That Film Review

Ghost Rider:Spirit of Vengeance - 2012 Upcoming Movie

Posted by darkdread Wednesday, October 26, 2011 0 comments

before 2012 we hear many news about new movies coming out. Whether its true or not, we do not know. I have searched the net and tried to come up this sneak peak to movies that are coming out on theatres the next year,2012. With this I hope you would not be tricked into reading movie info's that are plain hoax. Read below, and find out if this movie is worth watching for and not.

*movie reviews are not given until movie or screen time have arrived.

As Johnny Blaze hides out in Eastern Europe, he is called upon to stop the devil, who is trying to take human form.

Underworld: Awakening - 2012 Upcoming Movie

Posted by darkdread 0 comments

When human forces discover the existence of the Vampire and Lycan clans, a war to eradicate both species commences. The vampire warrioress Selene leads the battle against humankind.

Red Tails - 2012 Upcoming Movie

Posted by darkdread 0 comments

A crew of African American pilots in the Tuskegee training program, having faced segregation while kept mostly on the ground during World War II, are called into duty under the guidance of Col. A.J. Bullard.

Exporting Raymond (2011) - Movie Review

Posted by darkdread Monday, October 10, 2011 0 comments

"Everybody Loves Raymond" was a highly successful American sitcom. It was extremely popular during its nine-year run. Not cool enough to be watched by me, but popular. About an everyman who has to deal with average American issues, it of course was a natural candidate to be adapted for Russian audiences. The documentary Exporting Raymond depicts the Chernobyl-sized culture clash that ensued.

Exporting Raymond follows "Everybody Loves Raymond" creator Phil Rosenthal on his several trips to Russia to collaborate with Russian writers, directors, actors, producers and studio executives to make a pilot for "Everybody Loves Voroniny." Along the way, he discovers that the Russian television industry is in its infancy, few people if any share his sense of humor - oh - and the writers don't find his show funny.

Needless to say, Rosenthal looks like he's going to pull his hair out most of the time.
Rosenthal is a slightly goofy looking, can't-hide-his-emotions-if-he-was-paid-to-do-so guy who more or less embodies the "everyman." Except that he made a highly successful American television show and is undoubtedly rich. But that makes it all the funnier to see such an accomplished person dropped into a situation that shouldn't be outside his comfort zone but is nonetheless.

Some of the situations he encounters are absurd. Some are chuckle-worthy. Some are downright frustrating. Since the documentary is from Rosenthal's perspective - it was written and directed by him as well - one has to assume that there's another, less flattering angle to the guy that we don't see. The Russians might not be as accomplished as he is, but they at least appeared to somewhat know what they're doing. Exporting Raymond paints Rosenthal as being "always right" and the center of reason, and the Russians not so much. It's a little hard to buy.

But taking Exporting Raymond for what it is - a documentary told from the perspective of the protagonist - it properly exudes the man's emotions as he encounters each situation. The pained, shocked and often bewildered expression Rosenthal wears most of the time adds to the enjoyment factor.

Exporting Raymond is a funny and at least mildly insightful look at the production of a Russian television pilot. It won't win any awards, and its biased perspective doesn't give a lot of credence to what exactly happened, but the movie is consistently entertaining and allows audiences to share in one man's harmless misery - from a safe distance.

This movie review is not to influence nor discourage from anyone to try out this movie. A review is provided for movie or film watchers, to have a first insight as to what is the movie all about. All reviews posted here are all opinions by the reviewer/critic. Final advise, this is not to influence or discourage anyone or to promote a movie over another.

Cowboys & Aliens (2011) - Movie Review

Posted by darkdread 1 comments

What happens when you combine James Bond, Indiana Jones, the director of Iron Man, cowboys and aliens - oh, and Olivia Wilde - stir them all up in a $160-million-budgeted pot and launch the resulting sci-fi western to the big screen? Not what you'd think. Mildly enjoyable but ultimately disappointing, Cowboys & Aliens has the elements of success, except director Jon Favreau forgot to make it fun.

In Cowboys & Aliens, a man named Jake Lonergan (Daniel Craig) wakes up in the desert unaware of who he is or how he got there. He has a weird device strapped to his wrist. After stumbling into a nearby town, he discovers he's a wanted man - and especially wanted by the local kingpin Woodrow Dolarhyde (Harrison Ford). But when aliens attack and start abducting townspeople - including Woodrow's son - the two enemies team up to fight back, and possibly save the world.

Cowboys & Aliens was one of my most anticipated movies of the summer. The previews were great, the pedigree of those involved solid, and the premise simply awesome. Expectations were high, and unfortunately Cowboys & Aliens didn't meet them.

I blame Jon Favreau.

he problem is that while Cowboys & Aliens has a decent amount of action and some humor, the action isn't very good and the movie isn't much fun. Early on during the marketing blitz for the film, when audiences were cracking up at the sheer notion of a movie titled Cowboys & Aliens, Favreau and others set out to establish that the movie was a by-the-numbers-western and was not a comedy.

They weren't kidding.

Unfortunately.

Cowboys & Aliens does play out like a straightforward western - and in that regard it works - but suffers from the fact that its cowboys also have to fight aliens. The mix of genres, the battle of cowboys, aliens (and of course Indians... er, native Americans) should be fun. Needs to be fun. And it just isn't.
The movie didn't need to be funny, though that would have helped, but it takes itself so seriously that it's hard to really enjoy the movie. It never engaged me in the way I was expecting, and certainly didn't keep me guessing as to what crazy thing was going to happen next.
Because it just isn't that crazy.

The lack of a fun factor is also reflected in the action. Favreau blew people away with the surprising Iron Man, which had some intense bursts of grinning-from-ear-to-ear action. I expected the same here, but the action falls way short. It's dull, unimaginative and not very fun to watch. Sure, the initial invasion scene is sort of cool - even though you've already seen it in the previews - and there are a few other moments that are okay - but once the credits roll, I stood up, scratched my head and questioned where the $160 million budget went. The action scenes in Cowboys & Aliens should be intense, fun and most of all unique - but all it offers is run-of-the-mill stuff.

The climax is also disappointing. Even though the aliens have superior technology and are hard to kill, the humans manage to devise a strategically vacant way to fight back - essentially run at the aliens and shoot - that completely fails to evoke the "Humans, f**k yeah!" mentality that more enjoyable alien invasion flicks - like Independence Day - seem to do effortlessly.

Still, for what it's worth, Cowboys & Aliens isn't disastrous. Both Craig and Ford are good in their respective roles - I do like seeing Ford play out-of-character, even though he reverts back to typical Ford by the end of the movie - and carry the film as best they can. Olivia Wilde is terrible, thanks to her horribly written and uninspiring character, but at least she's scorching hot.

Unfortunately, the movie is not. Cowboys & Aliens might make an okay rental, but Favreau failed to take the bull by the horns and wrangle this beast in a satisfying way.

The movie, admittedly, is mildly entertaining. It's never boring and there's enough going on to hold attention. It's by no means a disaster, and is so close to being great. But it just isn't.

Hesher (2011) - Movie Review

Posted by darkdread 0 comments

Heavy metal. Pornography. Moving into people's homes without asking for permission. Blowing shit up. These are among Hesher's favorite things to do. Sometimes, that's just what the doctor ordered. Hesher, starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Devin Brochu, Rainn Wilson and Natalie Portman, is a refreshingly unique and alluring drama-comedy.

Gordon-Levitt plays the force to be reckoned with known as Hesher, a long-haired, unshaven, tattooed, foul-mouthed, pyromaniac and often shirtless punk who may or may not be a sociopath, but who nonetheless serves as unconventional angel for a family in distress. Young Brochu plays T.J., a kid who discovers guidance through Hesher's destructive ways.

If you're still not sure what Hesher is about, there's a reason: the movie has to be seen to be understood.
The movie is by no means perfect, but Hesher is a deliciously fun tale where the protagonist has no boundaries, allowing the audience to live vicariously through him. It's at once utterly serious and darkly humorous; director and co-writer Spencer Susser zeroes in on the fine line between those two genres and delivers wholeheartedly, betraying neither aspect of his story. It's tough to pull off, but Susser's title character never relents, allowing the drama to unfold while always countered by Hesher's unwavering approach to life.
Joseph Gordon-Levitt is wickedly good. I will continue to insist that Gordon-Levitt is one of Hollywood's most underrated stars; he's a talented actor with baby face good looks and a willingness to tackle any kind of role. Hesher is Gordon-Levitt's most ambitious role yet and he embraces it fully, going 180-degrees from his clean cut performance in last year's Inception.

Rainn Wilson proves once again he'll have a career beyond "The Office", as his performance is notably un-Dwight Schrute-like. Natalie Portman isn't utilized as much as I would have liked, but she too plays against type.

Most importantly, Devin Brochu more than holds his own against Gordon-Levitt. T.J. is the main character, and Brochu brings him to life with a fierce performance that should guarantee him roles for years to come.
Hesher isn't for anyone, but with great performances - especially from Gordon-Levitt and Devin Brochu - and a no-holds-bar take on a story about grief and loss, it is one of the most refreshing movies of the year.

Drive (2011) - Movie Review

Posted by darkdread 0 comments

When will criminals learn? Stick to your guns, stick to your rules, and things will be fine. Deviate from your simple guidelines, mix in a love interest and let things get personal, and all things will go to hell. Then again, if you're the bad guys you know you should never mess with the quiet guy who's the protagonist in a movie, especially if he looks like Ryan Gosling and is featured in the movie Drive. Because he'll f**k them up, and the movie will blow audiences away.

As of September 16, 2011, Drive is the best movie of the year. Engaging, dramatic, romantic, exciting, violent, gory and yet oddly artistic, Drive is at once a moving drama and thrilling revenge flick, the best of both worlds.

From the director of Bronson, Drive features a great performance by Ryan Gosling. Quiet and reserved, kind and seemingly innocent, he plays a Hollywood stunt car driver who doubles as a getaway driver in the evenings. But when backed into a corner, he lashes out with determined violence that has to be seen to be believed.

Gosling is supported by several other great actors, including Carey Mulligan, Bryan Cranston and Albert Brooks. The chemistry between Gosling and Mulligan is spot on, their subtle, almost unspoken relationship believable and engaging. Brooks is excellent as the menacing gangster Bernie Rose.

As good as the acting is, director Nicolas Winding Refn deserves the most credit. Drive is pitch-perfect at every moment, highlighted by an immensely thrilling opening sequence where Gosling's nameless protagonist attempts to elude the Los Angeles police. He balances the quiet, touching moments with suspenseful sequences that at times contain unthinkable violence. The movie is exciting and dramatic, beautiful and intoxicating. Shocking, too, at times.

Drive is the best movie of 2011 so far. Not everyone will be able to handle it, but it is a masterpiece by every definition of the word.

The Ides of March (2011) - Movie Review

Posted by darkdread 0 comments

It's a rule that has stood the test of time, from the days of Julius Caesar to the poetry of William Shakespeare: hubris is a bitch that will beat you, or stab you, dead. Confidence is important, but overconfidence - especially the assumption that things will always go your way because you're more virtuous than the next guy - will ultimately destroy you. In George Clooney's mesmerizing The Ides of March, people are but pawns, emotion and friendship unimportant in contrast to strategy and victory, pieces of flesh to be positioned and brushed aside for the sake of success. Or the twisted form of success idealized by politicians.

The Ides of March is a deftly directed and superbly acted political thriller set in the days leading up to the Ohio Democratic primary, where a charismatic game changer named Mike Morris (Clooney) is fighting for his chance to become the next president of the United States of America. Morris has won over young but top-of-his-field media manager Stephen Myers (Ryan Gosling), who runs a tight ship and is without question Morris' biggest admirer. Where campaign manager Paul Zara (Philip Seymour Hoffman) seems a game to be played and won, Stephen sees much more than that in Morris: he sees a better world.

Oh, reality! In politics there is no such thing as the incorruptible. After one small mistake, the slightest of poor choices made, Stephen's world comes crashing down around him. As he soon discovers, there are no friends in politics.

That last paragraph is purposely vague for two reasons: 1) I'm a marketing manager, so I'm prone to writing broad, sweeping statements, and 2) to discuss the specific elements of the film would ruin parts of it, sort of like the movie trailer does. Let's just say that when the metaphorical shit hits the fan, it really hits the fan. In political terms, of course.

The Ides of March is by no means perfect, but it is a strong film with all the makings for Oscar attention. The film is George Clooney's most polished directorial effort by far, a smooth, almost hypnotic creation that flows from one scene to the next with both the subtle context necessary for a political thriller and bold, orchestral energy that crackles just beneath the surface. While some of the theatrics are overkill, The Ides of March is a beautiful film to watch.

The acting is superb and screams Oscar nominations. Gosling, after sizzling in both Crazy, Stupid, Love and Drive earlier this year, amps it up yet another notch with his performance here. He once again plays the calm, cool and collected right man, but in The Ides of March you can literally see the emotional torment stirring within.

He's supported by a great, A-list cast. Hoffman is fabulous in what will be an overlooked role, but is worth watching purely for a scene-stealing speech where he verbally beats his enemy into submission. The same can be said for Paul Giamatti. Clooney is excellent, though like so many politician characters in these kinds of movies, he's there more for sound bites than anything else. Rachel Evan Wood also hammers home a character that at first seems like a simple love interest but turns into something much more complex and instrumental to the film's plot.

The movie is not without fault, however, though its flaws derive from the very nature of its subject matter. In politics, no one is perfect or incorruptible. This means that the film's protagonists become grayer as the story progresses, to the point where you're not sure who you want to succeed. In many ways, there is no winner. And in some ways, there are several.

This moral ambiguity dulls the impact of the climax, and yet it's this same ambiguity that makes the film so intriguing. The paradox is interesting and compelling, and Clooney should be applauded for not taking the easy route - though I'm not sure there was one. It feels wrong to fault the film for such an attribute, and yet the ending didn't quite do for me what the rest of the movie did. Then again, maybe The Ides of March killed my hubris, my beliefs, that the best man always wins without compromising his values.

Bell Flower (2011) - Movie Review

Posted by darkdread Sunday, October 9, 2011 0 comments

Bellflower is the result of some filthy filmmaking. I do not mean that as they did a poor job, far from it. I mean the shots are so real and intense you can almost smell sweat and whiskey infused body order while sitting in an air conditioned theater. There is a road trip scene where it looks like the camera lens was cleaned with spit and a dirty paper towel. This is not the California you are used to seeing on screen.
Woodrow (Evan Glodell) and Aiden (Tyler Dawson) are lifelong best friends and share the same goal: To be ready for the apocalypse. In their spare time — which seems to be all of their time — they build their own flamethrower and Mad Max looking Road Warrior car with dual flamethrowers mounted on the back. This is the result of kids watching Mad Max 100 times. When the apocalypse happens, they will drive around in this ready for war vehicle with their hand-held flamethrower; wouldn’t you follow them? That is what they are hoping for. Woodrow and Aiden build their gadgets more for fun, they are not completely serious that they expect Armageddon to occur tomorrow, but they wouldn’t mind it if it did.
An unexpected, powerful force arrives between these two friends, though, and her name is Milly. Milly (Jessie Wiseman) and Woodrow hit it off and start spending all of their time together. Their first date involves driving to Texas to eat at a day old meatloaf restaurant. It appears they get off on following through with high stakes dares. The script wisely avoids a love triangle but Aiden does resent that he has lost his best friend to a girl; now who will prepare for the apocalypse with him?
Relationships, however, usually start strong and sometimes go astray. The second half of the film deals with some intense and gut-wrenching episodes on dealing with emotional pain. Add in the always flowing booze which every character seems to live off of as life juice and some not so wise decisions suddenly look very attractive. Glodell, who also wrote and directed Bellflower, shows some of the most realistic and gritty violence which has ever been filmed.
Bellflower is a very good and original debut film. The soundtrack works, the acting is okay, but it’s the cinematography that you will remember the most after the credits have rolled. This low budget experience is a breath of fresh air from over produced and stale studio productions. Just don’t breathe in too deeply or else you might taste some of Medusa’s exhaust or one of the character’s three day old whiskey breath.

The Smurfs (2011) - Movie Review

Posted by darkdread 0 comments

Ah, those lovable, enchanted, small blue creatures known as the Smurfs — many of us Generation Xers grew up with Peyo’s creation on Saturday morning with a bowl of cereal. Our children have not, and seeing a vast untapped resource, Sony Pictures decided to do a remake of the classic cartoon. Now some critics have not enjoyed the movie at all, tearing up every aspect of the film to its very foundation leaving only scraps of goodness behind. Despite what most critics are saying, however, I’m here to tell you that The Smurfs is a fun, family/kids film that had me laughing throughout most of the running time.
The premise for this movie begins with the Smurfs living their lives carelessly in their enchanted forest providing that cute, bubbly comedy they made famous so many years ago. But after Clumsy Smurf accidently leads the evil wizard Gargamel and his cat sidekick Azrael to the village, six of the Smurfs — Clumsy Smurf, Papa Smurf, Smurfette, Grouchy Smurf, Brainy Smurf and Gutsy Smurf — find themselves transported to modern day New York, via a magic portal. Not long after arriving in the city, the Smurfs wind up in the apartment of Patrick and Grace Winslow, a couple expecting their first child. The movie then focuses on three small (pun unintended) stories: Patrick trying to impress his boss while overcoming his fears; the Smurfs trying to find a way home, and Gargamel trying to capture the essence of our little blue friends.
I know the plot seems petty and predictable, but to tell you the truth the plot in most kids movies is petty and predictable, usually to a fault. Despite this though, The Smurfs has a few things going for it that make it fun and entertaining.
First, the acting and voice work of the film gives the movie a lot of depth. Neil Patrick Harris, who plays Patrick Winslow, showed off his ability to play the role of a casual business man who is stressed and nervous. However, instead of him being that clever, funny jerk that he seems to play ad nauseam nowadays, Harris specializes in good humored situational comedy and timed dialog. Fans of Ms. Pillsbury from Glee will be happy to see the same character type in this movie; Jayma Mays plays her typical cute role as Patrick’s wife Grace. However the main actor to talk about is Hank Azaria who plays Gargamel. He plays the bumbling wizard to a tee — naive, loud, and incredibly silly without trying to be silly. His backfires, combined with his cat’s reactions to his failed attempts at capturing the Smurfs will have you laughing out loud. The voice casting was also well done — each character being matched with a voice that represented the trait of the Smurf. The sage and wise Poppa Smurf had the calm, wisdom filled mentor-like voice of Jonathan Winters. The irritated and often annoyed Grouchy Smurf had the rough and scratchy voice of George Lopez, whose complaining comedy really added zest to the character. And the bubbly and sometimes airheaded Smurfette had the high pitched and carefree tone of Katy Perry who surprised me with her voice acting. (The other voice work is matched nearly as well to the other Smurfs, but these three were the standouts).
The pace of the movie — fast, fun, and having nearly no slow points whatsoever — is another plus. Director Raja Gosnell filled The Smurfs with a lot of silly absurdity, chase scenes, and clever uses of the environment to keep the movie exciting and fun. That’s not to say some of the situations don’t seem repetitive, but Gosnell works to overcome by integrating new ideas into the situations to keep it feeling fresh. The catchy music and great orchestral work also combined to make the scenes more enjoyable.
Surprisingly, the character development and the amount of connections between the characters were well done too. The screenwriting team of J. David Stem, David N. Weiss, Jay Scherick and David Ronn took the time to flesh out all the personalities and it pays off. There is emotional impact that hits close to home watching Grace encouraging Clumsy Smurf, Papa Smurf giving advice to Patrick, or Clumsy Smurf trying to prove himself to the others.
As for the negative, well that mainly comes at the expense of older audience members. As I mentioned repeatedly, this movie is very silly and totally geared to the youth demographic. It has little to no mature comedy and if you didn’t like Alvin and the Chipmunks, or couldn’t get into The Muppet Show (although the upcoming Muppet feature looks to cater to an older viewers), then this movie is not for you.
The Smurfs is a blast from the past, packed with lighthearted action, laughs, and heartwarming moments. Parents looking for a film to watch with their children will do well with this. Actually, with the combination of a great voice cast, a fast pace and a diverse set of characters, audience members of all ages should do well with it too.

Killer Elite (2011) - Movie Review

Posted by darkdread 0 comments

Killer Elite is saddled with a vague and forgettable title but at least it sounds more lethal than “The Feather Men,” the book it is based upon written by Sir Ranulph Fiennes (face it, an evil cabal known as the Feather Men does not inspire too much fear). These ex-SAS (Special Air Service) members, and now business leaders, chose the name themselves to signify their light touch on situations which concern them. So when shady characters start asking around about an old mission in Oman which involved SAS men, this falls right in the wheelhouse of issues the Feather Men are watching out for.
“The Feather Men” novel is allegedly based on a true story but none of the facts have ever been verified. Sir Fiennes described the book as “factional” which does not bode well for the story’s authenticity. However, the plot is intriguing, especially for a shoot ‘em up first, ask questions later action fest. The background and set up are complicated enough which makes you want to follow it closely. I do not want to provide an exact plot synopsis, but essentially Danny Bryce (Jason Statham) must kill some ex-SAS men to save his assassin mentor, Hunter (Robert De Niro), from some Omani oil sheiks. Spike Logan (Clive Owen), also an ex-SAS man, but not one of the marked men, has his sixth sense kick into overdrive and tries to save his mates from Danny’s bullets as any good Feather Man would. Sir Fiennes actually claims to be one of those marked SAS men.
The script portrays Danny as an assassin who has lost his taste for killing and vows after every trigger pull that “this is my last job.” He is supposedly from Australia but oddly maintains a thick and native British accent. Since every assassin must have someone to come home to, his girlfriend Anne (Yvonne Strahovski) waits impatiently for him as he disappears on his missions. Strahovski is a real life Australian and has a matching accent to prove it. She has been outstanding in the Chuck television series so it is enjoyable to see her finally cross over into mainstream film.
Even though the plot is deeper than your average thriller, the dialogue of Killer Elite does not rise above mediocrity and has the exact same platitudes as most other actions films. The worst example is:
“He knew what he was getting into when he joined the club.”
“What club?”
“The killer’s club.”
There is also the obligatory conversation about the woe is me assassin which includes the gem, “The killing is easy, living with it is hard.”
First time feature film director Gary McKendry is very good at filming one on one hand fighting scenes. Statham and Owen impressively use the entire room and every prop in it to beat each other senseless. For the ladies, they still keep their film star looks even after they are done taking turns butchering each other. What McKendry has yet to master are car chases. The edits are too fast which turns each of them into a messy muddle. Opening one weekend after Drive which contains outstanding car sequences makes these awkward scenes in Killer Elite look even worse by comparison.
The overall look to Killer Elite is good, however. Even though it was mainly shot in Melbourne, the skies are usually England gray and the Brecon Beacons mountain range sequence is shot well. This film is right in that middle range where I am unsure still at this point rather to recommend it or not. It is much better than the garbage in its genre such as The Expendables but fails to reach up to the higher level of Statham actioners like Crank or The Bank Job. I marginally recommend Killer Elite for its absorbing plot and intricate assassination sequences, but be warned, this film is not anything more than average.

Flypaper (2011) - Movie Review

Posted by darkdread 0 comments

Ah, the bungled bank robbery movie. A movie that could have done with a cameo appearance from Eileen Brennan, Flypaper at least adds a slight kink in its comedy presentation, which results in it being slightly fresher than it perhaps could have been. A bank is being robbed, the heist goes wrong, and the perpetrators are trapped inside. The kicker? There are two sets of robbers, both having chosen the very same bank on the very same day at the very same time.
One of the teams is all business. A three-man team (a Jewish guy, a black guy and a Brit, which sounds suspiciously like the beginnings of a joke), tooled up with hi-tech gadgetry and all-black camouflage gear, break in to Credit International Bank surreptitiously with pre-programmed codes and electronic wizardry. The other team, a couple of hillbilly types who call themselves Peanut Butter and Jelly, go the old fashioned way, entering the building with shotguns blazing. Both methods are equally effective, and the two teams meet in the centre of the bank, surprised to all hell.
Our hero Trip (Patrick Dempsey) has been busy flirting with the bank’s teller Kaitlin (Ashley Judd) when the robbery begins, and now they are trapped inside with other hostages. Jeffrey Tambor’s one of them, which might give you an inkling of where this might be going, and Curtis Armstrong’s presence confirms it. Yes, although robbery is a serious business, Flypaper isn’t. Instead, it’s a curious affair, part comedy and part mystery. About thirty years ago there were a few movies like this, such as Clue, Murder by Death and The Cheap Detective. If you’ve seen those, you’ll know what to expect here (although there’s no crazy foreigner unable to pronounce the word ‘baubles’ correctly here, sadly).
There’s comedy to be had in the broad caricatures held within the shuttered-down doors of the bank. A lot of it comes at the expense of the idiotic, bungling hillbilly robbers who are just after a little cash from the bank’s ATMs. Ordinarily this “gollee humor” would be annoying but when you learn that one is played by Tim Blake Nelson you’ll find that you’re quite prepared to overlook anything. He’s brought his O Brother, Where Art Thou? character with him this time, and plays as a simple-minded but rather adorable fool.
The professionals are less comedy-driven, simply because they’re professionals — or, at least, as professional as can be when you either have a terrible comb-over or are a closet nutjob, and an English one to boot. In the middle of it all, though, is Trip. He’s a logical man, a mathematical wizard with a touch of OCD about him, and sharp as a shaved tack. He realizes that, no matter what they think, these two bank-robbing teams are not in the same place by accident.
Directed by Rob Minkoff (The Lion King, Stuart Little for goodness’ sake!!), Flypaper is actually pretty funny. Dempsey is a perfectly good lead (although his on-screen chemistry with Judd is practically non-existent), seemingly with the freedom to conduct his home-made investigation at will (overhead air-ducts to the rescue again, of course). Blake Nelson and Pruitt Taylor Vince extract about as much as one could possibly hope from their dumbfuck robbers, and there’s even time for some rather racy humor courtesy of Security Guard Adrian Martinez — it should be mentioned, incidentally, that this is rated R for its language, which is coarse and frequently funny.
The movie doesn’t fare quite so well in its who’s-behind-it-all plot, I must report, with Dempsey’s character being amazingly intuitive to the smallest of things, and one and one frequently adding up to a great deal more than two. I’m not sure that this is important, though. Flypaper is a comedy first; the addition of a little intrigue is more of an additional extra. I gave up trying to guess who done it (although I was right, as I suspect you will be) and regarded it for its entertainment value instead and, on that score, it’s a winner.

Thor (2011) - Movie Review

Posted by darkdread 0 comments

Since I have never read a Thor comic book (don’t intend to either), nor do I have much insight into the Norse mythology from which he spawned, I really had no idea as to what kind of story to expect from the heavily hyped Thor (the trailers weren’t much help). But thanks in part to smart editing decisions, good acting and a relatively well written script, anyone else who shares my lack of knowledge is given enough background information to absorb — and enjoy — everything that is Asgard.
The main plot of Thor follows the God of Thunder himself as he, like a fish out of water, tries to acclimate himself to Earth. Due to his gigantic ego (sized accordingly to the width of his biceps), his father Odin (Anthony Hopkins) has banished him from the pristine halls of Asgard to while away as a mere mortal for all eternity. Or until he learns what it means to sacrifice oneself and be humble about it. But oh, how we wouldn’t all love to get some humble pie from whence he gets his. Natalie Portman. Okay, truth be told she has help — her astrophysicist team studying Einstein-Rosen bridges (wormholes to us numbskulls) consisting of Stellan Skà¥rsgard and Kat Dennings — but you get the fantasy.
The subplot concerns itself with Thor’s manipulative brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston), Colm Feore led Frost Giants and a scheme to wrest the kingdom from Odin’s tiring fingers. Director Kenneth Branagh shifts effortlessly between both realms, keeping, for the most part, the Earth stuff personable and light-hearted and the Asgardian stuff flowing with political intrigue and drama. Both have their fair share of action. Both are crafted to allow ample room for character development.
The star of the show is relative newcomer Chris Hemsworth as the titular Thor. Like Tobey Maguire and Robert Downey Jr. did with their roles in Spider-Man and Iron Man respectively, Hemsworth with his long golden locks and muscled physique becomes the comic book hero — adopting the persona so fully that everyone in the audience remarked, “That guy is Thor.” Hiddleston is also quite good as the devious, shape-shifting Loki, proving quite convincingly that just because someone smiles in your face and tells you they adore you doesn’t mean they aren’t working over-time trying to tear you down behind your back. I would have liked to see more out of the Portman’s role instead of her just acting frenzied (the agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. play a role in that) or pathetic (no one loves me, boo-hoo).
The team behind the film’s visuals have done a commendable job as well. Thor’s home-world is an architect’s dream — beautifully shaped buildings built with colorful and alluring materials line the city. The Frost Giants world is a stark contrast to Asgard — it’s dark, mountainous and ominous — yet crafted with equal care. After years of being in “developmental hell” I would have, however, expected a less pronounced use for the Destroyer — all I could think about when it was active was it looked like a glitzier version of Gort from The Day the Earth Stood Still. I’ll also say the 3D effects are done better in Thor than in most of the recent pictures using the technology.
Fans of the Marvel universe won’t be disappointed either. There’s a cameo appearance from Jeremy Renner in character as Hawkeye, plenty of Tony Stark mentions (although he never appears) and even a quick hello from Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson). Some of the dialogue between Thor and agent Phil Coulson (Clark Gregg) offers up an unspoken message — watch out for The Avengers in 2012.
Thor, mixing the right amount of comedy, action and drama, is, surprisingly, a very good popcorn flick. It has set the high water mark for this summer’s superhero movies — let’s hope X-Men: First Class, Green Lantern and Captain America: The First Avenger prove to be on par or even better.

127 Hours - Movie Review

Posted by darkdread 0 comments

Danny Boyle, who has been made a fellow of the BFI as this year's London Film Festival draws to a close, finished off a season of first-class screenings with his best film since Trainspotting. Telling the true story of an American mountaineer who escaped certain death through an extraordinary act of courage, 127 Hours is a deeply compelling film which thrusts the viewer into the tortured body of its protagonist.

127 Hours is a film which comes with a lot of baggage. Its Oscar-winning director Danny Boyle has described it as “an action movie with a guy who can’t move”, which serves to demonstrate the fact that he’s spent too long amongst Americans, and the various people who’ve fainted at preview screenings suggest that it has more than a touch of the horrific about it. Worst of all, we know it’s all true. Aron Ralston, on whose book Between A Rock And A Hard Place the film is based, really did get trapped in a canyon back in 2003; he really did spend almost six days watching his right hand die beneath a boulder; he really did cut his lower arm off with a dull blade and a pair of pliers. This is an incredible film, but not one to watch on a full stomach.

Aron (Franco) is an engineer and fitness freak who enjoys nothing more than heading out into the great outdoors for a weekend’s cycling and hiking. One Saturday in May 2003 he loads up his van and (despite being unable to find his Swiss army knife) heads to the arid wasteland of Robbers Roost, Utah. He rides, runs and swims across the landscape, briefly meeting some foxy fellow hikers and obsessively recording everything on his video camera. Then, as he negotiates Bluejohn Canyon, disaster strikes. An 800lb boulder slips and pins Aron’s hand to the side of a narrow crevasse, rendering him completely trapped and at the mercy of the elements with scant supplies of food and water, no telephone and the bare minimum of survival gear. Accelerating the story by the bare minimum necessary to protect the audience from the sort of mental collapse which Aron himself suffered, 127 Hours pulls no punches in telling the excruciating but ultimately uplifting story of his ordeal.

Despite having a sixteen-year pedigree as a feature film maker, this film was always going to be Danny Boyle’s equivalent of a difficult second album. His previous film, Slumdog Millionaire, was nominated for almost 300 awards of which it won 118 (including Best Picture and Best Director), a fact which sadly seems to count for more than his superb track record making some of my favourite films ever. Anyway, the upshot is that we expected more from 127 Hours than from, say, 28 Days Later.
Boyle does not disappoint. 127 Hours is, it is true, frequently a difficult film to watch, but there is no denying its excellence. James Franco gives a fascinating performance as the Xtreme dude forced to be serious for the first time in years, which is made all the more impressive by the essential lack of any other characters. People turn up for three minutes here and there, it’s true, but the focus is squarely on Franco for the full 93 minutes. Admittedly, he’s not as impressive as Ryan Reynolds in Buried, but this film still represents a career highlight for the man still best known as Harry Osborn in the Spiderman trilogy.

Don’t lose your head… or, you know, your arm.

I wasn’t totally sold on the frequent and effects-heavy flashback sequences, but Boyle’s aim was to recreate Ralston’s increasingly fragmented mental state rather than emphasise his claustrophobia so I can appreciate the logic behind his structural choices. The extraordinary one-shot scene in which Aron amputates his arm with a dull blade and a cheap pair of pliers was very difficult to watch precisely because it had been so well-made (although another moment in the film turned my stomach even more), and a superb score from Slumdog composer A R Rahman combines perfectly with stunning wilderness vistas to contrast with the squalour of Aron’s pit. If anyone doubted Danny Boyle’s credentials as a new Fellow of the BFI, this film should shut them right up.

X-Men: First Class (2011) - Movie Review

Posted by darkdread 0 comments

Matthew Vaughn returns to the superhero genre in earnest with X-Men: First Class - but with a new cast in front of the camera and Jane Goldman firmly behind the keyboard, can First Class overcome the stigma that has settled following a less-than-stellar run of X-sequels? Find out below.

I must admit to taking my seat in the auditorium with a small degree of trepidation, fearing a film which jeopardised established canon in the blind pursuit of narrative freedom; the excellence of the first two instalments being somehow undermined by a nifty new beginning where Charles Xavier says “groovy” and the sun inexplicably rotates the Earth. I needn’t have worried, however, with X-Men: First Class proving far less revisionist than director Matthew Vaughn might have had you believe. While he may take a few liberties with the extant franchise, they are undoubtedly for the good of the story.

Desperate to avenge his mother by killing the man responsible for her death, Erik Lehnsherr (Michael Fassbender) travels the globe dispatching the Nazis who once served under Sebastian Shaw (Kevin Bacon) in the concentration camps of his youth. In England, meanwhile, Oxford graduate Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) is recruited by the CIA to help avert nuclear war. Travelling to America with U.S. operative Moira MacTaggert (Rose Byrne) and his childhood friend Raven (Jennifer Lawrence), Xavier soon encounters both Lehnsherr and Shaw while on duty with the CIA.
Saving Eric from dying for his cause, Charles strikes up a friendship with the manipulator of metal, together founding a mutant force called the X-Men to aid their cause. Where Charles teaches his new charges tolerance and humility, however, Eric believes that they shouldn’t have to hide themselves from humanity. With the battle lines drawn and a fearful human enemy forming behind closed doors, Xavier and Lehnsherr’s burgeoning friendship is ultimately tested as their allegiances clash. When political events result in a stand-off between the U.S. and Russian naval fleets, this small group of mutant heroes must put their differences aside if they are to defeat Shaw and avert war.

Having successfully deconstructed the superhero genre with Kick-Ass, it is interesting to see how Vaughn handles bona fide superpowers. Reconstructing the opening sequence from Bryan Singer’s first movie, Vaughn and screenwriter extraordinaire Jane Goldman have endeavoured to tell an X-Men origins story of their own, albeit one that beautifully marries the 1960s setting with an array of new and returning mutants who embue the story with a freshness not felt since the original film. James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender make the characters their own – no mean feat considering the talent which preceded (or is it superseded?) them – although Lehnsherr may suffer a somewhat severe case of accent ambiguity and Xavier’s preoccupation with his hair does wear a little thin (ahem). Meanwhile, Kevin Bacon’s Sebastian Shaw, January Jones’ Emma Frost and Rose Byrne’s Moira MacTaggert prove delightful additions to the franchise.
Elsewhere, however, the newcomers are a little less impressive. First Class feels overcrowded, with many mutants given little to do but stand in the background and fill out the two organisations – I, for one, don’t remember hearing Álex González’s Riptide speak once. With the most recognisable mutants still in nappies at this point, the buck falls to an array of doppelgängers and uninspired B-mutants to take their place. While Banshee, Havoc and Darwin have their moments, Azazel never escapes Nightcrawler’s shadow and the wasp-like Angel treads stupidity as she vomits venom.

First Class is nevertheless a return to form, with the renewed focus on character and a welcome prioritisation of substance over style (poor special effects can be forgiven, an over-reliance on empty set pieces cannot) acting as a reminder of how figuratively rich the X-series can be. In tying Nazi occupation and the Cuban missile crisis to a high-octane superhero tale of world domination, Goldman has once again delivered a fulfilling script replete with well observed inter-character dialogue. That said, although First Class has commendable aspirations, the heavy-handed references to Frankenstein and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde serve only to illustrate how derivative the medium can be. The series’ core messages of self-actualisation and acceptance – while timeless – are beginning to sound repetitive.
All in all, X-Men: First Class heralds an exciting new dawn for a franchise steeped in qualitative discrepancy. While some of the plot points might creak as the writers attempt to retrofit the narrative to the original trilogy, there is enough wit, innovation and genuine exhilaration to justify a comprehensive reboot. That this is largely down to Fassbender and McAvoy is a reflection not only of the filmmakers’ combined talents, but the quality of the source material from which they draw. Class is in session, and your presence is recommended.

Super 8 (2011) - Movie Review

Posted by darkdread 0 comments

Nostalgic for the good old days of The Goonies and Close Encounters of the Third Kind? Never fret - JJ Abrams has written a love letter to Steven Spielberg that sprinkles the 'only kids can truly understand' formula with a dusting of real monster magic. Old-timers will breathe a sigh of relief, new bloods will wish they lived in a time when you biked to visit your friend just next door, fabrics came in seven hot variations of 'mustard' and cool kids had walkie talkies not iPhones.

There are many limitations to being a kid with a dream, especially when its 1979, and you’re in a Steven Spielberg -sorry, JJ Abrams – movie. A passably grubby gang of youths are determined to create the greatest zombie film the world has ever known, but needs must and to save on production values the children end up filming a vital scene at an abandoned railway station. So far, so thrifty. But things take a turn for the rather more massively alien when they witness a devastating, impossibly thrilling train crash that leaves all our mini-visionaries wordless (and places JJ Abrams at the head of the league table for Blowing Stuff Up.) Left with a town in confusion, a series of increasingly strange goings on and just a tantalising glimpse of the mysterious creature responsible on their Super 8 camera, the kids find themselves caught up in a hide-and-seek mystery – and we all know it aint the Army who are going to solve it.

Kids from dysfunctional families overthrowing/healing their supposedly superior, longer-legged counterparts? A motivationally-ambiguous monster turning a sleepy town on its head? Characters who seem initially defined by their physically characteristics but pretty soon turn out to be SO MUCH MORE? Yep, this is a Spielberg film, plain and simple – but that’s not necessarily a criticism. There’s no point whinging about JJ Abrams’ arguable failure to top or even equal his hero, he’s simply continuing the Spielbergian tradition of movies that say kids can sort things out, that the military tend to get the wrong end of the stick, and that monster aliens just want to go home. And it’s the 70′s, so adults are allowed to smoke EVERYWHERE. Happy days.

So, what of the monster itself? The one that received all the pre-release interest? Intriguingly, the subtle but prolongued hype led us all to believe that Super 8 was a purist monster movie, in the vein of Cloverfield. We hypothesised over the look and mechanics of the monster for months. Suffice to say, the Super 8 monster does not look like this.
JJ Abrams set the tone for a million ‘don’t show the monster’ movies with Cloverfield, and he uses the same trick to great effect here – speedy whooshes leaving a trail of destruction in their wake, municipal bins being flung high into the air. It’s exciting, and happily it’s not done to death. Rather satisfyingly, JJ Abrams never forgets that he’s making a movie for kids, and as stylistically exciting as it is to play “is it/isn’t it” with a grown-up audience, there’s no denying the childish satisfaction of a proper visual pay-off. Occasionally you just want to grab a monster by the ears and stare into its big whuffling face – and Mr Abrams, thankfully, provides. That’s why I enjoyed the big reveal in Super 8 so much. Yeah, that’s right, you get to stare at a monster huffing and breathing all over you for a really big long time. GOOD. Monster tricks can get stale. Sometimes, you just need a monster.

At its heart, though, Super 8 isn’t a monster movie. It’s a ‘kids have a great time being kids’ movie, that will make adults want to be kids again, and kids feel like their bum deal could be improved very soon with an adventure just round the corner. Yes, it’s more of a nostalgic celebration of family film-making past than a trailblazing new style, but if an homage to Spielberg was what he wanted to create, than Abrams has done himself proud. If not, well, at least he’s got a great career in Exploding Trains ahead of him.

Source Code (2011) - Movie Review

Posted by darkdread 0 comments

Mind-blowing follow up to Moon, Duncan Jones scores again with a twisting, explosive sci-fi actioner. Go and see it!

Source Code is surprising on two fronts. Firstly, that an action film directed by Duncan Jones, who famously crafted the quiet and contemplative Moon, and starring pretty Jake Gyllenhall could turn out to be a serious contender for the best film of the summer. The second major surprise here is that even the most devoted Phillip K Dick fan may well look for the author’s name on the credits somewhere, only to discover that this is a wholly original piece of work.
The intelligent writing of the film even encompasses some theoretical elements of quantum physics, asking mind-blowing questions about the nature of the universe, parallel worlds and even indirectly touches on the multiverse concept. This is a toweringly cerebral piece of science fiction which Dick would have been proud of.

The action opens on a commuter train, where our hero Colter awakes, seemingly in the body of another man. Without giving too much away, as it is extremely tricky to avoid spoilers, it is explained that he is able to relive the same 8 minutes through this particular man’s eyes, in order to prevent an act of terrorism in the real world. What could have turned out to be a poor man’s Inception, laced with elements of Groundhog Day thankfully avoids that trap, with the subtle differences to the same scenes inviting, without insisting on, a certain level of perception from the audience.
The blend of action, suspense and humour is just right as Colter gets to grips with his mission, preventing the film from getting boring, which is quite an achievement when dealing with only 8 minutes of basic structure.
The casting of Source Code is spot on. Gyllenhall is in almost every scene, and believably plays the hero. He takes the audience through anger, elation, sadness and steely resolve as the determined but confused Colter in the film’s short run time. His absorbing central performance is helped by a subtle turn by Michelle Monaghan, whose character serves as Colter’s love interest of sorts. Vera Farmiga’s mission controller serves as an excellent hub for the film’s complex plot, and again she plays this role with just the right mix of military efficiency and warm humanity. The only bum note on this front is a shocker – Jeffrey Wright, such a reliable performer usually, plays the boss of Farmiga, but completely overacts many of his scenes, which result in his character sticking out like a sore thumb amongst the cast as he chomps relentlessly through more and more scenery. It is a bizarre turn in which he growls his lines with such ferocity that it comes close to disrupting some scenes which are very important to the narrative.

The action sequences are exciting, with the ever-ticking threat of that 8 minute time limit proving a great antagonist, the audience may find themselves checking their own watches as obsessively as Colter does. The excitement when he makes progress, and disappointment when an obstacle presents itself are palpable, all helped by a throbbing score.
Unfortunately, the ending to the film does stumble, seeming to end two or three times, and rather than finish with a bang it has to be said that the film just quietly shuffles off screen for the credits to roll. It is somewhat interpretive, much like Inception’s ambiguous climax, but for the audience to be able to really form their own conclusions perhaps less should have been made explicit in the final five minutes.
With this powerful effort, Duncan Jones has announced himself as the science fiction director to watch at the moment, having produced an action film with genuine intelligence and poignancy behind it here. The great cast, gripping story and explosive action is a must-see for all Sci-Fi fans, and it is refreshing to see a truly original film released in what looks set to be the year of 3D sequels.

The Rite (2011) - Movie Review

Posted by darkdread 0 comments

Anthony Hopkins and some chap you've never heard of star in a film which is stuck halfway between psychological thriller and demon-haunted horror. Solid performances and a refreshing rejection of SFX go some way towards redeeming this confused, lumpen effort, but it's still a long way from being welcomed into the divine presence.

I have never seen The Exorcist. I have never seen The Exorcism of Emily Rose. When some heartless monster tried to make me see The Last Exorcism, I was forced to wound an intern in order to make my position on the matter of exorcism films crystal clear. Supernatural horror is not, let it be known, my stock in trade. Fortunately for me, soggily-plotted pseudo-thriller The Rite (“an old-fashioned chillfest” – The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) is nothing of the sort.

Small-town boy Michael Kovak (O’Donoghue) is an unwilling undertaker who feels stifled by having to work at his dad’s creepy funeral home; so, guilt-tripped by long tradition, he applies to seminary school to follow the only other approved career route for men of his family. When his plan to drop out just before taking his vows is scuppered by an inconvenient student loan demand (topical!) he is persuaded to travel to the Vatican and attend a course which might just help him find his niche in the Church. The subjects? Demonology, strapping on the armour of righteousness and kicking Satan six ways from Sunday – it’s Exorcism 101.
When sceptic and psychology devotee Michael persists in picking holes in the curriculum, he is sent to work with eccentric priest Father Lucas (Hopkins), an experienced exorcist who believes he has driven out thousands of demons in his time. Michael’s initial attitude is one of disbelief and concern as ‘patients’ are given spiritual treatment for what he believes are psychological illnesses, but as strange things begin to happen to both him and Father Lucas he is forced to reassess his materialist assumptions. Is Michael going mad, or is a sinister presence really at work around him and the elderly priest? He’ll have the devil’s own job finding out.

Although there are refreshing elements to The Rite – its reluctance to chuck a CGI budget around in the possession scenes was particularly rewarding, and the inventive cinematography brought an element of symbolism to the film through context-specific shots from above and below – it has plenty of problems. The plot is very, very linear, and the last half an hour can be very easily intuited well before the half way point. The script is melodramatic and uninspired, and the entire supporting cast is basically irrelevant – everyone but Alice Braga’s conveniently foxy journalist exists solely to manhandle Michael through the pre-boss levels, and that’s only because she has no function at all other than to be pretty and virginal. She’s called Angeline, natch. Also – and I must make it clear that I’m not complaining about this – the film isn’t even remotely scary. There are perhaps two or three predictable jumpy moments (one of which involves a mule with red eyes. A MULE), but the tone throughout is more thriller than horror.
Newcomer Colin O’Donoghue’s performances is surprisingly confident, and he makes the most of his limited dialogue to conjure the appropriate thrills, but he was always going to come off second best; it goes without saying that the biggest treat The Rite has to offer is seeing Anthony Hopkins back on form after a distinctly duff few years. His Father Lucas consciously borrows from Hannibal Lecter, abruptly turning up behind other characters and smilingly murmuring “Okey-dokey” during situations which are nothing of the sort. Fluttering effortlessly between mellifluous Italian and his native Welsh accent, his descent into incoherent scary freakshow-dom could well be his most chilling performance since he hung up his hockey mask. Proper horror fans may be disappointed, but The Rite is worth seeing for Hopkins if nothing else.

Battle: Los Angeles (2011) - Movie Review

Posted by darkdread 0 comments

Recently the Alien invasion movie has seen something of a renaissance, with Cloverfield and District 9 both breathing life into one of the oldest and most tired sci-fi scenarios. But does new Hollywood blockbuster Battle: Los Angeles represent another step forward or two steps back?

In the repressive and paranoid atmosphere of 1950s cold war America, alien invasion movies were all the rage. It is easy to see why, serving as they did as perfect vehicles for the fear-mongering and xenophobic propaganda of ‘reds under the bed’ McCarthyism. But even before the cold war had ended the scenario had lost currency with the movie-going public and for the back-end of the 20th century the alien invasion movie was to take a back seat. More recently, however, the thematic and technical innovations of films like District 9 and Cloverfield have revitalised the genre. And so, in 2011, this is the promising context into which steps alien invasion epic Battle: Los Angeles.

Battle: Los Angeles begins with a meteor shower. We quickly learn that this meteor shower is not, in fact, a meteor shower but a horde of hostile, bionic Aliens; Aliens who are intent on sucking Earth dry of its natural resources, quite literally in this case as they are after our most abundant resource: water.
Before interplanetary war can commence we are flung backwards in time ‘minus 24 hours’ in the name of initial characterisation. These ‘24 hours’ amount to about 15 minutes screen time in which as many clichés are crowbarred into proceedings as you can realistically expect: the young, virgin rookie, the soon-to-be-wed sergeant and the recently retired veteran staff Sergeant with a harrowing past (Eckhart) all feature.
Once these formalities are out of the way the action really begins as our platoon of clichés are airdropped into occupied territory to rescue a number of civilians holed up in a police station. They inevitably meet with some resistance from the aforementioned alien horde and action occurs!

Throughout said action director Jonathan Liebesman employs the use of ‘shaky cam’, presumably to create that tense, on-the-ground realism superbly realised by Matt Reeves in Cloverfield. It worked in Cloverfield because it helped create suspense and a sense of intrigue as well as a disorientated confusion. Suspense and intrigue are notably absent from Battle: Los Angeles. Instead the forced first person perspective of shaky cam which, coupled with the reality of modern warfare, creates a certain distance between the warring factions. It’s a distance which is rarely bridged, save by bullets, and ultimately has the effect of giving the antagonists even less presence than is usually afforded to CGI characters. The shaky cam sequences essentially give you a first person perspective on what it’s like to be shot at from the middle distance by 2-dimensional CGI aliens. It’s an experience comparable to watching someone else play a computer game, complete with the gimmicky ‘crosshair lens’ effect.

Off the battlefield things proceed pretty much as you would expect with many of the main plot developments being ‘borrowed’ from 90s blockbuster hit Independence Day. Battle: Los Angeles could well have done with ‘borrowing’ a lot more from Independence Day, some script editors for example.
Even Eckhart, someone who is obviously capable, struggles with the dross he has been given. Most notably when his character finally confronts the tragedies of his past and laments “They’re dead. I’m here. Like the punch line of some bad joke”. Or, indeed, like the plot of some bad movie.
Battle: Los Angeles is many things: boring, derivative and cliché-ridden – like so many other Hollywood blockbusters. But by far the worst thing about Battle: Los Angeles, the thing that makes it uniquely terrible, is the message it imparts: the only way to honour the dead is to keep fighting. Somewhere behind the chest-thumping American patriotism, Independence Day sought to remind us of our shared humanity. Battle: Los Angeles, on the other hand, instructs us in the glory of death and war. It’s a message that leaves a sour taste and makes the 1950s cold war lessons in xenophobia seem positively benign.

The Green Hornet (2011) - Movie Review

Posted by darkdread 0 comments

Seth Rogen and Michel Gondry - together at last! A most original cinematic odd couple whose Green Hornet manages to absorb elements of the best of both; the pair combine trademark Rogen gagsmithery and Gondry mind-bending visuals to breathe life into a threadbare tale and bring verve and invention to a genre creaking under the sheer weight of its own offerings.

Remakes. Reimaginings, retreads, reboots… the cinematic landscape is lousy with them. They’re all the rage, dropping off the Hollywood conveyor belt with the regularity of a Mel Gibson meltdown, although they are usually less entertaining to watch. And so, as the lights go down and you realise you’ve done it again and finished your popcorn before the bleedin’ thing has even started, it will be comforting to know that, instead of some plodding Beverly Hills rent-a-hack, you are in the directorial hands of French oddball Michel Gondry – and that he has been attached to the project since way back in 1997.

Since then a variety of writers and stars have been attached and discarded until two birds were killed with one stone in the unlikely form of Seth Rogen, who plays the title character and co-wrote the script along with long-time collaborator Evan Goldberg. Their Hornet plays to Rogen’s strengths, a layabout schlub who, as alter-ego Britt Reid, has little time for much other than partying and plunging his newspaper magnate father (Tom Wilkinson) into perpetual disappointment. However, his father’s death leads him to strike up an alliance with the gadgetry-proficient, ass-whupping Kato (played by Jay Chou, stepping into none other than Bruce Lee’s shoes), a kind of Robin and Alfred combined (he also serves a mean cup of coffee), and the pair hit the streets in order to blow up meth labs and such. This kind of thing will surely only displease crime boss Chudnofksy (an underused and underdeveloped Chris Waltz) who, sure enough, soon seeks to put some hurting on them.

The Green Hornet was never going to reinvent the wheel, story-wise. Much of the focus instead is on seeing Rogen take on an action role for the first time, and Gondry and the writers wisely play that aspect for laughs. Though the slimmer frame he first sported in Funny People means he doesn’t look quite as ridiculous in his crime-fighting getup as he might, it would still be an unholy stretch to have him chopping socky like it ain’t no thing. He’s no liability – there are a few wild roundhouses and tactically astute knees to the groin that get the job done – but the real pyrotechnics are provided by Chou and Gondry. The most intriguing aspect going into this was how the French surrealist would fare turning his hand to fight scenes and car chases and he doesn’t disappoint. Imbuing the sequences with his trademark visual irreverence, he nonetheless never forgets that, hey, this is an action movie, and he never shies away from delivering the big bangs. The first time we see Kato spring into action is the film’s defining moment and will go down as one of the action scenes of 2011.
Gondry’s (somewhat) surprising action chops and other bravura moments aside (a split-screen montage of a hit being put out on the Hornet is particularly good fun), the film does have its creakier moments. Cameron Diaz and, in particular, the excellent Waltz are peripheral, which serves only to magnify the hit-and-miss nature of Rogen and Chou’s comic chemistry, but Gondry just about manages to hold the whole thing together. Leave your cynicism at the door, ignore the Rogen backlash currently doing the rounds, and you’ll find yourself with a big goofy grin on your face as you wallow in the silliness of it all. I like that in a movie.

Fast & Furious 5 (2011) Movie Review

Posted by darkdread 0 comments

The gang is back for a few more last jobs as they endeavour to take a corrupt Brazilian businessman to the cleaners and start a new life as millionaires. Boasting added Dwayne Johnson, Fast Five promises to race circles around the so-called law of diminishing returns.

Following his incarceration at the climax of the previous film, and duplicating the mid-credits animated sequence with added wow-factor, Brian O’Connor (Paul Walker) and Mia Toretto (Jordana Brewster) rescue Toterro sibling Dom (Vin Diesel) from his bus prison and seek refuge in Rio de Janeiro. Angering local baddie Hernan Reyes (Joaquim de Almeida) during a last job, the trio must get a team together for one last last job if they are to evade capture either at the hands of Reyes, or the authorities lead by federal agent Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson).

I have a number of guilty pleasure franchises, which surface from the depths of critical disfavour whenever Mike Leigh’s realism and Michel Gondry’s visual quirks get too much to bare. Whenever Milla Jovovich takes a break from trouncing her resident evil and Indiana Jones forfeits adventure for a spot of bingo, I like nothing more than to watch Vin Diesel be bald and Paul Walker have hair against a backdrop of fast cars and gyrating buttocks. With cinema ultimately headlining the entertainment industry, the Fast and the Furious franchise has a hefty lead in unashamed enjoyment.
Justin Lin’s Fast Five, the director’s third instalment in the series, serves as a veritable greatest hits as it reunites assorted characters from previous entries with franchise stalwarts Diesel, Walker and Brewster. The camaraderie that ensues imbues procedings with a lightness and banter that helps carry the contractual lunacy through to its wonderfully proposterous end. With Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson providing the requisite new blood – and fresh face-veins – the cast is complete in it’s knuckle-headed entirety.

Screw Alien vs. Predator – forget Freddy vs. Jason – it has always been about Vin Diesel vs. Dwayne Johnson, Riddick vs. The Rock, The Pacifier vs. The Game Plan – and the resultant conflict doesn’t disappoint. While the two together couldn’t act their way out of a facial expression, they tear into their surroundings like a couple of scrap-happy Terminators, taking down walls and out-rippling one another with absolute glee. The action all around is uniformly spectacular, with a pregnancy-proof roof-top chase sequence and reality-defying last act drag race certain to floor your jaw with as much verve as Diesel puts pedal to the metal.

While the film might be 50% establishing shot (we’re in Rio. Rio de Janeiro. Did you see Christ the Redeemer, you might recognise it from Rio?) and composed almost entirely from some unsuspecting teenage wank-bank, it is impossible to resist the boys-own charm of this testosterone drenched fifth instalment. Like some steroid-heavy episode of Top Gear where Jeremy Clarkson’s promised anything and everything he’s ever wanted if he promises to go two hours without insulting prostitutes or using unnecessarily big words.
Leave your brain in the passenger seat, and let the road take you wherever it pleases, and you’re in for a reliably delirious ride. Complete with a post-credits sequence that will have you praising the sequel’s swift green-light, Fast Five is a breath of fresh air for this less than exhaust-ed franchise.

Submarine (2011) - Movie Review

Posted by darkdread 0 comments

It sucks to be Oliver Tate. The little British dude’s life is falling apart. Sure, he has a new girlfriend, but she isn’t the easiest to deal with. His prospects of losing his virginity are looking up, however. But his parents are on the verge of divorce, his dad even less confrontational than he is while his mom lusts after the self help guru who lives next door. His classmates think he’s gay. He pushed an unpopular girl in a pond, though.

Oliver Tate’s life is depicted in Submarine, the feature film debut of writer/director Richard Ayoade. Beautifully shot and elegantly written, the movie is quirky, smart, edgy, fun and sad all at once, not too far exaggerated from the average childhood, or what I imagine to be the average British childhood as depicted in British drama-comedies such as Submarine.

Craig Roberts takes full advantage of his first leading role, giving the audiences a likable but hardly perfect protagonist swayed by temptations in life – namely blossoming young love – and the subtle but influential pressures placed on teenagers by parents and their peers. His delivery is quirky and fresh. The supporting cast – Yasmin Paige, Sally Hawkins, Noah Taylor and Paddy Considine – are also excellent in their respective roles.

Submarine fires on all cylinders until it doesn’t, which is sometime in the middle of the second act. For whatever reason, as things start digressing the way things digress in life, or at least in fictional movie life, the movie loses a bit of its flare, the fun and pacing bogged down by bits of drama that pile on piece by piece. It’s well written throughout, but it loses its focus for a while.

I may have also started reading TheChive.com for a minute or two in there, always a good way to lose focus regardless of production quality.

Thankfully, Submarine regains its footing in the third act and carries the story home. It never again attains the magic displayed in the film’s marvelous first act, but it provides a satisfying conclusion. I don’t necessarily care to watch Submarine again – it isn’t so funny or so entertaining to warrant repeat viewings – but there’s something about the movie that just works. The spitfire dialogue alone makes Submarine worth it.

People looking for something a bit different – but still widely acceptable – should definitely dive into Submarine.

This movie review is not to influence nor discourage from anyone to try out this movie. A review is provided for movie or film watchers, to have a first insight as to what is the movie all about. All reviews posted here are all opinions by the reviewer/critic. Final advise, this is not to influence or discourage anyone or to promote a movie over another.