Avatar

It has been 12 years since James Cameron pronounced himself “king of the world”, following on from the inexplicable critical and commercial success of Titanic, and in that time the director of the Terminator films, Aliens, The Abyss and True Lies has been very quiet, a couple of documentary films aside. But now, after an investment of several years and hundreds of millions of dollars, Cameron has finally unveiled his latest effort, a 3D sci-fi epic by the name of Avatar. And all the main characters are blue.

The plot revolves around Jake Sully, a paralysed marine given the opportunity to act as a “driver” for a genetically engineered alien body, as part of a diplomatic mission to improve relations between humans and the Na’vi, the indigenous alien race of the planet Pandora. Pandora boasts large supplies of a highly valuable mineral and the Na’vi are merely seen as an obstacle by the human corporate machine and their military security forces. Initially sent in as a spy, Sully finds himself integrated into the Na’vi culture and ultimately begins to question which side he should be fighting for…

Let’s get a few things out of the way: Is Avatar a revolutionary, groundbreaking achievement in cinema? No. Is the story original or emotionally involving? Not really – it can be effectively summed up as Dances With Wolves meets Ferngully: The Last Rainforest. Is the epic length (162 minutes) justified? No – at least 20 minutes could easily be shaved from the running time. Does it deserve a Best Picture Oscar nomination? No. Should you see it? Absolutely yes – and on as large a screen as possible.

The fact is, Avatar is a visually stunning film, featuring the most impressive visual effects work I have ever seen. It’s not perfect – occasionally the CGI Na’vi characters weren’t quite truly photo-realistic – but the environments, especially the rainforest, are completely convincing. The action, as you’d expect from James Cameron, is genuinely thrilling and the extended battle in the final half hour goes some way to justifying the wait through the sluggish middle act. The acting is better than you’d expect and although the dialogue is sometimes a bit clunky, it’s not exactly detracting from the world’s greatest story anyway. Speaking of which, despite the lack of originality it’s still entertaining – that said, there is one moment towards the end which caused me to roll my eyes quite severely, and I never felt that connected to any of the characters.

Anyone who’s read my earlier reviews of 3D films will know that I’m not a fan of the technology. Avatar features quite easily the best 3D I’ve seen thus far – aside from some issues in an early chase sequence, I didn’t have any problems with blurry motion, ghosting or headaches. Despite this, I still don’t believe that it makes Avatar a better film. I haven’t yet seen the film in 2D but I suspect my enjoyment will be undiminished when I do. Perhaps the IMAX 3D version would be more immersive?

In summary, while this may not be the landmark achievement in cinema that James Cameron would like it to be, Avatar is nonetheless an enjoyable cinematic experience that reminds you why it’s worth spending the time and money to see movies on the big screen.

VERDICT: Definitely see it – just don’t believe all the hype.

IMDb

Read full post/comment...

Review Backlog

So, the inevitable happened and I left my blog sitting dormant for several months again, building up a rather large backlog of films to review in the process. Time for another quick summary then...

The Hurt Locker

As you’d expect from a film following the exploits of a bomb disposal squad in Iraq, there is an incredible sense of tension throughout this fantastically-directed and well-acted drama. It was refreshing to see an Iraq war movie with an almost complete absence of politics.

VERDICT: Not quite the masterpiece the critics claim it to be, but excellent nonetheless.

Dorian Gray

Although well-made and well-acted, this adaptation of Oscar Wilde’s novel misses the point somewhat by using an overload of CGI and sound effects in an attempt to make the painting “scary”, eliminating any creepiness of feeling or dread in the process.

VERDICT: There’s nothing really wrong with it as such but it’s fairly forgettable.

Surrogates

Think I, Robot but without as much depth or style. An interesting concept is squandered somewhat by workmanlike direction and uninspiring action.

VERDICT: Passable entertainment but not much more.

Fantastic Mr. Fox

I honestly don’t know who this is aimed at, as it is essentially your typical Wes Anderson film, albeit derived from one of Roald Dahl’s simpler children’s stories and made in a crude and off-putting animation style. In the end I don’t think it’s really suitable for anyone. The number of awards this is winning mystifies me.

VERDICT: Bizarre and not in a good way. Skip it.

Up (3D)

An excellent and emotional opening ten minutes unfortunately is followed by one of Pixar’s weakest, and silliest, films to date. Yes, it’s a cartoon, but Pixar has proved in the past that such films can be far more complex and original than the Saturday-morning style antics on display here. The 3D added almost literally nothing.

VERDICT: It’s still good but for Pixar it’s pretty average.

An Education

Excellent acting elevates what is otherwise a rather unoriginal and uninteresting plot. Carey Mulligan in particular will be well-deserving of her inevitable Oscar nomination, and stands a good shot at perhaps even winning.

VERDICT: It’s good but nothing special.

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus

This is your typical Terry Gilliam film: interesting ideas, visually very creative, but otherwise a complete mess, lacking in anything approaching a likable character and ultimately a bit of a waste of time.

VERDICT: Not impressed. Don’t bother.

The Men Who Stare At Goats

The vaguely-true story of CIA psychic spies with George Clooney, Ewan McGregor, Jeff Bridges and Kevin Spacey all in comedy mode should really have been a lot better than this. In all honesty it was actually a bit dull and trying too hard to be “quirky”.

VERDICT: Mildly entertaining but that’s it. Not worth going out of your way to see it.

2012

There are about 15 minutes of absolutely spectacular chaos and destruction in 2012. Sadly the film lasts for 150 minutes and the rest of the running time is taken up with lame, predictable plot, poor dialogue and worse acting.

VERDICT: Literally almost all the action is in the trailer, so stick to that instead.

Paranormal Activity

Not being much of a fan of horror and generally being quite hard to scare, I have to admit that this was genuinely quite creepy at times. It is very slow and the plot is dependent on the main characters being, well, a bit stupid, but it’s a very impressive exercise in no-budget film making. I especially liked how underplayed many of the set-pieces are, and who’d have thought that time-lapse camera recording could be so disturbing?

VERDICT: Worth seeing, especially if you’re a horror fan.

A Serious Man

The Coen Brothers’ latest film is a return to their earlier style, i.e. extremely eccentric and not even vaguely mainstream. Apparently it’s a reworking of the biblical story of Job, but most of that was lost on me, as were a lot of the Jewish cultural references. The opening scene seems to belong to a different movie and the ending seems to have disappeared entirely…

VERDICT: I kind of liked it but I’m not entirely sure why. Worth seeing.

A Christmas Carol (3D)

A complete waste of time. If you’re going to make yet another version of Dickens’ story then you should at least do something vaguely original with it aside from making it in motion-captured CGI and adding a couple of dull action sequences. The 3D was better than usual but still didn’t add much.

VERDICT: Boring. Don’t bother.

The Box

Richard Kelly’s third film has much in common with his much-loved debut Donnie Darko – an intriguing, unusual premise; a pervading sense of weirdness; a tendency for isolated scenes of bizarre occurrences that leave you asking yourself “What the…?”. Sadly it does not share Darko’s charm or entertainment value and is probably a bit too dark and depressing for its own good.

VERDICT: Interesting but ultimately a bit disappointing.

I intend to write a full review for Avatar soon, so watch this space... but perhaps don't hold your breath.

Read full post/comment...

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra, The Final Destination, Inglourious Basterds

So, having watched very few films in the cinema lately, I decided it was about time I set up camp there and see as many films as possible. Having successfully managed 3 films in one day, I have of course found myself lumbered with the task of writing 3 reviews and as such I've taken the easy way out and will do another one of my short-and-sweet multi-film summaries...

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra

I'll get straight to the point here: it's rubbish. For a while it looked like G.I. Joe may be lucky enough to find itself in the "dumb but fun" category but sadly by the end it had degenerated into being just plain bad. A story with more holes than plot, dodgy CGI, worse acting and some truly painful dialogue ensure that this is a film that can only be enjoyed in conjunction with copious quantities of alcohol.

VERDICT: Don't bother unless you're looking for good drinking-game material.

The Final Destination

The Final Destination franchise has always been good value, providing plenty of entertainment with its awesome disaster sequences and wonderfully inventive (and increasingly messy) death scenes. Sadly, the fourth (and most lazily-titled) entry into the series clearly demonstrates that the concept has become tired and run its course. While not particularly bad in any way, it does absolutely nothing original with the premise, and even most of the deaths are generally lacking in imagination. The 3D gimmick added literally nothing to the film.

VERDICT: They should have got off at the third stop rather than continuing on to even more Final Destinations.

Inglourious Basterds

Having heard decidedly mixed reports about Quentin Tarantino's latest effort, I was actually very pleasantly surprised at how much I enjoyed it. The story is entertaining and features plenty of genuine surprises, the acting is great (Christoph Waltz steals the show as the evil but excitable Jew-Hunter) and as you would expect the dialogue is excellent. Nevertheless, I can't help but feel that Tarantino needs to scale back his increasingly clichéd approach of multi-chapter stories comprising of long, unscored scenes of conversation. The middle part of the film especially suffers from this and I wonder how much more focus a more traditional narrative structure would have provided. The final chapter, where most of the action lies, is great fun and gives us a hint as to what Tarantino could do if he were to try his hand at something a little outside of his comfort zone. I will say one other thing: what the hell was Mike Myers doing in this?

VERDICT: Surprisingly good, if a little self-indulgent. Worth seeing.

Read full post/comment...

District 9

I'm not even going to begin explaining the plot of District 9, as this is another film that should ideally be seen with as little knowledge as possible. All you need to know is the basic concept of aliens living in a Johannesburg slum for over twenty years, forcibly segregated from the human population. To reveal any more would be a disservice to the few people who read this.

What I will tell you is that District 9 is brilliant. An astonishing achievement from first-time South African director Neill Blomkamp, this is a film that grabs you almost instantly with its gritty realism and faux-documentary stylings, before gradually getting even better as the story unfolds. The second half of the movie is just staggering, featuring some of the most visceral, intense and beautifully executed action scenes I have seen for quite some time. The visual effects, especially those of the aliens themselves, are remarkable - despite their prevalence they are virtually seamless and never draw attention to themselves. I find this amusing after all the (apparently misguided) talk about James Cameron's much-vaunted "photo-real" alien characters in his upcoming film Avatar - I'm sorry James, but District 9 has beaten you to it (and arguably done it better). Oh, and on quite literally one tenth of your budget!

It's worth drawing attention to the film's star, Sharlto Copley. His transformation from his initial appearance as a bumbling office bureacrat to the undisputed hero of the story is made utterly believable by a truly excellent, star-making performance, all the more impressive considering that Copley has essentially no previous acting experience. The two main alien characters also deliver extremely emotive, compelling performances, and the fact that I can even say this about CGI characters is a great credit to Blomkamp and his effects team.

Of course as a former resident of Joburg I got a kick out of the film's unique setting, and the little details like the the SABC logo on TV news footage made me smile. The very fact that the story takes place in South Africa allows for an intriguing allegory to the events in District 6 during the apartheid era, but crucially it does not beat you over the head with its themes of intolerance and racism. Ultimately this is a hugely entertaining sci-fi action thriller with a healthy dose of intelligence, emotion and even some humour thrown in. I've heard some complaints about various plot holes and contivances, but even if there are, I was enjoying myself so much that I either didn't notice or didn't care. District 9 is without a doubt one of the best films of the year so far, and in a perfect world would be attracting awards attention come Oscar time...

VERDICT: A must-watch. Go see it! Now!

IMDb

Read full post/comment...

Inception Trailer

So, let's see: a mega-budget sci-fi action thriller, made by my favourite director, with a frankly amazing cast? I was always going to be there on opening day for Christopher Nolan's latest film Inception, but this trailer, as short as it is, has just raised my anticipation even further. And unlike a lot of trailers, it doesn't even begin to give away the plot!

Read full post/comment...

Wait, what?

Good God, could it be... another post? The second in as many days? Miracles evidently can happen.

Anyway, a bit of a random one, this. The other night, not long after getting home from work, the phone rang. As I expected, it turned out to be a wrong number. In fact, it was a wrong number I had encountered a few times before, except this time with one interesting difference:

Me: "Hello?"

Caller: "Hi, is that Mr. Harberry?"

Me: "No, I think you must have the wrong number."

Caller: "Oh, I'm sorry. Could I ask, are you the home-owner of 38 Prestonfield Terrace?" (well, some address to that effect. It certainly wasn't mine.)

Me: "Sorry, I'm not."

Caller: "Oh, okay. Sorry to bother you, Iain." *Hangs up*

Notice anything strange? About a half-second after putting the phone down, my brain caught up with proceedings and I went on to exclaim (out loud, in an empty flat) "What?! Did she just call me by my name?!"

After a few more seconds of consideration, the rational side of my brain concluded that what she must actually have said was "Sorry to bother you, then.", which does admittedly make a lot more sense. But the irrational part of my brain couldn't help but wonder if I had actually just stumbled across the horrifying truth that I am in fact the subject of some Truman Show-esque experiment where my every action is being observed as I am presented with various tasks and challenges, such as regular and repetitive wrong numbers. I could imagine that the actress at the end of the phone had made a slip of the tongue as she put the phone down and that she was at that very moment being fired by the nefarious individuals running the experiment for jeopardising the entire project with such a foolish error.

Such an experiment would certainly explain some of the situations I have found myself in over the past few months...

Read full post/comment...

Moon

Hmm, and so another month has passed since my last review. Would you believe that I've only seen one new film in that time? What a lousy run of movies. Anyway...

It's a couple of decades into the future and the world energy crisis has been solved through the mining of helium-3 on the dark side of moon. Sam Bell is the man currently responsible for maintaining the mining operation, and is approaching the end of his solitary 3-year contract. Unfortunately the time spent in isolation with only an AI computer/robot with the voice of Kevin Spacey for company and no direct contact with Earth is starting to take its toll, and he begins to see some very odd things...

Moon is one of those films that is much better experienced knowing as little as possible about the plot. Even though the plot's twists and turns and actually quite subtly presented rather than playing up to potential shock value, none-the-less I feel that your appreciation will be higher when you discover them for yourself rather than having a trailer or review spoil them for you. As such this review is going to be quite short, but what I will say is that Moon is very a much the kind of intelligent, thoughtful science-fiction that is quite rare in today's age of CGI aliens and gigantic robots.

The effective use of miniatures for the visual effects and the retro-feel of the set design harkens back to sci-fi classics such as 2001: A Space Odyssey, Soylent Green and (I'm told) Silent Running. Combine some stylish direction (from the son of David Bowie, no less), a great Clint Mansell score and an absolute tour-de-force performance from Sam Rockwell (this is essentially a one-man show and he certainly delivers), this is a highly enjoyable and rewarding film. While perhaps not quite as original as it could have been - most of the plot elements can ultimately be recognised in other films - this is undoubtedly amongst the best films of the year so far and deserving of the Audience Award it won at the Edinburgh Film Festival.

VERDICT: Well worth seeing. Just a pity I didn't post this review when it was still in cinemas. Ahem.

IMDb

Read full post/comment...

EIFF Film Reviews

In my continuing effort to catch up with my backlog of un-reviewed films, I should probably mention the two movies I saw at the Edinburgh International Film Festival last month. Whilst two films isn't exactly a particularly good effort on my part, it's still better than last year where I somehow failed to see anything at all...

The Maiden Heist

The first film I saw was a light-hearted crime caper starring Morgan Freeman, Christopher Walken and William H Macy as art gallery security guards who decide to steal each of their favourite artworks to prevent them from being shipped off to a gallery in Denmark. While this may sound fairly mainstream, due to various legal wranglings the film hasn't made it to cinemas despite being shot a couple of years ago and may well never get a significant release.

I did enjoy The Maiden Heist - let's face it, with that cast it's quite hard to go wrong! It is very much a gentle, inoffensive comedy and as such I wouldn't say it was anything particularly special, but it is entertaining and does have a few genuinely laugh-out-loud moments.

VERDICT: Harmless fun.

Black Dynamite

The second film I saw was another comedy, but this one very much fell into the "offensive" category... but in a good way. Black Dynamite is a loving homage to the classic 70's Blaxploitation movies (Shaft, etc.), but with its tongue planted quite decisively in its cheek. Great care and attention has been spent on getting all the details correct, right down to the grainy film stock, dodgy editing, wobbly camera focus and blatant recycling of stock footage. All of these moments provide opportunities for giggles, but on top of that is a frankly hilarious script that quite proudly makes no sense whatsoever but regularly had the packed audience laughing hysterically.

It does have to be said that despite a brief running time of only 85 minutes, there were times when the film dragged a little, which is a shame. Regardless, the many moments of comic genius more than make up for its shortcomings and as a result Black Dynamite is destined to become a future cult classic and ideal fodder for alcohol-fuelled movie nights.

VERDICT: I can dig it!

And as an added bonus, here's the trailer:

Read full post/comment...

Film Review Catch-up

Hmm. So, I haven't actually posted a review since the end of May, and even then that was a film I saw towards the start of that month. The past couple of months have held quite a few distractions for me, but even so, my lack of updates is mostly just a result of my inevitable laziness.

Of course with the summer movie season now long since started (and arguably almost finished), I have seen many movies, to the point where I would never find the time to write individual reviews for all of them. As such, I'm just going to add another one of my quick run-downs like I did when I started this blog...

Star Trek

Even though I'm not a Trekkie, the once-stale franchise has been quite successfully rebooted with a spectacularly entertaining blockbuster that ticks all the rights boxes and reminds you just how much fun watching films can be. I liked how they managed to tie it in to the original films whilst establishing a new universe. It's also visually stunning, especially so on an IMAX screen.

VERDICT: It's great!

Synecdoche, New York

Charlie Kaufman's directorial debut, about a hypocondriac theatre director who spends decades building a life-size set of Manhattan in a warehouse for his next play. Even for a Kaufman film this was weird, to the point where I'm not even sure if I liked it or not - I was certainly entertained and there are plenty of great touches but ultimately it quite literally spirals in upon itself to the point of absurdity.

VERDICT: Hmm. I kind of liked it? Probably worth seeing...

Angels & Demons

It's monumentally silly, and features worse dialogue and acting than The Da Vinci Code, but on the other hand there is considerably more action and it still manages to at least be entertaining.

VERDICT: Silly but watchable.

Terminator: Salvation

It wasn't the disaster that it could have been considering it's directed by McG, but neither did it live up to the promise of a script by Jonathan Nolan and the presence of Christian Bale. Perfectly watchable but ultimately lacking in compelling plot. Interestingly Sam Worthington's character has the majority of the screen time.

VERDICT: Not up to the standards of its predecessors but otherwise fine.

Coraline (3D)

This has to be the most visually amazing work of animation I have ever seen - the detail, fluidity of motion and expressiveness of the characters almost makes it look like it was created with computers and not hand-animated models. Aside from this, the film itself is good fun but at 100 minutes it is perhaps a bit too long. And once again, 3D leaves me unconvinced - this time it worked well but was so subtle that I tended to forget about it.

VERDICT: Worth watching, but The Nightmare Before Christmas is better.

The Hangover

Easily the funniest comedy I have seen in years, which is all the more remarkable considering that the trailers didn't do much for me. By skipping the actual events of the night in question and focussing entirely on the bizarre investigation that follows, this quite effectively bypasses most of the stag-party-gone-wrong clichés and as such deserves its huge box office takings.

VERDICT: Great fun!

Public Enemies

I was expecting a lot from this - Michael Mann, Johnny Depp and Christian Bale certainly should have been an effective combination, but sadly, all I felt was boredom. The plot isn't compelling, I didn't care about any of the characters (I could barely tell any of them apart due to poor characterisation), the hand-held digital camerawork is distracting and the sound mixing is woefully poor. The shoot-out in the woods is great, though.

VERDICT: Avoid.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

I could barely remember anything about the first one and frankly I can see this going the same way - it's bloated, overlong and completely negates some very impressive visual effects work with horrendously-directed action scenes where you can't tell what's going on at all. That said, it's still passably entertaining in an extreme "switch-off-your-brain" sense.

VERDICT: Only worth it if you have absolutely nothing better to do.

Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince

As a film, it's probably the best since Prisoner of Azkaban, with the story flowing much better and sufficient running time available to allow the film to breathe (the main problem with the last 2 films). However, I believe that rather a lot was cut out of the book, to the extent that I'm fairly certain that someone who hasn't read it will be completely clueless about a lot of the plot. Otherwise, the direction and cinematography are excellent, and the cave scene is very well done - but sadly the ending is again a little bit of a damp squib.

VERDICT: For a fan of the franchise, well worth seeing. If you aren't, I wouldn't bother...

Read full post/comment...

Monsters vs Aliens

Yeah, I know, it's been weeks since my last post. So sue me. As a result, I've got a bit of a review backlog and as such the next few are all going to be quite short...

Monsters vs Aliens is the latest CGI cartoon from Dreamworks Animation, the creators of Shrek, and the plot is summarised fairly well by the title: the US government has been keeping various monsters locked away from the public for decades, until aliens invade and the monsters are set loose to save humanity. What follows is a reasonably entertaining but ultimately forgettable 90 minutes of by-the-numbers animation with a few classic film references to please the older members of the audience. Oh, and it's in 3D.

Despite an impressive voice cast including Reese Witherspoon, Hugh Laurie, Keifer Sutherland and Seth Rogen, none of the characters are particularly appealing and ultimately it's just not that funny (one absolutely hilarious scene aside). The animation itself is fairly unremarkable by the standards set by the likes of WALL-E and once again, as I found with Bolt, the 3D aspect just doesn't seem worth it - it either doesn't look right, isn't noticeable or distracts you from the movie. Unless James Cameron's Avatar does something spectacular with the technology in December, I'm starting to think that 3D is going to turn out to be a huge waste of time and money.

VERDICT: Generic family entertainment, and that's it. Nothing special.

IMDb

Read full post/comment...

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

The first of several planned "Origins" stories, Wolverine acts as a prequel to the X-Men trilogy and fills in the back story to our favourite metal-clawed amnesiac mutant, whilst introducing us to a host of new characters from the comics as well as a teenage Cyclops. The specifics of the plot itself are nothing particularly spectacular; the traditional variety of conspiracies, betrayals and evil plans. Really it's all just an excuse to give Hugh Jackman the opportunity to kill lots more bad guys...

To get straight to the point, Wolverine is a reasonably enjoyable action romp and a fun way to kill a couple of hours. It is however almost painfully average in pretty much every way - the plot is generic and muddled, the acting inconsistent, and the action unoriginal. In all honesty I probably enjoyed it more as a result of having extremely low expectations (early buzz on the film was poor). It does at least play reasonably well in continuity terms with the X-Men trilogy, although there are some niggles - exactly how did Sabretooth go from slightly hairy to practically a human lion in the first movie? And if Cyclops was in high school in the late 70's wouldn't he have been a lot older in the trilogy? And for that matter, wouldn't he have remembered Wolverine when they meet again years later?

Aside from that, there are three things that did bother me quite a bit:

• Ryan Reynolds was totally wasted as Deadpool - apparently there is going to be a spin-off movie featuring the character but I don't see how they can keep it neatly tied in to this film because they seem to have already ruined the character.
• After years of demand from X-Men fans, Gambit is finally introduced. And he's rubbish.
• The CGI is at times appalling and reeks of being rushed. You know things are bad when they can't even make Wolverine's claws look realistic despite it being quite easily accomplished in the first X-Men 9 years ago...

This may all sound quite negative, but it's not that bad. Compared to the main trilogy it's clearly inferior but it's not that far behind X-Men: The Last Stand - but then again that film had a few issues as well...

VERDICT: Enjoyable but ultimately a missed opportunity. Give me more real X-Men movies.

IMDb

Read full post/comment...

Crank 2: High Voltage

In the original Crank, Jason Statham played Chev Chelios, a hitman poisoned by a "Chinese synthetic", doing anything he could to keep his adrenaline levels up and his heart pumping, including electrocuting himself, having sex in public and committing many acts of wanton violence as he tracked down his would-be killers. It also ended with him plummeting out of a helicopter and dying. Or so we thought.

Crank 2: High Voltage begins exactly where we left off, with a Triad gang literally scraping Chelios off the tarmac and taking him away to have his indestructible heart removed for transplant, replacing it with a temporary artifical heart to keep him alive long enough to harvest his other organs. Of course, he's not too happy with all of this and escapes in pursuit of his "Strawberry Tart", doing anything possible to keep his artifical one charged, including electrocuting himself, having sex in public and committing many acts of wanton violence. Sound familiar?

Crank was a masterpiece of off-the-wall lunacy with no pretensions of making sense or pleasing critics - it was a highly condensed 90-minute thrill ride and was ludicrously entertaining for it. Unfortunately, in its efforts to outdo its predecessor, Crank 2 sadly crosses the line from being implausible but still vaguely grounded in reality to pure fantasy, and the film ultimately loses something as a result. Although still entertaining, almost every element of Crank 2 seems to go just a little too far, the hyper-kinetic camera-work and editing being the main offenders here. Jason Statham still proves to be a charismatic leading man, with Amy Smart and Dwight Yoakam both providing solid support and clearly having a lot of fun, but the less said about the rest of the cast the better. And I have to say, as much as I appreciate gratuitous violence used in a comedic manner, I could have done without the graphic nipple-slicing...

VERDICT: Insane but ultimately a bit disappointing. Watch the original.

IMDb

Read full post/comment...

I had no idea...

As a follow up to my edit to my State of Play review below concerning Brennan Brown, a post on his IMDb page led me to the startling discovery that he is in fact the Wicked Witch in the latest Orange Wednesdays cinema ad. I've seen this ad on numerous occasions and at no point did it even occur to me that it wasn't a woman, let alone "Mr. Dresdan". Now that I do know, of course, it's actually really obvious. Take a look:

If I ever see State of Play again I'll be laughing even harder now...

Read full post/comment...

State of Play

Based on the acclaimed BBC television series, State of Play is a complex political thriller about a newspaper journalist (Russell Crowe) investigating the death of a young woman working on the staff of a Washingtson congressman (Ben Affleck), who also happens to be an old college friend. Soon it becomes clear that her death was not simply an accident, especially with shady corporations and mysterious hitmen in the mix...

While State of Play is an enjoyable, well-made film with good performances from a strong cast, it ultimately suffers in comparison to the far superior television series. This is to be expected considering that the series managed to fill 6 hours with a dense, multi-layered story, whereas the film only lasts a third of that time. It actually turned out to be a much more faithful adaptation than I would have expected (almost every scene of the movie was derived in some way from the original series), but the fact is that it all felt a bit rushed, and generally lacking in subtlety. What suffers most are the relationships between the characters - in particular I never got any sense that Affleck's and Crowe's characters could ever have been long-term friends, unlike John Simm and David Morrissey in the TV show. I did think that the (non-sexual) chemistry between Crowe and Rachel McAdams as a young reporter was quite successful though.

Overall I did enjoy the film, but there was never anything particularly remarkable about it. Had I not seen the BBC series I may have had a better opinion of it, but even then I suspect that it's not a film I'd go out of my way to see again anytime soon.

VERDICT: It holds your interest but doesn't do much more than that. Watch the TV series.

IMDb

EDIT: Something that I just remembered that's worth mentioning - the presence of Brennan Brown, AKA "the guy from the Orange mobile cinema ads", rendered all of his scenes unintentionally hilarious. I doubt there's a single UK cinema audience in the UK that won't start laughing when he turns up...

Read full post/comment...

Let The Right One In (Låt den rätte komma in)

Set in Stockholm in 1981, Let The Right One In tells the story of Oskar, a lonely 12-year old boy suffering at the hands of a group of school bullies. When a mysterious girl of his age moves in to the apartment next door, he almost immediately falls in love with her. The only problem is, this particular girl happens to be a vampire who is leaving a trail of bloody corpses around town...

I should probably preface this review by pointing out that horror isn't exactly my favourite film genre and I tend to find vampire films especially tiresome. Nevertheless, Let The Right One In has such an abundance of 5-star reviews and proclamations of "Film Of The Year" that I was sufficiently intrigued. Sadly, it would seem that the film has become a victim of its own hype. I never felt particularly compelled by the story, although I did appreciate the slightly different approach of the vampire in fact being a lonely little girl. At no point did I consider the movie to be even remotely scary or disturbing, and to be honest it wasn't even creepy (well, perhaps the little blond kid playing Oskar...). Even the much-discussed finale of the film was underwhelming - technically impressive and intriguingly shot, perhaps, but in all honestly I actually found it vaguely amusing, which I'm sure wasn't the filmmakers' intention. 

Casting my eye over the numerous critical raves for the film, I can't help but wonder what I missed here. My suspicion is that these reviews were all written with no preconceptions of the film's quality, and as such it turned out to be a genuine surprise to most critics. Unfortunately, so many months later I can't help but the feel that the weight of expectation is now too much for Let The Right One In to bear.

VERDICT: For what it is it's quite good, but ultimately it fails to live up to the critical hype.

IMDb

Read full post/comment...

I want one

(Click the picture to go to the Philips website)

Read full post/comment...

TV Review: Dollhouse

It's about time I did something different for a change so this time around I'm going to be reviewing a TV show, not a film. The show in question is Dollhouse, the new sci-fi show airing on the US Fox network. I have in fact been planning to review this for several weeks now, but I ended up delaying things for reasons I'll touch on later. 

Dollhouse is the latest show from Joss Whedon, creator of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, and most importantly Firefly, the utterly genius cowboys-in-space show that was unfairly cancelled before being resurrected as the feature film Serenity... which then bombed. Ahem. The titular dollhouse is in fact a sinister secret organisation that deals in "programmable people", or "dolls" - hired out to millionaires, crime lords or governments to tackle all manner of engagements, from bank robberies to the perfect date. Needless to say, there is more going on that meets the eye...

Before I go on, it's worth pointing out a few interesting things about Dollhouse:

• It's a Joss Whedon-created sci-fi show airing on the Fox network... just like Firefly.
• It's been placed in the Friday-night death slot... just like Firefly.
• The original pilot episode was ditched in favour of using the second episode as the premiere... just like Firefly.
• The viewing figures have been poor... just like Firefly.

Noticing a trend? Things aren't exactly looking good for Dollhouse right now - Firefly was cancelled after 14 episodes and although Fox have guaranteed that all 13 episodes of Dollhouse will be shown, I wouldn't put money on there being a second season...

But is it actually any good? The answer to that is, overall, yes. But with some qualifications. I can't help but feel that the show has so far been squandering its obvious potential to be truly great. Take for instance the fact that a crucial plot element was not properly established until the 6th episode of the show (I delayed my review as I had heard in advance that this episode would be a "game-changer") - while it did indeed put a significant new spin on the proceedings, the fact is that it was the kind of development that would have made more sense being set up much earlier on, i.e. in the first couple of episodes. Instead the show wastes time with 3 or 4 "mission of the week" episodes that do little to further the plot and are in fact really quite dull. A couple of those episodes are actually very poor and probably will not have helped Dollhouse to build its fanbase. And it has to be said that the two episodes since seem to have temporaily abandoned the latest plot twist in favour of tangential stand-alone stories.

A more fundamental problem with the show is its central concept - the main characters don't actually have any personalities because they are playing different people every week before being wiped again, making it difficult to feel any sense of attachment to them. Even more frustrating is that when we do start to discover more about the back story of the central character, Echo (Eliza Dushku), it actually turns out to be not all that interesting. It has to be said that some of the blame must be laid on Dushku who doesn't seem to have the range to play radically different characters every episode, somewhat threatening the plausibility of the show.

On the positive side, the quality has been steadily improving, the supporting cast is generally very good, the production values are high and later episodes have struck a good balance between the serious drama and Whedon's trademark wry humour. Supposedly the remaining 5 episodes will be taking the show in all kinds of unexpected directions - I just hope that it's enough to warrant a second season, from both the network's perspective and mine.

VERDICT: It's not yet must-see TV but it could be.

Read full post/comment...

Duplicity

Julia Roberts is an ex-CIA agent and Clive Owen is an ex-MI6 agent who together hatch a plot to make millions by playing both sides of a huge corporate espionage battle between two rival pharmeceutical companies. The only problem is, they can never seem to trust each other either...

Duplicity is the second film from writer-director Tony Gilroy, following on from his Oscar-nominated Michael Clayton. Whereas Clayton was a dark, sombre film, this is almost the complete opposite, a light-hearted comedy thriller that zips along at a nice pace while retaining much of the visual style of Gilroy's first film. It is however, perhaps a bit too lightweight and ultimately just a bit silly. Overall though it is a refreshing change and it's nice to see the director branching out early on in his career.

I was certainly entertained throughout and there's more than a few laughs to be had here. Throw in small supporting roles from Tom Wilkinson and Paul Giamatti in scenery-chewing mode as the two opposing CEOs and you have a recipe for a good old-fashioned bit of fun. As you would expect from a film involving ex-spies, industrial espionage and con jobs, there are twists and turns applenty, but I will admit that the ending of the film was genuinely unexpected and well executed, for which I must commend it.

VERDICT: Good fun. Don't expect anything more.

IMDb

Read full post/comment...

Knowing

In this latest sci-fi effort from the director of Dark City, Nicolas Cage plays a university lecturer who discovers a mysterious sheet of seemingly random numbers buried in a time-capsule at his son's primary school 50 years ago. It is not long before he discovers that the numbers do in fact contain the exact dates and death tolls of every major disaster to have taken place in the past 50 years... and there are still 3 dates left on the sheet that have not occurred yet...

I'm not going to say any more about the plot because let's just say that it is almost definitely not going to turn out how you would expect it to. The ending especially is very "out-there" and is understandably polarising the opinions of both critics and audiences. Personally, I fall on the side of liking it. Quite a lot, in fact. I'm always attracted to a good sci-fi film and considering that Dark City is amongst my all-time favourites, I have a lot of time for director Alex Proyas. Sure, there are some script issues and the acting is a bit variable (but hardly ever distractingly so), but the audacious plot (for a Hollywood film) and some truly stunning imagery is more than enough for me to like.

I must give special mention to the key set-pieces in the film, featuring some truly eye-popping visuals that at times are actually quite disturbing. One scene in particular evokes the memory of Children of Men, with a completely seamless tracking shot lasting for several minutes as absolute chaos ensues around the main character. It's easily amongst the most impressive things I've ever seen on the big screen, in spite of some minor CGI issues. Considering the film's modest budget the quality of the effects is in fact quite remarkable - an observation that could easily be applied to Dark City as well. Clearly Proyas has a talent for making the most of his budgets.

VERDICT: You may love it or hate it, but either way it's a must-watch on the big screen.

IMDb

Read full post/comment...

Gran Torino

A couple of fairly short reviews today...

Clint Eastwood's latest directing effort is another small, understated story, much in the same vein as his Oscar-winning Million Dollar Baby. The plot revolves around an aging, bitter Korean war veteran who catches his young Hmong neighbour attempting to steal his prized Ford Gran Torino, and then gradually befriends both the boy and his family. Inevitably things become more complicated when the family start suffering at the hands of a local Asian gang...

A lot of critics were surprised that Gran Torino wasn't in contention for any Oscars, but ultimately I don't think it was that good. I did enjoy it for the most part, even if the film's pacing is very relaxed and the plot quite clichéd. Clint (in what he claims will be his last acting performance) does over-do the whole angry-growling thing and the actor who plays the young neighbour is frankly awful. Much of the film is surprisingly funny, although it does develop into a much more serious drama towards the end, and I will admit that I did feel for the characters to a certain extent. Ultimately though this is very much a case of "good, not great". And who in God's name thought it was a good idea for Clint to sing over the end credits? I've never been so embarrassed in a movie theatre.

VERDICT: Good but not worth rushing out to see.

IMDb

Read full post/comment...

Says it all, really

Sorry, another one for the F1 fans:

Read full post/comment...

The wait is nearly over...

I'll warn you now, this is going to a long, fairly unstructured ramble about the upcoming Formula 1 season for the benefit of the few readers I have who may be interested. If you are not one of them, then feel free to move along; there's nothing to see here.

Anyway - Formula 1 is back this weekend! Woohoo!

I have genuinely never been this excited about the start of a new season of F1, for a variety of reasons, the most important of which is undoubtedly the new regulations which have resulted in radically different looking cars, as demonstrated to the left. With no silly aerodynamic winglets or turn-ups, the cars now look much cleaner and sleeker. I'll admit that the disproportionate front and rear wings aren't exactly the most elegant things in the world, but I have to say that I'm getting quite used to them now. In fact, some of the cars, including the Brawn (left), Red Bull and Williams actually look pretty damn good. On the other hand, the BMW and Renault are both butt-ugly... either way, if it actually results in the much-fabled increase in overtaking, then I'm all for it.

Because of the radical rules shake-up, all ten teams have effectively started from scratch with a blank sheet of paper, which with any luck will completely re-arrange the grid. Even better is the fact that everyone has had remarkably close testing times - there is a genuine chance for at least 7 teams to win races this season and just as many drivers could have a shot at the championship. Sounds good to me!

It is interesting to note that the last time there was a major set of regulation changes (2005), Ferrari plummeted from a hugely dominant run the year before to failing to win a race (I'm not counting the US race fiasco for obvious reasons), and Renault went from occasional race winners to world champions. Much the same could happen this year, although it would appear that McLaren are looking a lot more suspect than Ferrari based on their lacklustre testing times. And fascinatingly the eventual champions may not be Renault, but Brawn GP, a team that didn't even officially exist until about a month ago.

Honda must be kicking themselves now. After spending literally all of last season developing this year's car, they pull the plug at the last minute and nearly cause the team to collapse, only for them to rise from the ashes at the last possible moment and proceed to trouce everyone else in testing to the tune of 1 second per lap, despite very little mileage. It's an amazing story, but not that odd when you consider that it is still effectively the Honda team, just with a new name and new management. Still, the fact that Jenson Button is now favourite to win the Australian GP on Sunday seems utterly bizarre. I just wish that I'd placed a bet on him to do that a month ago, I could have made a fortune with such long odds...

Ordinarily I would be very concerned with McLaren's lack of pace, but crucially, Lewis Hamilton has already won the title, so that particular anxiety is over. And with my previous favourite David Coulthard retired, for the first time in memory I can actually watch the races and have genuinely no preference for who wins (as long as it's not Räikkönen!). In fact, I'd be quite happy to see Massa take the title this year, I actually feel that he deserves it after his performances last year.

Normally I would offer some kind of pre-season predictions, but in all honesty, I haven't got a clue. The Brawn cars could lap the field at every race and run away with the title, or there could be a different winner every time, and the uncertainty is truly exciting. I'm sure that after a while a general pattern for the season will emerge, but until the first couple of races are over at least, no-one will know anything for sure.

Other random thoughts:

• F1 is on the BBC again! No adverts! The Chain! DC as a pundit! No James Allen or Louise Goodman!
• The Australasian races are actually on at quite civilised times. It'll be odd watching the Australian GP with daylight outside.
• Toyota has better bloody win some races - they look quick and if they don't then the bosses in Japan could follow Honda's lead. Still, their best season ever was 2005... see my earlier comments.
• How lucky is Rubens Barrichello? It was all but certain that he had lost his seat to Bruno Senna and was facing an ignominious retirement before Honda waved bye-bye. Now he has a half-plausible shot at the title!
• I'm really glad that Sebastian Bourdais has been given another chance in the Torro Rosso, he was deperately unlucky last year. Although it would have been cool to see Takuma Sato on the grid again.
• The first corner this weekend will be carnage - those front wings are actually wider than the wheels!
• And of course, no season is complete without political nonsense. Although the ridiculous winner-takes-all system I ranted about has been hastily revoked, there are protests about the legality of the Brawn, Toyota and Williams cars which will not get sorted out until after the second race. Sigh... you can't have everything, I suppose.

So, in short... hooray! Who'd have thought that someone would be so happy to lose their freedom every second weekend for 7 months?

Read full post/comment...

The Darkness of the Soul... er, flat

Well, tonight was interesting. I come home, flick on the light switch and... nothing happens. Try it again. Nope. Check other lights. Nothing. None of my electronics are lit up. It was clear, I had no electricity.

After speaking to the neighbour I discover that there has been electrical work in the building today, and they helpfully decided to disconnect me. I then realise that the electricians had left a note through my door, with contact numbers for their company and Scottish Power (listed first). So I ring up Scottish Power, curse the individual who came up with voice recognition for customer service phone lines, and eventually get through to a real person, who tells me to check the circuit breakers and phone them back if that doesn't fix it. All very well, bit I can't see the circuit breakers as I have no bloody lights.

I then remember that my first aid kit has a built in torch... with no batteries. Sigh. So I scavenge the batteries from my remote controls, and check the circuit breakers... all looks normal. I phone up Scottish Power again, muddle through the voice recognition fiasco for a second time, and finally get put through to a different person who bluntly tells me that it's nothing to do with them and that I should have phoned the other company in the first place. I'm not sure if I hung up before or after swearing loudly...

Anyway, I ring the electrical company. "Please leave a message." Grrrr....  Luckily there is also a mobile number, which by some miracle is actually picked up. The guy on the other end tells me that I was supposedly notified of the work by a hand-delivered letter 10 days ago, and that all the other tenants in the building successfully contacted them to arrange for the work to be done. That's all very well, but I certainly never saw this letter. It must have been mislaid amongst the large piles of junk mail in the stairwell... and was probably wrongly addressed anyway. Anyway, this guy actually sounds angry at me for inconveniencing him. He curtly tells me that he'll call his electricians out and hangs up without giving me any indication of when they will turn up.

By this point it was almost completely dark - and there was literally nothing to do. I couldn't even cook anything because I have an electric hob/oven. So I sat in the dark and waited, pondering ways of torturing electricians... ok, so I did actually phone up my mum for a chat but that's not quite so dramatic.

After an hour they finally arrived and proceeded to make a huge amount of noise and mess, which I'm sure won't ingratiate me with the neighbours. Eventually the power was restored and I heard the joyous noise of all my electronic items powering on at the same time. How not to spend a Wednesday evening.

In short, I hate electricians. And in fact, most service industries...

On a lighter (ha!) note, last week I spent 4 nights in Braemar with a few friends, which was a very welcome break from that whole work thing. Highlights included:

• Visiting Tomintoul and buying whisky
• Visiting the Cairngorm Brewery and buying a crate of ale
• Celebrating my 25th birthday with chocolate ale cake
• Visiting the Royal Lochnagar distillery and buying more whisky
• Taking an 8-mile trek round Loch Muick as the sun set over the hills (See? It wasn't all about alcohol. Just mostly.)
• Exploring the Linn of Dee
• Winning games of Scrabble and a card game called "Bastard"
• Visiting my old home town of Auchenblae on the way back to Edinburgh, a place I have not been in 11 years. It seems a lot smaller and the door of my old house is a different colour... and the hotel has blown up (link)

Pictures can be found here and here.

It was a shame to return to the usual routine on Monday. Oh well, I've got to keep paying the bills to make sure I don't come home to find myself in the dark with no electricity. Oh, wait...

Read full post/comment...

The FIA does it again

Just how many moronic, sport-crippling rule changes can the FIA make before the entire of Formula One collapses?

The latest bright idea is to have the driver's championship decided by the most number of wins, rather than the points actually scored. This is in effect the same as Bernie's "medals" idea which was widely criticised and rejected. I honestly don't even know where this proposal came from - the last I read, the FIA were voting on a revised points system that would give a bit more advantage to winners. This alternative idea has literally come out of nowhere, and what's more bizarre is that the FIA supposedly conducted market research amongst F1 fans that suggested that such an idea was widely despised. This is all some kind of knee-jerk reaction to Hamilton winning last year's championship with less wins than Massa (ignoring the fact that this was only because the FIA stole one of Hamilton's wins and gave it to Massa) - strange considering that last season's finale was probably the most spectacular of all time.

So now, assuming the field is as close as it looks to be from testing, we have a situation where one driver could theoretically win the championship with 4 wins and 14 DNFs, instead of a driver who lands on the podium all season and has over 100 points. Madness. The championship will be decided well before the end of the season.

And don't even get me started on the non-sensical "budget cap" rules for 2010, where teams who spend less than £30 million in a season will have greater freedom to develop their cars. Nice idea, except for the fact that with only £30 million, a team won't be able to afford to develop their cars. Nice one.

I had been really looking forward to the new season, which held the promise of some truly unexpected results, but now my anticipation has been severely dampened. The sooner Max and Bernie get carted off to a retirement home the better...

Read full post/comment...

Repo! The Genetic Opera

And now, for something completely different...

I was at the Filmhouse cinema with some friends last night for a special screening of Repo! The Genetic Opera, a "21st century rock-opera" set in a dystopian future where everyone's organs are failing and they are getting transplants from an evil genetics corporation that will happily repossess the organs (messily) if you can't keep up the payments.

Essentially, it's a bit like The Rocky Horror Picture Show meets Blade Runner. The crucial difference being, though, that those films are, you know, good. Repo isn't. Not by a long way. In fact, I'd say it's quite easily one of the worst films I've ever seen. Almost from the first minute I was staring at the screen in a state of disbelief at just how bad it is.

The biggest problem is that the entire movie is sung. Unlike your typical musical which mixes ordinary dialogue with songs, the here the dialogue is the songs, and as a result most of the lyrics are terrible and not in the least bit memorable or catchy. The music is incessantly awful, the acting woeful and the plot non-sensical. And just to make things worse, Paris Hilton is in it. The rest of the cast includes a few recognisable names including Anthony Stewart Head (of Buffy fame) and, bizarrely, Sarah Brightman (a.k.a. the original Christine in The Phantom of the Opera). Quite how they got involved remains a mystery.

The evening wasn't a complete write-off though: the film's director, Darren Lynn Bousman, and the writer were there to introduce the film and answer questions afterwards (first question: "Why Paris Hilton?"), and they were both pretty cool, entertaining guys. They openly acknowledged that many people hate the film, but they clearly had a blast making it and were totally down-to-earth and self-deprecating. I was particularly surprised by Bousman, who as the director of Saw II, Saw III, and Saw IV is actually a fairly successful (if typecast) Hollywood filmmaker. He was refreshingly open about how the Saw franchise is very much a machine that he was only a small part of, and that he has greater career aspirations than churning out horror sequels his entire life.

Repo is clearly destined to become a cult favourite, judging from the enthusiastic response from the, shall we say, diverse audience last night. There is already an element of crowd participation developing à la Rocky Horror, despite the film only coming out last December, and I can foresee regular midnight screenings occurring around the world for a long time to come. It's just a shame that it's so bad...

VERDICT: Don't. Just. Don't.

IMDb

Read full post/comment...

At Last...

Broken Records have finally announced the release of their first album, entitled Until The Earth Begins To Part. For those that don't know, Broken Records are a fantastic Edinburgh-based alternative rock group that have drawn comparisons to Arcade Fire thanks to the large number of people and instruments all on stage at once. I've seen them live 3 times now and they've been awesome on every occasion - in fact, I need to seem them again... The album is being released on the 1st of June, and the widget below allows you to listen to one of the tracks, If Eilert Løvborg Wrote A Song, It Would Sound Like This:

Full details of the album can be found here. I can't wait...

Read full post/comment...

Watchmen

So, last night I finally got the chance to see the film that I had been anticipating for many months now. The recent hype has been huge, so did the movie adaptation of Watchmen live up to expectations?

In short, the answer is: not quite. It's still a good film, perhaps even a very good film, but it ultimately suffers from pacing problems that prevent it from truly reaching its clear potential. The middle act of the film, in which most of the characters' back-stories are revealed, is the most problematic, consisting of lots of individual episodic moments that don't quite tie together smoothly. I'd imagine that this is a consequence of the original graphic novel originally being in 12 parts. Despite many fans of the book worrying that the film would be too short, I honestly think that at 162 minutes, it's already a little too long.

However, there is much to admire. The visuals, as expected, are fantastic, with excellent production design, cinematography and visual effects. The plot itself is compelling, especially in the excellent last 45 minutes or so of the film. Although at the time of writing I have only read four chapters of the novel, I can already see that the film is extremely faithful not just in terms of the look - many shots are exact copies of the comic panels - but also in terms of the dialogue, much of which has been used verbatim. It could be argued that director Zack Snyder has been a little too faithful, leading to the aforementioned pacing problems.

What I appreciated most about Watchmen is that it is fairly unique when compared to your typical big-budget blockbuster. It's dark, (very) violent, at times disturbing, deals with deep themes of politics and the nature of humanity, and yet has moments of genuine humour. Additionally, the ending is decidedly un-Hollywood (probably why I liked it so much). The use of music was also interesting; there wasn't a huge amount of original score, but rather a range of period rock and pop songs (Bob Dylan, Jimi Hendrix), classical music and pieces from other films, for example Philip Glass' score for Koyaanisqatsi, all used to great effect.

To be honest, I'm amazed this film exists at all. Warner Bros. apparently spent $130m on a long, 18-rated philosphical comic book adaptation with no major stars, no major villain, and where even some of the supposed heroes are sociopaths. That it works as well as it does is worthy of praise, regardless of the length issues.

VERDICT: Not quite the masterpiece I had been hoping for, but still well worth seeing, especially on a big screen.

IMDb

Read full post/comment...