has some of the best action sequences ever filmed, with none of the over-cutting, hyper edited nonsense which we have come to expect from recent cinema. From the opening murder, to a jail break and even an attempted assassination, Snyder’s eye for camera angle and the effective use of slow motion is simply stunning. The fight choreography is superb, with each of the actors seeming like they could not just handle themselves in a fight but likely kill everyone in the room without breaking a sweat. The fight scenes in Watchmen are rough, rarely does a criminal escape with all his limbs intact, and the gore is effective and generally more restrained than that in 300 – although a few moments move from explicit into almost comical. Coverage and a consistent sense of geography are excellent, a necessity which many directors seem to have forgotten. Snyder expands on the action in the comic but these moments never feel as though they have been added just to create great trailer shots. With this and 300, he is truly one of the best action directors around but this film also proves, more importantly, that he can handle drama as well.
Watchmen is a sumptuous, visceral, immaculately created piece of entertainment. At 163 minutes it is never boring with dramatic sections well acted enough to be interesting, constantly fascinating design and action sequences which are tough and harsh and genuinely exciting. The camerawork is wonderful, with a constantly shifting array of dark shades and shadows creating many memorable images. The score, again by Tyler Bates, is mostly subtle and effective – rising into some perhaps ill-advised choral moments towards the end. The licensed songs are another matter entirely. Some work extremely well, like the above mentioned Dylan song but others are less effective and bring the tone dangerously close to parody at times – an odd cover of Leonard Cohens’ Hallelujah during a (slightly preposterous) love scene and the use of All Along the Watchtower spring to mind. The sound design is meaty, with gun shots and bone-snapping filling the cinema delightfully. On a side note, fans may want to know about the ending; it is handled well considering the time constraints but lacks the power and interconnectedness of the original.
Let’s get this out of the way – Watchmen is not as good as the graphic novel but that does not stop it from being one of the most mature and unique movies of the last few years. Snyder and his team have superbly realised a world that is both alien and familiar, with a host of recognisable 80s items and references melding completely with the paraphernalia of the Watchmen universe. As an adaptation it is a worthy attempt but as a film in its own right it is literally without peer, delivering a dark, dense tale of murder, betrayal and moments of the miraculous in the face of total annihilation.

A Review of Let the Right One In

2009-02-27T12:45:00.005Z

'How old are you?'
'Twelve... more or less'

Let the Right One In (or Låt den rätte komma in the original Swedish) is an unusual coming of age drama set in snowbound Stockholm in the early 1980s. It tells the story of a boy on the razors edge of puberty and the trials of trying to rip a nascent adult from the restrictive cocoon of childhood.
Oskar is a typical movie pre-adolescent – he doesn’t really fit in at school and is perpetually bullied by his cruel peers, whose attacks are casually brutal in the awful way children can be. Oskar’s life is further complicated by the separation of his parents; he splits his time between living with his mother in the city and the countryside haven belonging to his father. Increasingly frustrated by his life, Oskar has taken to carrying a knife and seems on the edge of violent reprisal. Then a mysterious young girl moves in next door and Oskar’s world is forever altered.
So much of Let the Right One In conforms to the standard rules of the pre-teen, coming of age genre. The broken home, the bullying and, most specifically, the mix of curiousity and burgeoning sexuality which defines those initial interactions with a member of the opposite sex. Eli is a mystery to Oskar, a truism only heightened by the strange life she lives – not attending school and living with a man who is old enough to be her father but who she never obeys. Her habits are not kept a secret from the audience, but the filmmakers are smart enough to not define her merely by her needs. As the two young, isolated people grow closer together, we hope for a happy resolution, even though we know how unlikely it will be.
Despite its genre trappings, Let the Right One In never becomes a horror film. It has horrific moments and it is certainly not for children but the director, Thomas Alfredson, never forgets that his film is a drama and that the relationship of the children is the most important element of the piece. Combining themes of endless childhood, subsumed sexuality, casual violence and mesmerising performances from the 2 young leads, Let the Right One In is far more than the sum of its stereotypical parts. A sweet story of young love, with violent embellishments, wonderful effects and a healthy dose of the macabre – it is a gem in the increasingly stagnant horror movie genre.

A Review of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

2009-02-05T22:53:00.002Z

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is David Fincher's follow up to the underrated minor masterpiece that was 2007's Zodiac. Here, Fincher reunites with his Seven and Fight Club headliner Brad Pitt, to deliver a very different kind of film.
The film deals with the life and times of the title character, a person born with the features and infirmities of a man in his 80's who gradually grows younger in appearance over time. Those who have summarised the film as being about a person who ages backwards have missed one of the fundamental points of Benjamin Button – namely that his miraculous reversal of the aging process is only on the surface. The film is also misleading in the way it deals with the central character. Fincher uses a number of methods to avoid answering any real questions about the man. The central conceit is a journal which Button has left for his lifetime love – Daisy (played by Cate Blanchett). But it reveals next to nothing about the man, a fact reinforced by the moment Daisy asks him what it is like to age backwards and his only reply is that he doesn't know – he is always seeing things through his own eyes. This issue of perspective also has an effect on the film. By not committing to any explanation or examination of the motivations behind the character, the film misses out on what could have been its best feature. The admirable detached objectivity which Fincher used so liberally in Zodiac seems to have bled over into his next project and, with a title like Benjamin Button, a little emotional involvement was not just important but absolutely essential.
Still, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is a well made film. Pitt makes an engaging lead, though as he grows younger he seems to become like a more and more distilled version of Brad Pitt than a younger Button. Blanchett is rather cold and, in her geriatric and much made up form, practically insufferable. Indeed, most of the characters are rather difficult to like – motivated mostly by selfishness without a thought for the repercussions of their actions. Such realistically complex characters simply do not belong in a movie which should only conform to fairytale logic. Only Taraji P. Henson (as Button's adoptive mother) seems to realise the type of film she is in and her warm and unrestrained performance is the only real heart of the film.
The rather cold tone is all the more strange considering that the story was adapted (from the original by F. Scott Fitzgerald) by Eric Roth – most famous for the smaltz and sentimentality smorgasbord that was Forrest Gump. The script is embellished by a dozen fanciful inventions which are straight from the Gump universe – from a (clearly symbolic) clock which runs backwards to the broadly drawn caricatures which populate Button's first job on a boat. And yet the movie's heart is barely beating, managing only a few emotionally charged moments in its nearly 3 hour running time.
Technically, there are no such disappointments with Benjamin Button. The design and camerawork are sublime, managing to evoke each distinct period perfectly. The score is subtly haunting and adds to the experience without being overpowering. The much vaunted special effects are very special indeed – with the many faces of Brad Pitt genuinely impressive.
In short, every individual department did an excellent job in the creation of Benjamin Button but some vital element was missing. Perhaps Fincher wasn't ready for a fairytale, there are certainly intimations here of a much darker tale lurking just beneath the surface. Without a doubt he is a talented director but some casting mis-steps and a not quite solid grasp of the fundamental point of the proceedings have left the movie weaker than it should have been. There was so much scope here for an examination of life through the eyes of an alien, one with a unique perspective and the apparent key to the fountain of youth. The ravages of age bearing down on the increasingly youthful looking Button are some of the most poignant moments in the film but they flit by in moments, mixed in with Daisy's underwhelming parallel story.
You may think I have been overly harsh on The Curious Case of Benjamin Button but that is only because I saw the possibility of something truly special from a director with obvious talent for complex stories. Perhaps making an enchanting, enduring fairytale was simply beyond even his copious abilities.

A review of The Wrestler (2008)

2009-02-01T19:59:00.006Z

The Wrestler is without a doubt Darren Aronofskys most straightforward film to date and proves that he has the talent to handle a wide range of genres and styles, a skill which David Fincher may not have in light of his uneven Benjamin Button. Here, Mickey Rourke plays an aging professional wrestler who is lost in some no man's land between his 80's hey day and the realities of his bruised and broken 21st century self. After a brutal bout, The Ram's body betrays him and he ends up alone and battered by life, trying to recover from a heart attack. Unable to compete in the ring and alienated from everyone around him, he reaches out to a sympathetic stripper (Marisa Tomei) and makes a last attempt to connect with his estranged daughter (Evan Rachel Wood). The Ram is approached for a high profile rematch with a former foe and he must choose between a potentially fatal return to the ring and the tiny, nascent possibility of a real life which he has carved out for himself.

Much has been made of the parallels between Rourke and The Ram but making that connection takes away from the sterling work by Rourke. He inhabits the character totally – no doubt helped by his increasingly bizzare features (he underwent reconstructive surgery after a short lived boxing career) but also bringing a strange naïve sweetness to a difficult role. For The Ram, it is life outside of the ring that is hard, the everyday is not subject to the rules and controls which exist in a wrestling match. And, most telling of all, you always know who is going to win in a wrestling match – in real life it is never certain. Even when Randy's life is going well, there is always a sense of fatalism, the sense that he cannot allow himself to succeed because he is too afraid of not knowing what will happen next.

Alongside Rourke, Tomei gives a good performance, although she is far too attractive for the role of a forgotten stripper. Seeing the two of them together comes across as aspirational rather than real, an anomaly in an otherwise naturalistic film. Likewise, Rourke's relationship with his daughter, though heartfelt, is spiked with too much cliché to be truly engaging. She is the hate-filled daughter who grew up without a father while he plays the immature, absentee dad who lost his way in a multitude of character flaws. These elements weaken the film to some extent but are generally forgivable – especially in light of the fact that Wood features in some of Rourke's strongest scenes and she holds her own very well for such a young actor.

One of The Wrestler's greatest assets is its camerawork by Maryse Alberti. Fluid and almost documentary style, it also manages to be a commentary on theme and character. Often when Rourke is walking to a new location, the camera follows close behind, hand-held. This deliberately apes that oft-used shot of a fighter on the way to the ring, enhanced by the claustrophobic corridors he walks down, mirroring those underneath a stadium. This connection is made literal as Rourke walks in one long take to the deli counter, with crowd noises on the soundtrack. Rourke literally treats every moment as though he were on the way to the ring, and this is another subtle indication of his inherent immaturity and fear of reality. When faced with another life, he retreats – even going so far as working in the same dead end job for fear of being forced to grow up. Rourke's man child is pathetic, selfish and broken but in the ring he is loved, adored and lauded for not growing up. It is an escape for the character and not fundamentally different from the many ways in which we all escape from responsibility and the vicissitudes of reality.

The Wrestler is a strong and simple film about a deeply flawed and powerfully sympathetic character. Rourke's performance is mesmerisng and his envelopment in the character complete. As the film ends and Bruce Springsteen's 'The Wrestler' plays over the credits we cant help but wish that things could have worked out better for The Ram but the fact is, outside of the ring, no one ever knows who is going to win.

A Review of Ghost Town (2008)

2008-12-22T23:24:00.003Z

David Koepp has proven himself a capable director and Ghost Town is probably his most well rounded film to date, with both Secret Window and Stir of Echoes having trouble balancing their supernatural elements. Doing double duty as writer and director, he gets a lot of mileage out of a rather standard romantic comedy plot.

I’ve never been a fan of Ricky Gervais in any forum, be it stand up or his tv shows – which seem to be based on vicarious embarrassment rather than genuine wit. Mainly, he always seemed to come across as a bit of an arsehole. In Ghost Town he plays a socially awkward dentist who shuns company and is openly rude to everyone he comes in contact with. His favourite part of his job is the fact that his patients spend 90% of their time unable to speak. After a near death experience, Gervais finds that he can now see and hear the dead and, in a city as large as New York, is suddenly inundated with requests from the denizens of the afterlife. One such ghost, played by Greg Kinnear, has some unfinished business with his widow (Tea Leoni) and sets out to convince Gervais to help him so that he can find some peace.

So far, so standard. Guy has to get close to girl for an ulterior motive and ends up falling for her. Ghost Town even recycles the Cyrano De Bergerac conceit of having Kinnear prompt Gervais with lines designed to sweep Leoni off her feet. What elevates this film is not so much the humour (which is consistently well written) but the performances and the moments of drama which underscore the comedy. Gervais is perfectly cast as a man who has retreated from society not out of misanthropy but fear of more pain and loss. His timing is excellent and his ability to move from comedy to drama genuinely impressive. Leoni works well as his quirky foil and the two have surprisingly good chemistry. The supporting cast are generally good but this is really Gervais’s movie and he performs admirably with some challenging material.

As a story, Ghost Town is nothing new. It reaches a predictable conclusion and gets there with a minimum of fuss. It is well polished entertainment and proves that Keopp is getting better with practise and that he has some flair for more light-hearted comedy fare. The film is sweet without crossing over into the saccharine, sharply funny and sad in an empathic way which mostly avoids melodrama. Gervais couldn’t hope for a better introduction as a leading man and his performance is the heart (and lightly mean-spirited soul) of the movie.

Recommended.

Trailer Digest - Xmen Origins: Wolverine (2009)

2008-12-16T10:38:00.002Z

Had no idea what to expect from this first spin off to the Xmen universe but, judging from the trailer, it could be one to look out for next May.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine Trailer 1 HD from Jacob Sheppard on Vimeo.

Trailer Digest - Terminator Salvation (2009)

2008-12-10T13:10:00.004Z

Welcome to the Future War...

Now we know that franchises (like cockroaches) can survive a nuclear holocaust. After the pretty definitive end of Terminator 3 (itself a surprisingly worthy follow up) now we have Terminator Salvation. Set in the future after the bombs have fallen, it tells the continuing story of John Connors fight to save humanity from the machines. Perhaps it was inevitable that the series would end up going here but I think the war against the machines was better left as a kind of back story mythology. News that Christian Bale had been cast as Conner seemed like a good choice, but bringing the guy who directed the Charlies Angels films (McG - he doesnt even have a name) and confirming that it was to be a trilogy seemed like monumental mistakes.

The first teaser worked for me. I especially liked the mixing in of the original Terminator theme. Also, considering this debuted in the first few weeks of principal photography, the visible effects work seemed to be of excellent quality.

'Terminator Salvation' Teaser (1080p) from Yggdrasil on Vimeo.

And now we have the first full length trailer. Its a bit of a mess to me - making the possibly fatal mistake of revealing far to much and reaching an unsatisfying crescendo. Bale seems to be channeling his awful gravelly Batman voice and the effects, in some of the longer shots, look only average (am I the only one who sees those Terminator bikes skating?). I also have an awful feeling that this will be a PG-13 Terminator, something which T:3 only just avoided (it was rated R in the States but 12's in Ireland). If you cant portray the power of the metal monsters by showing the frailty of human flesh then the hopelessness of the fight is lost. Check out the trailer anyway and by all means have a look at the HD streaming from Vimeo.

Terminator Salvation: Bande annonce subjective (2) from majestic on Vimeo.

'I have a bad feeling about this...'

Terminator Salvation is out in May 2009.

Trailer Digest - Watchmen 2009

2008-12-09T10:29:00.005Z

Say what you like about Zack Snyder but he does not make bland comic book films. His visceral take on 300 was a revelation in a world filled with PG rated, child friendly superheroes and he looks to be continuing this run with his next feature - Watchmen.

Based on perhaps the most celebrated Graphic Novel of all time (apparently we cant really call them comics anymore) Watchmen tells the tale of an alternate 20th Century reality where superheroes walk among us and the Cold War is still very much alive. One of the heroes is murdered and it is up to the rest to solve the mystery surrounding his death - hence the line 'Who watches the Watchmen'...

Since the awe-inspiring teaser trailer for 300, Snyder has also had a reputation for creating excellent marketing campaigns for his movies and Watchmen is no different. This first teaser is notable for its music choices - no bog standard trailer music here, instead they use The Beginning Is the End Is the Beginning by Smashing Pumpkins. Which works better than anyone could have expected.

Watchmen (trailer 1) from Grimrock on Vimeo.

For the second trailer, the first true theatrical trailer, the song choices were even more niche. Anyone who can take an action filled trailer and put it to music by Philip Glass AND make it work is, frankly, something of a genius. The first piece comes from his mesmerising score for the mostly sucessful experimental movie Koyaanisqatsi while the latter part of the trailer is accompanied by the instantly recognisable Muse - coming from their song 'Take a Bow'. Together they evoke the startling, eerie difference of the world which Snyder is presenting, which also making it clear that this is a very different kind of superhero movie.

NEW Watchmen Trailer from Young Il Lee on Vimeo.

Watchmen has been in the press recently at the centre of a disagreement between 20th Century Fox and Warner Bros. over who exactly owns the rights to the source material - a case which has already delayed its release in to 2009. It seems clear now that it is in the interests of neither party to delay the film further, but some kind of profit share agreement may be necessary. From the evidence presented by the trailers, Watchmen looks like an incredibly dark, stylish and indefatigably cool movie and one which should make a real splash when it hits screen around the world in March 2009.

Pride and Glory

2008-12-07T23:12:00.007Z

I was a good man once...

Pride and Glory overcomes the clichés of the cop drama to emerge as one of the best films of the year. Raw and real, it recalls Narc in its gripping tale of fathers and sons and the insidious creep of corruption. Colin Farrel aquits himself well with a difficult role but Edward Norton steals the show with his best performance in years. Jon Voight also surprises in a role which makes good use of his stature and brings back the memory of the screen presence he once had. It is to the credit of the cast and director that every part seems entirely fleshed out and real, with perhaps the most effecting coming in a minor turn by Jennifer Ehle as the cancer ridden wife of one of the sons.

Technically, the movie makes the most of the natural grit of its location photography. There are a few long, accomplished steadicam shots here but they are unobtrusive - serving the story rather than the ego of the director (Scorsese, I'm looking at you). The music, from the underrated Mark Isham, is also very effective and subtle, becoming fittingly more dramatic as the movie nears its conclusion. Pride and Glory just feels solid - as though the proper time was taken to really work every aspect out properly (a feeling which was wholly absent from Quantum of Solace, for example). It is really refreshing to see every member of the cast and crew give their best to a project and the results speak for themselves.

Sterling performances aside, Pride and Glorys script (co written by Narc writer/director Joe Carnahan) is also extremely effective, slowly unfurling a dense and dark tale of power, greed and the dramatic effects which come from being a family of cops. This is not a mystery, the truth of what has happened is revealed very early on but a dozen shades of grey make determining the real villains of the piece a far more difficult task for the audience. Pride and Glory is one of the tightest scripts in recent memory, with each element coming together in a way that recalls the symmetry of greek tradgedy, if not its frankly distracting excesses. The pace and power wanes a little towards the end as the whole thing spirals towards lumpen melodrama but the resolution, when it comes, is fitting and manages to sidestep cliche at the last moment.

After several years in development hell and a further delay in releasing to theatres, Pride and Glory seemed to come and go in a flash. We can only hope it finds its deserving audience on DVD.

Highly Recommended.

Zack and Miri Make a Porno

2008-12-07T20:57:00.008Z

"Hi, can I have a coffee?... Black?
Can't you see we talking?... White?"

Kevin Smith is a talented writer and no doubt an intelligent man but his latest so called comedy is an exercise in overcomplicated cliche which dodges any possible entertainment value in its premise to deliver a tired, meandering love story.

Seth Rogen continues his one man quest to drown considered and witty comedy in an excess of improvisation. Improv implies mental and verbal dexterity - responding to situations with speed and verve. Here Rogen is just making stuff up as he goes along. This kind of interplay is annoying in films like the Pineapple Express (listen to the last conversation in the diner - three actors say nothing of consequence for almost 10 minutes) but in a Kevin Smith film, it is a travesty. Smith may be overrated as a director but his writing - in particular his one liners - are always clever and often inspired. Ben Affleck works in a Kevin Smith film because he does what he is told and the script makes him hilarious. By the same token, Rogen ruins Zack and Miri by neutering Smiths zingy dialogue with constant attempts at his own hilarity.

Zack and Miri is all the more disappointing because there are whispers of a better film here. Justin Long's cameo is inspired, recalling Val Kilmer in Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang and Jason Mewes steps out of his Jay and Silent Bob persona enough to show he is capable of real screen presence. The supporting cast are generally excellent and Elizabeth Banks does well with her difficult role as Miri. For me, the real problem remains Rogen and, by extension, the Judd Apatow baggage he brings along with him. Apatows films are carefully plotted, often with very simple central stories, which gives the actors space for improvisation. In this environment, actors like Steve Carrell (and to a lesser extent Rogen) flourish. By contrast, Smiths best films are dense ensembles with a vaguely connected series of events requiring very strict focus by the actors to maintain any semblance of order. When Smith takes on a premise like Zack and Miri and peoples it with Apatow alumni like Rogen and Craig Robinson it loses all semblance of form and effectiveness.

Zack and Miri Make a Porno has courted controversy with its sex scenes (which are few and by no means explicit) and title but will be more remembered as the moment when Smiths sentimentality overcame his talent. The film lies in a no mans land between the View Askew universe and Judd Apatow territory but doesnt measure up to the weakest offering from either. Finally, Zack and Miri Make a Porno just isnt very funny and that, given the pedigree involved, is the most disappointing thing of all.

[AND some of the best lines in the trailer didnt even make it into the finished film...]

Zack and Miri make a porno from Auston Bunsen on Vimeo.

GAME.IE

2008-12-07T20:41:00.004Z

As well as working on the first issue of Click Magazine I have also been writing for Game.ie - working on game reviews as well as articles and news pieces. The site has been a little neglected of late (mainly because everyone who works on it was also working on Click) but it should get some much needed TLC over the coming weeks.

So check out www.game.ie - we even have some good competitions for games that I want almost as much as you do!

:)

Click Magazine - Issue One...

2008-12-07T20:21:00.005Z

I am now a professional, published journalist. How odd...

Click, Ireland's premier (and only!) Movies, Games and Technology Magazine landed on shelves countrywide on Friday the 5th of December. After an extremely sucessful launch party, there seems to be a really positive buzz in the industry and Click could well fill a significant niche in the Irish market.

I came on as a contibutor for the games section and somehow managed to become the editor of the movie section, as well as reviewing games. All things considered, the magazine turned out extremely well and I hope we manage to make it to a second issue because we all learned a lot from this first experiment.

So pick up a copy if you see it and give us a chance to give Ireland the Click Magazine it deserves.

Price is 4.95 from most newsagents and a mere 3.95 in Tescos (introductory price)

And remember...

WE KNOW WHAT MAKES YOU CLICK!

Click Magazine - Issue One from Daniel Anderson on Vimeo.

Trailer Watch - Star Trek

2008-11-21T23:20:00.003Z

So, Star Trek is coming... Yawn...

Ok, so I'm not a Trekkie but honestly, how are there any Trekkies anymore? Surely being beaten into the ground by crap like Star Trek: Insurrection makes you question your faith? No? How about the endless torture that was Enterprise?

Still there?

Ok so the guy who created lost and directed the last mess of a Mission: Impossible film was exactly who Paramount wanted to reboot one of thier most prized franchises. At this point, no one could make a bigger mess out of it so personally I think they should have saved 100 million dollars and gotten Uve Boll and a couple dozen rabid monkeys to type up the thing but maybe thats why I'm not a movie producer.

Star Trek 11 (yes ELEVEN!) works as a prequel to the Kirk/Spock timeline as well as a reimagining of the whole Trek universe. It even (God forbid!) goes against canon in its depiction of the early years of Kirk and Spock and thier initial meeting at the academy. While the trailer is undoubtedly well produced (which, from a major studio, it should be) the whole endeavour screans 90210 in space and Thunderbirds - all mixed into one big, uber-shiny mess.

You can all judge for yourselves come May 2009.

Star Trek from Yuri Prado on Vimeo.

Coming Soon - The Wrestler

2008-11-21T22:50:00.002Z

Say what you like about Darren Aronofsky but he makes films which do not compromise themselves for the sake of the mass market. His frenetic, black and white debut Pi and 2000's blistering Requiem for a Dream exploded notions of genre, battered down walls of censorship and lingered in the conscious mind for days. It was a long six year wait until his next film but The Fountain eventually emerged from a maelstrom of delays, casting difficulties and budget cuts and it, predictably, polarised critics and viewers alike. Filled with dazzling images created without the use of any CG, it told a tale both epic and intimate, spread over a millenia and from one end of the galaxy to another. To say that what Aronofsky was trying to do was ambitious barely stratches the surface. I, for one, was mesmerised by the length and breath of the story and by the surprising subtlety of the whole endeavour but the lack of any definitive answers to any questions is something which most viewers will find unforgivable. Regardless, The Fountain is a unique and wonderful film which everyone should try to see once.

Which brings me to my actual point. Darren Aronofskys latest is heading to you local multiplex in January, after rave reviews at the Cannes film festival earlier in the year. The Wrestler tells the story of a washed up fighter (Mickey Rourke) who is coaxed out of sedentary retirement by the promise of reliving his glory days. But this is no simple martial arts story with an cliched final fight and an uplifting ending. The focus is not on the fight in the ring but the emotional, mental and social scars which this battered long-time loser carries with him. The central performance from Rourke has been touted as truly Oscar worthy. As a washed up former star playing a washed up former star, compounded by Rourke's own, truly terrifying post cosmetic surgery features, we have one of those rare occaisons where actor and character meld into one.

With Aronofskys sterling reputation and flair for examining some of the most complex issues in existence in a thought-provoking way, combined with Rourke's powerful performance, The Wrestler could be something truly special.

Check out the refreshingly raw and despairingly dramatic trailer and do your best to support this film on what will, no doubt, be a limited run...

"The Wrestler" Movie Trailer 2008 from Fred DeMetrovich on Vimeo.

Burn After Reading

2008-10-30T19:25:00.004Z

'Report back to me when it... makes sense'

After No Country for Old Men the Coens brothers no doubt had free rein (and a blank cheque) for their next project. That they chose to waste that potential on something as flaccid and underwhelming as Burn After Reading is bitterly disappointing and proves once and for all that the brothers are not as talented as we would like to believe.

Burn After Reading is about morons and, not incidentally, that also seems to be its target audience. It is a cliched ensemble piece - a panapoly of characters are introduced which appear to have no real connection between them and slowly the links are revealed. This simplicity would be forgivable if there were a single charming or clever element in the piece but sadly it all seems like a bad joke. The characters are composed of nothing but ticks and grimaces; McDormand looks like she is in a no man's land between 2 minor strokes (and is eerily reminiscent of Johnny Depp as Willy Wonka) while Clooney confirms that the sum of his comedic acting ability is his willingness to contort his face. Pitt is the only major player who comes off more or less unscathed (he seems to embrace the absurdity, rather than trying to act through it) but his role is too minimal to save the film. The script is unwieldy, veering from confusing to overly simplistic and has a somewhat peurile sexual focus.

Good points are few are far between. The supporting players are generally good - with J.K. Simmons and Richard Jenkins especially memorable. Indeed the formers interactions with his intelligence community subordinate, as they try to figure out what the hell the main characters are up to, provide the films only consistent humour.

Burn After Reading is a black comedy with too much milk and sugar - the result is anemic and lacking the grown up sensibilities of the brothers' better films. Fargo, for example, is extremely funny at times but laces that humour with a real sense of human desperation and a respect for the audiences intelligence.

It seems pretty obvious to me that this film would not exist without the success of No Country for Old Men, a film which I thought was effective but rather overrated. Perhaps if more people had felt like I did we wouldnt have had to suffer through this flat, laugh free 'comedy'.

Burn After Reading is about morons, for morons and (quite possibly) made by morons. Avoid.

The Midnight Meat Train

2008-10-16T19:15:00.003+01:00

'I have a train to catch...'

The Midnight Meat Train is the latest film to be (however indirectly) associated with Clive Barker. This used to be a good thing, especially between the time of Hellraiser (1987) and Candyman (1992), but as both spiralled into the depths of serial trash (Hellraiser is on its 9th iteration) he has become more associated with sub standard slasher films. Whatever you may think of his garish and brazenly obscene writing style, the themes he confronts are strong and generally quite cinematic – voyeurism and the clash of the ordinary with the extraordinary, as well as perennial favourites fetishism and sadomasochism.

The Midnight Meat Train tells the story of Leon Kaufman (Bradley Cooper), a photographer who, in looking for inspiration for his work, is drawn to the subway in the pre-dawn hours. Initially hooked by a minor brush with the darker side of the city (he stops a gang from assaulting a girl) he is invigorated by the experience, and delves deeper. Here he find a mysterious man (Vinnie Jones) who rides the shrieking metal subway cars alone at night. Intrigued by the man’s forbidding presence and spurred on by the praise he receives for his latest series of photographs, Kaufman returns to the unending night of the subway, determined to explore this terrifying and exhilarating new world beneath the sleeping city.

The movie is adapted from a short story in Barker’s Books of Blood and, apart from the now customary producer credit, that is where his involvement ends. This is a real shame, as the material added to expand the script to feature length could have done with some of his inspired mix of squeamishly detailed viscera and surprisingly subtle characterisation. The story made a virtue of its brevity – requiring no set up and building to a pay off with minimal fuss (and maximum bloodletting). The script, however, loses itself early on in its frantic, almost childish need to play with your gag reflex. The opening scene is liberally slathered with agreeably viscous blood, and before the film is half over we have seen eyeballs knocked out of sockets (then stepped on), heads mashed with hammers and have careened through a skull in bullet time before exiting through the eye (eyes in general have a pretty hard time of it in The Midnight Meat Train). Likewise Kaufman’s descent, literally and psychologically, comes off as half-baked. His morbid, possibly self-destructive curiosity is a familiar theme that can be effective but here there is not enough set up to make the journey believable. There is no attempt to explain exactly what would make him seek out these extra-curricular thrills. Indeed, his life with his girlfriend (Leslie Bibb, trying valiantly to wring something from her meagre material) is painted as pretty idyllic. The film also settles into a formula far too quickly: a kill scene is followed by a scene with the couple at home, as a counter-point to the supposedly harrowing gore and violence. Then there is some investigation, some minor stalker/slasher interplay between Jones and Cooper and another disjointed, unnecessarily explicit horror interlude. The ending shakes things up a little, and it builds to a suitably despairing denouement, but by then its effectiveness has been so diluted by 90 minutes of on camera vivisections and Coopers surprisingly placid performance that the final credits merely seem like welcome respite.

It’s not all bad though. The premise and the idea of the ending, coming directly from Barker’s story, are a cut above those of your average horror film and a testament to the strength of the original. Likewise, the direction (by Versus helmer Ryuhei Kitamura) is certainly energetic and his cacophony of camera angles, speed changes and in-camera effects are enough to keep you awake during the films slower moments. Unfortunately this over-the-top style – combined with some unnecessarily flamboyant (though generally well integrated) CG – also has the effect of negating any real sense of tension or unease in the few moments of the film that attempt to create suspense. The cinematography is crisp and manages to make itself stand out a little from the horror crowd, preferring stylistic (though perhaps a little too smoky) compositions to the gritty and grainy semi-realism of some recent offerings. The music is extremely jarring – reaching almost laughably frantic levels during the final fight and overpowering any scene which does not heavily feature the sound of metal on bone. As for the performances, Cooper’s Kaufman is all grimaces and curiously underplayed, while Jones remains mercifully mute but generally looks more mystified than mysterious.

The Midnight Meat Train is another let down for Barker fans and, unfortunately, for horror fans in general. You may, if you are so inclined, get some enjoyment from the kill scenes – which are at least agreeably the other side of PG-13. You may also experience a little Outer Limits style shudder of approval at the ending that might make you reconsider your next nocturnal subway ride. But, ultimately, there simply isn’t that much to The Midnight Meat Train and it is destined to ride the mediocre movie midnight train alone into obscurity.

A Review of Deathrace (2008)

2008-09-28T19:59:00.005+01:00

Deathrace is a car crash of a movie – you know you shouldn’t watch but you can’t bring yourself to turn away.

Borrowing little but a producer from the 1975 original, it tells the story of a wrongly imprisoned man who is given one chance to win his freedom; compete in and win the Deathrace – armed and armoured vehicular chaos within a maximum security prison.
The director and writer, Paul W.S. Anderson (just so you don’t confuse him with the Paul Thomas Anderson, as if that could ever happen) does a good job with the action but falls flat with the script. Some of Joan Allen’s lines are among the worst you will ever hear. Jason Statham does many physically impressive things while still managing to look like he’s trying to solve a crossword puzzle (his singular talent) and Ian McShane steals the show – something he’s become very good at post Deadwood.

Anderson wisely limits his use of CG here, and the car crashes are satisfyingly meaty and occasionally almost whoop-inducing. The cinematography is crisp and the music is some of the loudest I’ve ever had vibrating my skull.

Deathrace is not a film to be taken seriously but it is also, unfortunately, not quite as much fun as it could have been. It manages to be outpaced in wit and ridiculousness by the original – a film almost 4 decades its senior and with a fraction of the budget.

However, taken on its own, Anderson has got enough reasonable ideas here and enough insanely loud punch ups, explosions and metal on metal impacts to keep me entertained for 90 minutes. If I had one suggestion for the directors cut, it would be to trim that superfluous ending. In a film this vapid, a little mystery at the end would have gone some way towards adding a little bit of John Carpenter-lite to the proceedings.

And I think if you listen very carefully over the credits you can hear the sound of Joan Allen’s agent being slowly roasted over hot coals…

A Review of Rogue (2007)

2008-09-28T19:52:00.004+01:00

Greg Mclean’s follow up to Wolf Creek is much more than another belaboured creature feature. It is a wonderful exercise in well-crafted tension, avoiding the horror movie pitfalls of staid and superfluous splatter. The plot is simplicity itself but the direction and generally naturalistic performances keep it from falling into cliché. The initial gentle pacing leads to a genuinely thrilling middle act, with a truckload of tension-creating devices slowly exerting more and more pressure on the dwindling human snacks.

The practical effects are squeamishly impressive and a pulsing vein of pitch black humour provides expertly timed release between the thrills. As with Wolf Creek, Mclean captures the terrifyingly isolated beauty of Australia, with every insect intact and the sense of unrelenting heat truly palpable. Unfortunately, the final act disappoints – having neither the careful pacing nor the plausibility of the previous hour. This, combined with some slightly distracting creature CG, means Rogue is not quite a classic but it has a lot more to offer than the average Hollywood fare.

A Review of Taken (2008)

2008-09-28T14:38:00.004+01:00

In Taken, Liam Neeson plays an overprotective father with a violent past whose paranoia is proven right when his daughter is snatched while on a trip to Paris. Mere hours later he is on the ground in the French capital, determined to find his daughter and punish those responsible. What follows is a haphazard series of fights, interrogations, car chases, more fights, several smashed windpipes and an ending totally at odds with the film which preceded it.

The action should have been harsh and brutal and while it is sometimes effective it is crippled by being framed too close and by the PG-13 rating. Who thought that a film dealing with violent revenge, dozens of deaths, torture and prostitution rings should be watched by people in their early teens?

Taken is all the more disappointing given the talent behind the camera. Luc Besson may not always come up with masterpieces when he’s credited as a writer, but he can usually be relied on to churn out something that is fast paced and fun (Unleashed, The Transporter, etc). Likewise the director, Pierre Morrell was last responsible for the ridiculous but exhilarating free running action of District 13. Yet together they have managed to come up with one of the most underwhelming action films in recent memory. As for Neeson, he handles the few emotional scenes with his usual impressive restraint and, with his size and reach, looks like he might actually pack quite a punch in real life. But when the action pulls out a little and he’s forced to run or throw himself through the air to avoid a hail of gunfire his 6’4” frame just looks unwieldy and slow – essentially a really big, easy to hit target. There are also endless moments where Neeson suddenly appears behind another nondescript soon-to-be-corpse which always made me wonder what magic massive closet he had found to hide himself in. He is fine when he’s hitting things and emoting but I think his career as an action star will be rather short lived.

I wanted to like Taken. It had potential as a gritty revenge film with the realistic action so popular since the advent of the Bourne series. Neeson is always a likeable lead and the Besson pedigree with the French setting should have worked in its’ favour. Unfortunately, the weakness of the story and random, unmotivated nature of the violence is simply boring, the potential wasted. Taken also shoots itself in the foot with its choice of subject matter. By delving into the subject of kidnapping tourists for prostitution it appears as though initially Morrell and Besson have some moral lesson for their audience. It soon becomes clear that they were merely looking for a backdrop for the action and the ugly stereotyping of the Eastern European characters in the film is irresponsible, even for a film of this type. Also, for a film rated suitable for young people, the lessons imparted by the hero are less than reassuring – if something bad happens to someone you love you really have no option but to kill dozens of people mercilessly until you reach some kind of resolution. This is fundamentally at odds with the initial plot of the film, as Neeson is trying to leave his past behind in an attempt to reconnect with his teenaged daughter (played with vapid gawkiness by Maggie Grace – proving her vacuous performance in Lost was not an accident). I’m not suggesting every film should have a blatant message of peace and love and there’s no denying that nihilism can be cool but when it is taken to this level it has an effect on the overall coherence of the film.

Disappointing and bland, if this film was kidnapped in a foreign country I’d leave it there.

A Review of Postal (2008)

2008-08-23T20:38:00.008+01:00

Postal is the latest movie from the much maligned German director Uwe Boll. It is, like every film he’s made since 2003's House of the Dead, based on a video game and, also like that film, has very little in common with its' source material. Postal follows a rather unique day in the life of a recently sacked factory worker (Zack Ward) who starts out at a job interview and ends up trying to save the human race. Along the way he is aided and thwarted (mostly the latter) by an eclectic mix, including: a bunch of bloodthirsty townsfolk, a cult comprised almost entirely of scantily clad models, terrorists, homicidal policemen, a dwarf who voices a popular (genital shaped) kids toy, Osama Bin Laden and … Uwe Boll! There is no real plot – the action proceeds from location to location seemingly on a whim as the Postal Dude’s day becomes more and more bizarre.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say that I’ve been a champion of Boll’s work but, unlike most critics, I’ve actually watched most of his English language films rather than just jumping on the bandwagon and automatically deriding him. Most are mediocre, and some are stupefying awful (yes In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale, I’m looking at you) but the man is an industry unto himself and, until recently, was making a very healthy business out of it. With Postal, Boll has wisely returned to the openly ridiculous style of House of the Dead, while also turning the comedy dial up to 11. This, coupled with the complete disintegration of any sense of moral decency delivers what can most favourably be described as a unique film.

Boll gets many things wrong here, but the tone, while being his greatest liability, also manages to be his greatest strength. What works here works really well and the way the film unfolds is strangely mesmerising – you literally cannot guess what will happen next. Nothing is sacred and this approach is so all encompassing that he can’t help but hit the mark from time to time. The humour vacillates from quite effectively satirical to utterly tasteless. I would one day like to meet the people who find scatological gags funny. Actually I wouldn’t like to meet them but I would be willing to help sponser the creation of a gulag just for them. Occasionally, to its detriment, Postal crosses the line from tasteless to misanthropic – a moment involving a baby carriage and a fast moving truck comes to mind. However for the most part the content, while undoubtedly crude and misguided, is surprisingly good natured. No segment of society is particularly targeted and Boll’s willingness to make fun of himself (literally) is quite refreshing.

The performances are generally serviceable and sometimes effective. Ward does a good job with some difficult material and manages to strike a balance between playing the clown and the action hero. Verne Troyer is memorable in a bit part which manages to not be demeaning (despite the excessiveness of his eventual fate) and JK Simmons pops up in a strangely unobtrusive cameo. Boll has a reputation for making even talented actors seem terrible (Ray Liotta, get a new agent) but the cast here do a fine job. And even when they don’t, the ridiculousness of the plot and the lightness of the overall tone makes the film practically immune to criticism.

Postal is without a doubt Uwe Boll’s most accomplished movie to date. Some people would say that’s like the difference between doing a frontal lobotomy with a fork or a spoon but it doesn’t change the fact that it represents some maturation in his work. It is by no means a great film, nor by most standards a good one, but it has such boundless, manic energy that you can’t help but get caught up in it. The film is like a huge, mentally challenged, blood-soaked, foul-mouthed Labrador. With a gun. And nuclear weapons. If you are willing to give it a chance and get in the right mind-set (possibly some substance abuse might be helpful) then Postal is a bit of nonsensical fun.

It is also a film in which our hero uses a cat as a silencer.

Yes you read that right.

Enough said.

:)

A Review of Transsiberian (2008)

2008-08-20T21:56:00.004+01:00

Brad Anderson is one of those directors who everyone thinks they like until they look him up. Since getting attention with his creepy (but unsatisfying) Session 9 in 2001 his only feature of note was 2004's The Machinist - a movie which will always remain more famous for the extraordinary physical transformation of its star (Christian Bale) than its effectiveness as a creepy thriller. This is partly because Bale's emaciated form was genuinely mesmerising but mostly because the movie just isn't very good. So, after a few years directing TV episodes, Anderson had something to prove with his latest - Transsiberian.

I've never really thought of Emily Mortimer as a leading lady. She’s always seemed either hopelessly insipid or appears to be battling some unrecognisable accent and a cold at the same time. It may come as a surprise then to learn that she is one of the best things about Transsiberian but unfortunately that statement comes with a number of disappointing caveats. In the film Mortimer and a mis-cast, toupee sporting Woody Harrelson play a husband and wife heading home to the US after completing charity work in China. In a decision which screams ‘bad choice’ to the ever watchful audience, they forgo a simple flight home in favour of the famous 8000 km rail journey through the snowlocked Russian wastes. Hence the title of the film.

What results is billed as a twisty action thriller, with multilayered secrets and lies and the familiar device of a claustrophobic location surrounded by scenic wilderness. This may not sound particularly original but, done well, it could amount to an enjoyable few hours of escapism. And, in fairness to the film, it starts well – meandering slowly through the mystery laden landscape of character development, planting seeds of murky histories and maintaining a convincing sense of unease and displacement – 2 American tourists in the time warp of undeveloped Russia. Events occur in a fashion that makes sense, uncomfortable situations get steadily worse and, around the time Ben Kingsley shows up as a Russian detective, everything seems on a wonderfully dramatic collision course with the revelations of the final act.

But then the ‘twists’ begin. Not twists in the normal thriller sense of the word but closer to the M Night Shyamalan meaning ie: twists that spoil a perfectly watchable film. The final act of Transsiberian dispels any sense of tension and unease by blowing the films internal logic to smithereens. I’m not suggesting for a second that the follies here are on the level of the denouement of Signs (or the entirety of Lady in the Water), but they do manage to bring the films momentum to a halt. Both The Machinist and Session 9 had problems with their endings, Anderson seems to believe that if everything doesn’t reach an overedited fever pitch he isn’t doing his job correctly. This is a shame as the deliberate but inexorable pacing of the plot was one of the films strong points.

Ultimately, Transsiberian is a missed opportunity. Some good performances and impressive cinematography are not enough to smooth over the eccentricities of the final act. It cannot maintain the tension well enough to be a thriller but is too mild to fall into the category of suspense/horror. If it is a drama about the fate of foreigners abroad then why does it descend into near Outer Limits territory towards the ending? Brad Anderson may well have potential as a talented filmmaker but so long as he continues to make films which are only halfway effective he will remain in that halfway obscure list of directors-you-have-to-look-up-on-IMDB.

A Review of Redbelt (2008)

2008-08-15T20:55:00.007+01:00

'Where can I strike you...
... don't stand there'

David Mamet has had a rather checkered history on the silver screen. As the man responsible for the screenplay of Glengarry Glen Ross and the director of minor classics like Heist he was rightly praised but rambling misfires like Edmond and the taut but slightly ridiculous Spartan have made his move from the theatre less than seamless. Mamet’s latest is Redbelt, for which he assumes writing and directing duties, and it is a mixed bag – indicative of his obvious talent as a storyteller but also his continued unease with the medium of film.

Redbelt tells the story of a martial arts teacher who, through a series of events, becomes embroiled in a morally bankrupt world where his way of life, his personal unwavering philosophy, is threatened. It is an archetypal story in many ways: the lone man with an unbreakable code, often associated with violence but somehow not corrupted by it. Archetypes in movies are necessary, they create shortcuts for the audience, allowing them to accept and understand characters and situations almost instantly. Problems arise when these shortcuts are also adopted by the filmmakers. In Redbelt, the main character is archetypal and nothing else. He is a cipher for the misunderstood hero; reacting to each situation in the most clichéd way imaginable. This would be forgivable if the lead were Steven Seagal or Jean-Claude VanDamme and if we were living in the 90’s but its not and we aren’t. As discerning movie-goers we demand a little more of our martial arts spiced character studies, and Mamet seems unable to deliver.

The worst part is that the movies faults are not that apparent. While the construction of the main character is undoubtedly flawed, Chiwetel Ejiofor's performance is simply mesmerising. He projects a palpable sense of restrained power and wisdom, and this is just the latest in a string of memorable roles. Let’s hope that it gets him the attention he deserves. Likewise the martial combat (when it happens) seems relatively fluid and real, at least by comparison with the stroboscopic editing of most contemporary action. The film is also nicely shot and peppered with a cast of impressive names. But technical competence and a single standout performance are not enough to save it film from its fate of curious mediocrity.

A Review of The Dark Knight (2008)

2008-07-26T12:49:00.005+01:00

I was never a fan of Batman Begins (2005). It will forever remain in my mind as the comic book film where the hero escapes from the police during a chaotic chase scene by TURNING OFF HIS HEADLIGHTS! A ten tonne behemoth driving at 60 miles an hour changes lanes and disappears. How in the name of all that is good and mighty did that make the final cut of a major Hollywood movie. Add to this Christopher Nolan's uneasy approach to staging action - particularly in retaining a sense of geography during the fight scenes - and a less than thrilling denoument and I was left distinctly unimpressed. In fairness to the film, it was meticulously designed and the origin story was genuinely engaging but once Christian Bale donned the (rather humourous looking) suit and that hideous carcinogenic drag queen voice I swiftly lost interest. Batman Begins managed to steer the franchise well clear of the cringeworthy excesses of Batman and Robin (1997) but in doing so it went a little too far, and created the unthinkable - it made a comic book film rather boring.

With this in mind I approached The Dark Knight with mixed feelings. The hype machine has been revving away for almost a year, with the first teaser trailer appearing in late July 2007...

Needless to say it didn't do much to change my mind and Heath Ledgers performance of the Joker, taken out of context, seemed destined to be irritating rather than terrifying. Then, on the 22nd of January 2008 Heath Ledger was found unconscious in an apartment in New York. He died later that day. The press reaction was incredible, with the immediate call of suicide echoing around the world. For a time The Dark Knight was lost as the world mourned the passing of a great talent in an acting community which has few enough actors of any real depth.

A Review of Felon (2008)

2008-07-24T20:54:00.005+01:00

Felon is a simple, familiar story of a man who is betrayed by the rule of law and finds himself alone in the microcosm of the prison system. The set up is simple but effective and the film is devoid of the usual forced theatrics of prison movies. The focus is not on a thrilling escape attempt or a courageous quest for redemption in the eyes of the law. Instead it is an intimate portrayal of the journey from being free to becoming an incarcerated, institutionalised felon. It is sometimes brutal and unflinching, occasionally pseudo-philosophical but always maintains a connection to the personal cost of a prison sentence.

Stephen Dorff and Val Kilmer head the cast, Dorff as the wronged man and Kilmer as an enigmatic lifer. The relationship is that of teacher and mentor, there is even a voice over with a montage, but the quality of the performances saves it from falling into overwrought cliché. Dorff proves that a slew of underwhelming roles sold him seriously short and Kilmer creates a compelling physicality and presence, despite his relatively limited screen time. To rate one performance over the other would detract from the impressive dynamic they create. The supporting cast are generally solid apart from Harold Perrineau, a man with no discernible acting talent who still turns up in all kinds of places. His character in Felon is supposed to be complex, gorged on power and alienated from his family but Perrineau simply can't pull it off. It is a shame in a film that does little else wrong.

The film was clearly made on a budget but the grainy, mostly hand-held camera work works well in this setting. The shooting style reminded me a lot of Narc (which can only be a good thing) in its low key approach and sometimes arresting imagery.

All things considered, Felon is a well made, impressively acted, tersely plotted drama which deserves to find an audience. It is better than many movies I've seen this year but can only be seen on limited release before being swiftly kicked to DVD where it will probably sink without a ripple in a sea of direct to video dross. If you find it wedged firmly between the latest Seagal pseudo action flick and some dodgy labelled classic that never was or will be, check it out. Its worth a look.

Trailer Digest - Max Payne (2008)

2008-07-24T19:39:00.007+01:00

Max Payne was not the most obvious choice for another Hollywood attempt at reeling in the video game playing masses. Quite apart from the fact that the two games have barely half a story between them, it has been 5 years since the last game in the series, with no immediate signs of a return for the character. Regardless, I can't help but be a genuinely intrigued by this project, particularly after seeing the extremely well produced teaser trailer...

The action seems intense (despite confirmation that the desired rating is PG-13) and the production design and colour pallete really capture the mood of the games. In all honesty I was expecting a teaser which just showed Mark Wahlberg suspended in mid air firing a gun in super-slow motion, which seemed the limit of Hollywood's ability to interpret video games up to now. But the combination of the grim visuals and the symbolic use of demonic imagery has really caught my attention. So it really did its job well as a teaser!

Max Payne is set for release on the 17th of October in the US and UK and I, for one, am quite looking forward to it.

A Review of Wall-E (2008)

2008-07-22T20:33:00.009+01:00

Is Wall-E Pixar's greatest film and, by extension, one of the greatest animated films in the history of cinema? The better question is, are these claims even meaningful in an arena as subjective as entertainment. You may love Cars (which I find unlikely) and I have a strange and lasting fondness for oft-ignored A Bug's Life but the use of hyperbole in critical reviews is, essentially, worthless. Rather we should deal in specifics; Wall-E is one of the most consistently entertaining and enjoyable movies I have seen this year. It is exceptionally animated, technically peerless and has a design aesthetic and attention to detail which would be the envy of most live action films. It also has its negative aspects. Some are common to many Pixar films - it is a little saccharine and, to my mind, the music score is a little lacking. Other issues are more or less unique to this film. I found the voice acting for the human characters a little weak and uninvolving (perhaps intentionally) and the plotting was quite one dimensional, despite supposedly dealing with some extremely complex themes (Centuries of isolation and that old Asimov chestnut of the evolution of robotkind).

I make these points merely to allow an element of realism into the proceedings, something which seems particularly relevant in a week where the Dark Knight is being heralded as the most super amazing awesome and exciting thing to ever flicker through mass consciousness. The hype is interesting and, no doubt, commercially important but after those first few weeks it becomes irrelevant. The real test of a films quality is whether people will continue to watch it in the future, whether it stands the test of time.

Is it smaltzy? Yes, but nowhere near as saccharine as the low points of Finding Nemo.

Is it funny? Yes, it beats misfires like Cars hands down and approaches the rapid fire success of Toy Story 2.

Is it surprisingly dark? Yes, but in the good way that The Incredibles did so well.

In these ways and many others Wall-E is emblematic of Pixar’s ability to learn from its mistakes, expand on its successes and highlights their maturation into one of the most deservedly successful movie studios in the world. I for one would love to see Pixar drop the ‘message’ and the constant reach for a g rating (in this way The Incredibles, with its PG rating, was a step forward) but that may just be my selfishness. I don’t want to share these films with anyone else. Sitting in a darkened cinema, I realized that what they managed to achieve is far more impressive. Several hundred people – from six to sixty - were entertained and enthralled for a full 90 minutes. There are very few recent movies, very few movies ever made, that can make the same claim…

P.S. The Presto short at the beginning is rather excellent too. A suberbly animated and insanely energetic tex avery style short.
Enjoy

:)

Wall-E's introduction was one of the best teaser trailers in recent memory.

A Review of Hancock (2008)

2008-07-06T20:41:00.009+01:00

Tonight He Comes (Hancocks original, rather humourous, title) is one of the best unproduced scripts floating around Hollywood.
And it should have stayed that way.

Hancock is a superhero film with a difference. The (genuinely clever) conceit is that the protagonist is an amnesia stricken, homeless, mannerless, alchoholic superman clone who is drawn to help people but often manages to cause more damage than he avoids. With personal property damage in his adopted town of Los Angeles spiralling into the tens of millions, Hancock is more of a liability than a defender of 'Truth, Justice and the American Way'. This neat inversion on the standard story works very well, at least for the first act.

Will Smith, as the titular character, flies around drunk, crashes into buildings, destroys fleets of police cars, derails a train and abuses the locals – all in the first 10 minutes. This serves to introduce the initial plot of the movie:Hancock is, according to our definitions, a superhero but he is more or less hated by the regular inhabitants of the city. This is an interesting perspective on the superhero character (though not entirely unique – Spiderman for example has a long history of being presented as martyr and menace) but it is dropped into our laps far too quickly. There is no sense of how this world functions, how day to day life continues with a super strong, inebriated idiot roaming the skies. He has lived in the city for years, so where is the damage? What encouragement is there for us to believe in this world? Yes I know it’s a superhero movie, disbelief is part of the contract between the filmmakers and the audience, but we still need to be enveloped by the internal, fictional reality of a movie world.

The whole film is stricken with a kind of PG-13 Tourette’s. The populace of Las Angeles seem intent on being rude but their lexicon of bad language is less well developed than the average six year old. I understand that it is partly a rating issue (the one use of the f-bomb here is relatively effective in the offhand way its tossed out) but surely someone could have thought of a number of less offensive swear words? I’ve never heard the word asshole used so many times, and to so little effect. It makes Smiths reaction to the word all the more laughable and unmotivated. He should be responding to the hate of the public, not to a particular word and placing the focus of his rage on a couple of syllables is just another example of the films lack of depth.

whats worse is I really thought this trailer had promise...

Massively Effective

2008-06-29T21:15:00.003+01:00

I just finished MASS EFFECT
and it was really rather excellent.
I urge you all to play it.
:)

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

2008-06-18T19:33:00.001+01:00

A spellbinding trailer and surely another classic from David Fincher.

ONG BAK 2

2008-06-18T17:36:00.002+01:00

I've never been to Thailand and I honestly don't know much about it but the impressions I've managed to accumulate are far too much fun to ever be dispelled by the intrusion of reality. Everyone drinks whiskey there from buckets, the natives talk as though the atmosphere were composed entirely of helium and they seem to actively seek out pain. I imagine an entire country populated by persistently drunk, hyper-active, gerbil-voiced sado-machochistic midgets. It is an image that pleases me, so no attempt should be made to dispel it.

And where does my impressively naive and blinkered view originate? Well the highly informative world of cinema, naturally. More specifically the movie niche within a movie niche of martial arts film produced by Thailand in the last 5 years. Namely, Ong Bak (2003), Tom yum goong (2005) and Born to Fight (2004). All are terribly written, awfully acted and, in their own way, wonderfully enjoyable. Sinewy little Thai folk throw themselves (and each other) around with wild abandon - snapping limbs and using elbows in ways you've never thought of before.

The international release of Ong Bak heavily stressed it's not-reliance on CG or wirework, no doubt in an attempt to distance itself from the increasingly ludicrious zero-gravity of recent films like The Matrix sequels and Charlies Angels 2. While it would be innacurate to say that Ong Bak features no CG, its' central action is impressively real. In Thailand, it is clearly believed that stuntmen are incapable of any acting, even pretending to take a punch is beyond them. As such, Thai stuntmen are perhaps some of the last remaining proponents of true method acting. So they really hit each other. Over and over, sometimes (with slowmotion) from multiple angles. No that's not a really good match between performance and camera angle, thats a little asian guy kicking another asian guy in the face. And there it is again a little to the left and at half speed. The stuntwork in these films is truly extraordinary, and the filmakers are smart enough to embroider the action with a minimum of plot, unfettered by the demands of focus groups which require 'coherence' in their action movies.

The star at the centre of the recent international interest in Thai action cinema is Tony Jaa, the lead in both Ong Bak and Tom yum goong. Comparisons have been made with Bruce Lee for years and, in a certain respect, this is accurate. The sheer sense of awe when Jaa perfoms some of his stunts is comparable to the paradigm shift in western action cinema for which Lee was the catalyst. Jaa's work contains a considerable gymnastic, almost free-running element which Lee's lacked, and it is all the more impressive and cinematic for that.

So, check out the other films I mentioned and any other Thai action film you can get your hands on. I guarantee it'll be something you haven't seen before (provided your idea of a good time is watching stuntmen genuinely getting hurt for their no doubt tiny pay cheques).

I mention these points because I just came across the promo reel for Ong Bak 2 - Jaa's directorial debut and another source of images and impressions for my alternate reality of Thailand.

Enjoy.

A Review of The Machine Girl (2008)

2008-06-05T14:39:00.003+01:00

Kataude mashin gâru

GIRL HAS ARM

GIRL LOSES ARM

GIRL REPLACES ARM WITH A GATLING GUN AND SEEKS REVENGE...

I urge everyone to check out the trailer for The Machine Girl. If you don’t laugh, this film is not for you. If you do, prepare to rupture something as, over the course of 90 minutes you will experience: tempura battered forearms, digit-spiced sushi, dismemberment through tripping, A DRILL BRA, ninjas in tracksuits, sapphic arm-wrestling, necrophilic deflowering, bullet flaying, vomiting intestines and gallons and gallons of geysering blood.

Good writing, good performances, good CG and good taste are not The Machine Girls’ forte. What it does have going for it is an abyssal black sense of humour and a penchant for treading the line between the disgusting and the absurd (avoiding, as it does so, the pitfalls of some more extreme Japanese horror offerings). The story, such as it is, revolves around a seemingly normal Japanese high school girl who – after the death of her brother – goes after the ones responsible. There are some other incidentals; the mystery surrounding the death of her parents and the over-complicated bullying of her brother but they are really filler – the tasteless bread surrounding this sandwich of ultraviolence. The opening scene is a perfect demonstration of Machine Girls’ intentions – it contains plot spoilers that reach halfway into the film – effectively stifling any chance of tension or drama. And then a petite girl in a Japanese schoolgirl outfit straps a Gatling gun to the stump of her left arm and you understand. You reach calmly into your brain and turn the switch marked ‘Reality’ to the off position, dial your gorge reflex down a couple of notches and prepare to ride the claret rapids wherever they may take you.

The Machine Girl is gory, tasteless, voyeuristic and peppered with ‘performers’ from Japan’s porn industry. It is also funny, self-aware and delivers on its promises very effectively – its’ main implicit promise being: lots and lots of blood. It has its’ corny moments (ninjas) and is technically rather low rent but, in all honesty, competent filmmaking would only distract from the films gleeful, nihilistic bloodletting. So sit down with some popcorn (avoid sushi), grab the (even more hilarious) dub of The Machine Girl and prepare to dissolve all sense of good taste and decency for an hour and half. I almost guarantee you’ll enjoy it…

Not for MeTube

2008-05-23T00:59:00.002+01:00

After many months being unsatisfied with the quality of video on YouTube I decided to have a look at some other sites offering higher quality video. Given that the vast majority of YouTube video is still at a paltry 320x240 resolution even the move to 640x480 (equivalent to VGA - do you remember that? I remember getting my first VGA capable monitor... God, I feel old) is a revelation. And given that some of these sites can now easily stream proper HD video (720p) there's really no reason to have substandard, blurry to the point of impressionism videos on the internet.

Of course the major issue is speed. On my 1 meg connection I can certainly see a difference in load times as I've embedded more high quality vids. And the increase in time needed to upload these videos in the first place is also an consideration.

A review of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)

2008-05-23T00:42:00.012+01:00

INDIANA JONES
1981-1989
RIP

Without preamble, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls is one of the most disappointing, illusion shattering, childhood destroying movies I have ever had the misguided misfortune to look forward to. No single element of the (rightfully) beloved world created in the trilogy has been handled with the care and attention it deserves. After over a decade of posturing, telling the world that Lucas and Spielberg and Ford were waiting for the 'perfect' script they managed to come up with something that, in deference to the theory, must have been hammered out by a dozen brain-damaged chimps on a single dogeared typewriter over a weekend. While they were drunk. This is not an Indiana Jones film, it is a travesty - cinematic, dollar grabbing necrophilia.

Indiana Jones the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull Trailer from thewraith on Vimeo.

Thorpe Park - May 16th 2008

2008-05-20T17:34:00.007+01:00

Thorpe Park - Detonator from Daniel Anderson on Vimeo.

I don't do rollercoasters. I just find the whole experience utterly terrifying - the brief acceleration and the clenching of every muscle - it is our bodies preparing for death. The fact that relatively few people actually die on rollercoasters isn't as reassuring as it probably should be.
So I went to Thorpe Park in Surrey in England and went on a total of 3 rides all day. And I felt like I was going to die every time.
Still I got some good pictures and videos of people who quite enjoy being strapped to hunks of metal and putting 'near-death experience' on repeat/play for a few hours. The constant, uncontrollable screaming really got to me after a while. If someone had actually decided to go on a murderous rampage - how could we even tell something was wrong...

As always check out MyFlickr for these pics and more. The above video is hosted at Vimeo, a site which not only hosts videos at 640x480 without a fuss but also promises true 720p hd. I have yet to test the second claim (I literally have no movies at that resolution!) but I've found the site easy to navigate and the tools, especially the embedding tool, very helpful.

London - May 2008

2008-05-15T07:44:00.002+01:00

Just off to London for a few days. Hopefully have some nice pics to post when I get back...

Google video

2008-05-14T15:37:00.001+01:00

Just a test of embedding video from Google. It looks pretty awful on the main site
so I dont expect it to look any better here.

A review of Doomsday (2008)

2008-05-12T18:40:00.006+01:00

After Dog Soldiers (2002) and The Descent (2005), Neil Marshall seemed like the new wunderkind of British horror cinema. His latest, Doomsday, is a markedly different film from his earlier work – most clearly in it's inability to choose which genre it belongs to. Dog Soldiers clearly leaned in the direction of comedy while The Descent was a masterful lesson in claustrophobic horror, marred only slightly by a number of over the top action scenes in its final act. Doomsday has funny moments, horrible moments, thrilling moments and, more often, moments filled with levels of absurdity which would not feel out of place in a full-blown spoof.

The year is 2033. A quarter of a century has passed since the outbreak of a fatal disease in northern Britain. Scotland has been cut off - segregated behind a barrier closely following the lines of Hadrian's wall. But the disease has returned, the south is threatened and a crack military team (led by Rhona Mitra) is sent into the contaminated zone to find survivors, and a cure. Throw in Marshall's proven abilities to create tension and a little offbeat humour and it sounds like the making of a minor classic, right? Well yes and no. The films' greatest strength is also its biggest liability – namely nostalgia.

Some films use nostalgia extremely well. A recent example would be Superman Returns. The slow, majestic sweep of the title sequence served to reintroduce us the universe of Superman (literally and figuratively). John Ottman's marginal reworking of John William's superb score was so evocative that it, in conjunction with the familiar (though now CG enhanced) starscapes created a near instant sense of comfort. Superman Returns is homage, Doomsday is convoluted pastiche.

The film is a literal expression of what happens when you give a director too much freedom. After only 2 features, Neil Marshall's track record was simply not strong enough to be allowed this kind of free reign. The result is a mess; the bastard child of a dozen or so 70's and 80's films – from the Warriors to Mad Max via Escape from New York. It also moves schizophrenically from one genre to the next: near future vistas give way to post-apocalyptic deserted cities (a la 28 Days Later) before moving on to psychedelic dancing cannibals, mobs of bikers and an extended, somewhat unnecessary, car chase. Did I mention there's a medieval section as well that comes off as a nicely shot mash-up of Robin Hood and Gladiator? As a knowing and self-referential piece of cinematic shlock this would be perfectly enjoyable but the fact is that Doomsday takes itself far too seriously. What humour exists is often as blatant as assuming that a stunning woman like Mitra aping almost Snake Plissken worthy dialogue is entertaining. This works, to a point, but it is missing that vital cue for the audience; how are we supposed to take this? In Dog Soldiers there was a healthy sense of the ridiculous, both on the part of the characters and the audience. Likewise in The Descent, we know from the outset that the film will not be lighthearted. Doomsday refuses to make that choice, veering from an overlong dance sequence which looks like the gag reel from a Prodigy music video to the genuinely shocking roasting of a live human being. The contrast of different styles can work within the structure of a film to make the relief of the comedy or the shock of the horror more powerful but when it vacillates this often and this wildly any such affect is lost.

One major point to remember is that the movies which Doomsday references are themselves a mixed bag. That's the thing with nostalgia, its better felt than examined. The original Superman comes across, to me, as strangely elitist these days and Escape from New York is an extremely uneven film. So, in trying to bring these kinds of films together, Marshall has doubly handicapped himself: Firstly, by being limited to sources of varying quality. Secondly, by trying to reference so many other films, the coherence of Doomsday suffers. So much so that each scene begins to resemble a discrete entity, rather than a part of the whole.

Doomsday is, however, a difficult film to truly dislike. There is a kind of manic energy to it, an undercurrent of gleeful nastiness that allows it to bulldoze through the cliches, plot holes and bloated editing. The action is generally well shot and presented and the whole film has a technical polish which we are not used to seeing in British cinema. The acting is generally good and Mitra makes an impressive leading lady, hopefully this will be a breakthrough role for her. As for Neil Marshall, this is without a doubt his weakest film to date and makes one wonder whether he's ready to make the move to big budget filmmaking (there are rumours he is about to be subsumed into the Hollywood machine). We can only hope he works from a better script with more supervision in the future.

I find it hard to imagine that we will still be talking about Doomsday in twenty years but for all its' faults there is some entertainment to be had. With the right attitude, a dvd turned up loud and a few drinks it might manage to become a minor cult favourite in the future. And, through the quality obscuring mists of nostalgia, maybe that is how a classic is born...

Go...

2008-05-12T18:30:00.004+01:00

Three hours of tape and many miles of rather fast driving resulted in this time lapse video of the journey from Westport Co. Mayo to the edge of the M50 - seemingly the place where innocent automobiles go to die.
The music is 'Birthright' by Celldweller and 'Breathe Me' by Sia.
I think the whole thing turned out rather well, even through the all obscuring veil of youtube compression.
I know it's long but do try to watch til the end...

camera: me
editing: me
driving: damien

Croagh Patrick 2008

2008-05-08T13:43:00.008+01:00

Climbed Croagh Patrick County Mayo on Sunday. It wasn't easy. In fact I'm fairly sure I wished for death on a number of occaisons but I made it to the summit nevertheless. The view was stunning and, in retrospect, almost worth the physical effort. Almost. Have a lookie as some photos and please visit my flickr page for even more:

MyFlickr

It was only later that I realised I had just gone through a pilgrimage, unintentionally.
Damn sneaky religious people...

A review of Iron Man (2008)

2008-05-06T11:38:00.012+01:00

"And what do you say to your other nickname, the Merchant of Death?

That's not bad"

Iron Man is the first feature to be made entirely by Marvel – a significant gamble which has paid off to the tune of over $350 million worldwide after just two weekends. For a non-sequel from a fledgling company that is very impressive. It also bodes well for Marvel's second project, the reboot of The Incredible Hulk – due in cinemas in June. Comic book films are big money spinners now but the success of a new series is predicated on the entertainment value of the central character – and in this way Hulk and Tony Stark have similar problems. They just aren't super enough...

Iron Man starts with an unnecessary flashback structure, presumably to ensure some loud action in the first minute or two. Tony Stark (played with now-familiar post-rehab gusto by Robert Downey Jnr.) is the embodiment of the capitalistic, jingoistic American ideal. He has become absurdly rich designing weapons and, more significantly, has no moral qualms whatsoever about the negative effects of his work. Stark is not a nice man. Except he is. This potentially realistic and complex dualistic behaviour is lost in the film's failure to choose sides. This leads us to the first of many problems; what are we, the audience, supposed to think of Tony Stark? He is presented as bright and brilliant; a charming man of the people but also as a womaniser and something of a warlord. This initial confusion is nothing compared to what happens later on. After a brush with death and a subsequent escape (which is accomplished in an ultraviolent fashion) he holds a hippie press conference and vows to stop making weapons for good.

This turnaround is simply too fast and, as presented by Downey Jnr. with his usual twinkly-eyed glazed look, has none of the power or angst we have come to expect from comic book origin stories. His parents are not murdered before his eyes, nor is his home world destroyed. He does not belong to a mutant race of outcasts nor does he inadvertently cause the death of a loved one. He simply comes across as a petulant child who is bored with his old toys. Instead of using his money to work for peace or help starving children he creates a powered battle suit and flies around the world blowing things up. Exactly how this is 'protecting the people he put in harm's way' is slightly beyond me. And the hypocrisy of the double standard is appalling – it is only when Stark realises that (Shock! Horror!) his weapons might be used against American troops that he begins to examine his conscience.

Don't get the wrong idea, there is nothing particularly obnoxious about Iron Man. The performances are light and breezy and the script is a cut about the blockbuster norm; littered as it is with a particularly dry sense of humour. The central performance from Robert Downey Jnr. is the film's saving grace but also its' Achilles heel. His presence is enjoyable on the one hand but, in my opinion, also detracts from the credibility of the whole endeavour. You keep expecting him to wink to camera and finally admit it is some kind of extravagant Saturday Night Live parody. That Jeff Bridges is really being played by Will Ferrell and Terrence Howard is actually just a cardboard cutout. I still don't get Terrence Howard. I've yet to see him raise a palpable, or even guessable, emotion in his roles – his face seems oddly expressionless and his voice almost unbearable. He gets some good lines in this film but sounds like he's reading them from an auto cue. But I digress. As once off summer entertainment this kind of self aware film-making is bearable but I simply can't see the film becoming a much loved classic in the future.

So, what does the film have going for it? The special effects are extremely impressive, with the integration of cg and live action especially so. The set pieces, when they come, run the gamut from almost boring to genuinely thrilling. Stark's armoured escape from captivity is suprisingly dull while some of the later aerial combat sequences are really good fun. Once again though, the use of sfx has positive and negative effects, particularly in relation to the ending. The final confrontation has become a serious problem for the superhero film. In days of yore, special effects were difficult, so typically the best the film had to offer was saved for the ending. Now, every scene is liberally slathered with computer generated gunk. The result is explosive fatigue, a run of overpowering sequences which forgo actual affect for special effect. A dozen astonishingly well-rendered high octane scenes does not create a cumulative effect. There is a new cinematic law of diminishing returns. If the same level of frankly awe-inspiring cg work is applied to the hero designing and dressing in his suit then what is left for the audience to look forward to. What makes a special effect special these days? The ending of Iron Man is another clunky computer-aided brawl, where narrative is suspended for minutes at a time while increasingly unrealistic pieces of metal and flesh beat on each other. This moment is reminiscent of a dozen other recent movie resolutions: from Hellboy to The Matrix Revolutions, all equally unengaging. Without vicarious involvement – a sense that a character we can identify with is in danger – it just amounts to so many polygons.

Perhaps I've been a little harsh on Iron Man. I can't honestly say I was bored by the experience but I do feel its' major mis-steps are a symptom of a greater malaise at the heart of contemporary blockbuster cinema. If, however, your cynicism has not quite reached the pathological degree mine has you could well have some fun with Iron Man. Robert Downey Jnr., Jeff Bridges and Gwyneth Paltrow are amiable enough company (even if the latter seems as though an errant puff of wind would shatter her into a million pieces) and the director, Jon Favreau, keeps things moving at a reasonable pace. Stark's character arc is minimal (more of a character stroll really) but his near trademarked delivery of PG-13 witticisms should be enough to hold your attention. Just.

at the IMDB

A review of The Orphanage (2007)

2008-04-29T02:48:00.012+01:00

"Seeing is not believing.
Believe, and you will see."

The Orphanage is not a horror film and it is not directed by Guillermo del Toro.

These two common misconceptions have followed the film around since it's release. The former can perhaps be dismissed as semantics but the latter bears some semblance to the belief several years ago that Quentin Tarantino had directed Hero(2002). The major difference is that del Toro is a genuinely talented director and Tarantino is an over-rated adolescent. But that's another rant for another day.

The Orphanage was actually directed by Juan Antonio Bayona, in his feature film debut, though it could easily be mistaken for del Toro's work. Best known for his comic book movies Blade II (2002) and Hellboy (2004), The Orphanage is more tonally similar to some of his Spanish language work, particularly The Devil's Backbone (2001) and elements of Pan's Labyrinth (2006). However indebted Bayona is to films of this type he still manages to carve out a niche for himself with a suspenseful, emotional and technically accomplished ghost story.

I mentioned before that I did not consider The Orphanage to be a horror film and I stand by that assertion. Although the horror genre has always been difficult to define I would rather refer to this movie as an exercise in suspense mixed with a good old-fashioned ghost story. This does not mean that the film is not scary, far from it. There are jump scares and horror clichés aplenty but the film is smart enough to play with these conventions in a number of smart ways.

A married couple with an ailing, adopted son move to a mansion in the country with the intention of setting up a care home for disabled children. The title of the film refers to the fact that the mother was also an orphan and the house is the orphanage where she spent her youth. An initial flashback to this time shows us that Laura was happy here and she clearly wants to help other young children now. Her son, Simon, seems content in the new house, especially as he finds a number of new invisible playmates. He and his new friends play games, including a frantic treasure hunt, and his parents are generally tolerant of his childish delusions. The initial pacing of the film is gentle, coming to a head with Simon's sudden disappearance and Laura's desperate attempts to find him. She is willing to go to any lengths to be reunited with her son. The events which make up the latter half of the film are sometimes shocking, often intensely creepy and move at a fast pace towards the inevitable but heart-wrenching conclusion. It ticks all the stereotypical boxes for this kind of film - old dark house, creepy children, loud noises, even a surprisingly elaborate sequence involving a medium - but manages to feel fresh through a number of unique twists. The use of children's games is especially effective, with one memorable moment employing just the right mixture of tension and outright fear.

The cinematography is gorgeous but inobtrusive, certain shots are stunning when taken on their own but do not detract from the flow of the film. The use of cg within the film is subtle, something which non-American productions seem much better at. Visual effects are used to add to a scene rather than overpower it, except in the strangely cg-heavy title sequence. It is an anachronism in an otherwise technically sparse film and was most likely tacked on late in the game. The performances are likewise terse. Most notable is Belén Rueda as Laura; managing to play the distraught mother with commendable subtlety rather than the usual perfunctory hysterics. The performances of children are more difficult to critique. Suffice it to say that most of the young cast are blissfully silent and the son, Thomas (Roger Princep) does a fine job with some challenging material.

And there is yet another element which sets this film apart from its' contemporaries. It is in Spanish and, perhaps unfairly, this only adds to the overall sense of mystery. Even with subtitles, there is a more active engagement when we are viewing something that is not in our native language. We are not as focussed on what the characters are saying, instead we really see them, their interactions with their environment and eachother. I genuinely believe that this linguistic divide makes the film more effective and scarier. And make no mistake, this film is scary. True it has more in common with the short, sharp shocks of The Others (2001) than the hysteria-inducing gore and violence of Haute Tension (2003) but the insidious intrusion of the supernatural into the domestic is truly chilling.

The Orphanage is a highly effective ghost story with some interesting twists on the sub-genre that manages to maintain a constant level of dread and suspense. The resolution is shocking but also manages to retain an element of hope, as well as an insight into a possible view of the afterlife. I would strongly recommend this film for anyone who is tired of the assembly line abattoir of American horror – where tanned teens' barely one-dimensional lives are ended in a spray of (usually off-screen) viscera. If you have any brain-cells functioning after being subjected to such films, The Orphanage may give you a few sleepless nights but, after all, isn't that what a good ghost story is for...

Quotidian Neologism

2008-04-29T00:09:00.005+01:00

Words are great. So are books but as they are, essentially, longer or shorter collections of words in many different orders - words were better, first.
Dictionaries are great too - they resemble books in that they are collections of words but they are gloriously unfettered by the percived need for a 'plot' in literature or an 'argument' in academia. Dictionaries are just lots of words with other words explaining what the initial words mean. They come bound together in many pages but, in our fantastic technology-riddled world, dictionaries also exist on the Internet.
So, from now on you can learn a new word here every day courtesy of www.dictionary.com
It's not a book but it's still rather good. And it doesn't encourage the persistent genocide of trees. Which is good as well.
It's an excellent resource and... words are great
:)

HQTube

2008-04-27T12:16:00.022+01:00

So YouTube now allows you to upload vids at a slightly higher quality - 480x360 resolution to be precise. May not seem like a lot but it does make things seems a little clearer. The increase in audio quality is a little more noticeable (44100 Hz, up from 22050 Hz) but I think thats just because it used to sound pretty awful.

There are a number of ways to see the higher quality vids on YouTube, but so far none are especially straightforward.
The most common is to append &fmt=18, which I'm told 'downloads the video as a MP4 (H264 with AAC audio), encoded at 480x360'. But there is also the mention of adding &fmt=6 which results in a different resolution (448x336) on selected vids. I'm not sure what Google thought they were doing here, but it seems to have been implemented in a pretty awkward way.

You can also change your account settings to automatically play the higher quality vids if they are available but, for me at least, this still makes it confusing because you are never sure which type is playing. Of course, as I'm on a 1 meg connection, the fact that the video is loading like an ameoba relay race is probably a good indication.

Anyway to enable this, go into your YouTube account, then down at the bottom under ACCOUNT/Video Playback Quality choose - 'I have a fast connection. Always play higher-quality video when it's available'.

As a test I thought I'd try to embed two vids, in old and new resolution, beside each other. I'm not that excited about the new Iron Man film but I'll use it as an example anyway.

Hmmmm, I followed all the directions. Maybe because the trailer is widescreen some of the values need to change... Robert Downey Jr. does seem a little stretched :)

Anyway, thanks to http://howto.wired.com/wiki/Watch_Higher_Quality_YouTube_Videos for the info and the (somewhat faulty) embedding instructions. I'll give it another go later.

P.S. it seems that there is no way to embed the non mp4 vids at present so the audio quality of the Iron Man trailer does not have higher bitrate audio but is apparently in stereo. Is anyone else confused yet?

How can you Breathe Six Feet Under?

2008-04-22T00:06:00.005+01:00

As a precursor to some inane waffle about Six Feet Under and cos I think its rather nice and cos I havent quite figured out how to simply put music on this blog (yes I know you have to host the track somewhere and embed the url, blah blah...) heres a song called Breathe Me by Sia.
She seems to have a cold, or maybe shes supposed to sound like that. Whatever, the music is lovely and I dare anyone who has watched all of Six Feet Under to listen to it and not feel at least a twinge of emotion.
(for ye unwashed and uneducated masses, the song features in the final moments of the final episode of one of the finest tv shows ever made - during a sequence that is as bizzare and humourous as it is moving. Kinda the way life is)

Anyway, here's the slightly pretentious music video. Best to close your eyes or just leave it running in the background.

Enjoy :)

The Fall Trailer

2008-04-21T13:36:00.003+01:00

Perhaps the most beautiful trailer in recent memory (a word I don't use lightly), this is Tarsem Singh's follow up to 2000's The Cell. Unlike most people I quite liked The Cell, though more for its' amazing imagery than its casual brutality.
Anyway, this film has been finished since 2006 and has so far only had a pretty unsucessful run in Russia so I wouldnt hold my breath for seeing it at the local multiplex.
I'll stop waffling and let you watch it. Do seek out a HD version, these Youtube vids don't do it justice.

Epic...

2008-04-21T13:28:00.005+01:00

Another couple of vids here, part of a supposed series entitled Epic... something.
I'm considering Epic Cooking or Epic Clouds... can't think of anything else at the moment.
Any suggestions would be appreciated.

I really like the lens flare at 1.08 :)

Trailers Anonymous

2008-04-20T21:59:00.006+01:00

'Hello My name is Daniel and I love trailers'

I really do. I think it's their simplicity, the facile nature of the two and a half minute relationship. The bombastic promises they make (like every Tom Cruise film will 'change your world') and the way in which they satisfy all your cinematic needs in moments.
I've tried to sort through my addiction, I even considered doing my thesis on trailers as a form of therapy but I'm still absurdly drawn to them. Consider an example; Timur Bekmambetov's latest film Wanted.

Now I've seen the director's previous films (Nightwatch and Daywatch) and I found them wholly confusing and underwhelming. And yet, addict that I am, I'm absurdly excited by the trailer for Wanted. I'm like some kind of pathological goldfish, coming to each film with renewed hope no matter how many times I've been disappointed. And I blame the trailers.
The main problem, probably obvious to everyone else out there, is that being able to make a good trailer just means you have two minutes of good footage. With editing and, perhaps more importantly, music any film can be made to seem good. Case in point, the Matrix Revoloutions has a pretty good trailer and is one of the worst (or at least, most disappointing) films ever made. I suppose all this really means is that the advertising companies are doing thier jobs - flashy and well edited trailers makes thousands of idiots like me spend money on their films.
It's opium for the masses...

2008-04-20T20:39:00.001+01:00

Just for fun (and to make it seem like there's more content on this page) here's an alternate trailer for the rather good and criminally underrated 2002 film Equilibrium.
The film was advertised as a Matrix-beater and, as such, I suppose people would be disappointed. In my opinion it's a bit more deep than the Matrix and the action is very impressive for the budget. Anyway, this vid basically cobbles together the best action moments in the film in a way and is, if I do say so myself, rather satisfying.
Enjoy :)

2008-04-20T20:29:00.001+01:00

Well greetings and hello.
More out of boredom than any real motivation I've decided to join the blogging community. No doubt this brief interest will fizzle over the coming weeks as I realise I don't actually have anything much to say but I'd rather be here than on facebook.
To be honest I see this more as an opportunity to force myself to do some writing, or at least in a more or less systematic and hopefully less mysanthropic way. Though ranting online does feel a little like the literary equivalent of shouting into the abyss.
Should anyone actually end up here, my intention is to treat this site as a dumping ground for my opinions about life (ie: rants) and a repository for my over written opinions of whatever films I've recently watched. If I ever think of anything else interesting then you'll find it here too.
Alrighty then, here's a Bourne Ultimatum review from the archives to get me going.

A review of The Bourne Ultimatum (2007)

2008-04-20T20:12:00.002+01:00

I liked both The Bourne Identity (2002) and The Bourne Supremacy (2004) but I didn’t love them. As espionage thrillers they were a welcome antidote to Bond (especially in the wake of 2002’s bloated Die Another Day), were competently made and, at the very least, consistently entertaining. It seems to be something bordering on blasphemy to suggest this, but I must admit I preferred the Doug Liman directed Identity over its sequel, helmed by Paul Greengrass. The latter’s handheld camerawork (even in scenes where a properly composed, static shot would be more effective) constantly distracted me from the onscreen events. This irritating stylistic choice, coupled with an unnecessary-to-the-plot (though undoubtedly thrilling) car chase in the final act makes Supremacy the weaker film, in my opinion. However, regardless of minor foibles, I enjoyed the two Bourne films thus far and, with this in mind, looked forward to checking out the latest instalment – The Bourne Ultimatum.

Again directed by Paul Greengrass, now with the frankly awe-inspiring United 93 (2006) under his belt, Ultimatum follows on immediately from the events of Supremacy. In fact, the initial action follows Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) as he escapes from the aftermath of the car chase which ended the previous film. It is during Bournes’ escape from the police in Moscow that the first possible downfall of the film reared its head – flashbacks. Though the gradual reveal of Bournes shattered memories has been an element in each of the previous films, it is such a tired cinematic device that I feared its use, so early in the film, might be a symptom of sequel fatigue. A spy film with a central character suffering from amnesia had been done to death 50 years ago, and is a plotline revisited by countless neo-noir and science fiction stories. Here it frames a tale of revenge on the people who created Bourne; echoing backwards to his indoctrination into the ranks as a mindless assassin. The use of this device, and the generalities of the plot which it fuels, are rather crude, rudimentary and extremely familiar. But this is where the disappointments with The Bourne Ultimatum end.

The plot, in complete disregard of its failings, rockets along – taking us on a globe-trotting adventure from Moscow to Tangiers and, ultimately, New York. An ensemble of new and returning characters populate Bournes headlong sprint from one danger to the next. The acting is almost uniformly excellent; Damon manages to meld death-dealing assassin with world-weary everyman perfectly, Julia Stiles makes the most of a chance to flesh out her returning character and David Strathairn is uncompromising as a heavy-handed section chief. The only minor casting blip comes in the form of the other operatives sent after Bourne – they are particularly nondescript, forgettable and almost indistinguishable from one another. Though this is, quite possibly, deliberate it occasionally feels as though Bourne is fighting and running from the same Terminator-like enemy throughout. The events are essentially the same as the previous outings – the only real difference being that this time instead of running away Bourne is taking the fight to his former bosses. The action, in keeping with the series, is short, sharp and brutal. The choreography and execution of the action scenes is near perfect in this film, building on the lessons learned in the previous outings. The hand-to-hand fighting is not marred by the jump-cutting, speed ramping mistakes of the first film and the central New York car chase is both breathtakingly captured and is at least partially integral to the plot. The most effective sequence though, in my opinion, involves Bournes interaction with a British reporter (Paddy Considine). The latter is guided through the rush hour madness of Waterloo Station in London while Bourne moves around the periphery; eliminating the agents who are stalking them. The sequence is relatively action free but filled with the kind of sustained tension and a palpable sense of danger which action films in general, and Hollywood films in particular, generally find impossible to create.

As the third part of a previously competent and enjoyable trilogy, The Bourne Ultimatum had the deck stacked against it – particularly coming at the end of a summer movie season with so many disappointing second sequels (Shrek 3, Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End, Spiderman 3…). Against all odds it truly delivers. I would not hesitate to say that it is the best of the trilogy; likely the best action film I’ve seen this year and possibly one of the best films of the year thus far. As a film-lover who is more often disappointed than dazzled I am delighted to be able to recommend this film as a triumph of sincere and sustained talent rather than a vacant money-maker, a symbol of studio greed. The Bourne Ultimatum is uncomplicated without seeming shallow, realistically brutal without feeling constrained by its PG-13 certificate, well-acted, impeccably directed and, above all else – it leaves you with that indefinable feeling of post-cinema satisfaction. It’s neither the greatest film ever committed to celluloid, nor even the greatest action film but it succeeds far more than it fails and deserves to be seen and appreciated.

Enjoy.

P.S. And yes, for the record, the ubiquitous shaky handheld camera-work does make an unwelcome return. Though noticeably toned-down it is still consistently distracting, injecting unneeded energy into dialogue scenes and occasionally obfuscating any sense of geography in the action scenes. However, Greengrass pulls off everything else with such panache that he can be forgiven this one, peculiar habit.