If only he'd gone splat...

JUMPER

In theory, the premise of this movie had huge potential. You have your handsome lead (Christensen) with amazing powers of teleportation. You have the evil cult (known as "Paladins") who are bent on capturing and murdering him and anyone like him (people known collectively as "Jumpers"). Then there is the obligatory damsel in distress to rescue (the lovely Ms. Bilson). You have to ask yourself, how could something like that possibly fail? Especially when Doug Liman was at the helm. Here he was given plenty of opportunity for creative action sequences and non-stop excitement, which he excels at (see his last two movies: The Bourne Identity and Mr. & Mrs. Smith).

The first glaring problem with the film is that it takes itself too seriously. And a serious film needs a plot to back it up. Sadly the plot was lacking in the extreme. Second, in my opinion, there’s no point making a movie if you can’t populate it with characters worth caring about, which this movie seriously failed to do.

Haydens character (David, the protagonist of the movie) was, in a word, a knob. In essence he was a thief, and a selfish one at that. It is certainly possible to love a rogue, but for that to happen, he must possess some redeeming qualities, which sadly David did not. This made him hard to relate to and impossible to sympathise with.
It didn’t really help that Hayden has all the charisma of a stuffed dead squirrel; cute to look at, but ultimately lifeless and lacking in any kind of charm. I’d also have to call into question his acting ability (not that this movie would be a good indication of such a thing). But his performance is so flat and disinterested that I have to wonder if there’s anything going on behind those cold cold eyes of his.

Samuel L. Jackson plays his nemesis. The problem here is that beyond the “all Jumpers are evil" line, we are given no motivation for his character or the quest of the Paladin order, so it’s hard to love or hate him. If some kind of history had been given to the war between the Jumpers and Paladins, it would have made the plot FAR more substantial. Typically Jackson can be relied upon to make the best of dreadful lines and paper-thin roles, but here he plays it totally straight and delivers not a single laugh or tongue-in-cheek moment.

Rachel Bilson plays the hapless love interest and does her best to invigorate a thankless role. To be fair, she doesn’t move far from the character she’s most well known for on the OC, but at least she brings a spark of life to the proceedings.
What bothered me about her character Millie, was how quickly she fell for and trusted David, a guy who she hadn’t seen or heard from since she was a little girl. The two lacked any kind of connection and the relationship between them was too hurried and contrived.

The film would have been a complete and total waste if not for Jamie Bell. Like the rest, his character of Griffin (First name? Last name? Who cares, the writers sure didn't!) lacks any kind of depth but Jamie does a fantastic job of working with what little he was given. He injects a bit of life and humour into his character and acts everyone else off the screen when he pops up. Sadly, even the smallest bit of background to his situation was quickly swept under the carpet (god forbid we start to FEEL anything for these people).

I must admit, the special effects and the sound effects that accompanied the “jumps” of the title were very impressive and dynamic, but not enough to compensate for a lack of imagination during the films many action scenes.

Overall, this movie was a wasted opportunity and a huge disappointment.

Not so mega man

I AM LEGEND

“I Am Legend” is the 3rd film to be based on the book of the same name by Richard Matheson. I’ve never seen either of the previous incarnations or read the book (though I fully intend on doing so), so I was able to go into this film with no preconceived notions or wild expectations.

Robert Neville (played by Will Smith) is the last man on earth. Emphasis on the “man” part, cause as the tagline of the film states, he’s not alone! Three years previous, a catastrophic virus (to which he was thankfully immune) infected humankind, wiping out most and mutating others into brain-dead zombie monsters. Neville spends his days alone in a quarantined New York, trying to come up with a cure for the virus, but at night he holes himself up in his house to avoid the attacks from the monstrous mutants.

The story (or the one that was promised) was a genuinely intriguing one. Lets put aside Nevilles struggle against the mutants and his quest to find a cure for the moment. What was most interesting to watch was one mans battle to stave off insanity. Cause let face it; even with the most grounded of personalities, after 3 years alone with only your dog for companionship, little cracks would start to appear! Neville tackles this by maintaining a strict daily routine, but that ends up being supplemented by having conversations with mannequins in stores, just to maintain the illusion of other people in his life.

And it has to be said, given how the whole film rests on his shoulders; Will Smith carries it quite well. As always, he does a good job of making his character relatable to the audience. What I was pleasantly surprised to see was his decent attempt at demonstrating how someone would behave after being isolated for so long (although I’d have preferred a little more “crazy” on my corn flakes).

The movie also succeeds in swallowing the viewer in a sense of extreme loneliness, with its overgrown city streets and deserted buildings. The build up to the reveal of the mutants is also handled quite expertly. The scene where Neville creeps along through the darkened corridor in a desperate search to find his doggie chum, was one of the tensest pieces of cinema in recent memory. And the first sighting of the creatures, huddled around the corpse of the deer was completely unnerving. Sadly, that was the highpoint of the film and it went a little downhill from then on.

The main thing about the movie (looks-wise at least) that bothered me was the decision to use CGI creations as the mutants in the film. And these were fully CG, at all times (not just for complicated shots which would be impossible to humanly replicate). But CG monsters, no matter how well done, are never as believable or scary as a physical creation. It baffles me as to why the director didn’t choose to use regular people in make-up (see “28 Days/Weeks Later”), or even make-up enhanced with a little CGI (a la “30 Days of Night”) instead. Surely this would have been less costly and it certainly would have been more effective. Instead, any time one of the mutants appeared on screen, the tension and fear that had been created just evaporated from the scene.

The plot was filled with many little unexplained quirks and there were story points that were mentioned but never followed up on. The end of the film was particularly contrived and felt like the writers had hit a brick wall and needed to wrap things up quickly. Having been subsequently informed of the books original ending, it makes me wonder why the writers of this movie subverted the original ending as much as they did. It’s a crying shame that as yet, no one has had the courage to make a film based on the superior ending in the book. Maybe for the books forth movie incarnation perhaps?

I Am Legend was a decent film (and I loved the teeny-weeny cameo from Emma Thompson), but it was let down by misused CGI and a hasty (all too convenient) ending.

More like 113 Minutes of Sh!te

30 DAYS OF NIGHT

I’m a huge vampire buff, but since I’d never read the comic on which this movie was based, I had no preconceptions or hopes before heading into the cinema. The premise of the movie was quite clever though. Once a year, a little isolated town waaaay up north goes through a period of 30 days without any sun. This would obviously offer the perfect playground for the enterprising vampire.

A number of things let this film down. Chief among them was the complete lack of characterisation. In a survival horror film such as this, an emotional connection to the victims is vital, but sadly none materialised.

It didn’t help that leading this cast of one-dimensional towns-folk was Mister Plank himself, Josh Hartnett. I swear to good god, if this man were lit on fire he’d struggle to burn convincingly. I’ve got big love for Melissa George, but this movie really didn’t do her any favours either. There was no tension to be had in the entire film and the director did a poor job of marking the passage of time. It seemed like the whole thing took place in one night rather than 30 days.

The highlight of the film had to be the vampires themselves. Ever since “Interview for a Vampire”, movies have been romanticising the creatures, but here they were depicted as vicious, violent animals. Combined with the excellent make-up effects, the results were truly terrifying.

Once again, I thought that Ben Foster was riveting and stole every scene he was in. His performance was so good that it only served to highlight the dearth of acting chops surrounding him! His portrayal of the vampire’s sycophantic usher was just plain disturbing. He definitely seems to have a knack for the unhinged characters :P

I could only recommend this movie to horror fans who enjoy watching people getting mauled convincingly.

A little piece of heaven

STARDUST

When I first heard that they were making Neil Gaimans wonderful novel "Stardust" into a movie, I was filled with excitement, but also a fair amount of apprehension. To be fair, its been a while since I've read the book, so I cant say with confidence whether or not they stayed absolutely true to the source, but since Gaiman was signed on as producer, I'm assuming he made his presence felt during the adaptation. Still, it could very easily have turned into a disaster. So imagine my surprise when it turned out to be one of the most enjoyable films I've seen all year!

Matthew Vaughn helmed the picture and did a good job of holding onto the reigns of a story that spread itself over many different locations and encompassed a wealth of characters.

Oft-times the would-be hero of the story can come across limp and bland, but thankfully that wasn’t the case here. I found Charlie Cox, who played the lead, Tristan, to be very likeable. I'm a huge fan of Claire Danes anyway, but she was great in the role of the fallen star. She has a truth and sincerity to her that I always find refreshing.

Michelle Pfeiffer was absolutely brilliant as the deadly witch Lamia and threw everything she had into the part. And it must be said that she looked stunning. Hard to believe shes turning 50 next year! :O The biggest surprise had to be Robert De Niro, who went above and beyond with the character of Captain Shakespeare and seemed to be having a ball while doing so :D

I'm not at all enamored with Sienna Millar, but she was at least serviceable as Tristans first love Victoria, though she was very much the weak link in an otherwise stellar cast.

Other than the main players, most of the supporting cast was rounded out by what seemed by practically every other British actor working today! Ricky Gervais stood out like a sore thumb, playing his usual fast talking character, but he got away with it since he had some of the funniest lines in the film :D

Stardust was a fairytale in the best sense of the world and had all the traditional elements; fair maidens, dashing princes, evil witches and the fate of a kingdom hanging in the balance. What elevated it above the usual childish fare was the brave move to keep Gaimans wickedly dark tone and black British humor intact.

The only thing that I found a little underwhelming were the visual effects. There weren’t bad, per say, but lacked that all-important "wow-factor". The costumes and sets were gorgeous and the scenery was incredible (though I'm guessing some were just cleverly made matt paintings).

All in all, a hugely enjoyable film that I will no doubt be rushing out to buy on DVD!

No jolly rancher

3:10 TO YUMA

I'm not exactly a fan of westerns. I've never seen a single John Wayne movie, or any of Clint Eastwoods "Dollar" series (an injustice verging on the criminal, I'm sure :P ). The only western I've seen that I enjoyed was “Unforgiven”, but that’s generally regarded as a classic. Directed by "Walk The Line's" James Mangold, and staring the heavy hitting pairing of Russell Crowe and Christian Bale, "3:10 To Yuma" was far more enjoyable than I expected it to be.

The story revolved round Crowe (a wanted criminal) being taken to justice by a few "good men" (this was the tough Old West, so they were only in it for the money :P ) and their primary objective was to have him on the 3:10 train to Yuma, where a high security prison awaited him. Not only were they trying to beat the clock, but they also had to stay ahead of Crowes posse, who were hot on their heels to spring their captured boss.

I tend to go into a Russell Crowe movie not wanting to like it OR him (its sad when an actors real world antics affect my opinion of the characters they play or the movies they star in, but sometimes its hard to separate the actor from the character!). Luckily for Crowe, he’s an excellent actor and as much as I hate to admit it, he MADE the movie for me. I found that (quite despite myself), I really enjoyed him on screen and he embodied the roguish character of Ben Wade perfectly.

Bale, while consistently excellent in all his movies, didn’t have as much to work with, playing the straight-laced do-gooder. I was also quite impressed with Bales son, played by William Evans. Unlike most "no Pop, I'm coming WITH you!!!" kiddy characters I've seen over the years, he wasn’t the least bit annoying and his performance was genuinely affecting.

This was the second movie I've seen this year with Ben Foster in it (the first being Alpha Dog) and once again, he almost stole the show from the other bigger-name actors. His portrayal of Charlie Prince, Crowe's die-hard second in command, was riveting and the crazy look he has in his eyes suited the character perfectly.

The film took a while too get going, slowly easing you into the characters and their situations, but after that you just sat back and enjoyed the ride. The only thing that let it down was its slightly unbelievable ending. Still, "3:10 To Yuma" is a rousing flick thats defo worth a look.

Slippery little devil

THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM

Bourne is back, and he’s here to rescue the cinemagoer from a summer of lackluster movies, woohoo! So far, this movie has been the one and only summer blockbuster that has met my expectations. Helmed once again by Paul Greengrass (who also directed the second), this film hits the ground running and never stops for so much as a breath the whole way through.

This is a trilogy in the best sense of the word. The characters carried through all three are expanded upon, and plot threads that began in the first two are wound nicely into this one. The movie very much relies on people having seen the first two (in my opinion, seeing them first is essential to appreciating this story fully). Like the previous movies, the dialogue is sparse yet its still densely plotted and will no doubt benefit from a repeated viewing.

The action is still as franticly paced as before. The fight scenes possess a sharp brutality that makes you wince with every blow and kick. As ever there is the obligatory breathtaking chase sequence (but he’s not just confined to a car this time round!). Another hallmark of the Bourne movies that is still present is its globe hopping nature (particularly around European locations) and makes the movie that little bit more distinct from the usual Hollywood fare. Greengrass's shakycam style of direction is still present though, which proved to be a wee bit distracting at the start.

Damon pulled off another stormer as Bourne. Not only was he up to the physical tasks the movie demanded of him, but he also maintained the extreme intensity that defined his character from the start of the series. And despite having the emotional range of a robot (due to his government conditioning), Damon still manages to make his character compelling for the audience. There’s also something strangely primal and satisfying about watching Bourne kick some serious ass :D

This time round he was backed up by another great performance by Joan Allen. Julia Stiles has only had a minor role in previous Bourne movies, but here she puts forward her most subtle and affecting performance yet. The series has always had great character actors playing “the bag guy we love to hate” and in this movie David Strathairn fills that role quite nicely.

The quality throughout this series has been astonishingly consistent and The Bourne Ultimatum easily maintains that standard. He may be a master of evasion, but I urge everyone to try and catch Bourne in the cinema ;)

Big girls, you are beautiful

HAIRSPRAY

Traditionally, musicals aren’t really my thing. The whole idea of people breaking out into song in the middle of a scene can be jarring and oft times plain silly. Animated features can get away with this quite easily, but in live action it’s harder to excuse. This was one of the main reasons I didn’t enjoy Dreamgirls. The songs seemed forced into places where words alone would have sufficed. Hairspray is different kettle of fish entirely.

It started life as a John Waters cult movie in the 80s and then made the transition to a successful stage musical before being revamped into a Hollywood movie. While I can’t speak for either of the previous incarnations (its been SO long since I saw the original, I cant remember it at all), this latest version is an absolute delight.

The story follows the lovable little Tracy Turnblad as she strives to get onto her favourite show and in doing so, bump hips with the guy of her dreams. Her only obstacle is the objections concerning her appearance (Tracy is an ample girl, you see).

While the movie looks quite light and fluffy, it tackles some fairly weighty issues (pun very much intended). The theme of prejudice, segregation, acceptance and integration (applying to both Tracy and the black community in the 60s) runs throughout the movie. Sometimes the message of tolerance was a bit heavy handed though (even bordering on preachy at times!).

Where the movie really shines is of course the music. The songs are great fun and appropriately combine the theatrics of a stage musical with the quality and style of the music of the 60s. Add that to the fantastic choreography and you can’t help but toe-tap your way through most of the musical numbers. The set designs were perfect, the costumes were brilliantly garish and the hair was suitably over the top.

The star of the movie would have to be Tracy Turnblad, played with gusto by newcomer Nikki Blonski. For the most part, the remaining roles were populated by people who are known to have experience in singing / dancing, but I was pleasantly surprised at how well James Marsden handled himself. The rest of the cast were a joy to watch and performed admirably.

The only exception would be John Travolta. Having such a recognised star play a woman was a tad distracting (even though I’m aware the role was previously played by a drag queen!) and the accent he put on for the entire movie bugged the hell out of me (can anyone say "Doctor Evil"?!). But fat suit or no, he still did a great job with the musical numbers :D

Hairspray is a must see movie with a tremendous feel good factor. Try as you might, theres just no stopping that beat!

Yellow Fever

THE SIMPSONS MOVIE

After 18 seasons on TV, this movie was a long time coming. And with so much success there comes massive expectation. Despite this (and maybe because the overall quality of the show has been in decline over the years), I wasn’t expecting TOO much from the movie. But as it turns out, it’s a pretty decent comedy! Certainly not up to the heady standards the show once had back in the day, but still leagues ahead of most other movies that pass for “comedies” these days.

The story (in typical Simpsons fashion) is wildly imaginative and completely over the top. But it also serves as a wry send up of a reactionary American government and a none-too-subtle warning about environmental pollution. The jokes (for the most part) really hit the mark, and show that the writers haven’t quite tapped out their comedic well JUST yet. What I was most impressed with was the emotional aspect of the movie. Bart has often looked elsewhere for a father figure on the regular show, but never before has it been handled in such a touching manner. And Marge’s plea to Homer (that he watches on videotape) actually made me well up a little!

Some people have criticised it, saying that it’s nothing more than an extended episode of the show, but why is that such a bad thing? You have to remember just how large the scope of the their regular show can be. Over its 18 year run, the average Simpson’s episode has managed to squeeze in more emotion, drama, action and gags than most feature length movies. Trying to come up with a story that has a beginning middle and end and STILL fit it into 19 minutes means moving the plot along at a breakneck speed with little or no time to breathe. In fact, most episodes regularly have whole scenes cut out of them, just because of time constraints. But now the movie format has finally given the writers some breathing room to expand on their plots and jokes.

Also, many people have lamented the short presence or even absence of the vast wealth of familiar characters that the show is best known for (Krusty, Apu, Mr. Burns etc), but I think the writers made the right decision to focus the bulk of the story on the Simpson’s family themselves. It is their first big movie outing, after all. I’m sure there’ll be countless sequels in which the additional cast can get more of a look in.

I found that watching The Simpsons in the cinema was a WHOLE difference experience to watching it plonked on the sofa at home. After so many years of giggling quietly to myself, it was a bit strange to hear this massive response of laughter at the end of each joke. Though in saying that, it did make laughing out loud myself a whole lot easier :P

Even if you feel like the show has grown stale these past few years, you owe it to yourself to give the movie a go. And I dare anyone to resist the hoggish charms of Spider-Pig :D

Bite my shiney metal ass!

TRANSFORMERS

Along with Thundercats, M.A.S.K. and He-Man, Transformers was one of my favourite cartoons when I was a wee lad. The toys were bloody fantastic and at some point I even got into the Transformers comics :P It was inevitable that a movie would be made of it at SOME point, as soon as the special effects were up to the task.

My initial excitement over the film version was quashed when I heard of Michael “The Devil” Bays involvement in it. So even before seeing the film, it already had a big black mark against it. His films are typically loud, brash, soulless affairs, heavy on the action and with characters playing second fiddle to some mind-bendingly complex chase scene. Even though this adage stays pretty much true for Transformers, his usual behaviour is somewhat tempered (possibly by the small involvement of a man named “Spielberg”).

The main draw of the movie is of course the Transformers themselves, and in this respect, it doesn’t disappoint. The effects are incredible and you fully believe the robots exist in the real world. Even though die-hard fans cried fowl when the designs of the robots were altered, the liberties taken for the movie had to be allowed. The designers put a huge amount of effort into making sure that the transformation from vehicle to robot looked physically possible and the result is pleasingly convincing. Probably the most impressive and awe-inspiring scene was the first appearance of the Decepticons (in the form of a helicopter), when they invade the army base at the beginning of the movie.

Besides the robots, the films smoking gun (in my humble opinion) was Shia Labeouf. He’s got a natural comic gift and his sense of timing and delivery was spot on. He also had a great down to earth manner that made his character very easy to empathise with. And his parents were an absolute howl!

The rest of the cast were pretty bland and one dimensional, especially the soldiers (I’m sorry, but giving one of them a baby back home doesn’t make us automatically care about his well being or give the character himself any more emotional depth!).
Of course none of that really matters, cause it’s a Bay movie and action comes first :P

It should also be said that getting Peter Cullen back to do the voice of Optimus Prime was a stroke of genius and really accentuated the sense nostalgia. The Transformers themselves got very little time to develop as characters, but again, I’m guessing that’s what the sequels will be for. From what little evidence was present in THIS movie, it seemed like most, if not all were kept true to their original incarnations, which fans should be thankful for.

The plot was more or less irrelevant (some nonsense about a device called “The All-Spark”), but people didn’t flock to Transformers for its dense plot or complex characters. People wanted action and Bay delivered it in spades. The action scenes were technically impressive and raced along at a hyper-kinetic pace, which is typical of Bay. The only problem was that at times it was quite difficult to fully appreciate the intricacies of each scene, mainly because there was SO much was going on. Sometimes it was hard to tell which robots were fighting each other. But big, bold and brash is exactly what the Transformers are all about. The destruction and devastation caused by the battling giant robots really did bring back memories of the cartoon and comic.

As with all Bay films, there is huge militaristic presence and SO much flag waving going on, that your likely to be seeing stars and stripes long after you leave the cinema. What I found quite surprising about a movie aimed mostly at kids (and kids who grew up in the 80s like myself!) was how insanely violent is was. While two robots kicking the crap out of each other is generally acceptable, no matter what the rating is, in this movie actual people get killed, some in shockingly disturbing ways. I honestly cant believe they away with the given rating.

One slightly disappointing aspect of the movie (despite the numerous action scenes) was how small the scale of the whole thing felt. Far too often, it seemed as though the entire proceedings were taking place in some small isolated part of America, and that the world at large was never really in danger. Perhaps the larger scale threats will occur in the inevitable sequels :P

I also was very let down by the music in the film. I'd even go so far as to say I hated it! As with nearly ALL of Bays films, he chose a composer from the same stable of artists as he always does (Media Ventures). And just like the majority of action scores from this score house, they all sound the same. At times I felt like I was listening to music taken straight from “The Rock”.

The most welcome surprise of the movie was just how funny it was in parts! Summer blockbusters tend to have a very limp and forced sense of humour, but this movie proves to be a pleasing exception and I found myself laughing out loud on more than one occasion! :D

I cant say I enjoyed the film all that much, but that’s probably cause my expectations were too high. A decent popcorn flick, but I think I’ve my left my love for the Transformers back in the 80s.

Harry casts a horrid spell

HARRY POTTER AND THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX

( WARNING : SPOILERS )

"Arry Potta", .........two words that never fail to make my skin crawl. I’ve made no secret of the fact that I’ve disliked all the previous Potter movies, so it was highly unlikely I was going to enjoy this one. Maybe if I read the books it would give me a greater appreciation of their big screen adaptations, but at any rate, movies should be able to stand by themselves.

I’ve always disliked the plots of the Potter movies and this one is no exception. They are just so incoherent. And for a movie supposedly aimed at kids, I’ve often found them to be quite confusing and unnecessarily complicated. It could be that the film just suffers from huge portions from the book being expunged (due to time constraints), but that means it’s just been adapted poorly.

An annoying trend that continues in this movie is the inconsistent behaviour of many of the characters. Every movie a new character pops up who appears to be shady, only to turn out to be good (in previous movies: Sirius Black, Professor Lupin, 'Mad-­Eye' Moody, Severus Snape). Then at the end of the movie they give a feeble excuse for their unusual behaviour. This movie has an already-established character (Dumbledore) acting out of the ordinary, but his justification at the end is still weak and nonsensical.

My big issue with the series has always been Daniel Radcliffe. He couldnt act his way out of a cardboard box. When the series started I was able to chock that up to his very young age, but now (four films later) I just can’t escape the fact that he is a brutal actor. With the burden of carrying these movies resting squarely on his shoulders, it’s proven far too much for someone of his limited ability to handle.

The films one saving grace is that the adult cast is populated by some of the finest British character actors working today. This boon is something of a double-edged sword however, as it serves to highlight the poor acting skills of some of the younger cast. In my opinion, most of the big name cast are vastly overqualified for the shallow roles they are being given to play and they get little or no screen time to develop their characters.

In this movie however, Imelda Staunton (who plays the character of Dolores Umbridge) does get a sizable chunk of the movie to herself and is an absolute joy to watch. She steals every scene she’s in. As always Alan Rickman is a delight to watch, but his role in this movie is somewhat limited. Maggie Smith gets barely a look-in and Emma Thompson and Robby Coltrane barely have cameos. The man I feel has been most wasted throughout the series is Gary Oldman. All the character does is fawn over Harry (same as most of the cast really).

Another disappointing aspect of this movie (and all the movies to date) is the lack of imagination where magic is concerned. The extent of the students powers (and their teachers, for that matter) seems to be limited to knocking things out of the way with their wands. I’ve always found this VERY underwhelming, and figured that maybe as the series progressed, their range of powers and spells would too. This never came to pass, and any battle that involved magic was a bit pathetic. The climactic scene between Voldemort and Dumbledore was nothing more than the two wizards firing off different coloured streams of light at each other.

As a counterpoint, I remember a scene from the old Disney “Sword in the Stone” animated movie from the 60s, where two wizards faced off against each other. In this duel of magic, they both tried to turn themselves into ever more menacing forms of creature and attack then each other. Are the wizards in the Potter universe simply too unadventurous to resort to such displays of power? But...... I digress :P

The films one significant happening (the death of a major character) is handled in such a hurried and throwaway fashion as to make the whole event almost meaningless.
And the way in which Harry eventually dispels Voldemort was SUCH a cop-out “I have friends, BEGONE foul demon!” etc. The whole film felt like it was building up to something, and then.........the credits rolled.

I think it’s ironic that a film about wizards has so little magic or sense of wonder about it. It’s all pomp and no substance. For reasons beyond me, this movie will no doubt end up being one the top ten box-office draws of all time. *sigh*

And can ANYONE explain to me how Draco Malfoy is still in Hogwarts when everyone knows his father is working for Voldemort?!?!

Yippee Ki Yay

DIE HARD 4.0

I’m not quite sure I get what they were going for with the “4.0” of the title, but lets just take that with a pinch of salt.

Thankfully Brucie is also taking this movie with an equally large pinch of salt, hamming it up at every chance he gets. Despite being in his 50s, he still manages to cut it where the action is concerned. One thing that bothered me though, was that he’s turned into a bit of Arnie character, practically invincible and easily able to dispatch any of the multitudes of villains that are thrown at him. You never feel like he’s actually in any real jeopardy, so it’s hard to care when he gets into those inevitable tight spots.

The main villain (a staple of all the Die Hard movies) was a supreme letdown, displaying none of the evil panache necessary for an adversary of now legendary John McClane. As a glorified hacker, Timothy Olyphant lacked any kind of menace or presence when on screen. His lackeys Cyril Raffaelli and Maggie Q are also wasted in their respective roles.

What I did enjoy was Wisemans direction of the movie, which was fast and furious throughout. There really was never a dull moment on screen. It was also surprisingly violent for a 15A rated movie! The film was a little too long for my liking, but such is the nature of blockbusters these days.

As far as squeals and summer flicks go, Die Hard 4.0 was pretty decent, but a far cry from the original. Still, there are certainly worse ways to waste away an afternoon :P

Bloody Melly

APOCALYPTO

Mel Gibson sure seems to love his bloody epics, doesn’t he? And there’s no getting away from the fact that Apocalypto is pretty much non-stop violence from start to finish. It was brutal, raw and ultimately quite enjoyable!

The film takes a good while to get going, but that works in its favour, as it gives us plenty of time to get to know the main characters first. I know I must sound like a broken record at this stage, but the importance of setting up protagonists who the audience will actually care about cannot be overstated!! Thank god this fact is still understood by SOME filmmakers.

Gibson has come under a lot of fire for the way in which he depicted the Mayan civilisation, but I don’t think his aim was to give a true and accurate representation of this ancient culture. Instead, the Mayans are seen through the eyes of their captives, and as such, it’s natural that their view would be biased towards seeing them as frightening and evil. Some of the Mayans were perhaps made a little too moustache twirlingly evil for my liking, but there was at least some attempt to give them a bit of depth. A villain with motivation is far more frightening than one who’s evil for no reason.

The film itself was beautifully shot and the locations were breathtaking. The incredible costume design (especially where the Mayans were concerned) warrants a mention as well. Gibsons direction can’t be faulted, giving the sweeping scenes a feeling of awe and majesty. He manages to give the action a sense of urgency, without having to resort to the choppy editing that seems to dominate choreographed fight scenes nowadays. The last half hour of the film was a wonderfully paced, heart-stopping chase that left me gripping the arms of my chair.

Its certainly not for everyone’s tastes (especially if excessive violence and subtitles put you off), but its one I can definitely recommend.

Brains, brains, use your brains

28 WEEKS LATER

Compared to the first, 28 Weeks Later is bigger, faster and much gorier. After a terrifying opening sequence, the film settles into the aftermath of the events in the first film. American troops have been drafted in to oversee the gradual repopulation of Britain. But, as you can guess, things don’t go exactly to plan and another outbreak of the virus eventually ensues.

28 Weeks Later is an entirely different beast to Danny Boyles low key original. A heftier budget this time round allows events to take place on a much larger scale, with more infected and a much higher body count. There are some really big scares (at one point my popcorn nearly went in the air!) and a number of scenes were so disgusting that I actually had to look away.

I wasn’t a huge fan of the superfast editing though. Sometimes it was hard to make out exactly what was going on (though it did add to the overall this sense of confusion and panic during the crowd scenes, so it may have been intentional!).

The big let down was the complete disconnection with the characters. With 28 Days I quickly latched onto the protagonists and cared what fate they suffered, but 28 Weeks glosses over the characters and the film suffers because of it. Beyond the running and screaming, most of the actors have little to work with.

While nowhere as near good as the original, 28 Weeks Later is a worthy sequel and well worth a look, especially if you can experience it in the pitch dark of the cinema :D

Dont stop movin

CRANK

Sometimes it’s good to just switch off the auld brain and watch something totally mindless. Such was the case with Crank. A hit man is injected with a killer drug and the only way to slow down its effects is to keep his adrenaline pumping. I think you’ll all agree, this is the set up for the perfect trashy action movie.

From the very opening scene, the film hits the ground running and its frantic pace never lets up. The direction is trippy and the editing is blisteringly fast (at times it felt as though *I* was the victim of some kind of drug-induced rush) and works perfectly in the context of the story.

Despite being a vicious killer with little regard for the lives of people or property, Jason Stathams character is oddly endearing. And Amy Smart (who I normally despise with all my heart and soul) is actually pretty decent here! Its without a doubt the best role she’s ever played :D

The whole film is silly to the extreme yet still manages to be hugely entertaining.

Sign of the times

ZODIAC

( WARNING : SPOILERS )

I’m a HUGE fan of David Finchers work and hes made us wait five long years for his new movie (his last being Panic Room, which I loved). Zodiac is the story of a serial killer who terrorised the west coast of America during the 70s. This film spans whole decades and focuses on the men who became obsessed with catching the killer (the Zodiac of the title).

The film was, for me at least, a huge let down. It possessed none of the usual visual flair that makes Finchers movies so unique and interesting to watch (or perhaps they were so subtle that I didn’t even notice them!). While it felt nowhere near its three-hour running time, it plodded along at weary pace and bored me to the point of distraction. The story was a non-event and often felt like we were treading over the same points again and again. I was never quite sure of the tone of the movie either, as some parts felt quite unbalanced. The only thing I found interesting was in seeing how the progression through time was handled, with the subtle changes in costumes, cars, technology etc.

Hardly any of the characters were engaging (Mark Ruffalos in particular lacked any kind of depth), although I enjoyed Anthony Edwards performance (despite his painfully obvious wig :P ). And I’m tired of watching Robert Downey Jr. (an actor whom I’ve always respected) play the role of a drug and alcohol abuser, as it’s hardly a stretch for him at this point!

The motivation behind Jake Gyllenhaals character to try and catch the Zodiac seemed completely bizarre and was never sufficiently explained. Why would a cartoonist take up the job of hunting down a serial killer? Another niggling point (and maybe this was just me) was that it was hard to take him seriously as the father of two kids, considering how young he looked (he also seemed able to avoid the affects of aging as the film went on :P )

The most maddening thing was the lack of a proper conclusion. I understand that the story is based on real life, and as such it’s hard to wrap up everything in time for the credits, but why should we leave the cinema feeling as frustrated and unsatisfied as the men on the Zodiac case? *sigh*

If you go down to the woods today

SEVERANCE

Every once in a (long) while a film comes out of nowhere and completely bowls me over. Severance happened to be one of those films.

It started off with a bang, as most horror movies do, something to get the old juices flowing. Then come the introductions to our merry band of victims, each a nicely rounded stereotype for us to identify with. I found myself genuinely liking this group of actors, a mix of unknowns and famous(ish) faces. I feared the American actress Laura Harris would stick out like a sore thumb in a Brit flick, but she surprised me by gelling well with the rest of the cast. There were some wonderful character building moments and given the short run time, they all did a great job of endearing themselves to the viewer (a necessity in these genre of slasher horror movie).

The balance between comedy and horror was handled very well. And humour is a great device for luring the viewer into a false sense of security. If you are laughing one minute, it makes the scary part that follows all the more shocking and visceral! Some of the violence was tongue in cheek, but it still managed to be quite gory in parts.

Not taking itself at ALL seriously, this movie is pure entertainment and a perfect example of how a tired genre can be reinvigorated with a relatively tiny budget :D

A Korean delicacy

THE HOST

Truth be told, I only picked this up this beauty in Xtra-Vision cause the cover art caught my eye. It turned out to be a lot more enjoyable than I expected. The movie is partly tongue-in-cheek, but because of the language barrier (and maybe my own ineptitude), I’ve always found it especially difficult to tell when Asian people are trying to be funny or sarcastic. Still, I found myself laughing at the most unexpected of moments :D

Where “The Host” succeeds (and practically every other movie I’ve seen lately has failed) is that they establish characters that I end up actually giving a damn about. When some of the central characters find themselves in jeopardy, I was overcome with a genuine sense of fear or tension. At times, I was literally holding my breath!

What I loved about the film was how it lulled you into a false sense of security at the start, which only makes the carnage that followed feel all the more shocking and brutal. The special effects looked quite ropey in parts, but I really must applaud the filmmakers for being so brave and bold with their use of outdoor effects shots. Having said that, the creature looked far more convincing during the interior scenes!

“The Host” is a surprisingly decent film and worth a look if you’re a fan of big giant monster movies! A word of warning though, I found the set up of the family in the movie to be terribly confusing. It took me a good half hour before I understood who was related to who, and in what way :P

Several frogs a leaping

DISTRICT 13

Ah Luc Besson, to think that there was a time when I admired you :P

“District 13” was made only two years ago, but harkens back to the days of the trashy 80s buddy movies. A certain cheapness permeated the entire proceedings. There’s no point talking about plot or acting, cause that’s not what this film is about. Juvenile fun is the order of the day :D

The film is nothing more than an excuse to showcase the daring acrobatic abilities of David Belle. This is the man who invented the Parkour craze, an activity that involves plenty of springing off walls and hopping off roofs. Believe me when I say that its far more impressive than it sounds. The level of fitness required to pull off these stunts is mind-boggling! Even more surprising is the assurance that all these feats were achieved without the use of stunt doubles, special effects or wirework :P

“District 13” is a no-brainer of a movie and fans of martial arts flicks will find plenty to enjoy here. If for no other reason, I can recommend this movie purely on the basis of its two main protagonists. Both are SO impossibly attractive (but in completely different ways), that it beggars belief :D

On an aside, I should point out that the premise of this movie (trying to contain a violent area of Paris by simply building a wall around it) seemed like the most ridiculous thing in the world. But right after I watched I the movie, I saw a report on Sky News that showed that exactly the same thing has been done in some part of Iraq. I kid you not!!

Missed its (Marky) Mark

SHOOTER

Its perhaps a little deceiving to tag this movie with the line “From the director of Training Day” as it bears no resemblance in tone or sophistication to the 2001 movie with Denzel and Ethan. From the trailer I imagined it to be something similar to an Arnie flick (back in his heyday). Sadly this film is neither realistic, nor tongue in cheek, but sits somewhere uncomfortably in-between. The film desperately wants to be taken seriously (as the straight faced performances would have us believe), but the dialogue is simply too preposterous. Some of Danny Glover’s lines are downright laughable.

I’ve always imagined Wahlberg would suit a “one man against the world” movie, and you can certainly see the potential here. And much like a fine wine, this man just seems to get sexier with age :P However, his characters demeanour is so icy and detached as he dispatches the various assailants, that after a while you loose all sympathy for his cause. Without the whimsical one-liners to lighten the mood (something Arnie did so well), the protagonist comes across as nothing but a cold-blooded murderer.

The acting is too uneven (all round), the plot is unbelievable and the film just drags on FOREVER. Just when you think its over, its keeps on going!! “Shooter” ran for 120 minutes, which in my opinion was 120 minutes too long!

Dont look directly at it!

SUNSHINE

The plot here is simple; in the future earths sun is dying and a group of multi-ethnic astronauts are sent in a spaceship to try and reignite it.

I think it’s hugely ironic that a film about the sun can be so darn cold. My main gripe is the same one I’ve been having with most films lately. The characters are totally flat and lifeless, completely devoid of emotion. Without any sense of the characters on screen, it’s nigh impossible to care for them or their plight.

Up to a point, the film maintains a fairly predictable plot, which borrows heavily from other spaced out movies like “Event Horizon” and “2010”. Towards the end, the tone shifts from being a tense sci-fi movie, to a horror flick. The shift is quite jarring and the thinking behind it doesn’t make a lot of sense.

On the plus side, the visuals are breathtaking. The ships design is fairly unique and the sun itself is beautifully realised.