TheUnseenMovieLover Reviews

Fast Five (2011)

A Fantastic Summer Thrill Ride

[8/10 · 27 April 2011]

Personally, I have never been a huge fan of the Fast and the Furious franchise. The first film was a fun piece of dumb popcorn entertainment, bolstered by strong action, some awesome stunts and Vin Diesel's intimidating presence. Then Diesel vanished, and the series took a downward dive in "quality". I really disliked 2 Fast 2 Furious, and I hated the third instalment, Tokyo Drift. Diesel's return in the fourth film, Fast and Furious, signalled a definite improvement over 2 and 3, but still didn't match the original. So it's fair to say that I went into Fast Five with mixed expectations. And I'm pleased to say that I came out with a smile on my face.

The plot for this one goes a little something like this. Picking up from the ending of the last film. Brian O'Connor (Paul Walker) and Mia Torretto (Jordana Brewster) free Dom Torretto (Diesel) from the transport taking him to prison. Next time we see them, they're hiding out in Rio. However, when a job goes badly wrong, they find themselves being hunted by corrupt businessman Herman Reyes (Joaquim de Almeida). To get both payback and freedom, they call on other characters from the series (Roman Pearce (Tyrese Gibson) and Tej (Chris "Ludicrous" Bridges) from 2 Fast, Han from Tokyo Drift etc) to help them in a bid to steal of Reyes' money. However, they're also being chased by tough-as-nails Federal Agent Luke Hobbs (Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson), who's never lost a convict…

Simply put, Fast Five is a near-perfect piece of summer entertainment. I was hugely surprised by just how pumped up this film left me feeling. I walked out of the cinema feeling energetic and excited, something which I truly didn't expect when I walked into the cinema to watch it. When a summer movie makes me have that kind of reaction to it, I personally think that it has done a great job. When we go to a summer movie, first and foremost we want to be entertained. That is something that Fast Five achieves in spades.

That is mostly due to the insane action sequences and stunts in this movie. The stunt team deserve BIG props for some of the things we see on screen here. Right from the get-go, when we see a bus collide with a car and flip while the car is pretty much unscathed, the filmmakers are telling you to leave your brain at the door. If you can do that, the action in here is fantastic. If you're looking forward to some street racing though, you may be disappointed. An early train robbery is brilliantly paced, edited and loud; if you're a fan of the series, the carnage will leave a huge grin on your face. If you're a newcomer, just embrace the absurdity and your grin will be almost as wide. A nicely- done foot chase through the favelas quickly follows, although it does bear unfavourable comparisons to a similar, better executed scene from The Incredible Hulk. But in the final 45 minutes, the filmmakers slam the accelerator on this baby. There's a fist fight between Diesel and Johnson which is worth the ticket price alone, a gunfight which echoes Black Hawk Down and the final, awesomely implausible chase, with two cars dragging a safe (no, I'm not going mad) the size of a wrecking ball through the streets of Rio. It's audacious, spectacular and fun as hell. If you are one of those unstoppable cynics, you will probably walk out at this point, tutting as you go. If you just go for the ride, you'll have a blast. I was personally grinning like the Cheshire Cat.

But the most surprising thing for me was how much I enjoyed the scenes between the action set-pieces. Whereas the acting is nothing spectacular, all of the returning actors have settled into their roles by now and have an unforced, easy-going relationship with each other. I actually really liked the good guys in this, and I wanted them to succeed. Tyrese Gibson and Ludicrous, in particular, are hilarious, their rapport with each other and the other members of Dom's crew providing a lot of great laughs throughout. There are a surprising amount of witty, funny one-liners, and most of them go to these two. Walker is decent (if still a bit wooden), and Brewster, as well as being astonishingly beautiful, actually does a effective job of making Mia a vulnerable yet strong character, instead of just window dressing. Diesel, as always, brings his dominant presence to bear; you can immediately sense why the rest of the gang is willing to face these risks for him. As the new villain, de Almeida is suitably slimy and nasty enough to make you want to see the gang beat him. But the big introduction in this movie is obviously that of The Rock. Striding into the movie like a testosterone- driven bloodhound, The Rock puts all of those shameful kid flicks such as The Game Plan and The Tooth Fairy behind him and returns to his masculine roots, sliding effortlessly into the series and delivering a new jolt of life in the process.

Overall, Fast Five delivered almost everything I wanted from a summer movie. There are problems; the street racing sequences feel like afterthoughts, the relationship between Dom and a Brazilian cop (Elsa Pataky) isn't developed enough whilst the filmmakers use a few too many panning shots across an otherwise beautiful Rio. But other than that, director Justin Lin, the cast and crew have delivered a hugely entertaining action flick. Based on the mid-credits clip, there might be a sequel. I never thought I'd say this, but if this is one, I will definitely go and see it. Summer is off to a flying start.

Thor (2011)

A movie worthy of Thor!

[9/10 · 26 April 2011]

Wow. That was the first thing I thought after seeing Thor. I'd read the strong reviews, I loved the choice of Kenneth Branagh as director and the trailers looked great. But I still wasn't prepared for how satisfying this movie would be. This is the very definition of epic, and I LOVED it.

Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is a God of Norse mythology, son of Odin (Anthony Hopkins) and brother of Loki (Tom Hiddleston). When Thor disobeys his father and sparks an ancient war with the Frost Giants, Odin banishes him from the realm of Asgard and casts him down to Earth. With the help of a trio of humans (including Natalie Portman's Jane), Thor struggles to fit in on Earth whilst looking for a way to return to Asgard. Meanwhile, the devious Loki plots for his father's throne…

Simply put, Thor is the best superhero movie since The Dark Knight. The idea of Norse gods and warriors who dress, sound and look like pompous Vikings (some of whom interact with modern humans), multiple universes, rainbow bridges and Frost Giants must have seemed pretty hard to pull off without being silly, especially when this hero eventually has to meet with more "realistic" superheroes such as Iron Man, Hulk and Captain America in next year's The Avengers movie. But Branagh has taken something potentially camp and cheesy and turned it into a powerful, strangely relatable story; there are quite a few Shakespearian elements in Thor's story, something which Branagh is an undeniable master at adapting to the screen. Plus, Branagh and the screenwriters also inject a much-needed humour into the proceedings without unbalancing the emotion and surprising seriousness of the story. The most impressive thing about Thor is the way it treads a pitch-perfect line between respecting the material and winking at its audience knowingly (most notably with a certain cameo). In that way, it's reminiscent of The Mask of Zorro, never taking itself too seriously whilst never allowing itself to slip into parody.

Branagh also proves to be a master at creating an epic summer blockbuster. Apart from a few dodgy moments, the visual effects are stunning; in fact, this is probably the most visually impressive film I have seen from Marvel thus far. The production design is also beautiful; Asgard is one of the most incredible movie landscapes I have ever seen. My eyes were stretched to breaking point, trying to drink in all the details of this new, exciting and opulent world. There are some moments which look a bit fake (which is annoying when the filmmakers had about $150 million to work with), but it's almost forgivable based on how spectacular the majority of the visual FX shots are. Credit must go to the FX and art direction departments.

But a summer blockbuster wouldn't be a summer blockbuster without action, and Thor delivers some great sequences. The early encounters with the Frost Giants (genuinely frightening creatures) are superb, with Thor and his friends using some pretty bad-ass moves. A later scene where Thor fights to retrieve his mystical hammer, Mjolnir, is gritty and intense, whilst another great set-piece sees the metallic being known as The Destroyer hunting Thor and destroying most of a desert town in the process. I have heard that many people consider the final confrontation to be anti-climactic, but I have to say that it isn't as much about seeing epic action is it is about seeing how the main characters have grown and changed throughout the course of the film. In a way, I think that displays the film's greatest strength. It isn't all about the action and the visual effects; it's more about the characters and the emotional response.

Speaking of which, the cast is exceptional. No pay cheque grabbing here; every cast member dives into their role headfirst. Let's start with the big guy himself, Thor. Hemsworth is best known for his brilliant, five- minute appearance as Kirk Sr. in 2009's Star Trek; to go from that to the lead in arguably one of Marvel's most risky undertakings could be seen as a huge step. You wouldn't know it from watching Hemsworth's performance, though. He is absolutely perfect in the role, charting Thor's journey from an impetuous fighter to a more understanding, wiser man with ease. Comedy, action, drama, romance; all encompassed perfectly in Hemsworth's performance. He deserves to achieve stardom after this, and I'm really looking forward to seeing how he fits into The Avengers. Natalie Portman is charming and charismatic as Jane; the scenes between her and Hemsworth ooze chemistry, whilst her scenes with Stellan Skarsgard and Kat Dennings, terrific as Jane's mentor and intern respectively, shine with a wonderful camaraderie. Hiddleston steals the movie whenever he appears as the slithering, manipulative yet oddly sympathetic Loki; this is a wonderfully complex role, and Hiddleston never strikes a wrong note. Hopkins, instead of hamming it up, brings powerful gravitas to Odin; he is intimidating, yet wise and weary from his many years of experience. The scenes between him, Hemsworth and Hiddleston are tremendous, each actor bringing all of their talent to bear and succeeding beyond all expectations. There are too many other names to mention, but rest assured everyone's sublime.

Apart from some minor quibbles, I absolutely loved this movie. Branagh, the cast and crew have succeeded beyond my wildest dreams. This encompasses everything I want from an epic adventure; action, wonder, romance, comedy and a surprising amount of character and intelligence. In my opinion, this is one of Marvel's best, taking something which could have sunk to the lows of Ghost Rider or Elektra and propelling it to the same heights as Spider-Man 1 & 2, X2 and Iron Man. Add a great pre-credits teaser for The Avengers (plus one exciting appearance from a minor member), and I couldn't be more hyped. You're up next, Captain America; don't you dare let the team down.

The Expendables (2010)

Too Much of a Throw-Away Movie - Disappointing

[5/10 · 2 September 2010]

What do you expect from a movie like The Expendables? Tremendous performances, an Oscar-worthy screenplay, rich characters and multi-layered direction? If so, abandon all hope. The Expendables has been hyped up to be one of the most masculine films of recent years, a film so manly that if a woman were to watch it, she'd probably be sporting a beard by the end. What I wanted from The Expendables was some kick-ass, old-school action, along with a few memorable one-liners and some truly nasty bad guys. Even with these lowered expectations, I was still disappointed by The Expendables.

The plot's probably not going to be on people's minds when they watch this movie, but it's still weak. Barney Ross (Sylvester Stallone, who also directs) is the leader of the titular team of mercenaries. After an impressive opening in which Ross and his team, including Lee Christmas (Jason Statham) and Ying Yang (what?!) (Jet Li) save a group of hostages from Somali pirates, an offer is put Barney's way by a CIA agent named Church (Bruce Willis). Their mission; to land on a hostile island and kill a South American general (David Zayas) and his partner, a rogue CIA agent called Munroe (Eric Roberts). Things become personal for Barney when he forms a connection with Sandra (Giselle Itie), a woman on the island, who turns out to be the general's daughter…

Most people are going to The Expendables for the action, and it wasn't as satisfying as I was hoping it would be. Don't get me wrong, there are a few crowd-pleasing moments; they just happen more towards the end of the movie. In fact, apart from the opening and ending of this movie, there isn't that much action. There are a couple of chases and explosions, but I didn't really care much about what happened. This is because none of the characters (other than Mickey Rourke's Tool, who doesn't even get involved in the action) inspired strong emotions in me as an audience member, and the dreaded shaky-cam rears its ugly head. No!!! What happened to the good old days of action movies when filmmakers kept their cameras still and showed us everything that was going on, in all its glory? Raider of the Lost Ark, anybody? Die Hard? Terminator? Predator? What's the similarity between all of these movies? They were all released in the 80's, the era that this movie is clearly trying to emulate. Why are these movies so much better than The Expendables? Here's a list; you want to know what happens to the characters, there's suspense, memorable dialogue and brilliantly staged and executed action. In The Expendables, the staging of the action sequences is good, but the execution isn't. The filmmakers couldn't even be bothered to use real explosions, putting in obviously bad CGI instead.

The performances aren't all that great, but you'd be an idiot to expect great acting work here. Stallone is a good actor, and he still has charisma, but Ross just isn't that interesting. Statham's decent, and he and Stallone share some enjoyable chemistry, but he's lumbered with a pitiful back story involving his ex girlfriend (Charisma Carpenter) and her abusive new boyfriend, which is just an excuse for a scrap in a basketball court; after this scene, we never see or hear of Carpenter's character again. Rourke is given a scene of big emotional heft about his character's regret which comes out of nowhere, and he absolutely nails it. With this one scene, Rourke immediately becomes the most sympathetic, intriguing character out of the whole bunch. Another big scene is the much-hyped meeting between Stallone, Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger (as Trench, the leader of a rival mercenary group). It's not as cool as it could have been, and the main reason for this is that it's all too short. Schwarzenegger and Willis are great fun here, but they're like the two popular uncles of the family who turn up at a party, greet everybody and then rush off again; for a scene featuring three of the most iconic action stars of all time, it's underwhelming. As Gunnar Jensen, a druggie member of The Expendables who is booted out early on and who seeks vengeance, Dolph Lundgren is surprisingly engaging, even though his character is the most poorly developed in the movie, and that's saying something when you look at the other characters here. None of the other performances are special; Zayas, Roberts and Steve Austin (as Munroe's bodyguard, Paine) fail to generate audience hatred as the bad guys, whilst Randy Couture and Terry Crews can't do anything with their badly sidelined roles as Toll Road and Hale Caesar, the other members of Ross's team (although Caesar has one bad-ass gun).

For what it's trying to be, a big, dumb and nostalgic take on the action flicks of the 80's, The Expendables isn't a complete failure. The action (for the most part) is well put together, the locations are strong, there are some memorable lines of dialogue within the context of the movie (Stallone's final put-down of Schwarzenegger's character is classic) and there are some solid performances (with one ace from Rourke). Plus, there is an manly appeal to the movie which makes it a perfect guys night out, and Stallone's direction keep things moving along nicely until the final bloody, explosion-packed climax. But I wanted more; more action, more Willis, more Schwarzenegger and more Rourke, amongst many other things. Overall, if you go with a group of friends, The Expendables makes for an entertaining time at the cinema. But there are so many other better films out at the moment that my advice is to wait until this comes out on DVD, and then watch it with some mates at home. The title cuts pretty close to what makes this movie, in my book, a disappointment; it's just too expendable.

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (2010)

Everything I wanted it to be - Heartfelt, Original and Cool As Hell!

[10/10 · 2 September 2010]

As proved by Hot Fuzz and Shaun of the Dead, Edgar Wright is a great filmmaker. His techniques may not have the polished precision that Christopher Nolan normally brings to his films, but Wright's energy and love for the material that he is directing and the way his enthusiasm floods the screen, in my opinion, makes him a great filmmaker. Never has this been more evident than in Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World, his best film to date. It won't be for everyone (my dad hated it), but I loved it. It's what (500) Days of Summer would have been if it was filtered through the eyes of Quentin Tarantino.

22-year-old Scott Pilgrim (Michael Cera) is a slacker. He lives with his gay roommate Wallace (the hilarious Kieran Culkin), goes out with a 17-year-old with the awesome name of Knives Chau (the adorably quirky Ellen Wong) and spends a lot of time rocking with the fellow members of his band, the Sex Bob-ombs. One day, his life is turned upside down by the arrival of mysterious Ramon Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead). Drawn to Ramona to the point where he dumps Knives, Scott discovers that if he is to win the hand of this fair maiden, he has to overcome one little obstacle. Well, seven, as Ramona has seven evil exes who will do anything to destroy Scott and his relationship with Ramona. Finding his lazy lifestyle under threat, Scott must prepare to battle for Ramona and bring out the "L" word; no, not that one.

What I love most about Scott Pilgrim is the way in which it constantly surprises and delights the viewer. This isn't your typical, generic romantic comedy; this is a smart, very funny romantic comedy spliced with the genes of a bad-ass martial arts flick. The screenplay scores big time; the dialogue is sharp and hugely entertaining enough to keep even those who've just gone to this movie for the action spellbound, and there are too many memorable characters to count with your ten fingers. When the action arrives, it is phenomenal. Each of the villains have unique fighting styles, assets and weaknesses, making each fight scene interesting. Plus, even though the men outnumber the women in this movie, the women don't just stand on the sidelines; they kick ass with the best of them, too. The action is right up there with the Kill Bill movies and The Matrix, but did those movies have Michael Cera fighting off a bunch of goons with a flaming sword? I think not.

Which brings me to the performances, which are terrific across the board. Whilst Cera has made a career out of portraying awkward, dopey characters, his goofy charm fits the role of Scott Pilgrim perfectly. He also brings a darker, often unsympathetic edge to his character; Scott is cowardly (observe his reactions in the scene where Knives, still in a relationship with Scott, and Ramona, having just started a relationship with Scott, first meet), whiny and manipulative (I love how he tricks some of the exes into their own defeat). Also on a different note to his usual performances, he becomes an unexpected champion warrior in the action scenes. As Ramona, Winstead is appealingly street-wise and sympathetic; she's a girl who is trying to flee from her past, but who must confront it if she wants any hope for a future. Culkin and Wong steal their scenes, whilst more strong support comes from the likes of Twilight's Anna Kendrick as Scott's sister Stacey, Alison Pill as Sex Bob-ombs drummer Kim and Aubrey Plaza as gossip Julie. Out of the evil exes, Chris Evans AKA The Human Torch/Captain America and Brandon Routh AKA Superman are especially fantastic as movie star Lucas Lee and vegan - powered (!) bass player Todd Ingram respectively. However, my favourite of the exes has to be the ace Jason Schwartzman as the big, bad and oh so cool No. 1, Gideon Graves. He is an awesome character, with one of the coolest lairs that I have seen, and yet he's such a sneering weasel that I couldn't help but laugh at him.

Scott Pilgrim is never anything less than amazing to look at. The cinematography by Spider-Man's Bill Pope is magical, moving between gritty realism and gorgeous style (a scene where Scott and Ramona simply walk through the snow is captivating). The visual effects, as I said before, are just perfect. Whilst some people may find the film's style difficult to adjust to, I loved it from start to finish. As with everything else in the movie, the visual effects are original, hysterical and pitch-perfect. All of the details, such as a pee bar appearing as Scott goes to the toilet and depleting as he does his business, or when Chau's love for Scott floats through the air in pink lettering that he brushes aside, are just right within the context of this movie. The movie isn't bad on the ears either, with wonderful sound design and an electrifying soundtrack.

I adore this movie. I couldn't have asked for more from it; it manages to be something entirely different, whilst also striking truthful emotional notes. Under all of the mesmerising visual effects and mad fight scenes, this is essentially a journey of self-discovery for its main character, a chance for him to develop as a person and right his life. It is this journey which gives Scott Pilgrim the ever-crucial humanity it needs to succeed. The final shot is unexpectedly beautiful, a truly poignant comment on how the uncertain future is better faced together. Everything about this movie is so spot-on that it isn't just one of the best movies of the year; it is a great movie, full stop, and will, without any doubt, come to be regarded as a classic. For me, Scott Pilgrim is a definite K.O.

Step Up 3D (2010)

Awesome Dancing and 3D - Shame About Everything Else

[6/10 · 28 August 2010]

Most of the time, I despise dance movies. There are exceptions, but mostly I can't stand them. Whilst the dancing is often good in movies like this, the filmmakers treat everything else like unnecessary baggage. The performances are amateurish, the scripts are horrendous and the plots are painfully obvious. What's different with Step Up 3D? Almost nothing. But the dancing is incredible. Plus, this is one of the few recent movies which gets the treatment of 3D right. For every wince-inducing "dramatic" scene, there is one jaw-dropping dancing face-off or 3D effect.

So, for those who care, here's the plot; Moose (Adam G. Sevani) and Camille (Alyson Stoner), two "friends" (I wonder how this will end), return from the previous Step Up movies. They're now both attending NYU, and Moose has sworn to his parents that his dance addiction is gone. But, literally as soon as they turn their backs, he's at it again, and his talent is spotted by dancer/filmmaker Luke (Rick Malambri). Luke takes Moose to his "house", a warehouse where homeless kids with amazing dancing skills live. Luke also invites Natalie (Sharni Vinson) to stay with him and his crew, known as the "House of Pirates" crew, and they form a close bond. Unfortunately, the warehouse is up for sale, and the only way that Luke can raise the money to keep it is for the crew to win the World Jam dance contest. Drama, iffy acting and a truck-load of awesome dancing ensues…

I love the dancing in this movie. All of the dancers are truly talented, and it is nice that they all have different skills. One dancer pulls off the best robotic dance moves I have ever seen, in a movie or real-life. Natalie's dancing style, on the other hand, seems more balletic by comparison. It is these differences which make the dancers stand out. My only complaint is that the "House of Pirates" are too obviously superior to all of their opponents. Whilst I was frequently amazed at the things that the "House of Pirates" did, their rivals had very few "wow" moments. This seriously lowers any potential "tension" there may have been. But still, when the dancing is on screen, it is red hot smoking.

I also really liked the 3D. This is a movie that was actually shot in 3D, and as such, there is none of the visual dimness which haunted the 3D conversions for Alice in Wonderland, Clash of the Titans and Piranha 3D. There are gimmicky moments (people's hands popping out of the screen etc), but I actually found them quite fun. If this was a movie which I was seriously involved and invested in (say, Toy Story 3 or Inception), things popping out of the screen would have annoyed me, because it would be distracting me from what was going on in the story. Here, the dance sequences were pretty much distractions from an overall lame story, so it was much easier for me to accept these well-known 3D touches and have a good time with them. But there are also scenes where the 3D is used (gasp!) inventively. One scene which involves slushy and an air vent is surprisingly magical, and the 3D amplifies the wonder of this moment beautifully. There are other great moments, such as a light display which happens in the midst of the climactic dance sequence. Even if this isn't a better movie than Alice in Wonderland or Shrek Forever After, I was much happier to have paid the 3D surcharge for Step Up 3D than for either of those two movies.

There's charm on display here, and a earnestness which makes the predictable plot slightly more bearable. Plus, the romantic view of New York is at times spell-binding, whether during a night-time view of Times Square or a sweet-natured, old-fashioned dance number between Moose and Camille down a New York street. The direction by Jon M. Chu is also effective, as long as we're talking about the dance sequences. Whilst he appears effortless at clearly filming dance sequences with style and imagination, it's a shame his talent there couldn't stretch to the dramatic moments.

Which brings us to the bad things in this movie. The acting is decidedly pedestrian. Adam G. Sevani and Alyson Stoner are charming and likable; everyone else falls flat on their face. Malambri and Vinson, in particular, seem to be chosen more for their looks and similarities to Channing Tatum and Jenna Dewan from the first Step Up than their actual acting abilities. The dialogue is badly stilted and laughable. The movie goes on for too long, considering we know how it's going to end. But my biggest problem with the movie is just how predictable it is. I could tell how this movie could play out after the first five minutes. Movies like Avatar use their predictable plots to their advantage, drawing us closer to the characters because we feel like we already know them. Here, the dramatic ineptitude of the acting, direction and writing makes the predictability of the plot all the more tedious and obvious.

Overall, I liked Step Up 3D. The dancing and 3D were great, there was some charm and I truly enjoyed some of the romantic camera-work depicting New York. But the acting, with two exceptions, is awful, the writing is bad and the direction is dramatically tone-deaf. If the screen blacked out and the volume was muted when there wasn't a dance sequence or 3D effect, I might have liked this a lot more. As it is, I can only give this a mild recommendation. But what sweet dance moves!

Knight and Day (2010)

Two terrific stars, one lacklustre movie

[5/10 · 28 August 2010]

Knight and Day stars Tom Cruise as Roy Miller, a mysterious man who meets normal girl June Havens (Cameron Diaz) at Wichita airport. She's flying home for her sister's (Maggie Grace) wedding; he's fleeing from someone. On their flight, Roy kills everyone except June, then crashes the plane and drugs June. After waking up at her home, June tries to carry on as normal, but is apprehended by CIA agents led by Fitzergerald (Peter Saarsguard). They tell June that Roy is a dangerous rogue agent, but they're not exactly lovable heroes, either. So when Roy abruptly bursts back into her life, June makes a split decision to trust him. Cue a plot involving a perpetual battery and its inventor (Paul Dano), a Spanish arms dealer (Jordi Molla) and Roy's past…

This is essentially a star vehicle for Cruise and Diaz, and if you only looked at these two actors, the movie succeeds. Cruise wonderfully mocks his action hero persona with charm and warmth; it's the most fun he's had in a performance for a long time. Diaz doesn't get as much to do as Cruise, and her character's back-story is trite and manufactured, but she plays her role with such goofball enthusiasm that you're immediately won over. Alas, Roy and June's budding romance isn't given time to breathe amongst the action sequences and the unnecessarily over-stuffed plot. If a few of these plot threads and some of the action sequences had been left on the cutting room floor (such as a rooftop chase which unwisely tries to copy The Bourne Ultimatum) and if more time was spent on Roy and June's relationship, the payoff would have more impact. If the supporting characters aren't going to get anything of substance to do, it would have been better for them to have been cut from the movie too. Grace, Marc Blucas (as June's ex), Molla and Viola Davis (as Roy's superior) all try their best, but they are laboured by characters so undernourished and so inconsequential that the existence of Knight and Day as a star vehicle for Cruise and Diaz seems more of a curse than a blessing. The only two supporting actors who make an impression are Dano, both funny and convincingly scared, and Saarsguard, who pulls off his sinister role with ease, and even these two are struggling with wafer-thin roles.

With brilliant and memorable titles to his credits such as Identity, Walk The Line and 2007's 3:10 To Yuma, James Mangold is an impressively skilled director. You wouldn't know it from Knight and Day. Mangold seems to have a checklist; Two movie stars? Check. Lots of exotic locations? Check. Plenty of action? Check. Some comedy? Check. It's a shame he didn't ground his story more in character and romance than in action. I was very rarely thrilled or compelled to find out what happens to Roy and June, and given that Cruise and Diaz are incredibly likable here, that's saying something. From the midway point, I was fighting the urge to do something that I very rarely do, and another thing which I have never done. Firstly, I wanted to check the time on my phone, something which a disconcerting number of people in the screening were doing in the last 45 minutes or so. Secondly, I wanted to actually get up and walk out. I mean actually walk out of the cinema and go home. It is rare for me to have this feeling about a movie, and that's why alarm bells were ringing in my head.

Some of the comedy is effective. Cruise's indestructible buoyancy has some very funny results, whereas Diaz gets some opportunity to show her comic charm in scenes such as one where she is injected with a truth serum. The locations are gorgeous; the flitting between different places is something I've always liked about spy movies, even though the movie flies too fast from one location to the next that we're never given the chance to appreciate one location's beauty or sense of character. There are also some effective action scenes, even though they are sometimes stilted by sub-par visual effects. If I had to applaud the action sequences for one thing, it would be that the shaky camera is nowhere to be found. The first fight scene between Roy and CIA agents on the plane is exciting and funny. A later car chase where June and Roy try to escape gun-happy agents on the highway is also fun, whilst there is a close-quarters knife fight on a train with an unexpected climax. This is followed by a long, notably dull patch, after which the filmmakers apparently wake up and deliver the film's best action sequence, a swerving, quick but never confusing chase through the streets of Sevilla, Spain. I'll give you one clue; it involves bulls.

There are two bona fide stars in this movie. But, as my dad said, "people will see this movie because of the two stars, regardless of the quality". Some of the action and comedy hits the mark, whilst I can't fault Cruise or Diaz. But there is too much going on, and this is a movie which should be light on its feet, not lumbering and uncertain. Half the supporting cast and subplots could have been dumped without considerable damage and would have improved the movie immensely. As it is, I just couldn't connect. The ending, for me, was very unsatisfying, and there was no emotional payoff from the subplot involving Roy's past, just an ineffective punch line. Maybe I'm being too harsh. I'm normally a generous guy, and I very rarely hate a movie. But I just didn't like Knight and Day. Take that as you will; I know a lot of people who liked the movie, and a lot of people who probably will like the movie. But for me, it didn't work.

The A-Team (2010)

A Testosterone-Fuelled, Action-Packed Summer Blast

[7/10 · 6 August 2010]

"I love it when a plan comes together", Capt. Hannibal Smith (Liam Neeson) says, just before the title crashes onto the screen; The A-Team.

So what's the deal? The plot revolves around a special team of U.S soldiers. They include Smith, muscle man B.A. Baracus (mixed martial artist Quinton "Rampage" Jackson), lunatic pilot Murdock (Sharlto Copley) and the James Bond of the team, Face (Bradley Cooper). Whilst serving in Afghanistan, they get framed for a crime they didn't commit. They get sent to prison, but, with the assistance of mysterious CIA operative Lynch (Patrick Wilson), they break out and seek vengeance, all the time dodging the clutches of Lt. Charisa Sosa (Jessica Biel), Face's angry ex.

First off, this is a summer movie, pure and simple. The plot, whilst sometimes pretending to be otherwise, is pretty thin. If you want intelligence with your explosions, see Inception (and if you haven't seen Inception yet, please do). If you're looking for a couple of hours of brainless, popcorn-munching fun, then The A-Team delivers in spades.

The cast's charisma definitely helps to guide The A-Team through its rough patches. Liam Neeson, Bradley Cooper, Quinton "Rampage" Jackson and Sharlto Copley are all taking on iconic roles, and they do so with such gusto and zest that it's difficult not to root for them. Copley is especially brilliant as the maniacal Murdock, bringing a puppy-like enthusiasm and joy to his performance. He is extremely funny throughout; watch out for his William Wallace impersonation. Neeson gives the movie a grit and gravitas it otherwise would have lacked as Smith; scenes like the one where Smith and B.A. debate Gandhi show that few other actors could pull this off as successfully as Neeson. Cooper is charming and smooth to the point of jealousy amongst the men in the audience as ladies man Face, and the pupil-mentor relationship between Face and Smith, if not especially deep, gives both characters more focus and personality. Jackson is the weakest of the four actors, given how his relative inexperience with acting shows in the way he sometimes mumbles his lines and holds himself. But he still gives a commendably energetic performance which, due to the expectations connected with the role now made iconic by Mr. T, is more than effective enough. There are also some good supporting performances. Wilson and Brian Bloom are a lot of fun as the bad guys of the movie, Wilson in particular having a gleeful ball as the slimy Lynch. The best scene in the movie involves Lynch, Bloom's Pike and other CIA agents in a car; I won't spoil it, except to say it's utterly hilarious. The only weak performance comes from Jessica Biel, who can't make Sosa a meaningful presence. Compared to the real action amongst the men, Biel's performance and character come across as little more than an afterthought.

Chances are most of the people in the audience are going to The A-Team for the action, and it mainly doesn't disappoint. The level of energy evident in most of the action sequences is very high, and there is a surprising amount of invention on display. Most people cite the best action sequence as the one in which the team are trapped in a falling tank. Whilst this sequence is full to the brim with laugh-out-loud audacity, I actually preferred an earlier robbery sequence. The editing in this sequence is strong, swiftly cutting between the team's plan for the robbery and the execution of the plan. This sequence best portrays how the team works together, and is all the more engaging because of it.

There are problems with The A-Team, but I pity the fool who expects perfection from this movie. There is, apart from 3D, one major epidemic spreading amongst the filmmakers of Hollywood, and that is the shaky-cam technique. The energy of the action sequences often helps to overcome this obstacle, but sometimes (as in the hand-to-hand combat), it becomes obvious to the point of aggravation. I want to see what's going on in a action sequence; if that was what I was solely judging the action on, I would be much less enthused. Hollywood, you need to get this into your thick head; nine times out of ten, shaky-cam doesn't work. There are those rare occasions where it does work, such as Cloverfield and the Bourne movies; this isn't one of them. Also, the finale is way too dependent on CGI; it is overblown to the point where it makes the other action sequences look like naturalistic drama by comparison. This is not Transformers, but the characters seem to cause just as much destruction and havoc with machine guns, a couple of cars and a rocket launcher.

There are probably plenty of other flaws, but I was having too much of a good time to notice. Joe Carnahan (Narc, Smokin' Aces) directs with a confidence which propels the movie from beginning to end, Alan Silvestri's score, whilst not particularly memorable, is fleet-footed and efficient and the editing (apart from the action sequences) is competent. Most of all, it's the effortless chemistry between the four principle actors which makes The A-Team sing. Is it at the same level of brilliance as Toy Story 3 and Inception? Hell no. But we never wanted typical brilliance from The A-Team. We wanted a big, loud and proud summer blockbuster, and for me at least, The A-Team hits the nail on the head.

The Karate Kid (2010)

An Unnecessary, But Surprisingly Impressive Remake

[8/10 · 26 July 2010]

Twelve-year-old Dre Parker (Jaden Smith, son of Will) moves from Detroit to China with his mother, Sherry (Taraji P. Henson). Whilst striking up a friendship with a Chinese girl named Meiying (Wenwen Han), Dre attracts the wrath of a group of bullies, led by Cheng (Zhenwai Wang). Cheng and his gang are well trained in kung fu, and make mincemeat out of Dre. During one confrontation, Dre is saved by his building's maintenance man, Mr. Han (Jackie Chan). Revealing his intimate knowledge of kung fu, Han promises to train Dre so that he can face the bullies in an upcoming tournament. Though Mr. Han's methods at first appear to be unorthodox, his teachings soon begin to have an impact on Dre, and the two form a close bond.

The original Karate Kid is a blast of pure 80's nostalgia; the time and place in the original are keenly felt. The performances (especially Pat Morita's iconic turn as Mr. Miyagi), direction and cinematography are all strong, and the movie has a lot of charm and heart. Whilst The Karate Kid isn't a perfect movie, it's a movie that I just can't help but love.

What surprised and pleased me about this remake was how faithful it remains to the overall spirit of the original, and how it is so much more than the generic studio product that a lot of people, including myself, were fearing. My heart dropped when I found out that Harald Zwart, director of the Agent Cody Banks movies and The Pink Panther 2, was at the helm. Surprisingly, Zwart does a strong job of directing here, deftly avoiding the idiocy of his previous movies to craft a Karate Kid that will not only satisfy fans of the original, but will also prove to be thoroughly entertaining for those who haven't seen the original. This is a charming, funny, exciting, and, in some moments, genuinely emotional movie.

The performances are solid across the board. Based on the evidence of his performance here, Jaden Smith looks likely to be just as big a star as his dad. There is nothing exceptional about Smith's performance here; the material doesn't really stretch his dramatic abilities too much. But he anchors the film with his energy and likability. This is to Jaden what Fresh Prince of Bel-Air was to Will; a chance to take centre stage and show his star potential, which there is a lot of. Taraji P. Henson excels in her underwritten role as Dre's mother, bringing honest emotion and life to a character who, over the course of the movie, we don't learn all that much about. Her scenes with Smith fully convince as a mother- son dynamic. Zhenwai Wang is about as nasty and despicable as a child actor has been for some time as Dre's main nemesis, whilst Wenwen Han brings warmth and grace to the stock role of romantic interest. Also making a deep impression with limited screen time is Rongguang Yu as Master Li, the vicious kung fu master and the teacher of Dre's bullies. Come the final fight, Yu becomes the character most likely to make the audience want to punch something. Whilst Cheng is brutal, he is a child. Li is an adult, and has greater knowledge of his actions; this makes the lengths to which he will go to to get what he wants all the more frightening and evil.

Despite Smith's prominent billing, this is Chan's movie. From his first appearance, you can just tell that this is going to be one of hiss better performances. By the end, I was convinced that was Chan's best performance. As Mr. Han, Chan has wonderfully sly charm. His facial expressions and body language alone are enough to provoke big laughs in some scenes. His martial arts fans are also unlikely to be disappointed by his terrific main fight sequence, in which he skilfully takes down Dre's bullies. The scene even ends with a cheeky nod to Chan's age; after demolishing the kids, Chan turns to the camera and wheezes slightly. But what really makes this a brilliant performance is the underlying emotional power of Han's character. When Han's tragic past comes to the fore in one late scene, it is unexpectedly devastating, and, without doubt, is the best dramatic work that Chan has ever done. The chemistry between Chan and Smith is also wonderful, both actors appearing effortless in each other's presence.

Otherwise, The Karate Kid has a lot going for it. The cinematography by Roger Pratt is beautiful, to the point where you literally want to get on the next flight to China. The fight scenes are brutally satisfying. Dre's first confrontation with Cheng had the audience wincing, whilst Chan's main fight alone is worth the price of a ticket. The finale is the most entertaining in terms of action, with several excellent fights. The choreography emphasises not only the skill, but the traits of the characters, which I really appreciated. The score by James Horner, whilst not especially memorable when the movie ends, really draws you in whilst the film is playing.

There are flaws. At a running time of 2 hours and 20 minutes, the film goes on for too long. There are several scenes which could be cut. There are too many scenes of Dre being bullied, to the point where it seems like brutality for brutality's sake. Finally, there are too many sweeping, grand shots of China. You wonder whether the filmmakers are trying to make a deliberately epic movie.

Apart from that, The Karate Kid is an immensely satisfying, entertaining remake which, if not surpassing the original, still makes you want to stand up and cheer by the end. Whilst it's nowhere near the high quality of masterpieces such as Toy Story 3 and Inception, it matches and often surpasses all other big offerings so far this summer.

Toy Story 3 (2010)

An Incredible Conclusion to A Classic Trilogy

[10/10 · 20 July 2010]

Fifteen years ago, Toy Story was released. It was an instant classic, brimming with wit, warmth, humour and genuine emotions. Toy Story 2 was even better, upping the ante on thrills and laughs whilst telling a beautiful story. I've grown up with these movies, and I love them now as much as I did the first time I saw them.

I have been waiting for Toy Story 3 for the past ten years. I'm ecstatically pleased to say that this is not only on the same level as its predecessors, it is the best of the trilogy. It is also my favourite Pixar film to date, taking the known and loved Pixar hallmarks and taking them up another notch. I could not be more satisfied with this conclusion to what is, after Lord of the Rings, the best trilogy ever made. High praise, but these movies more than deserve it.

Ten years after the events of Toy Story 3, Andy (voice of John Morris) has grown up and is going off to college. The toys we know and love, Woody (voice of Tom Hanks), Buzz (voice of Tim Allen), Jessie (voice of Joan Cusack), Mr. and Mrs. Potato Head (voices of Don Rickles and Estelle Harris), Hamm (voice of John Ratzenberger), Rex (voice of Wallace Shawn), Slinky (voiced by Blake Clark, replacing the late Jim Varney), Bullseye and the aliens, are all contemplating their fates. Will they go to the attic, daycare or the garbage? Andy means to put them in the attic, but through a series of circumstances, the toys end up at Sunnyside daycare, lorded over by an apparently kindly strawberry-scented bear called Lotso (voice of Ned Beatty). The toys think that they've struck gold, but their joy turns to horror when they realise that they've been assigned to the Caterpillar room, a room full of youngsters who equal a wrecking ball for the toys. Realising that life in the attic would be better than remaining at the daycare centre, the toys launch an escape plan. However, Lotso and the other toys at the daycare aren't going to make it easy.

Like Toy Story 2, this is very much a story about the end of childhood. However, Toy Story 2 only contemplated the end of Andy's childhood and the repercussions this could have for the toys. Here, D-Day has finally arrived, and the anguish felt by the toys is palpable. The final 30 minutes, in particular, exhibit that message beautifully. There are two scenes at the end of the movie which show how the trilogy has built in maturity and emotional power. The first scene is easily the scariest of the trilogy, but it also delivers a thunderous emotional punch through our love for the characters and the love they have for each other. This scene questions the mortality of the main characters, and brings the survival of the characters into question. It is, without a doubt, the best scene in the trilogy, and it is one of the most hellish, chilling yet poignant moments that I have ever seen in a movie. The second scene is just as powerful, a truly beautiful send-off for the characters and a powerful reminder of how, even though we may not know it, these characters have a strong place in our hearts.

The vocal acting, as in the other two entries, is top-notch. Hanks, Allen, Cusack, Rickles, Harris, Shawn, Ratzenberger, Morris and Laurie Metcalf (as Andy's mother) all return, and do exceptional work. It's been years, but they return to the roles like it was only yesterday. I had a similar experience; even though it's been years since I sat in a cinema and was utterly transported by Toy Story 2, it feels like only yesterday. The immediacy of Toy Story 3 is one of the movie's quintessential strengths; there is a sense of nostalgia, but even those younger members of the audience can quickly jump into the story and be swept away by the magic of it all. The new vocal talent is also brilliant. Ned Beatty is stunning as Lotso, friendly one minute and menacing the next. The sepia-coloured flashback detailing Lotso's sinister transformation is one of the movie's highlights. Michael Keaton is hilarious as Ken, who immediately hits it off with Barbie (voice of Jodi Benson, The Little Mermaid), who he's never met and vice versa. A musical montage set to "Le Freak" as Ken tries on different clothes is a comedic blast. Blake Clark, Timothy Dalton, Jeff Garlin, Kristin Schaal, Bonnie Hunt and Whoopi Goldberg are all strong, Dalton a particular delight as Mr. Pricklepants, a British thespian hedgehog in lederhosen.

As expected, the animation is gorgeous. Each frame is jam-packed with detail, to the point where you will want to see it again just to see what visuals you missed out the first time. I went to watch Toy Story 3 in 2D, and the animation was still some of the best I have ever seen. As I haven't seen the 3D version, I can't say if the 3D detracts from the movie. However, if you're strapped for cash, the 2D presentation is delectable.

If I described Toy Story 3 in one word, I'd say; perfection. The wonderful vocal work, the gorgeous animation, the compelling screenplay (written by Little Miss Sunshine's Michael Arndt), the assured direction of Lee Unkrich (taking over from John Lasseter, who helmed Toy Story and Toy Story 2) and the transcendent score by Randy Newman; all are flawless. Toy Story 3, whilst delivering the familiar pleasures of the first two movies, takes the characters in new, exciting directions, and finds the perfect conclusion for their journey. By the time the credits roll, you'll have cried (both from sadness and from laughter), you'll have been on the edge of your seat and you'll have had a smile on your face the whole way through. What is this condition? Sheer cinematic joy.

Inception (2010)

A Colossal, Mind-Bending Masterpiece

[10/10 · 17 July 2010]

Christopher Nolan's one of the best directors working today. So my expectations were understandably high for his latest, Inception. Even with hefty expectations, I was still blown away. I'll need to see it one or two more times to unravel all of the plot intricacies, but I honestly believe that this is Nolan's best film to date. Yes, I think that Inception's better than The Dark Knight and Memento. I adore The Dark Knight and Memento, so this isn't just high praise, it's astronomical.

Here's a brief plot summary. Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) is a corporate espionage agent with a very specific area of expertise; stealing people's ideas through their dreams. Dom and his partner Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) are hired by their previous target Saito (Ken Watanabe) to perform an even more difficult task; inception, the planting of an idea in someone's subconscious to the point where they believe it to be their own. Dom assembles his team; researcher Arthur, architect Ariadne (Ellen Page), forger Eames (Tom Hardy), chemist Yusef (Dileep Rao) and Saito himself, who is tagging along to protect his investment. However, Dom's subconscious could threaten the entire team, especially with the memory of his wife Mal (Marion Cotillard) being a less-than-helpful saboteur. Suffice to say that, when the mission finally gets under way, not everything goes according to plan…

Films as rich, multi-layered and compelling as Inception rarely come along. This film is full of intelligent ideas and questions about illusions and reality (much like the hugely under-appreciated Shutter Island from earlier this year, which also starred DiCaprio). However, it is also a riveting action thriller, with thrilling, jaw-dropping action sequences and unforgettable images. Think you've seen all the visual effects? Wait until you witness the iconic moment in which Ariadne bends the Paris cityscape on top of itself. Think you're seen all the action sequences? Wait until you devour the extraordinary zero-gravity fight in a hotel corridor between Arthur and an armed goon. This is majestic entertainment.

The tortured love story at its centre gives Inception much-needed heart. This is largely due to the exceptional performances of DiCaprio and Cotillard. DiCaprio is effortless here; this is all the more impressive, as the whole film rests on his shoulders. If he goes down, so does the film. DiCaprio never exaggerates his portrayal of a man who is carrying deep emotional scars, instead hinting at his pain through his expressions and body language. In a early sequence, whilst Cobb is describing the business of mind defence to Saito, he holds his arms and hands out like a box in front of him. This not only shows the prison of the mind which Dom must break into, but also symbolises his own emotional entrapment. It is this kind of subtle behaviour which defines DiCaprio's performance. It is also notable that he doesn't try to overshadow his co-stars. This is another superlative piece of work from DiCaprio, following his haunting performance in Shutter Island. Cotillard, on the other hand, is the tragic heart of Inception. Beautiful and menacing at the same time, Cotillard is gracefully strong in her role. She is a truly alluring presence, and together she and DiCaprio bring an electrifying pulse of humanity to Inception.

Gordon-Levitt's brilliant; he brings great authority to his role and constantly gained my attention. Also, he's rewarded with the zero-gravity fight sequence. Hardy is charming and bad-ass; his bickering with Gordon-Levitt is one of the film's highlights. Page brings intelligence and wit to her role; at one point, she wonders out loud, "whose subconscious are we in, exactly?" Ariadne is the audience, constantly wondering whether we are in reality or the dream world. Watanabe is quietly dignified and cunning; we often wonder whether to trust Saito, and Watanabe seizes that ambiguity. Cillian Murphy brings a hitherto unseen emotional depth to his performance here as the target of the team, whilst Rao also impresses. Even Michael Caine and Tom Berenger appear in minor but pivotal roles, and both do great work, with Berenger in particular succeeding in a tricky role.

Technically, this is one of the most extraordinary films I have ever experienced. Hans Zimmer's mind-blowing musical score and the wonderfully free, wide cinematography by Wally Pfister both give the film an epic scope which compliments the potential of dreams to transport us to a world beyond mundane reality. And what else can be said about the visual effects? They are mind-bogglingly beautiful to behold. Also, a big shout out to editor Lee Smith. Especially in the last hour, where events in the different layers of the dream world are simultaneously playing out on screen, Smith's editing gives the film perfect fluidity and immediacy. This film runs for around two and a half hours, and it moves like a bullet all the way to the conclusion.

Inception's a visionary, muscular and mesmerising work of genius, with excellent performances, gorgeous imagery, heart-pounding action, a terrific screenplay from Nolan and his brother Jonathan, a stunning score and intelligent discussions about the human mind and the pain that it sometimes struggles to abandon. The final shot's pitch-perfect, questioning the fine line between what is perceived by the mind as reality and what is truly the real world, without going for the easy twist that one might expect. Mr. Nolan is far too clever for that, and he is too respectful of his audience and their intelligence. His craftsmanship and imagination in a world filled with generic, seen-it-all-before films isn't only commendable; it is awe-inspiring. Inception is easily the best film of the year so far, and it will be hard to top. It deserves multiple Oscar nominations in both the technical categories and the big ones such as Best Picture and Best Director. If this film isn't on my top ten list of the decade come 2020, this decade is going to have to have been one incredible period of creativity, ambition and sheer ingenuity at the cinema.

Predators (2010)

An Entertaining, But Unextraordinary, Summer Flick

[7/10 · 16 July 2010]

I really like the original Predator; it's suspenseful, exciting and surprisingly witty in its comic look at male masculinity. However, Predator 2 is a lacklustre sequel; it's over-the-top, stupid, and, by changing the setting to LA, it lacks the natural menace of the original's jungle setting. I'm not talking about the Alien vs. Predator films; I haven't seen them, and I don't intend to. Now here comes Predators, a reboot from Hungarian director Nimrod Antal and producer Robert Rodriguez.

The plot's pretty simple. Eight people are dropped into the middle of a jungle. With the exception of doctor Edwin (Topher Grace), they're all hardened killers. They include American mercenary Royce (Adrien Brody), Israeli sniper Isabelle (Alice Braga) and Mexican gangster Cuchillo (Rodriguez regular Danny Trejo). They soon realise that they have been chosen as the prey for the inter-planetary reserve which they are stranded on, and find themselves being hunted by the titular aliens. They must work together in order to escape their grim fates, but, as Cuchillo succinctly puts it (in the trailer, that is), "Does this look like a team-orientated group of individuals to you?" No, it doesn't.

So, what are the pros of Predators? This is one good-looking film. The production design and the camera-work are top-notch. The camera nicely alternates between claustrophobic (a sequence in the later stages of the film is set in a spaceship, and is all the more effective for the intimate tension) and vast, epic shots. When we see the width of the reserve, we genuinely wonder where the characters are going to run to and how they will escape. When the action comes, it's very satisfying, both in terms of the choreography and the visceral gore (the infamous spine-ripping moment from the original is kept in, and is just as brutal and unexpected). For me, the most memorable piece of action would have to be the sword fight between Yakuza gangster Hanzo (Louis Ozawa Changchien) and a predator in the middle of a field of grass. This scene has a graceful intensity to it which surpasses everything else in the film. Credit goes to Antal, as he not only avoids the shaky-camera technique in his filming of the action sequences, but also brings a palpable sense of atmosphere to much of the film. Also, the score by John Debney is pitch-perfect.

Whilst nearly all of the characters are hardened killers, I still became invested in their fates. Eyebrows were raised when Oscar winner Adrien Brody got the lead role. People, have faith. He is utterly convincing here as a man who would probably give up his own mother if it meant getting off this planet. His performance has similar deficiencies to Christian Bale's performance in Terminator: Salvation; whilst they perfectly display the inner workings of intense, hard-as-nails leaders, you want to see more to their characters than just that one note. Still, Brody makes a forceful lead. Alice Braga brings an appealing mixture of toughness and vulnerability to Isabelle; whilst she is a more than capable killer, she also has a conscience. It is nice that, whilst Isabelle is the most sympathetic character out of the bunch, she isn't just a damsel in distress. As death-row murderer Stans, Walton Goggins does a strong job with less-than-stellar material. He gets the two moments which are likely to induce groans amongst the audience, but he also gets arguably the most crowd-pleasing.

But there are three actors who steal the show. Changchien doesn't get many lines, but he exudes an effortless cool and dignity as Hanzo. He expertly uses his face and body language to show his character's brain whirring away beneath his seemingly calm exterior. For me, this made Hanzo the most intriguing out of the characters. As Edwin, Topher Grace brings a nicely measured element of comic relief to the proceedings. Edwin is, compared to the killers around him, relatively normal, and Grace gets a lot of comic mileage out of the character's squirming awkwardness. Finally, in a role which some critics have viewed as pretty secretive, but is made clear in the trailers and casting lists, Laurence Fishburne AKA Morpheus appears halfway through the film as crazed survivor Noland. Fishburne is, as always, terrific, despite being burdened with a character who is only there to provide exposition for the other characters before being disposed of. Noland is completely off-the-rails, and Fishburne relishes the character's quiet, dangerous madness. The cast is more than just solid; they are excellent.

The flaws? Despite Fishburne's brilliant performance and Noland's promising entrance, his character brings the film to an unnecessary halt. The pacing of Predators is pretty jumpy. When it's moving, it moves like a cheetah. When it stops for exposition and character development (which the arrival of Noland signifies for part of the film), you really notice the drop in energy. Secondly, there aren't enough "wow" moments here. There are some; the opening sequence, in which Royce wakes up in free fall over the jungle, is a stunning kick-off, whilst some of the gore and the sword fight sequence also qualify. But this too often plays like a homage to the original film, instead of going in new, unexpected directions. Some will retort, "It's a summer movie! Just enjoy it!" But, with Rodriguez producing, I expected something more. As well as this, the CGI looks pretty cheap and tacky.

Predators is a solid, professionally made and well-acted B-movie. It is a definite improvement over Predator 2, largely because it returns to the jungle setting of the original and therefore regains some of the original's dread. However, Predators is firmly a meat-and-potatoes film. You have your meal and you are satisfied, but you still wish that you'd had something more (a bit like Oliver Twist). The ingredients are there, but with less spice than you'd expect. Predators is, to deliver a final punch to the gut, a burger compared to the bloody steak which was the original, and best, Predator.

Shrek Forever After (2010)

Happily Ever After

[8/10 · 5 July 2010]

I'm a big fan of the first two Shrek movies. The first Shrek, in particular, was a hilarious, heartfelt and original delight. Whilst Shrek 2 couldn't match the first film's originality, it was still a hugely enjoyable piece of entertainment. With Shrek The Third, the franchise ground to a halt. I don't hate Shrek The Third; I just find it sluggish, stuffed with too many characters and lacking ideas. So, it was with some trepidation that I approached Shrek Forever After.

Thankfully, Shrek Forever After is a fitting finale for the franchise; it is very funny, sweet and, through a nice Wonderful Life-like twist, it shows us the characters we all know and love in a different light.

Shrek (voice of Mike Myers) is having a midnight crisis. Despite living happily with his wife Fiona (voice of Cameron Diaz) and their three children, Shrek longs for the days when he was feared by the townspeople, instead of the tourist attraction that he has now become. After Shrek's pent-up anger is unleashed during his daughter's first birthday, he is tricked by the devious Rumpelstiltskin into signing a deal which will allow him to live as a real ogre for one day at the expense of one day from his life. In his "ogre" day, Shrek realised that Rumpelstiltskin has stolen the day he was born; this means that Shrek never met Donkey, Puss in Boots or any of his other friends, and he didn't save Fiona from the tower. Shrek soon finds his friends, but they're not how he remembers them. Together, they must battle against Ruimpelstiltskin, who has taken over Far Far Away, and Shrek must find a way to reverse Rumpelstiltskin's magic before his day is over, or he will disappear from existence.

Shrek Forever After succeeds where Shrek the Third failed because it returns to the charm of its characters and its story. Shrek the Third relied more on its (admittedly eye-popping) visuals, hit-and-miss pop-culture jokes and stunt casting (hello, Mr. Timberlake) than on creating a strong story or in taking its characters on an entertaining, interesting journey. Shrek Forever After rectifies all of these mistakes; the pop-culture gags are few and far in-between, with most of the film's humour coming from characters and their situations. There is no obvious stunt casting here, but that works to the film's advantage. Ever heard of Walt Dohrn? No, me neither. But he damn near steals the film as the tricky Rumpelstiltskin, his vocal performance a blast of snivelling razzmatazz. Plus, new director Mike Mitchell and screenwriters Josh Klausner and Darren Lemke do funny, new things with familiar characters. For example, whereas Puss in Boots was a swarthy swashbuckler, in the alternate universe he resembles a balloon covered in fur, who can't move without it being an Olympian task (one moment where he's struggling to, um, lick himself leads to the funniest use of his famous "ahhhh" eyes in the series). Whereas Fiona is a tired housewife in Shrek's real universe, in the alternate universe she is the tough, sexy (hey, I'm a hot-blooded male) rebel leader of the Ogre resistance against Rumpelstiltskin. Mitchell, Klausner and Lemke clearly have a lot of fun twisting our expectations of what the characters will do or what will happen to them, and I had a lot of fun with them. There is one death scene (shock!) which comes out of mid-field, and is even more hilarious as a result.

The vocal work is strong. Mike Myers excels here as Shrek; he brings a real sense of human weariness and sarcastic wit to a fairytale character, which grounds him in reality. Shrek's midlife struggle with the loss of the spark in his life before he met Fiona will ring true with many viewers; many people, in the middle of a marriage, will look back on their freer days with a sense of nostalgia and wish they could re-live them again. Shrek's fault is that he doesn't realise what he has until he loses it. Cameron Diaz excels in both personalities; the tired but loving wife and the Xena-like warrior, the latter in which she particularly seems to be letting loose and having a lot of fun. Eddie Murphy and Antonio Banderas are their usual hilarious selves, both of them taking advantage of their characters and their new situations, with Banderas relishing his character's pampered lifestyle as Fiona's pet and Murphy still getting big laughs out of his chatterbox sidekick. The supporting cast is filled with talented actors, most notably Craig Robinson, Glee's Jane Lynch and Mad Men's Jon Hamm as members of the Ogre resistance.

The animation here is beautifully done and highly detailed. One caveat; as anyone who has seen the advertising knows, this film is being shown in 3D. The 3D isn't a distraction, as in Alice in Wonderland and (from what I've heard) Clash of the Titans; it's just doesn't necessarily add anything either. It's just there. In Avatar and How to Train Your Dragon, the 3D deepened the sense of immersion into an imaginary world. Here, it seems more perfunctory than anything else. So my advice is to see this in 2D and save your money.

Shrek Forever After erases the disappointment of Shrek the Third. There is a familiarity to the story which stops it from reaching the heights of the first film, but it is enjoyable enough to be on the same level as Shrek 2. This is a thoroughly entertaining conclusion to the Shrek legacy, and I'm going to miss the big guy.

The Twilight Saga: Eclipse (2010)

Close to Greatness

[8/10 · 2 July 2010]

I'm not a huge fan of the first two "Twilight" films. I liked them; I just think that they are heavily flawed. Some parts drag, the visual effects are enjoyably bad (here's looking at you, CG wolves), some intriguing characters are given frustratingly short time (Michael Sheen's pitch-perfect performance as Aro in "New Moon" comes to mind) and at times, I thought that Kristin Stewart and Robert Pattinson were too obviously underplaying their roles. Whilst many people choose to either love or hate "Twilight", I've chosen to remain firmly in the middle.

With "Eclipse", the "Twilight" fan in me has been set free. Not only is "Eclipse" the most gripping, cinematic and poignant of the three "Twilight" movies so far, it's the first which I would gladly go to the cinema to watch again and again. I'm surprised to say it, but I came dangerously close to loving this movie.

In a chillingly economic opening, a young man named Riley (the coldly menacing Xavier Samuel) is hunted down and bitten by a mysterious figure, left screaming in pain on the docks of Seattle. We then return to Forks and everyone's favourite human-vampire couple, Bella Swan (Stewart) and Edward Cullen (Pattinson). Whilst Bella is still intent on becoming a vampire, Edward is doing his best to put her off the idea. Things are further complicated by werewolf Jacob (the ever-shirtless Taylor Lautner), who desperately tries to make Bella shift her romantic attention to him. However, trouble is approaching. The vengeful Victoria (Bryce Dallas Howard, sexual alluring yet viciously inhuman), with the now-undead Riley as her right-hand man, is raising a newborn vampire army, a ravenous and ultra-strong force which is intended to destroy Bella and Edward. In order to avoid bloodshed, the vampire clan of the Cullens team up with Jacob's wolf pack. But just what role is the Volturi, led by the dangerous Jane (Dakota Fanning. bitterly witty and malicious), playing in this game?

"Eclipse" is easily the best of the "Twilight" series so far for the same reason that "Prisoner of Azkaban" was better than the first two "Harry Potter" films; the change of perspective. Taking over the reins after Catherine Hardwicke and Chris Weitz is British director David Slade. Having shown his aptitude with vampires in the gory, atmospheric "30 Days of Night", Slade brings much-needed edge to this material. He deftly blends action, horror, comedy and romance into a hugely entertaining, often compelling whole, whilst drawing much improved performances from the three leads.

"Eclipse" also has fun with itself. At one point, Edward complains about Jacob, "Doesn't he own a shirt?" It is this good-natured humour which stops "Eclipse" from drifting into the overly serious mood that the first two movies sometimes adopted, and actually makes the characters more human. Take, for example, the scene where Bella's father Charlie (Billy Burke in a performance of wonderfully low-key comedic timing) talks to Bella about boys. It is not only hilarious to watch, but it also strikes a note of poignant realism; this is something that could actually happen to girls around Bella's age, unlike the agonisingly silly wailing scenes in "New Moon".

"Eclipse" is much more thrilling than the other two movies. An early chase through the forest is terrific, tense without being over-the-top, swift without being confusing. However, the big action scene is the concluding face-off between the Cullens, the wolves and the new-born army. This sequence is breathlessly choreographed, endlessly exciting and flawlessly paced. This is easily the most "guy-friendly" of the "Twilight" films so far.

Acting-wise, Stewart is much more likable as Bella in this movie, probably because she isn't stupidly throwing herself off a cliff or constantly moaning. Here, Bella is a much more complex and stronger individual. By becoming a vampire, she will lose all those closest to her, and Stewart shows Bella's inner turmoil with admirable restraint. There are moments where she slips (one moment where she yells at Jacob is exaggerated, and drew unintentional laughter from the audience), but for every slip-up there are five perfectly judged moments, such as the sad look on her face as she embraces her mother for what could be the last time. Pattinson brings an understated sadness and pain to his role, showing Edward's longing for Bella to remain human. Unfortunately, he's fighting a losing battle. Lautner (one of my favourite things about "New Moon") brings his charisma back to the table, with steely determination in Jacob's quest to win Bella's heart. All three leads are giving this their best shot, and whilst their performances aren't perfect, they all convince. The Cullen clan is memorably brought to life with lively performances, with the two stand-outs being Jackson Rathbone as Jasper and Nikki Reed as Rosalie. Whilst both were in the sidelines for the first two movies, here they get their chance to shine through flashbacks into their character's pasts; these scenes are powerful, chilling and unexpectedly moving.

This movie is gorgeous to look at. The sweeping camera shots evoke the same epic feel of "Lord of the Rings", with the luscious scenery bedazzling the eyes. Speaking of LOTR, that series' composer Howard Shore composes a perfect musical score, both bombastic and sensitively intimate when necessary, and which easily stands up to the enchanting work of Alexandre Desplat on "New Moon". The visual effects have much improved since "New Moon", with the wolves benefiting in particular.

There are flaws. The make-up work is too obvious, whilst I wanted to see more of some characters (most notably Victoria, Riley, Jane and new-born Bree (nicely played by Silent Hill's Jodelle Ferland)). Nevertheless, "Eclipse" is a really well-made, entertaining movie, with enough romance to keep the fans satisfied whilst introducing enough new elements to win over previous sceptics (such as myself). I look forward to seeing "Eclipse" again, to see if my high view of it could go even higher.

Sherlock Holmes (2009)

An Energetic, Exciting Blockbuster

[8/10 · 4 June 2010]

Director Guy Ritchie's track record has been pretty mixed. I loved Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, I enjoyed Rock'n'rolla and I strongly disliked Revolver. I haven't seen Snatch or Swept Away (the latter I am not interested in seeing), but their reputations seem to back up my point. So when I heard that Guy Ritchie was doing a tough guy, action version of Sherlock Holmes, I was concerned. Even the casting of the legendary Robert Downey Jr. didn't douse my fears, and the promotional material makes this seem more like a mindless action blockbuster than anything else.

However, I was pleasantly surprised when I first this at the cinema, and watching it again on DVD, I've come to like it even more. This is because, whilst the 2009 vision of Sherlock Holmes is an action blockbuster (and a highly enthusiastic one at that), it also takes care adding layers of complexity to its two main protagonists. This is helped no end by two terrific performances by Downey Jr. and Jude Law.

The story kicks off with Holmes (Downey Jr.) and Watson (Jude Law) apprehending the villainous Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong), who is responsible for a series of murders in London. Three months later, Holmes has become a recluse and Holmes is engaged to Mary (Kelly Reilly) and is planning to move out, leaving their partnership in the balance. The dynamic duo have just one last mystery to solve; the recently hung Blackwood have apparently returned from the dead, and is scheming to bring down the government through the use of dark magic. Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams), the only person to ever outsmart Holmes, is also thrown into the mix. But who is the mysterious figure she's so afraid of?

The pulsing centre of Sherlock Holmes' appeal are the meaty, crackling performances of Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law. Over the past two years, Downey Jr. has grown to become one of my favourite actors, and his performance here is as wonderfully idiosyncratic as you could expect from an actor of such a high calibre. There are many layers to Downey Jr.'s performance; whilst he is a deductive genius, he is also a social pariah (the beautiful scene where he attempts to embarrass Mary in front of Watson nails this point). There is also a nicely understated sense of loneliness in Downey Jr.'s eyes. Whilst Holmes isn't an entirely sympathetic character, Downey Jr. makes him someone who you can relate to. However, Holmes is only half the equation without Watson, and all credit should go to not only Law, but also Ritchie and the writers for giving us a Watson who doesn't linger in Holmes' shadow, as could have easily been the case. Watson doesn't have the same deductive power as Holmes (then again, who does?) But he is still a smart, capable and tough guy who is more than willing to face off with Holmes if he crosses the line. Law brilliantly mixes his usual charm with battle-hardened wit and discipline, making Watson so much more than your usual sidekick. The supporting cast is solid. Mark Strong is effortlessly sinister in yet another top-notch villainous turn. He is becoming typecast as the bad guy, but only because he plays these characters so well. Eddie Marsan is wonderfully dry as the annoyed Inspector Lestrade, whilst the beautiful Rachel McAdams and Kelly Reilly work wonders with their relatively underwritten, romantic interest roles. But it's the effortless chemistry between Downey Jr. and Law which raises the film above so many other action movies, and which makes Sherlock Holmes engaging, more so than the twisty plot or the big action.

Speaking of the action, it is surprisingly exciting. The first five minutes are breathless, quickly getting you swept up in the story. The first two fights have a original touch in which Holmes' thought process on how best to dispose of a opponent is shown before he actually launches the attack. Whilst it's a shame that it's dropped after these two fights, it nonetheless effectively shows that Holmes wins a fight through the use of his intellect, rather than sheer brawn. Only the final show-down between Holmes and Blackwood is disappointing, as it is over way too quickly, although it is saved by Downey Jr.'s deductive speech. As an action blockbuster, this is very entertaining. However, it works mainly as a buddy comedy, the banter between Holmes and Watson bearing some really funny results.

Sherlock Holmes is technically astounding. The production design is stunning, with London becoming a living, breathing character along with the characters. There is a lot of detail here, and the mixture of gritty realism and blockbuster fantasy is just right. Hans Zimmer's score pulses with organic energy, giving brilliant atmosphere to the film. And, apart from one rather obvious sequence involving a huge boat, the visual effects are seamless, effortlessly recreating 1800's London.

Ritchie deserves a big round of applause for his direction. He brings real energy and enthusiasm to this, and makes sure that the characters are actually worth caring about. Considering his personal problems (namely, his deteriorating relationship with Madonna), Ritchie should be commended for throwing himself into his work. The screenplay is also nicely written, combining darkness and wit with a playfulness which is surprisingly endearing (although it's a pretty far stretch when Watson yells out "Nut him" during a scrap).

Overall, Sherlock Holmes is an immensely entertaining piece of entertainment. It isn't flawless. The plot is overly complex first time around, although it becomes clearer after numerous viewings, whilst McAdams and Reilly deserved more screen time and the screenplay has some all-too-modern moments. But under the well-made action sequences and the top-notch production values is a wonderful relationship between Holmes and Watson, brought to life with relish by Downey Jr. and Law, which brings the film to life. Bring on the sequel!

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (2010)

A Fun Summer Blockbuster

[6/10 · 24 May 2010]

Video-game adaptations have never been that good. The Tomb Raider series came close, but apart from that, the track record has been pretty messy. Anyone remember Super Mario Bros.? So Prince of Persia deserves credit for being the best video-game adaptation to date; a light action adventure with just enough old-school charm, star chemistry and visual razzle-dazzle to deserve its marketing as a summer blockbuster.

Prince Dastan (Jake Gyllenhaal) was an orphan plucked off the streets and adopted by the King of Persia (Ronald Pickup). Determined to prove his worth to his father, his uncle Nizam (Ben Kingsley) and his two brothers, Garsiv (Toby Kebbell) and Tus (Richard Coyle), Dastan plays a pivotal role in the successful siege of the city of Alumet. The celebrations are brought to an end by the murder of the King, of which Dastan is wrongfully accused. Going on the run with the beautiful Princess Tamina (Gemma Arterton), Dastan realises that he holds a dagger which Tamina is meant to protect, and which is the key to the most powerful weapon in the world; the Sands of Time. If the Sands of Time are unleashed, it will mean the end of the world. Dastan and Tamina must stay one step ahead of the bad guys who are after the dagger, all the while trying to find out who set up Dastan.

Prince of Persia has the same problem as this month's Robin Hood; its storytelling is bloated where it should have been fast and efficient. However, unlike Robin Hood, Prince of Persia tends to be borderline insulting in the way the audience is treated like unintelligent morons. OK, granted this film is first and foremost aimed at a younger audience (as well as fans of the game), but I would have preferred it if the writing was a bit more subtle, and not akin to being walloped with a sledgehammer. At one point, Dastan says, "releasing the sands turns back time. And only the holder of the dagger is aware of what's happened." This would have useful, if it hadn't been portrayed through some brilliant visual effects which showed exactly how the dagger worked one minute beforehand. The fact that he is saying this to Tamina, a woman who has been guarding the dagger for her whole life and who knows the powers of the Sands, only makes this dialogue seem more like poorly handled exposition and less like organic conversation. This happens regularly throughout the film, and is likely to annoy several viewers. It did me. The screenplay is easily the film's biggest flaw, not only poorly written but often rushed in the relationships between the characters. Dastan and Tamina's relationship isn't developed as much as I would have liked it to be, and other characters often seem undeveloped. We get the bare details of why they do what they do, but apart from Dastan and Tamina, no one is satisfyingly fleshed out.

That being said, Prince of Persia is still an entertaining film. Why? Partially because it has that matinée Saturday film feeling. This has a charm to it which reminded me of the Indiana Jones series. It also has a sense of fun. The action is satisfying, if not as gritty as the scraps in Robin Hood or as impressive as the show-downs in Iron Man 2. The sword fights, in particular, have a real sense of immediacy, which is (for once) aided by the use of the shaky camera technique. You feel disoriented in a good way; you can still see what is going on in the fight, and you feel like you are involved.

Technically, this film is stunning. The locations ooze a perfect exotic sensuality. The score by Harry Gregson-Williams is rich and engaging, whilst the sets are beautifully designed. Costumes are also good, although there is nothing particularly inventive. The visual effects are breath-taking, with the finale, where Dastan and Tamina race to find the Sands of Time, being the most electrifying visual effects orientated set piece so far this year.

The acting is what keeps the film together. As Dastan and Tamina, Gyllenhaal and Arterton are brilliant. Gyllenhaal brings a puppyish enthusiasm to Dastan which makes him instantly likable, whilst wonderfully hinting at his character's maturation throughout the film. Meanwhile, Arterton brings an authoritative grace to the role of Tamina. She isn't an all-out warrior, but she ain't no damsel in distress either. Both of them share a chemistry which goes beyond the call of duty (and the low ambition of the script), and which makes them a couple who we root for. Ben Kingsley is nicely malicious as Nizam. Kingsley clearly relishes the role, and he sinks his teeth into it. Both Kebbell and Coyle develop their characters into strong yet human individuals with limited screen time, whilst Alfred Molina provides solid comic relief as a sheik with questionable morals.

Prince of Persia is flawed; there is no question about that. It is overly convoluted, the script has some clunkers which are actually painful to hear and there is very little in the way of intelligence. But you genuinely care about the main characters, and you want to see what happens to them. The action is well-done, the production values are top-notch and Mike Newell's direction keeps the film moving along nicely. Overall, Prince of Persia is a fun summer blockbuster, one which is likely to be a big success at the box office. Hopefully, any mistakes here can be rectified if there is a sequel. So how does it do against the other two summer blockbusters so far? It's not as witty or as exciting as Iron Man 2 (although it does avoid the dip in quality that Iron Man 2 suffered from in the middle act), nor does it have the gritty intelligence of Robin Hood. But it is still a decent, if not overwhelming piece of summer entertainment.

Robin Hood (2010)

An Entertaining, But Imperfect, Summer Flick

[7/10 · 23 May 2010]

When I think of Robin Hood, I visualise a cheeky, righteous man who has fun stealing from the rich to give to the poor. For his version of Robin Hood, Ridley Scott has opted for a dark, gritty origin tale of how the man becomes the legend. The decision to put such a potentially fun character through this grim, Batman Begins-like tale is courageous, and the result's a pretty good piece of adult summer entertainment.

1199. When Richard the Lionheart (Danny Huston) is killed during his crusade of France, the task to deliver the crown to his brother Prince John (Oscar Isaac) falls to Richard's right-hand man Robert Loxley (Douglas Hodge). Whilst on his way to London, Loxley is killed in an ambush set by the traitorous Sir Godfrey (Mark Strong), a friend of the prince who is conspiring with the French. The ambush is stopped by archer Robin Longstride (Russell Crowe) and his companions. Robin promises the dying Loxley that he will deliver his sword to his father, Walter (Max von Sydow) in Nottingham. After delivering the crown to the prince, Robin fulfils his promise. Walter suggests that Robin takes the identity of his son in order to protect his land after he has died. Whilst this at first angers Robert's wife Marian (Cate Blanchett), she and Robin slowly develop an affectionate relationship. Meanwhile, Godfrey plots to weaken King John's relationship with his people to pave the way for a French invasion.

The movie takes its time setting up the political and historical context, which is probably its biggest flaw. It all comes together nicely at the film's conclusion, making the reasons for Robin becoming an outlaw more complex than you may first think. However, it makes the film feel bloated in the process. The storyline involving Robin's father is yet another case of story overload, as it amounts to very little and could have been ejected without much harm to the film overall. Also, Scott and writer Brian Helgeland make some questionable links between Robin and English history. Robin pretty much tells King John to create the Magna Carta.

That being said, Robin Hood is a blockbuster worth seeing. This is mainly down to the epic action. From a stunning siege on a French castle to an attack on Nottingham by Godfrey and the concluding attempted French invasion which plays out like a medieval Saving Private Ryan, Ridley Scott shows that he knows how to craft an engaging action scene. The battle sequences are bloodless, but under the restrictions of a 12A rating, what else can you expect? The action packs enough of a visual wallop to satisfy.

It's also fortunate that Robin Hood is still a feast for the eyes, even in its dullest moments; the period production design is spot-on, and you never accept this world as anything but utterly rich and real. The cinematography is beautifully organic, and the score by Marc Streitenfeld is wonderful. As far as technical credits go, Robin Hood doesn't disappoint.

This film's strongest asset is its terrific cast. Scott and Helgeland wisely spend time developing the relationship between Robin and Marion, and it pays off immensely thanks to the fiery, dignified yet cheeky performances of Crowe and Blanchett. Blanchett, in particular, crackles with electricity, bringing both strength and vulnerability to her role as Marian. Marian isn't your typical damsel in distress, and Blsanchett is superb. Crowe, whilst struggling with his accent, is an ideal choice for a rugged, world weary yet still charming Robin. He brings true charisma and presence to the role.

Mark Strong sinks his teeth into yet another villain. To tell you the truth, Strong is starting to be typecast as the bad guy (see also Stardust, Sherlock Holmes and Kick-Ass), but he is still imposing. Robin's Merry Men are played by Kevin Durand (Little John), Scott Grimes (Will Scarlet), Alan Doyle (Allan-a-Dale) and Mark Addy (Friar Tuck), all of whom are solid. Addy, in particular, was born to be Friar Tuck, and Crowe's real-life friendship with Durand, Grimes and Doyle makes their on screen relationship all the more believable. Matthew Macfadyen makes a powerful impact on the memory as Robin's most well-known enemy, the sneering and cowardly yet potentially dangerous Sheriff of Nottingham. Macfadyen is only in the film for about five minutes, but he milks those five minutes for all they're worth. William Hurt and Eileen Atkins bring strength and compassion to the characters of chancellor William Marshall and King John's mother Eleanor of Aquitaine respectively. Max von Sydow gives the most human performance as Walter Loxley; he combines the experience of a man of his age with the youthful liveliness of a 12-year-old boy. Walter's fate packs the film's most potent emotional punch. However, the film is stolen by Oscar Isaac as the jealous and greedy King John. Isaac is immensely entertaining in the role. He is campy without going over the top (unlike, say, Alan Rickman in 1991's Prince of Thieves), and shows just enough humanity to show that the threat that John poses is very real (there is a brilliant scene where John's wife (the luminous Léa Seydoux) confronts him about Godfrey's allegiance). This is a fantastic performance.

Robin Hood is an entertaining time at the cinema. It's better than Prince of Thieves. I'm going to give a criticism that is unusual for most summer blockbusters; it's too smart for its own good. The overly complex plot bogs down what should have been a slimmer narrative, and the historical links don't always work. However, Scott knows how to shoot period action scenes like nobody else's business, and the action here is thrilling enough to give Robin Hood the kick it needs to satisfy the action fans. The strength of the acting, the gorgeous technical credits and the occasionally clever screenplay lift it up another level, to the point where I recommend it for two and a bit hours of solid summer fun.

Iron Man 2 (2010)

Hugely Entertaining, But Slightly Disappointing

[8/10 · 10 May 2010]

It seems like an unwritten rule; in the world of comic-book movies, No.2's are the best. The Dark Knight, Spider-Man 2, Superman 2, X2, Hellboy 2; all better then the originals. So it's disappointing that Iron Man 2, the sequel to one of my all-time favourite comic-book movies, doesn't join the club.

The movie kicks off where the last film ended, with playboy inventor and millionaire Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) revealing his secret identity of Iron Man to the world. Little does he know that a Russian genius named Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke) plans to take revenge on Tony for an old family grudge. Six months later, whilst Tony is soaking up the public love for Iron Man, Vanko strikes hard. This couldn't come at a worse time for Tony. Unbeknownst to anyone but himself and Vanko, the palladium in Tony's chest reactor (the thing which is meant to be keeping him alive) is slowly killing him. Whilst he races to find a cure, he promotes his assistant and love interest Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) to CEO of his company, Stark Industries. Slimy Senator Stern (Garry Shandling) and oddball rival arms dealer Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell) are snapping at Tony's heels trying to get him to hand over the Iron Man tech, with Tony's military pal Colonel James Rhodes (Don Cheadle, replacing Terrence Howard) caught in the middle. And what's up with Tony's new, mysterious assistant Natalie (Scarlett Johansson)?

For the first and third acts, this film rocks hard. One minor quibble (why say that the soundtrack is made up of AC/DC songs, then put just two of their songs in the movie?) Apart from that, these 75 minutes are the most sensational fun that I have had at the cinema so far this year. The performances are great, the dialogue crackles, the visual effects are fantastic and the action is electrifying. For those glorious 75 minutes, I would rank Iron Man 2 as one of my favourite comic-book movies.

Unfortunately, director Jon Favreau and screenwriter Justin Theroux trip up badly in the second act. There's some action (Vanko's jail break and a punch-up between a drunken Tony and Rhodes in another suit), but this part is mainly talking. Based on the snappy dialogue of the first act, this shouldn't be a problem. But, apart from the occasional burst of inspired writing and some brilliant in-jokes (I loved the Captain America reference), this part of the movie is surprisingly dull, drifting off more than it should and lacking the rock'n'roll energy of the other 75 minutes. Tony's burgeoning alcoholism (apparently the most emotionally potent storyline in the comics) is tossed aside in an embarrassing party sequence, whilst his heart poisoning is dealt with too quickly and confusingly. Plus, Rourke's brilliant villain gets relegated to scenes in a laboratory. The acting, humour, action and occasional bursts of wit save this act. But the energy and pizazz of the first and third acts is gone, making these 45 minutes the spanner in the works which stops Iron Man 2 from matching, or topping, its predecessor.

The acting is consistently brilliant. Don Cheadle is an improvement over Terrence Howard. Cheadle's more convincing as a colonel and in his relationship with Downey Jr. than Howard, whilst bringing grit and humour to the part. As Pepper, Gwyneth Paltrow is both warm and witty. The bickering between Pepper and Tony is a highlight, showing the love-hate relationship between two people dancing around their true feelings for each other. As with the first Iron Man, you could argue that Paltrow imbues the proceedings with welcome heart. As Justin Hammer, Rockwell is hilarious, yet he is also edgily intriguing. Hammer is a ratty, strange copy of Tony before he experienced his epiphany of the first film. He reminded me of Venom from Spider-Man 3, except better utilised and more suited to the performer. Rockwell nails the role with his quirky brilliance. As Vanko, Rourke creates a character with commendable humanity. Whilst Rourke could have easily been comic thanks to his exaggerated Russian accent, he instead comes across as an imposing and intelligent character, simmering with barely compressed rage. Scarlett Johansson does what she needs to do in the role of Natalie AKA Black Widow; she remains enigmatic enough for a spin-off to be welcome, and provides a sexy attraction for the men in the audience. One thing that Johansson excels at is her stunt work. In the final 30 minutes, she faces off against a hallway of goons, and the results are breath-taking. Garry Shandling is note-perfect as Senator Stern (he gets the film's last and best line), whilst Samuel L. Jackson brings his usual cool and charisma to the role of Nick Fury, the director of the mysterious S.H.I.E.L.D organisation.

But the film belongs to Downey Jr. As Stark, Downey Jr. is magnificent. He is funny, smart and spot-on with the one-liners. He combines super-human energy with a humanity which makes even Stark's most selfish actions forgivable. Downey Jr. is one of my favourite actors, and he doesn't disappoint with this superlative performance.

Iron Man 2 is absolutely top-notch blockbuster entertainment for its first and third acts; thrilling, hysterically funny, written with envious wit and brilliantly acted and directed. I'd say that these portions even surpass the first film. However, one thing that Iron Man had was consistency in its brilliance, something which its sequel lacks. The middle act of this film drags it down into the middle tier of comic-book movies. Maybe I'm being too harsh. Maybe when I see it again, I'll change my mind and show it more love. For now, Iron Man 2 is a half-stunning, half-lacklustre film which overall makes a blast of fun at the cinema, and a solid, if not great, kick-off to the summer season of movies. Be sure to stay after the credits for one mouth-watering teaser, which has me excited for one particular upcoming Marvel project.

Kick-Ass (2010)

An Explosively Entertaining, Near-Perfect Movie

[10/10 · 4 April 2010]

A costumed man stands at the top of a skyscraper, dramatic music playing in the background. As the public looks on in awe, the figure spreads his home-made wings and jumps. He drops towards the street, and… smashes into a taxi. This is Kick-Ass, a movie which, whilst lampooning super-hero movies, also manages to be one of the best films that the genre has to offer.

After the opening splat, we meet Dave Lizewski (Aaron Johnson). A normal teenager (invisible to girls, small group of friends etc) and a huge comic-book fan, Dave tries to answer the unanswered question; why has nobody ever tried to be a superhero? So he dons a silly suit and becomes Kick-Ass. His first attempt at playing the hero lands Dave in the hospital with metal plates attached to his bones and severed nerve endings, making him more than able to take a beating. Dave's second attempt results in his becoming an instant celebrity. However, his new-found stardom catches the attention of gangster Frank D'Amico (Mark Strong), who thinks that Kick-Ass is responsible for the deaths of several of his men. Seeing a chance to impress his distant father, Frank's son Chris (Christopher Mintz-Plasse, he of McLovin fame) hatches a plan to hand Kick-Ass to his father on a silver platter. However, Frank doesn't know that the two real culprits, disgraced cop Damon Macready AKA Big Daddy (Nicolas Cage) and his 12-year-old killing machine daughter Mindy AKA Hit-Girl (Chloe Grace Moretz) are on the prowl for revenge.

Combining pure rock 'n' roll, crowd-pleasing energy with old fashioned film-making expertise, Kick-Ass isn't just a blast of pop entertainment, but a startling achievement. If it wasn't for a little film called The Dark Knight, Kick-Ass would easily be my favourite comic-book movie. As it is, it will have to do with a more-than-comfortable second place. Kick-Ass earns the title because it's one of those rare movies where, as an audience member and as a critic, I couldn't ask for anything more. There is a huge dose of side-splitting humour, a nice splattering of mind-blowing action and a surprising amount of emotional weight. It is perfectly paced without a dull moment in sight, and I was actually sad to leave the cinema when it was over.

Much of the credit for this must go to director/writer Matthew Vaughn and co-writer Jane Goldman. Whilst Vaughn proved with Layer Cake and Stardust that he was more than able of delivering entertaining, smart movies, his work here is incredible. He handles the tonal shifts with immense confidence (something which he sometimes struggled with in Stardust), making sure that there are no jarring moments between the action, comedy and teenage/revenge drama. He directs with fresh creativity (Michael Bay, go find your dictionary), with his use of comic-book visuals especially inspired. The fantastic sequence detailing the reasons for Big Daddy's vendetta against D'Amico is a stand-out. He also stages some of the most electrifying action sequences of the year as if he has been doing this sort of thing since the day he was born. Both he and Goldman craft a hilarious, smart and knowing screenplay, throwing in references to superhero movies (Big Daddy's costume may be just a little bit similar to a well-known superhero), whilst crafting a genuinely ensnaring and original cinematic experience.

As Dave, Aaron Johnson is never anything less than perfect. Whilst it could have been easy to lose track of Kick-Ass in the midst of colourful characters like Big Daddy and Hit-Girl, Johnson crafts a character so interesting and sympathetic that you want to stay with him, whilst nailing the American accent to boot. As Frank D'Amico, Mark Strong crafts another powerful, menacing villain. Strong, as well as Johnson (another Brit), delivers a superb American accent, whilst creating a character just as colourful and unforgettable as the heroes. Christopher Mintz-Plasse delivers an intriguing and entertaining turn as Chris D'Amico AKA Red Mist. This role is meatier than the usual comedic roles that Mintz-Plasse is seen in, and he bites into it with relish. In an unexpected stroke of casting genius, Nicolas Cage is absolutely unforgettable as Big Daddy. Apart from a few select performances, Cage has been a bit, well, dead recently. Here, it's like watching a corpse being re-animated. Cage is clearly having fun here, crafting a performance which blends comedy (his loving expression as he shoots his Cavlar-wearing daughter is hilarious) and drama (a confrontation with one of his former colleagues is beautifully handled) brilliantly. However, the film is absolutely swiped by Chloe Grace Moretz. Whilst I think that all of the costumed individuals are locked for iconic status, Moretz's swearing, knife-wielding, near psychopathic Hit-Girl is a truly stunning character. Few child performers would have the courage to tackle a role like this, but Moretz's conviction and faultless acting make this a performance of unspeakable success.

The technical credits never disappoint, either. The soundtrack's note-perfect, recalling the work of Scorsese in the spot-on placement of each track. The production design elicits the feeling of reading a motion picture comic, which suits the film terrifically. And finally, as mentioned before, the action sequences are jaw-dropping. From a stunning, one-shot warehouse shootout, to a gun battle which effortlessly captures the video game craze, to the final OTT showdown at D'Amico's lair, this is one thrilling movie.

Kick-Ass is easily my favourite film of the year so far. It is near-perfect. As a Film Studies student, someone who has to listen to continual dissection of a film until you just want to cry, Kick-Ass is a breath of fresh air; a movie made by people who know how to make a movie which says from the get-go, "shut the hell up and enjoy this!" I did shut up, and I loved it. If the final, brilliant line is anything to go by, then we can expect a sequel. Personally, I can't wait. Kick-Ass by name, Kick-Ass by nature.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009)

An Entertaining, If Not Brilliant, Comic Book Flick

[6/10 · 15 November 2009]

As I was walking into the cinema to watch "X-Men: Origins-Wolverine", I wasn't sure what I was going to make of it. Although the initial reviews for the movie had been good, negative reviews had soon started pouring through the floodgates. However, everyone at my college who had seen it was raving about it, some even going as far as calling it the best film in the "X-Men" series. So my vote could have gone either way.

As it turns out, I'm in the middle on this one. Thankfully, "Wolverine" is an enjoyable film, and far from the disaster that many critics have labelled it. However, apart from a few moments, it lacks the cinematic verve to boost it up to the high level of other comic book movies such as "Iron Man" and "The Dark Knight". If you asked me to compare it to the other X-Men movies, I would say that it was on the same level as X-Men 3 (yes, I liked X3), but below X-Men 1 and 2.

Before I dive into the main review, here's a summary of the film's plot. After a domestic incident, brothers Logan and Victor flee their home. Both have mutant abilities which allow them to live forever and recover from nearly all wounds (also, Wolverine has bone claws which pop out of his knuckles and Victor has sharp fingernails and fangs). After fighting in wars from the American Civil War to the Vietnam conflict, Logan (played as an adult by Hugh Jackman) and Victor (played as an adult by Live Schreiber) are approached by Major William Stryker (Danny Huston). Stryker has discovered the pair's mutant abilities, and offers them a place in his covert ops team. However, after witnessing some of the group's more vicious activities, Logan quits to live a life of peace and quiet in the Canadian Rockies with his girlfriend, Kayla Silverfox (Lynn Collins). However, Stryker and an angry Victor aren't far behind, and when tragedy strikes, Logan wants payback…

"Wolverine" has quite a few flaws, some bigger than others. Wade "Deadpool" Wilson (Ryan Reynolds), Remy "Gambit" Labeau (Taylor Kitsch) and Chris "Bolt" Bradley (Dominic Monaghan) are three examples of characters who are underused. Concerning Deadpool and Gambit, if you can't find a significant role for a fan favourite in one movie, wait until another movie where you can! Deadpool and Gambit suffer the same fate here that Venom suffered in Spider-Man 3. Time to learn, Hollywood. Also, the script is littered with plot holes. The plot point concerning adamantium bullets is an incredibly lazy way of linking "Wolverine" to the plot line of the original trilogy. The lack of originality in the story and some dodgy special effects are just two other things to criticise.

However, there is still a lot to like. As the big man himself, Hugh Jackman is top-notch. He not only captures the internal struggle between Logan/Wolverine's human and animalistic sides beautifully, but he also manages to capture some genuinely poignant moments in what is essentially a big, loud blockbuster movie. Liev Schreiber (who lit up the recent Holocaust drama, Defiance) is also great as Victor Creed. Schreiber is vicious without going over-the top, witty without being pretentious. Both Jackman and Schreiber are the glue that holds this film together. Probably the most successful aspect of the movie is the love-hate relationship between Wolverine and Creed, which somewhat reflects the duel between Batman and the Joker in The Dark Knight. As the scheming Stryker, Danny Huston delivers an intriguingly devious portrait of a villain who the audience will love to hate. Lynn Collins gives a memorably vulnerable yet sensual turn as Logan's romantic interest, and rapper Will.i.am is surprisingly good in his movie debut as teleporter John Wraith. As mercenary Wade Wilson, Ryan Reynolds seizes your attention for every moment that he's on the screen. He is perfectly deadpan, cool and has one moment which pretty much defines the "giddy schoolboy" term, when he takes on 12 guys with machine guns when he has just two swords. Taylor Kitsch is suitably charming and charismatic as the roguish Gambit, whilst Dominic Monaghan elicits a beautifully understated sadness as Chris Bradley, who is cruelly called a freak. Overall, "Wolverine" doesn't let the side down when it comes to above-the-call-of-duty acting in comic book movies.

In terms of action, Wolverine doesn't disappoint. All of the action sequences are exciting, with a thrilling chase sequence which involves Logan being pursued by jeeps and a helicopter a stand-out. Aside from a few slips, the visual effects are effective. The cinematography is wonderful (a portion of the movie was shot in New Zealand, which, as Lord of the Rings proved, is a beautiful landscape for movies), whilst Harry Gregson-Williams creates a solid musical score. The script also contains funny moments of wry humour (such as Logan coming to terms with his new, metal claws), some unexpected cameos from "X-Men" favourites and some subtle nods towards the events of the original trilogy (Logan's fear of flying etc).

And the final question that I have to ask myself is; is the direction good enough? I think that it is. Gavin Hood doesn't make his own mark on the material, but he still does a decent job at over-seeing this movie. Despite some moments where his talent shines through (such as the exquisitely crafted opening sequence which sees Logan and Creed battling their way through four major wars), Hood's direction is mostly workmanlike, but still good enough to ensure that the movie doesn't collapse completely.

So, X-Men: Origins-Wolverine is a well-made, terrifically acted movie. It's just a shame that its flaws drag the movie down, as the best moments show the potential for a movie which could have easily rivalled X2 for the title of the best film in the X-Men series. Still, it's a decent slice of comic book entertainment.

Star Trek (2009)

The Blockbuster Is Back!

[9/10 · 24 May 2009]

I love the new Star Trek. It's riveting, vital, sexy, fun and surprisingly emotional. Simply put, this is blockbuster heaven.

This movie opens with a vicious attack by a mysterious Romulan (alien) ship, captioned by vengeful time-traveller Nero (Eric Bana), on Starfleet ship U.S.S. Kelvin. Just before he courageously pilots the Kelvin into the belly of the Romulan ship in an act of self-sacrifice, Captain George Kirk (Chris Hemsworth) is able to help decide the name of his evacuated newborn child; Jim.

Several years later, James Tiberius Kirk (Chris Pine) is an amazingly talented delinquent. After being brought to the attention of Starfleet Captain Pike (Bruce Greenwood) after a bar fight with Starfleet cadets, Kirk decides to join the Starfleet academy. Soon, he comes into conflict with the equally troubled Spock (Heroes' Zachary Quinto), who is struggling to come to terms with the fact that he has both Vulcan and human blood due to his mixed parentage. However, their rivalry will have to take a back seat if they are to stop Nero from taking his vengeance on actions that Spock takes in the future by destroying Federation planets, which include Spock's home planet Vulcan and our very own Earth…

Everything in this movie clicks together to create an almost flawless ride of a movie. All of the cast and crew have created something fresh and exciting which not only pumps a ton of adrenaline into a flailing franchise, but also pays tribute to the show on which it is based. You've got the red-shirted crew member who meets a violent fate, a green-skinned girl who Kirk gets up close and personal with and quotes from the old TV series with a new spin on them. When Quinto delivers the infamous line "Live long and prosper", he makes it ooze with dislike. He may as well be giving the people who he's talking to the finger. This is one of the refreshing spins used on the Star Trek formula.

The acting is brilliant without let-down. As Kirk, Chris Pine captures the essence of cool. He's relentlessly charming, quick with the one-liners, resourceful, reckless and good-looking enough to make many men (including me) jealous of his appeal to the ladies. Pine also pulls off the difficult trick of being arrogant without becoming grating. That is one of the signs of a star. However, he is still over-taken by Zachary Quinto's exquisite portrayal of Spock. Beautifully conveying the inner struggle between the character's Vulcan and human emotions, Quinto gives a performance of subtle intricacies which is a delight to watch.

The other cast members are all great fun to watch. Karl Urban is fantastically grumpy yet endearing as Dr. McCoy. Zoe Saldana gives communications specialist Uhura an unexpected strength and sensuality. Anton Yelchin is naively charming as 17-year-old Russian genius Chekov, and John Cho brings a dominating physicality and understated presence to helmsman Hikaru Sulu (to be honest, both Sulu and Chekov were slightly underused, but that's something which can be fixed in the inevitable sequel). Although he turns up late in the proceedings, Simon Pegg is sheer hilarity personified as engineer Scotty. Eric Bana is wickedly twisted yet somewhat sympathetic as the psychopathic Nero, whilst Bruce Greenwood is strong as the tough Captain Pike. Leonard Nimoy, the original Spock, also appears in a crucial role which he performs with great grace and dignity. Even the actors with only a few scenes, such as Ben Cross and Winona Ryder as Spock's parents, do wonderful jobs.

A film like this needs to get the action sequences and the visual effects right. Fortunately, both are handled inspirationally well in Star Trek. The first twelve minutes of the film are thunderous, creating a rollicking sequence in which the U.S.S. Kelvin comes into conflict with Nero's ship, the Narada. What makes this, and the other action sequences, so phenomenal is that we are drawn into the conflict of the characters in split seconds, intensifying the action even further. Another great sequence is when Kirk, Sulu and a red-shirted crew mate (oh dear) plunge from space towards a drill that Nero is using to destroy a planet. The plunge itself is stunningly executed, but it's the following fierce, hand-to-hand fight which really causes the blood to start pumping. Meanwhile, the visual effects are truly magnificent. When Kirk and the audience first see the U.S.S. Enterprise being constructed, it is a pure piece of movie magic which will have even non-fans grinning from ear to ear.

The man who's truly responsible for the resurrection of Star Trek is J.J. Abrams. From the very beginning, in which he wipes the slate clean for a fresh start with one simple yet ingenious move, Abrams brings endless energy and respect to his direction. It's also to his credit that this movie has a beating heart underneath the action and special effects, and that the narrative is actually unpredictable. It's great to be surprised by a blockbuster. The script also adds a new spark to the franchise. The writers have had previous experience with blockbuster movies (their previous credits include Transformers, which I actually enjoyed). The reason why the script delights is that it sticks to the blockbuster formula whilst deferring from it enough in order to stand out on its own.

Technically, the film's a colossal success. The sound effects are stunning, the score's suitably epic and the editing's tremendously snappy, brilliantly complimenting Abrams' ability to juggle both action and characters on the run.

Star Trek's a fantastic movie. Abrams has not only created a hulking piece of escapist entertainment, but he has also breathed new life into a franchise which faltered with the dismal Star Trek: Nemesis. This movie will make both Trekkies and non-fans cry with glee, and I hope that the cast and crew live long and prosper.

Watchmen (2009)

A Flawed, Yet Often Sensational Film

[8/10 · 11 March 2009]

In my opinion, Watchmen couldn't have come out at a worst time. Pouncing upon a public which is still captivated by the genre-shattering masterpiece which is The Dark Knight, Watchmen not only has to face fans of the acclaimed graphic novel upon which it is based, but members of the public who are expecting another comic-book movie classic.

Whilst the film never strays far from its source material (apart from the ending) and is almost certain to please fans, it isn't the masterpiece that many were hoping for. There are many incredible moments, but Watchmen's flaws alienate it from classic status.

The film primarily takes place in New York, 1985. A retired superhero, formerly known as "The Comedian" (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), has been thrown to his death from his high-rise apartment. Former colleague and vigilante Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley) believes that this is the beginning of a plot to hunt down and kill superheroes, or "masks". He therefore warns his former colleagues, who include the only genuinely super-powered hero "Dr Manhattan" (Billy Crudup), struggling Average-Joe Dan Dreiberg (Patrick Wilson), conflicted Laurie (Malin Akerman) and billionaire Adrian Veidt (Matthew Goode). As Rorschach digs deeper into the supposed conspiracy, he discovers a much more frightening threat…

One of the main problems with Watchmen is that it both feels too long and too short. The 160-minute running time is so full with ideas and individual story lines that it feels like the filmmakers should have made two films in order to give their ideas more time to breathe. The fact that the filmmakers are determined to be almost immovably faithful to the novel that it is based on could be to blame for this. The filmmakers are too busy replicating moments from the novel to notice that there are times when the film either drags, or seems slightly rushed. Also, the movie is crafted in such a way that some audience members will be able to see who the "villain" is before their identity is revealed. However, the film overall has surprising psychological depth.

The performances are strong. There are three exceptional turns from Crudup, Dean Morgan and Earle Haley and, apart from Akerman, the rest are good enough to be convincing in their roles.

Crudup gives a powerfully subtle performance as Dr Manhattan, who's slowly drifting away from humanity due to his almost godly powers. It's not easy to portray the emotions of a character when the character is largely emotionless and created by CGI, but Crudup pulls it off. In limited screen time, Dean Morgan finds surprising amounts of humanity and sympathy in a sociopath who commits crimes such as attempted rape and shooting a pregnant woman. However, the best performance comes from Jackie Earle Haley. Although Rorschach is hidden behind a mask for the majority of the film, Earle Haley's voice overflows with such vivid power that we quickly come to both fear and respect Rorschach. Once his mask is taken off, Rorschach is like a frightened child and a deadly animal thrown together in a blender. Earle Haley brings both hard-edged determination and quivering vulnerability to the role. These three performances are compelling to watch.

Wilson does a good job of portraying Dan as a trapped man, who longs to escape from the shackles of normal life. Arguably the most controversial cast member in the film, Goode at first seems uncomfortable in the role of Adrian Veidt, but he soon finds the right mixture of unique heroism and cool arrogance which suits the character nicely.Also, in her few scenes, Carla Gugino is solid as Sally Jupiter, Lauries's mother. The only major weak link in the cast is Malin Akerman. Sure, she oozes sexuality, but, apart from a few good moments, she never manages to bring much emotion or humanity to the role of Laurie, coming across as disappointingly bland.

Directors such as Paul Greengrass (The Bourne Ultimatum) and Terry Gilliam (Brazil) have tried and failed to bring Watchmen to the screen. That Zack Snyder, director of the surprisingly good 2004 remake of Dawn of the Dead and 2007's stylish-if-brainless 300, has finally succeeded the feat is a great success. What makes it greater is the fact that he allows his love and enthusiasm for the material and the characters to ooze from every frame. His direction isn't perfect (sometimes his worshipping of the text leads to unnecessary bloating, and his obvious love of slow-motion becomes tiresome in the more dramatic scenes) but Snyder has still done a very good job at getting Watchmen to the screen. There are some moments, such as the already well-known and superb opening montage set to Bob Dylan's "The Times They Are A-Changin'", where you wonder whether the adverts calling Snyder a visionary are really over-hyping it. The writing follows the text religiously, and although the screenplay isn't flawless, it does its job nicely.

There may be flaws in the acting, directing and writing departments, but they don't stop Watchmen from being a visual feast. Everything, from the gritty yet stylish production design (the streets that the characters wander through have the distinct look of something out of Taxi Driver) to the visual effects (the origin story of Dr. Manhattan is chilling), grasps you around the collar and effortlessly pulls you into the story. The action sequences are brilliant. The stand-outs are a brutal opening punch-up between The Comedian and a shadowy attacker (the soundtrack choice of Nat King Cole's "Unforgettable" is pure genius reminiscent of the use of "Over the Rainbow" in Face/Off) and a prison riot. The soundtrack choices are excellent, apart from the use of Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah" during a sex scene which verges on soft-core porn.

Watchmen's the Phantom Menace of 2009. You'll either like it or you won't. In my opinion, it isn't flawless. But at its best, it's a visionary, stunning and unique movie, one which will be remembered by many people long after 2009 is over.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008)

An Unforgettable Film of Wondrous Beauty

[10/10 · 7 February 2009]

I was extremely interested in seeing this movie, especially when it received a staggering 13 Academy Award nominations, including nominations for Best Picture, Best Director and Best Leading Actor. I was so interested in seeing this that I trudged through knee-deep snow for a hour to get to the cinema, and ended up with frozen feet. But it was worth it. I have often said that the Academy Awards tends to make mistakes with some of the films that it nominates (when they ignored The Dark Knight for Best Picture nominations, it was an unexpected nasty slap in the face). But I have to say that The Curious Case of Benjamin Button deserves every single one of its nominations. This is the most awe-inspiring piece of mainstream entertainment since The Dark Knight stormed cinemas last summer. Beautiful, subtly poignant and performed and constructed with almost hypnotic confidence, Benjamin Button slowly wraps you in its story and, before you realise, traps you. Very few films have the ability to do that.

The film opens in a New Orleans hospital in 2005, with Hurricane Katrina howling outside the window. An elderly patient named Daisy (Cate Blanchett) asks her daughter Caroline (Julia Ormond) to read the diary of a man named Benjamin Button (Brad Pitt) to her, knowing that it is her last chance to discover its contents. We are then drawn into Benjamin's story, starting on the night that WW1 ended, and the night that Benjamin's biological father, Thomas Button (Jason Flemyng), who is horrified by his son's appearance, abandons him on the step of a old-people's home run by a kind woman named Queenie (Taraji P. Henson), who adopts Benjamin. At first, it seems likely that he's going to die from health issues caused by old age. But miraculously, as everyone around him grows older, he grows younger. As his life progresses, his path continually crosses with that of Daisy, and a deep relationship grows between the two of them. However, with the two of them growing in the opposite directions, there are inevitably heart-wrenching consequences… Benjamin Button has so many events incorporated into its storyline that my summary is incredibly brief by comparison. But everything is so brilliantly woven into the story that the apparently lengthy running time (the film runs for just under 3 hours) just flies by. Every aspect of the production, from the acting to the visual effects, from the direction to the costume design, flawlessly fits into the production like a piece of a jigsaw puzzle.

If the characters are sympathetic enough for the tragic force of the story to shine on screen, this is largely down to the magnificent performances. Brad Pitt delivers a superbly subtle and nuanced portrayal of Benjamin Button. Terrifically capturing the mannerisms and essence of a character who transforms from a young man in an old man's body into an old man in the form of a young man, Pitt has rarely been better. The Academy Award nomination that he received was definitely deserved. As Daisy, Cate Blanchett creates a sympathetically flawed, yet strong character. Blanchett's sparkling performance creates a connection between the character and the audience, much like the relationship between Daisy and Benjamin. In the role of Queenie, Taraji P. Jenson is a torrent of force and energy. The love, care and heartfelt uncertainty that Jenson pours into Queenie makes her all the lovable and human. The Academy Award nomination that her performance received was yet another well-deserved nomination. There are other strong supporting performances from Jared Harris (as the captain of a tugboat that Benjamin works on), Jason Flemyng, Julia Ormond and a brilliant Tilda Swinton (as a woman who Benjamin has a brief affair with), who all take their screen time and run with it.

Now we come to the direction. David Fincher, director of films such as "Fight Club", "Zodiac" and "Panic Room", has never attempted a film with such scope and detail as this. However, from the way that he composes himself in the director's seat, you are unlikely to notice it. Fincher manages the difficult job of not going for the easy emotional moments with aplomb, and weaves the different story threads together with such tremendous skill that none of them seem extraneous. He also creates several moments which are simply compelling in their creativity and sense of originality. One of these moments comes in the first five minutes. It is an astounding shot of a battle in WW1 which is rewinding, with soldiers running backwards towards their trenches, and violent explosions shrinking out of existence. Another sequence, in which seemingly disconnected events all play a part in a tragic accident, has a brilliant build-up and a genuinely intelligent idea driving it; if any one of these small incidents hadn't taken place, then the final tragedy might not have happened. But hey, that's life. Did Fincher deserve the Oscar nomination that he received? I'll give you a clue. Yes!!!

Technically, this film is colossal. The inspirationally faultless visual effects used to construct the appearance of Button at different stages of his life, the haunting musical score by Alexandre Desplat, the marvellously realistic make-up for both Benjamin and Daisy at different stages of their lives and so much more make this film a gallery of some of the most influential technical achievements in years. This film stands alongside technical juggernauts such as "Jurassic Park", "The Dark Knight" and the "Lord of the Rings" films.

Overall, "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" is an incredible achievement, both technically and emotionally. Simply mesmerising from beginning to end, "Benjamin Button" is easily one of the best films of the year so far, alongside "Slumdog Millionaire" and "Frost/Nixon", and it will take a lot of great films to keep it from being it from being in my Top Ten list of films in 2009. From where I'm sitting, the race for the Best Picture Oscar has become very interesting indeed.

Frost/Nixon (2008)

A Powerhouse Political Drama

[9/10 · 3 February 2009]

As I walked into the cinema to watch "Frost/Nixon", one dominant question was in my mind; Is this the great duel that both the critics and trailers have been making it out to be, or is it as tired as Gordon Brown on a Monday morning? The film's recent five Oscar nominations, including Best Picture and Best Director, would suggest the former, but the Oscars are starting to lose credibility. After all, many people believe that they snubbed "The Dark Knight" this year when it came to the major nomination categories, me included. Still, several critics and audience members were praising the film, so I thought that I would have a look.

I am happy to say that the positive word surrounding the film is justified. "Frost/Nixon" is a smart, powerful and surprisingly funny movie. But most importantly, it is a compelling character study of two men who have everything to lose.

The film's events take place from late 1976 to the summer of 1977. David Frost (Michael Sheen) is a red-hot British talk-show host. He has fame, fortune and charm, and is known by many people. After seeing Richard Nixon (Frank Langella) resigning from the White House, Frost has an idea for an interview with the shamed former leader of the United States. After much struggling and conflict, Frost finally gets the chance to interview Nixon on four topics, one of which is the infamous Watergate scandal. However, Frost discovers that Nixon isn't going to admit his guilt over the Watergate scandal without a fight. With the backing of his other three team members (Matthew Macfadyen, Oliver Platt and Sam Rockwell) and his girlfriend (Rebecca Hall), Frost enters into a dramatic battle of wits and nerve with Nixon. The major question is; who will come out on top?

The main success of "Frost/Nixon" is in the focused portrayals of Frost and Nixon by Michael Sheen and Frank Langella respectively. The supporting cast, most notably Kevin Bacon as Jack Brennan, one of Nixon's chief advisers, and Sam Rockwell as James Reston Jr., who just can't wait to see Nixon acknowledge his guilt concerning the Watergate scandal, is top-notch. But David Frost and Richard Nixon are the two central characters in this story, and also the most interesting. As Frost, Sheen creates a charming and likable individual. However, as the movie progresses, Sheen starts to thaw the character's "frosty" exterior in order to reveal Frost's uncertainty and desperation. Both he and Nixon have everything to win or to lose depending on which way these interviews go, but, as Frost tells Nixon, "only one of us can win".

However, every other cast member is out-done by Frank Langella's sensational portrayal of Richard Nixon. Fully devoting himself to the character, Langella's performance, much like Heath Ledger's turn as the Joker in "The Dark Knight", isn't so much a performance as a total embodiment of the character. Langella is heartfelt and humane in the role, and he never makes Nixon out to be an idiot. He is an intelligent man who understands the rules of the game that he's playing with Frost. But, most interestingly, Langella brings elements of tragedy to the disgraced man. Here is a man who can't fit into society because of the mistakes that he's made, and also because of his personal faults. There is an almost Shakespearean quality to Nixon's plight. He is a former hero who has fallen from grace, and who is trying desperately to claw his way back to the top. All in all, the Oscar nomination that Langella received for his performance was well-deserved, and I personally wouldn't be surprised if he won.

With his disappointing adaptation of "The Da Vinci Code", Ron Howard seemed to have fallen from his career high point, which was his Oscar-winning direction of "A Beautiful Mind". However, his direction here is skillful and assured enough to ensure that he is back on track. His greatest achievement is evident in the interview scenes, when he transforms scenes which could have so easily dragged into tense, uncertain sequences of verbal sparring between Frost and Nixon, whilst their two teams watch nervously in the background. However, there are other moments where Howard's brilliance as a director shines through. One sequence, in which Frost receives an unexpected call from a drunk Nixon, is poignant and reveals further layers in the personalities of the two men.

The script also crackles with tension and wit when it could have been as dry and as lacking of life as a desert. The dialogue between Frost and Nixon exquisitely reveals both the growing intensity and respect between the two men. However, the moments of humour are placed in the film at just the right moments so that they don't disrupt the natural flow of the story or the characters. One particular sequence, in which James Reston Jr. is forced to shake hands with Nixon, is very funny, yet it doesn't affect the suspense of the situation. The writer, Peter Morgan, should be given a big pat on the back.

"Frost/Nixon" may be flawed. Ther are times where it can seem like an expensive TV movie, and it may not be to everyone's taste. But, for anyone who wants to be entertained and learn a little bit about history at the same time, I would heartily recommend "Frost/Nixon". It's well-crafted by a director at the top of his game, brilliantly written, exceptionally acted (particularly by Langella, who will have a hard time topping this performance) and, most importantly, it is respectable towards its topic.

Quantum of Solace (2008)

A Breathless, Fast-Paced Return from 007

[8/10 · 2 November 2008]

After watching Quantum of Solace with my dad, I turned to him and said, "What did you think?" And, to my satisfaction and relief, he said, "Actually, it was pretty good". This was the first time that I had ever heard those words come out of my dad's mouth after watching a James Bond movie. The best thing was that Quantum fully deserved this praise.

Before I get started with my actual review of the film, I need to comment on something that has been worrying me. Many of the critics and public reviewers have said that this film lacks the feeling of the old Bond movies. I think that this complaint is a bit out-of-place. Do you want the spirit of the old Bond films? It might be a good idea to stick to the old Bond films. Casino Royale was a re-invention for the series, and provided a clean slate for the franchise. You should go into the cinema expecting changes to the formula. Quantum of Solace is a continuation of this re-invention, and makes some brave and unexpected moves in the process.

Although the initial reception by both critics and public reviewers worried me, it needn't have. Yes, Quantum isn't as good as Casino Royale. But nevertheless, it is a thrilling, action-packed time at the cinema. Combine that with intelligent direction, a terrific script and fantastic performances, and I'm definitely planning on a second viewing.

The film begins with a wallop of a car chase between Bond (Daniel Craig) and sinister bad guys. Lying in the boot of Bond's car is Mr. White (Jesper Christensen), a man who is high up in a shadowy organisation known as Quantum, and who played a large part in the death of Vesper, Bond's love from Casino Royale.

Bond is soon on the trail of Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric), a fake environmentalist and another member of Quantum, who has plans for a seemingly worthless piece of desert. On his journey, he meets Camille (Olga Kurylenko), who is on a personal vendetta against one of Greene's associates. Together, they team up against Greene, in order to take their revenge.

Quantum's high points are easily the action sequences. Effortlessly choreographed, intense and realistic, they are definitely some of the most gripping set-pieces of the year. Take, for example, the sequence in which Bond pursues a traitorous MI6 agent. The chase moves from the two of them flying through sewers to them dangling from scaffolding, colliding with each other in the air and desperately trying to grasp their guns. This sequence had my arms pinned to my arm-rests. My arms continued to grasp the arm-rests at several points during the movie, but never as tightly as when I was watching this sequence. Another exceptional piece of action is a gunfight which is cleverly contrasted with an ongoing opera performance. I congratulate stunt coordinator Dan Bradley for his top-notch stunt work.

Marc Forster does well in the director's chair. He has never directed a movie with the large scope and scale that Quantum has, but he does a nice job at covering it up. One of the best things that Forster does as director is that while he shows a adept hand at shooting huge action sequences, he doesn't ignore the traits of his earlier films. The art direction and locations are magnificent, and there is a raw, emotional power in Bond's struggle to both take his revenge for Vesper's death and remember his duty as a MI6 agent.

Most of the emotion in Bond's quest is still down to Craig's fiery performance. Brutal, hard-edged and full of damaged humanity, Craig's performance is immensely powerful and utterly commanding. He also has solid support. As Camille, Olga Kurylenko brings life to a passionate, refreshingly independent Bond girl. Her performance matches the high quality of Eva Green's bewitching portrayal of Vesper in Casino Royale. As the bad guy of the piece, Mathieu Amalric manages to be perfectly slimy and menacing, although he isn't as interesting as Casino Royale's Le Chiffre. Also providing a deadly threat is General Medrano (Joaquin Cosio), who is a despicable mad man. Judi Dench once again brings steely power to the role of M, Bond's superior, while Giancarlo Giannini and Jeffrey Wright make welcome returns as two of Bond's associates. Finally, Gemma Arterton is superb in her brief screen time as Agent Fields, who is sent by M to find Bond in the midst of his mission.

The script is once again spot-on. I am a huge fan of Paul Haggis's work, and I wasn't disappointed by the banter that he had cooked up between the characters, along with fellow co-writers Robert Wade and Neil Purvis. The story flows nicely from one point to the other, with a brilliant balance between drama (the death of one of Bond's comrades is a shocking jolt of emotion) and heart-pounding action. There are also some nods to some of the other Bond movies. For example, the fate of one of the main characters is a smart updating of one of the most enduring images from the earlier Bond movies.

No, I'm not saying that Quantum is flawless. There is more than a whiff of Bourne envy in the action sequences, and some characters, such as Agent Fields, are sadly under-used. But still, I will definitely say that it is an deadly piece of entertainment, which moves at an urgent pace and which is all the more intense for it. It doesn't skip on the killer action, yet it doesn't abandon the dramatic power of the story. I highly recommend this film to anyone who is open to change in the Bond franchise. If you are one of the people who can't stand a new vision of what Bond can be on screen, you may want to stick to the older entries in the series.

Hellboy II: The Golden Army (2008)

A Visionary Piece of Entertainment

[9/10 · 21 August 2008]

Hellboy 2 is yet another example of a superhero sequel which surpasses its predecessor. Whilst Hellboy was a fun, heartfelt film, it tended to feel slightly pedestrian in its visual effects and action sequences. These problems, and more, have been fixed in Hellboy 2. Visually, this film is fresh, exciting and imaginative, with some dazzling creature work and smashing action sequences. The story may not be strong enough to boost this up to the same level as recent, blinding superhero movies such as Iron Man and The Dark Knight, but the level of confidence, character and heart on display ensures that it is so much more than your ordinary superhero movie.

If you haven't seen the first movie, then don't worry. This is one of the most accessible superhero sequels that I have seen, diving straight into its own story without any delays.

But just a quick catch-up, anyway. Hellboy is the result of an experiment conducted by the Nazis, who wished to use him for evil purposes. However, the U.S. Army intervened, and Hellboy became the adopted son of Professor Trevor Broom (John Hurt). Soon after these events, the U.S. government formed a secret organisation known as the B.P.R.D. (Bureau for Paranormal Research and Defence), and Hellboy became one of their top agents, along with Abraham Sapien (Doug Jones) and Liz Sherman (Selma Blair).

The film opens with the professor telling Hellboy the story of the legendary Golden Army. Whereas other directors may have taken a more traditional approach to a sequence which is ripe with exposition, director Guillermo del Toro takes it as his first opportunity to put his individual stamp on the proceedings, re-imagining the sequence as an epic mix of marvellous puppetry and visual brilliance. The story is that of Elf King Balor, who after enduring much suffering at the hands of men, ordered the creation of an unstoppable force, known as the Golden Army. A special crown was created for him, which controls the Army when whole, and when worn by someone of royal blood. Upon seeing the death and destruction caused by the Army, King Balor called a truce with man and split the crown into three pieces, dividing them between the elves and the humans.

Cut to the present day, and Hellboy (Ron Perlman) is having problems. His relationship with fiery (figuratively and literally) girlfriend Liz has hit a rough patch, and Hellboy longs to be admired by a public uncertain of his existence. When he deliberately uses a mission as a way to introduce himself to the world, desperate handler Tom Manning (Jeffrey Tambor) introduces a new member to the team in the form of ectoplasmic agent Johann Krauss (voiced hilariously by Seth MacFarlane of Family Guy fame), who immediately gets on Hellboy's bad side. However, Johann isn't the big problem. The son of King Balor, Prince Nuada (Luke Goss), has had enough of man's selfish ways and intends to unleash the Golden Army to destroy his enemies. All that stands in his way are the B.P.R.D. and his sister Nuala (the lovely Anna Walton), who holds the final piece of the crown.

Luckily, whilst Hellboy 2 has made improvements upon Hellboy, the crew and cast have remembered what elevated the original, which is heart. Hellboy is one of the most soulful and sympathetic superheroes to appear on a cinema screen, and Ron Perlman's terrific performance, combined with spot-on writing, are easily the biggest factors behind this point. Thankfully, the rest of the cast are just as good. Selma Blair has turned Liz into one of the most lovably human romantic interests in recent superhero movies. She is tough and witty, yet also vulnerable and loving towards Hellboy. Their relationship is pitch-perfect. Doug Jones is fantastic as Abe Sapien. His body language is top-notch, as is the way that Jones handles Abe's romantic relationship with Princess Nuala. As Nuada, Luke Goss lacks the searing power that Heath Ledger oozed as the Joker in The Dark Knight, but he is still effective enough to convince us that Nuada is fighting for what he believes to be right, instead of just causing havoc for the sake of it. Jeffrey Tambor provides subtly brilliant comedy as the mournful Tom Manning, whilst Seth MacFarlane nearly walks away with the whole show as the eccentric Johann Krauss.

Undoubtedly, Hellboy 2's greatest strength is the visionary power of its visuals. The Troll Market sequence is one of those pieces of film where you must pause the images just to grasp how much commitment and creativity went into its creation, whilst creatures such as Nuada's henchman Mr. Wink and the towering Elemental are simply phenomenal in their design and execution. Much of the credit for the beautiful visuals on display should go to the packed imagination of Guillermo del Toro. Without him behind the camera, things would have been a lot more ordinary. However, this isn't just due to the spell-binding creativity of the visuals, but also the heart and soul that del Toro shows in his direction. It is this which allows us to ignore some of the story's weaker points and just enjoy the ride.

Overall, Hellboy 2 is a fantastic experience which I definitely recommend. Everything, from the action sequences (the face-off between Hellboy and the Elemental is pure gold) to the script (which mixes some hysterical comedy and moving drama to great effect), from the perfect performances to the magical creature effects, is so utterly joyous that it is hard not to be swept into this great adventure story.