toll-8 Reviews

Star Trek Beyond (2016)

Good fun but the weakest entry of this new instalments thus far

[6/10 · 27 November 2016]

This new incarnation of the Star Trek franchise has brought the series into the 21st Century and has done it very well indeed. The first film in 2009 was one of the year's best pictures and Benedict Cumberbatch was a breath if fresh air in the not as good sequel Into Darkness. With Beyond we perhaps have the weakest entry in the new trilogy but that isn't to say it isn't still a decent film. It brings back all the old characters and teams them with the member of the crew they haven't quite spent a lot of screen time with. The film does this well and despite spending a lot of time apart, the crew still fizzle when they get their moments together. Idris Elba is the next actor in the line of villains and he plays Krall well beneath the heavy prosthetics. The only downside with this character is that his pan is rather bleak and contrived. Justin Lin directs well but it does miss the Abrams blueprint. Simon Pegg and Doug Jung bring a decent enough script to the table but some of the dialogue could have been sharpened or even delivered better. This isn't as dark as the previous entries but it is a solid addition. Let's just see if these actors continue on the Enterprise's adventures or if this trilogy is enough. As long as the filmmakers don't make a film weaker than this one then all should be OK. Enjoyable if not the greatest Enterprise outing.

The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest (2009)

Underwhelming compared to the high bar set by the first

[5/10 · 18 November 2016]

The third instalment of the Millennium trilogy, The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest dives further back into Lisbeth Salander's past and gives us a slight idea into why she is the way that she is. As interesting as this could be it ultimately ends up being the story's major weakness. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is a fantastic movie, mainly down to the mismatched leads, their chemistry and the intriguing demeanour of one of cinema's most fascinating characters, however by picking away Salander's layers we remove that mystery that ultimately made her so great. At the start of the movie she spends a lot of time in a hospital gown and it is only when she gets her 'superhero' moment (you know that one when you finally see Batman for the first time), dressed as the punk goth that we know, that you can breath a sigh of relief. The story is much slower than the previous ones and it does finally ramp in when the court case of Salander's murder accusations finally kicks in. There is still tension and frights but Salander as a character doesn't drive this film like she did before. When Blomkvist and Salander were investigating an outside case the narrative bubbles but when it shifts to closer to home the tone differs and is less appealing. The second and third instalments could be from a different trilogy apart from a couple of vital scenes. The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest still has plenty to saviour. The fact it is still made on a shoestring budget despite the first film's success is remarkable and the performances are still on form however it only goes to highlight how much you will yearn to rewatch the first film again. Long-winded, slightly messy and unevenly concluded but worth a watch solely for Salander and Rapace's once again brilliant performance.

The Accountant (2016)

Calculate an enjoyable action thriller

[8/10 · 13 November 2016]

Ben Affleck is becoming one of Hollywood's hottest sells. The movies he directs are strong and his recent performances are turning heads, he was the best thing about Batman V Superman after months of scepticism, and with The Accountant he is proving to be able to add depth to a titular action hero. Here he plays the Accountant, an autistic man having grown up learning very violent ways to defend himself from his militaristic father. Whilst un-cooking the books for deadly clientele he uses these skills to good measure until some rather lethal people start to hunt him down. The Accountant starts slow, showing a good 50 minutes of maths and numbers before any plot really kicks in but it is when it does that it really takes hold. This accountant is violent, nasty and emotionless and he makes for a rather interesting protagonist. It isn't the plot that keeps this going it is the backstory of the character. Whilst learning of his past the film hits its peak and when it returns to the main narrative it does derail slightly. This does make it rather messy as there is a lot going on with many expositional accountancy speeches that are confusing as anything, but don't see this for the numbers see it for the action set pieces and Affleck's performance. Other performers aren't given the room like Affleck but Jon Bernthal does also bring weight to his character. Kendrick gets sidelined as the story unfolds and Simmons has played characters like this in his sleep, that's not to say he isn't good here mind. Others are given smaller roles but really it is Affleck's accountant that you are here to watch. Forget about the films many flaws, contrivances and tangled narrative and go switch off for two hours and enjoy a good solid action thriller. It is a lot more fun then it is given credit for.

The Legend of Tarzan (2016)

Tarzan is wasted

[5/10 · 6 November 2016]

THE LEGEND OF TARZAN: With all the superhero movies out there today it was inevitable that one of the first 'superheroes' was bound to get a remake. It is rather ironic however that it is Tarzan that fails to set any kind of benchmark and instead is one of the most generic out of the lot. The plot at its heart is a simple damsel in distress as a rehabilitated Tarzan (now John of Greystoke) returns to his animalistic ways in order to save his beloved Jane. However the narrative of this straightforward plot takes many bends in the road as we include subplots of slavery, jurisdiction, politics, and a rather odd and perverted infatuation. It is all far too much with a lot going on and nothing focused on. The characters are one dimensional with very little tension and emotion feeding through, and Tarzan's connection with the animals is either ham-fisted or unreliable. We are made to believe that he can cope in this wild and then given an on the nose flashback to just remind you of who he is. The flashbacks are unnecessary but I believe are there to pad out the story as with the lack of depth there is very little to sustain the running time, despite it being less than two hours. The cast are rather bland with Skarsgaard fighting a dull character, Samuel L Jackson being Samuel L Jackson, Margot Robbie given little to do and Christoph Waltz basically phoning it in. It isn't the worst film to hit the big screen this year but with the talent involved in it there should have been a much better film produced. Too much and yet too little completely wastes The Legend of Tarzan.

The Conjuring 2 (2016)

The Conjuring 2

[5/10 · 23 October 2016]

Following the cases of Ed and Lorraine Warren, two psychic investigators, this sequel pits the duo against a demonic entity haunting a small Enfield home in London. Despite Lorraine's worry that their jobs put them in harms way, Ed is still eager to save desperate families from their spiritual issues and they are convinced by the church to head to England to assess the Hodgson's case. Is it fact or fiction? This is the question that the film threatens to delve down and if anything is the theme that could be of most interest. It is a different angle to other horror movies and could tip it to being more advanced then your typical scare-fest. However that theme is never developed and the story slowly evolves back into the less original frights. The story is slow moving, with the Warren's failing to really get involved until half way through, and actually isn't really very scary. When we start to unravel what the demon is it becomes a little laughable, making it less terrifying than it should have been. The performance of Madison Wolfe is a saving grace for this problem however. As the possessed child she brings a frightening presence more so than what the demons do. There are many good moments but it never delves as deep as what it should have done. If the Warrens were brought in earlier we could learn more about the family and the demons and understand more of what is disturbing Lorraine Warren, however we have two stories that collide when it is convenient for the plot. Characters are also too slow to react to situations, for instance a screaming toy fire truck fails to wake a house of three sleeping children, and solutions come by too easily, mainly through asking questions. James Wan is well known for his horror entries and to be fair his direction and choice of shots are chilling, however he struggles with the emotional moments. The soft score during these scenes is out of place and off tone. These moments are required but are not helped by being forced home. The Conjuring franchise is a step up from many horror films but this second entry could have gone further and never really does so.

Gravity (2013)

One of the films of the year. This is the platform for future space films.

[10/10 · 27 November 2013]

Contains mild peril is the brief accompanying the release of Gravity, however the problem with this vague statement is that it doesn't tell you if that is aimed towards the characters of the film or the audience members. It also doesn't help that to me being cast adrift in space, with nothing to grab a hold of, doesn't sound like mild peril it sounds mega peril to me! For ninety one minutes Gravity does not hold up. Even the calmer moments are filled with peril because let's face it would any of you want to work on the side of a space craft in the depths of space? This film has it all; tension, action, stunning visuals, strong performances, catharsis, cheese, and tears. It is only ninety minutes but boy does it cover some ground. Or space ground. Or no ground.

Sandra Bullock is Doctor Ryan Stone (that's right apparently her parents were hoping for a boy, a sure fire sign she has parent issues), a first time space traveller brought onto the last mission of Matt Kowalski, a veteran astronaut who is determined to break the record of the most hours accumulated space walking. Stone is fragile, struggling to cope with her new environment whilst Kowalski sees it all as a zero gravity playing field, that is however until debris from a broken down satellite sparks a chain reaction in Earth's orbit and sends shrapnel heading straight for them. On destruction of their ship the two astronauts are left to float with one objective in mind; making it back home.

What instantly sets Gravity apart from the rest is the stunning visual element that Cuarón has used in telling this story. Not only does it look breathtaking on the big screen it also does justice to the use of 3D. Most films use it as a gimmick or a cash grab but with Gravity it feels entirely necessary. Cuarón wants you cast adrift as much as the characters are and by creating greater depth he has achieved just that. In 2D it is bound to still look stunning but in comparison it may look flat. The sound is also critical to the development of the film. The non-digetic sound is loud, building to a climax that leaves you in silence. It pounds along hinting towards the sense of danger and adds to the tension soon to come. The digetic sound on the other hand is quiet, dull, and non-existent. Other then hearing the characters through their radios the atmospheric sound is as if you were in space with them. Drills are muffled. The destruction of space stations is made with a whimper. What Cuarón has done is given the audience the feel that they are right there alongside them and all by providing sound possibly recorded through a wooden door. Mild peril is as much for the audience as it is those characters.

The acting must also be applauded, especially from the inconsistent Bullock. At times her choice of movie has baffled many but here she proves why she is A-list. Having little to work with in terms of stage surroundings, she conveys the traits and internal conflicts of Stone as if she were real. What is incredible is that the character is fairly generic and has little in terms of back story but little is all Bullock needs to work with as she convinces that Stone has a past and is determined to reach the future for the sake of all she has been through. We are right there with her and if you don't will her to survive then Cuarón has failed to immerse you, which I find highly doubtful. Clooney is also the arrogant contrast to Stone and is the cool, calm charmer that we expect from him. His character is less developed but he is there to shift the attention to Bullock, who is left to drive home the themes of human nature and how having little going for your life doesn't stop you fighting for survival.

Every elements of the film is of the highest standard. The weakest element is possibly the script, with the ham-fisted dialogue, but Cuarón and son get away with this due to the awe inspiring visuals. That is not to say the visuals should make a story better but when an entire space station is ripped apart to the sound of echoing silence within the frame, with a solitary female astronaut floating in the middle of it all attempting to avoid certain death, then I think one or two corny one liners can certainly be forgiven.

If you haven't seen this yet then don't wait for the DVD, get yourself out there and see it on the big screen to experience it in all its glory. All the elements make up for a fascinating original movie which the film world is seeing less and less of each year. You want to sit on the edge of your seat for ninety minutes being dragged through space than this is the film for you. It is the closest experience to a fairground ride I have had in the cinema. Do not miss it. It is one of the movies of the year.

Rating: 5 / 5

Directing: Cuarón's camera decisions have you floating right there with the characters.

Acting: Bullock gives the performance of her life. Clooney oozes charm.

Script: The weakest element of the entire production but isn't deterring in the slightest.

Cinematography: Stunning, absolutely stunning. The use of light is a contrast to their situation.

Score: Loud but silent. You just won't understand till you hear it through big blaring speakers.

Editing: This was edited? Wasn't it all done in one shot? The first 13 minutes certainly were.

Overall: One of the films of the year. This is the platform for future space films.

Thor: The Dark World (2013)

This film suggests Thor can't live without Loki and should really be saved for The Avengers' movies

[5/10 · 22 November 2013]

Marvel Phase Two is fully underway now with the second instalment of the section coming in the form of Thor: The Dark World. Kenneth Brannagh has vacated the director's seat and Game of Thrones' Alan Taylor has replaced him with the principle cast all returning, including that scene stealing tycoon Tom Hiddleston.

This time out Thor must reconcile with the un-too-happy Jane, who is fully aware he graced his presence on Earth during The Avengers (perhaps like the rest of the world she saw it in her local cinema) and enlist the help of brother Loki to stop the evil Maliketh who has threatened to destroy all nine realms of the universe. The plot is utter nonsense, like we expect from superhero films, but it lends itself to what director Taylor does best; epic battle sequences. Compared to its predecessor this is bigger, bolder and badder with Christopher Ecclestone bringing a darker baddie in the evil Lord Maliketh.

Despite the obvious lift from the original this does however feel like a weaker movie. The action scenes are meatier (you expect nothing less from Taylor) but the story has given way because of this, something Brannagh was good at. It is as if the Thor series needs a cross between both directors to really bring through a better movie. Perhaps someone like Joss Whedon, I don't think he's too busy at the moment. Instead what we have with this sequel is an emotionless narrative that allows Loki to shine through once again. We can't help but wonder that if the character was omitted from the films that they would cease to be made. Hiddleston's appearance is briefer than previous outings but he still manages to bring the charm and humour that the first one also had. There is also an excellent and somewhat unusual performance, from Stellan Skarsgard who is a much different character to what we remember. He is also charged with bringing through the humour and via these two characters we are given a film that breaks up epic battles with comedic one liners and scenarios. This gives the film a frustratingly noticeable tonal shift throughout which eliminates any emotional impact the film may have had. Around the half way point a potentially emotional scene takes place but the choice of scenes that surround it fail to lead into and out of it. The editing makes it jumpy and there is little room to settle into one tone before jumping into another.

In comic books superheroes are faced with a host of villains. Some are noteworthy and some are trash receptacle fodder. Unfortunately Marvel appears to have picked the latter of the two in their choice of Maliketh. His motives are never explored and his involvement adds little to the plot other than to bring Thor and Loki together.

The plot is where the film is really let down. By the time the epic climax takes place (a well constructed battle in Greenwich) the story isn't up to speed and there must have been a scene or two cut that would have brought us emotionally to this level. It is all rather rushed with too many stories being nipped in order to gain more Loki. Even encounters with Jane are skimped on but I can't see this as an issue due to her being a highly unlikeable character.

The problem with Thor is that without Loki the character has little going for him but with Loki plot strands are under developed or merely Macguffin's to bring Loki into the story. It makes us question as to whether Thor is really a strong enough character to hold his own movie in the way Tony Stark/Iron Man is. For me he isn't.

Thor: The Dark World is a disappointment to the Marvel universe. It is probably slightly better than the original film but that was a weak instalment also. The tone throughout both films alters and it is as if no one really knows what to do with the character. There is suggestion a third movie will be on the way but if Loki isn't around it could fall flat on its face and if he is it may feel repetitive. Perhaps it is time for Thor to hang up the hammer until the Avengers come calling.

Rating: 2.5 / 5

Directing: The battle scenes are awesome but the emotional elements have little impact.

Acting: Hemsworth is fine; Portman is flat so it is a good job Hiddleston is still on form.

Script: I can't help but think the script has been altered throughout production.

Cinematography: The film looks great (Asgaard especially) and the epic final battle is breathtaking.

Score: Adds to the battle sequences.

Editing: At times it is far too pacy and doesn't allow the quieter moments to sink in.

Overall: Not one of Marvel's finest and raises the question of Thor's ability to carry an entire movie.

Jackass Presents: Bad Grandpa (2013)

Some funny moments but the weak plot highlights many of its flaws.

[6/10 · 22 November 2013]

Over the years the often brilliant, albeit diabolical, television series of Jackass has branched out into the world of cinema and brought us feature length versions of the television shows. These had no story, no coherent narrative and gave us characters you would only know if you had watched the series. We allowed this however. Jackass fans were more than happy to witness these crazy stunts and pranks on the big screen and the box office returns proved that. Now though the Jackass crew's leader, Daddy Jackass, Johnny Knoxville has gone alone using one of the television show's funniest creations, Irving Zisman, the crudest Grandfather you will ever meet. Much like Sacha Baron Cohen did with Borat, Knoxville has taken a supporting character from an existing show and attempted to place a story around him, however unlike Borat this falls very flat on its face.

The main premise here is that Irving is asked to transport his grandson Billy cross country and deliver him to his selfish father after Billy's mother is told she is going to jail. What ensues is a relationship between grandfather and grandson interspersed with pointless pranks and rip-offs of previously done sketches.

What Bad Grandpa fails to accept is that it isn't a cinematic creation. The story is too weak and the funny moments have nothing to do with the narrative. These elements are there to shock but where Borat achieved greatness doing this Bad Grandpa falters as it divulges into crudity. Borat was funny as it enticed unsuspecting Americans into showing their true colours, all the while linking to Borat's journey in comparing the U, S of A to Kazakhstan. The audience were in on the joke and political elements were raised. Here however we witness Irving jam his penis into a vending machine and a shart that Phillip Seymour Hoffman would be proud of. The best jokes Knoxville and Tremaine have written have either been done before or are irrelevant to the story.

Bad Grandpa however does have its moments. There were times when the audience were in uproar, as was I. This doesn't however mean it worked as a story. This should have remained as a sketch show and the comedy moments would have created a very funny show. Instead attempting to transfer to the big screen the creators have highlighted how this character can't carry a story and should have been left to shock unsuspecting citizens with his antics on the small screen only.

Another comedy film whose comedy moments are surplus to the story it is telling is Ted but with Ted the characters were likable and enjoyable. Tremaine and Knoxville on the other hand ask us to side with a man who cons two removal men to move his dead wife as she is too heavy for him. Irving is a difficult man to like or enjoy being in his company.

The gags can be fun and at time laughter poured through the cinema but through the camera work it was obvious which frames were to be set-ups and which were to stitch together the weak plot. If the camera was in the car the shot was crystal clear and the dialogue tried to show emotional change in the characters. If it was in a public place the image was grainy and involved a ridiculous situation that somebody transporting a family member across the country would never get themselves into.

Jackass is a fantastic creation. It isn't everyone's cup of tea but it pushed boundaries and people enjoyed to watch. Unfortunately that show appears to have run out of steam and this branch off movie isn't good enough to carry the Jackass name. It may carry the names of the director and one of its stars but the shocking scenarios do not live up to what they have once achieved.

A few fart gags aside this drops like wind in an elevator. The weak story feels an afterthought in order to stitch together pre-planned jokes and some of the scenarios we have all seen before, especially the climax which is completely ripped off from Little Miss Sunshine, only in Little Miss Sunshine it had meaning. What we are left with here is an excuse for Knoxville to don an old suit and swing his balls to and fro. Made for TV perhaps but films like this shouldn't grace the big screen.

F (2010)

Not one to remember despite its best efforts.

[3/10 · 25 October 2013]

We've all been there haven't we? When we were at school we would fall out with a teacher over talking in class or getting a bad grade and all we could think about was murdering them in cold blood. Controversial? I suppose that was, especially for those teachers out there who will now be worrying about falling out with a student. Well F is about teachers vs. students but not in the classroom but on the battlefield. If you're a teacher maybe this film isn't for you.

F opens with a scene we have all seen before. A teacher grading a pupil as a 'F' and the student fighting back, however in this case the student fights back physically and breaks the teacher's nose. Within this class is the teacher's daughter, who rushes to her father's aid as the culprit runs from the premises. This teacher is Robert Anderson (David Schofield) and his daughter Kate (Eliza Bennett). With the summer term soon approaching, the school board choose to not expel the student and instead kindly ask Mr Anderson to take a leave of absence until the student leaves anyway. An unfair compromise you may say and Mr Anderson certainly agrees. Six months later and he finds himself back at school, only now he is frightened of every student, separated from his wife and an embarrassment to his daughter. Things couldn't go much worse for him but in true movie logic they do when he finds himself locked in his school by a gang of murderous kids.

What fails to work for the story is that the premise is rather high concept and if given a large budget it could have made a rather good slasher film. Unfortunately for director Johannes Roberts he has failed to receive the budget that would have raised his script a level or two.

The film feels very low budget British and not even a handful of well known actors can ultimately save it. This can be seen as quite a shame as Roberts draws some decent performances from his crew, especially Eliza Bennett, and adds a creepy atmosphere to proceedings. However the budget and some rather odd decisions to the story really let it down.

An issue with the film is that there is never any explanation to why these 'children' are killing the people trapped in the school. We never see their face, we never know their motives and they appear to be like spider-men running and jumping along walls. What are they supposed to be? If the film established them as children who were fighting back against the teachers who poorly graded their work than this might be understandable but the film loses a level by leaving any reasoning as a mystery.

The film should have been more psychological and raised empathy for these students who only want to do better but don't know any other way to do that than through violence. This way it would have raised contemporary themes of under-privileged children and their risk of unemployment. If the film went this way, or in fact as an out and out slasher, than a more enjoyable flick could have emerged but instead it feels like the filmmakers got themselves lost in-between both of these and instead delivered a film that could have been a short film. This is made obvious by the short running time, the low-budget production and the hollow location.

Roberts does manage to deliver some tense moments. The antagonists, with their hoods up and awesome free running skills, are creepy and bring an eerie presence to their existence, whilst the film brings a large amount of gore to the forefront with jaws being ripped off and men being burnt alive in wheelie bins. Unfortunately for Roberts though these decent moments fail to save the story.

Overall it will remain in the bargain bin of DVD rental stores. It boasts a strong cast for its low budget, including former Hollyoaks actress Roxanne McKee, and has done extremely well to achieve a theatrical release, however looking back when the credits roll you will wonder how it managed to secure these two elements.

Rating: 1.5 / 5

Directing: Roberts has some nice ideas but the budget holds him back.

Acting: Some of the cast have done bigger and better things, however it doesn't always show.

Script: Slightly generic in places, with some clichéd dialogue.

Cinematography: The best it could be on the budget given. Score: Nothing out of the ordinary and used to deliver jumps.

Editing: Keeps the pace alive and mirrors the unusual movements of the antagonists.

Overall: Not one to remember despite its best efforts.

Filth (I) (2013)

McAvoy steals it as a character you love to watch. A good adaptation but won't be a classic.

[6/10 · 24 October 2013]

Hands up those of you who like swearing, drug abuse and obscene sexual encounters? Put your hands down if you prefer to be indulging in these pastimes instead of watching them. For those of you with your hand still raised stiffly in the air you need to watch Filth!

Starring James McAvoy as Police Officer Bruce Robertson, Filth delves into the psyche of immoral behaviour in order to achieve an overall goal. Christmas is approaching and Bruce and his colleagues (Jamie Bell, Imogen Poots, Emun Elliot, Gary Lewis) are all up for the promotion to Detective Inspector. Bruce believes he is the odds on favourite to win this position but his deeper insecurities may suggest otherwise. To be able to win this Bruce attempts to manipulate his way through the team, be it sleeping with a colleague's wife and blaming it on someone else or enticing homophobic officers to show their true colours. But is this behaviour due to his passion for the big time job or is Bruce really struggling with other aspects of his life? Other aspects that fill him with guilt, self-loathing and most importantly isolation.

Filth is billed as a comedy but only approach if you realise this comedy comes from crudity and vulgarity. The laughs stem from scenes where Bruce prank calls his friend's wife weekly for no other reason than for the sexual kick. He later meets her to promise he will catch the prankster only to suggest she plays along with the sexual fantasy in an attempt to scare them off. Of course we all know this is only for his own benefit but it is watching the different reaction from Bruce, his friend and the wife that raises the chuckle. The friend is played by Eddie Marsan and he alone brings the less obscene comedic moments. His dance routine whilst on a trip to Hamburg is to be admired as is his chat with Bruce about police oppression.

Marsan is fantastic in his role especially in the later scenes where he becomes the character you fully sympathise with. McAvoy's Bruce is expertly played but the character is one you will not like but one you will enjoy to watch. McAvoy plays completely against type but still brings many of his usual acting qualities. One thing that was familiar was his subtle look into the camera when he knows he has been unbelievably unlawful. This little technique could also be seen in Trance although with very different subtext. What works for McAvoy is his inability to let go of the reigns and really go for it and here he has done that so well. He even manages to bring an emotional side to Bruce as the truth slowly starts to be revealed and it will make an audience question whether you should be feeling sad for this character. This is completely down to McAvoy's acting ability as we can assure you Bruce is not a likable character.

The film draws comparisons to Trainspotting and that is because the script has been adapted from a novel written by the same author, Irvine Walsh. With Trainspotting Walsh's material was expertly handled by Danny Boyle and a fantastic film was born. New director Jon S. Baird can be praised as highly as Boyle for his adaptation here. He has taken on the writing mantle as well as the directing and what he has achieved is a solid film which is worth a watch. The film is nowhere near as good as Trainspotting but where Baird achieves such excellence is in bringing a book to the screen that involved imaginary tape worms and plenty of internal narrative. The book is not of a filmic mould but Baird has done incredibly well in making it so. Bruce's emotional journey is felt through his actions, dialogue and McAvoy's acting, whilst the obscure tapeworm hallucinations have been replaced with a doctor played by Jim Broadbent who seems to have an issue with saying 'yeeess' at the end of every sentence.

When you leave the cinema from this film you will struggle to decide if you actually liked it. Bruce isn't likable and some of the antics may offend so we would be surprised if many people will enjoy watching. Where this triumphs then is that it is a film to be admired. It brings an unlikeable protagonist and makes him magnetising to watch whilst making you chuckle in cringe worthy moments. This is one of those films best enjoyed with a beer or two.

Rating: 3 / 5

Directing: Baird has made conscious decisions that have translated the book to the film very well.

Acting: McAvoy's brilliant playing against type and Marsan brings a likable character to the film.

Script: From tough source material, Jon S. Baird produces a screenplay which fully does it justice.

Cinematography: The imagery resembles the title and brings out a shady side to Edinburgh.

Score: Goes slightly unnoticed due to the nature of the content but works all the same.

Editing: Moves the story along at pace.

Overall: McAvoy steals it as a character you love to watch. A good adaptation but won't be a classic.

The Last Exorcism (2010)

Raises more questions than other horror films however it just isn't scary enough.

[5/10 · 23 October 2013]

The question is often asked about the believability of God. Of course we have those who fully support the idea of a being looking over on us, testing us or leading us but we also have those atheists in complete opposition who argue profusely that we are the leaders of our own lives. There is no right or wrong. People believe what they want to believe. With The Last Exorcism director Daniel Stamm shows two sides of the coin using very unique methods. Think Cloverfield meets The Exorcist attempting to address the question; is there a God?

How Daniel Stamm tells this story is via a hand-held documentary about a local priest, Father Cotton Marcus (Patrick Fabian), who during the set- up openly admits that he is unsure as to whether or not he actually believes in God. His speciality is performing exorcisms but he states that he refuses to believe in demons and simply does it to help people; if people believe they are possessed than convincing them they aren't is the same as healing them. He decides to finally open the sham that is exorcism when a colleague performs a ritual that kills a child. As Father Marcus knows exorcisms to be fake he decides to expose the conspiracy before more children die. He does this via this documentary where he will attend to his final exorcism and prove it is all make believe. Belief is what this is all about. If demons exist, God exists but if demons are fake what can we say about God?

Following the life of priest in a documentary style works wonders for the themes of the film. It's as if this documentary team are trying to catch God in the act or even prove that he isn't really there. Where this aids the film is when we witness Father Marcus clearly setting up his fake exorcism via booming speakers and trick wires. You question as to whether a man of God can be so sneaky however he argues that when he leaves these 'possessed' individuals they will think they are cured. So does it count as trickery if he really is helping them?

The narrative twists and turns throughout and doesn't come down on either side of the fence. When a supposed act of God has happened there is always a solution as to how it really could have happened, such as murdered cattle in a farmer's garden, and of course as the film goes on we start to question what Father Marcus has set up and what is actually out of his control. As you can imagine the man of God is soon to be shocked at the existence of a spiritual being when the poor young girl he has come to cure shows signs of real possession.

The script and direction feel tight and there is plenty to keep you guessing. It questions your beliefs and your faith whilst also scaring the wits off of you. The performance of Ashley Bell, who plays Nell the Farmer's daughter under possession, is frightening and utterly believable. The look on her eyes, the croak in her voice and the bravery in her improvisation brings depth to a character that is the object of evil's desires. Patrick Fabian brings a grounded persona to Father Marcus. He refuses to become preachy and forceful and instead attempts to suggest this belief in God could well be complete fiction. Louis Herthum and Caleb Landry Jones both ooze creepiness as the farmer and son and it is these who mainly bring horror to the production.

The documentary narrative lends itself to frightening scenarios however where the film is let down is that it isn't quite scary enough. Comparisons will be drawn to The Blair Witch Project and much of the scares are delivered in the same way. The climax also falls flat and many scare opportunities are bypassed and missed meaning a lacklustre final encounter closes the film. For all the work Stamm has done in the opening two acts he loses the audience when the final reveal comes to fruition. It is a shame when the film was a much better idea than what many will expect to see.

Where the film really works is with the ideas of religion and the trickery potentially involved. This is where much of the fun is seen but unfortunately it isn't quite scary enough for a horror film, despite it having plenty of potential to be more frightening. It can only be left to say that the film is a slight let down. The hard work that has gone into establishing the opening scenario is lost as it takes too long to bring us any scares. There is also a major issue in terms of plot holes but we won't indulge too much into it in case of spoiler possibilities. All we can say is that it makes it obviously fake instead of ever suggesting it to be real.

It is certainly worth a watch to see the creativity gone into the film and the religious trickery it suggests however don't expect to be squirming in your seat or covering your eyes.

Rating: 2.5 / 5

Directing: Stamm draws solid performances from his actors but doesn't deliver enough scares.

Acting: Ashley Bell steals the show but all involved bring depth to their characters.

Script: The writing duo deliver more of a thriller and appear to have run out of steam by the end.

Cinematography: The documentary style keeps it more interesting than if it was a fixed camera.

Score: Slightly generic but questions should be raised as to whether there should even be a score.

Editing: Some cuts suggest more than one camera is following them which can affect its impact.

Overall: Raises more questions than other horror films however it just isn't scary enough.

Prisoners (2013)

Gripping and bleak with powerful performances to keep you hooked until the whistle is finally blown.

[9/10 · 16 October 2013]

'Two wrongs don't make a right' is a common phrase but with Prisoners we may have found an argument against its meaning. It raises the question of what is right and wrong when you are fighting to save a life. This is shown through faith, torture and upbringing with each character's personality questioning these themes. What is right? Who is wrong? And is it right to do wrong?

On Thanksgiving the Dover family enjoy dinner at their old friend's house, the Birches. The enjoyment levels are at an all time high, for the only time in the film, until the youngest daughter from each family disappears. The parents begin to search frantically as the cops find the chief suspect in the RV that was parked up the road. This suspect has an IQ of a ten year old and the police believe they should look elsewhere but Keller Dover thinks otherwise and instead chooses his own methods of getting truth from the suspect. Will they find the girls and who will first?

Starring Hugh Jackman as Keller Dover, Prisoners raises these intriguing issues by pitting the doting father against his daughter's potential kidnapper. As a parent you'd do anything to get those answers and in Dover's case this resorts to torture, imprisonment and fear. In opposition to that we have Jake Gyllenhaal's Detective Loki, an officer who relies on hard police work. These two may be aiming for a shared goal but ultimately they are each other's antagonist as they hunt for truth in very different ways. As an audience member it is up to you to decide which one is right.

Villeneuve's direction and Guzikowski's script squeeze the themes to tears by covering each angle and every scene in opposing morality questions. At times these are deep but at others they feel forced, such as a priest who has killed a child killer to prevent him from continuing. This is here to be bleak, depressing and full of moral issues and it doesn't let up from that. Its pace is slow, the music dreary, the cinematography grey and wet, all adding to the tone of Villeneuve's piece. The script at times may feel 'on-the-nose' but it does raise these questions through it. Is it right to kill in order to prevent a killer, even if you are a priest?

Added to the bleak tone are exceptional performances from Jackman and Gyllenhaal. Jackman portrays the grieving father with power and emotion leaving you unsure whether to route for him when he tortures the mentally confused suspect played by Paul Dano. At times his character is empathetic but at others he is frightening. This may become a problem if he was the hero to route for but instead during these scenes we promote Gyllenhaal's Loki to the forefront and it is his desperate search for the truth that we believe in. Gyllenhall also provides a wonderful performance as the Detective who suspects everyone until they are proved innocent. Both of these men can be seen as our protagonist but in reality neither of them are and instead the shared goal is what we route for. You may have a character you believe in but that all depends on which side of the fence you come down on.

All in all Prisoners is a powerful movie, oozing in contemporary and moral issues. They are all prisoners in some way or another, even those fighting to put things right. At times the script laces these issues to the max, causing a few overly uncomfortable and expositional scenes but the gorgeous cinematography, towering performances and the cold atmosphere will have you leaving the theatre questioning what your move would be if you were ever in this position. This is not for the faint hearted and if you fancy a light popcorn entertainment film than Prisoners certainly isn't it.

Rating: 4.5 / 5

Directing: Villeneuve keeps the story's pace slow and adds more power from doing so.

Acting: Strong performances from all involved with a star turn from Jackman.

Script: A taut script that is let down slightly by nailing the themes too neatly.

Cinematography: Deakins keeps it grey putting a shiver continually down the audience's spine.

Score: Adds to the tone and engages you fully.

Editing: Seamless. The slow pace remains constant and works.

Overall: A thought provoking story that keeps you gripped throughout.

The Book of Eli (2010)

The second act brought it down, the final act made it bad!

[4/10 · 19 December 2012]

From 2009 to 2010 Denzel Washington stared in The Taking Of Pelham 123 and Unstoppable either side of making The Book Of Eli. In those films he gained weight in order to play an everyday man and one who works closely to trains. The Book Of Eli must have been a welcome break then as he had to shed the weight to play a loner walking the post apocalyptic world without a train in sight. We are used to seeing Washington in a variety of lead roles but here we manage to see a different side to him; he's quiet, he's lonely, and he's hard as nails.

It opens then with Washington trawling the post-apocalyptic land alone. He shoots a cat for food later and hides out, listening to his IPod, in an abandoned house. In the morning he sets off again on his journey where he is ambushed by a group of hijackers who want his possessions. This is the first moment in the film where dialogue is really spoken, some eight minutes in. He manages to defeat this group with ease and continues on his way, arriving at a small town run by Gary Oldman's Carnegie. When Washington (his name in the film as of yet unknown) enters a bar he argues with one of the locals and again manages to defeat a large group of people who intimidate him. Witnessing this Carnegie asks to see him and offers him a chance to join his mob, throwing in his hot step daughter Solara (Kunis) as a sweetener. Washington however still rejects and the following morning heads back on his way but his short stay in the town has brought to Carnegie's attention that Washington is in possession of a book that he has been searching for since the apocalypse. When Carnegie's men fail to stop him, Washington goes on the run with Solara trying to keep this good book that has guided him through the apocalypse. Whilst on the run we learn Washington's name is Eli and that faith has lead him this far. This book he possesses could start wars and makes people God-like which is why he believes he has to protect it. This book is the Bible.

In my eyes the plot is very thin. All of this in search of a book so that people can become the 'Messiah'. Being an Atheist I fail to really understand the importance of all this but I suppose if it is in your belief system you will get it. The film seems to be religious propaganda and trying to remind people that religion is not a bad thing. This is overly stated in the end which gives off a clear message of 'to have faith'. I will come back to the end in a minute as I do think it is a big talking point of the film but first I want to continue with the plot. It opens strongly but it is something we have seen before. Washington shines in these opening few minutes and his presence made it all feel different. However when he reaches the town it all seems to go downhill and becomes a shoot out in a post apocalyptic world. This wouldn't be so bad if it was done well but it takes so long to set up that all the shoot outs feel rather rushed and the pace changes drastically.

Character motivations are also highly flawed especially with Solara. Why would she leave her blind Mother in the hands of an evil gangster to run off with a loner? She reckons she will be safer but how wrong that turned out to be. Oldman's Carnegie, although performed very well by Oldman, doesn't feel mean enough to really be hated. All he wants is a book and that motivation just doesn't seem enough, but that is probably my thoughts regarding the importance of the book.

The ending then was God-awful. It took me a while to grasp it as I worked out the twist and then decided that it can't be right because the rest of the film would make little to no sense. Turns out I had got it right meaning the film became implausible. I took to forums to see what other people's interpretations were and saw that people had devised theories to how it is plausible but I'm sorry, watch it again and you will see that it just doesn't work.

The ending is not the only thing that brought this movie down; there were many issues I had throughout. The shots and visuals were too much like a music video and it was very distracting, the plot was weak, characters had unbelievable relationships and the music started well but become repetitive. Oh and Mila Kunis' Sarah Connor impression at the end really didn't work. It was a film that just lost me after about thirty minutes and it just got worse until it hit that poor ending.

Washington and Oldman are the respectable entries of this film. Everything else may as well just accept defeat. Washington brings a feel of isolation to the role, he may not be the most likable character, but we really believe he is a loner whose only hope is this book. Oldman brings a sense of menace to a badly drawn character and in a lesser actor's hands the villain would have been worse. I had been looking forward to this film for a while but it had too much religious propaganda for my liking and some fairly flat action sequences meaning that despite some decent performances this is one left unwatched, unless of course you want your own view on that ending.

2 / 5

For more reviews: www.tolli-movieworld.blogspot.com

Cemetery Junction (2010)

Stripped bare from their usual style, Gervais and Merchant produce a highly enjoyable film

[7/10 · 5 December 2012]

Ricky Gervais has mainly been known for his work on the brilliant sitcom The Office. He has attempted since to create new shows or dab his hand in film, mainly in the states, but none of these have been as much of a hit as The Office was. Gervais and writing partner Stephen Merchant generally write and direct their own stuff and more often than not cast themselves in one of the roles. In Cemetery Junction however the pair seem to have broken off from their normal devices and created something entirely different. For starters the film is a drama with comedy elements instead of an outright comedy and Gervais limits himself to more of a supporting role. Does it work then, knowing Gervais' usual style? The answer is a definite yes!

The film revolves around three friends, Freddie, Bruce, and Snork, who live in a working class area of Reading called Cemetery Junction. Growing up Freddie has always respected his Father (played by Gervais) who works hard to earn a small living at a factory, however when it is Freddie's turn to work at factory he decides he doesn't want to. Instead he takes a job selling insurance, where he earns better money and wears a suit to work, despite his friends and family mocking him for it. As he begins to work he realises he has grown out of the immature activities he and his mates usually get up to, such as criminal damage, fighting, and drinking, all of which generally end up with them in a police cell. Starting to dream of making something of himself, Freddie takes his job seriously and meets an old flame Julie, who he finds is engaged to his boss and daughter of the owner to the company. His new fondness for his job doesn't rub off on his better friends who accuse him of turning into someone who believes he is better than the area he was brought up in. However his attention to detail begins to be noticed by Julie and her Mother. After spending much isolated time with Julie he begins to realise how the men within the firm are highly chauvinistic and his friends are highly immature and will never chase their dreams. Julie inspires him to break free and never let anyone or anything hold him back.

The story of the film is a coming-of-age tale and it is highly noticeable within each of the characters. Despite some of the relationships seeming a little rushed, especially Freddie and Julie's, the characters are very well written and all undertake a very satisfying arc by the end. The three leads all face internal struggles where they fail to accept the moments in life that will ultimately make them better people. They use crime as a way to release their anger that builds inside them whilst promising themselves they will leave their downtrodden estate, knowing deep down that they never will. All of their internal conflicts are resolved by the end and each character's story feels complete when they come to the conclusion. The characters really do drive the story as the plot is rather bare and simple but it is the way the characters are written, presented, and acted that make you follow them on their emotional journey. All the actors play their roles very well. In my eyes the two stars were Emily Watson and Tom Hughes who both play their roles as if they were born to do it. Ralph Fiennes and Matthew Goode are also good as two chauvinistic men who believe money is more important than the women in their lives. Christian Cooke, who plays Freddie, also does a decent job but his relationship with Felicity Jones (Julie) failed to have much chemistry. In a stripped back role Gervais is also good but unfortunately Merchant is given a God-awful cameo that quite frankly should have been left out. And for Idiot Abroad lovers there is also a blink and you'll miss him cameo from Karl Pilkington.

It is safe to say that Gervais and Merchant have produced a good first attempt at writing and directing a feature film. The directing isn't particularly outstanding but it tells the story, if anything it was the editing that felt a bit out of place especially with some of the jump cuts which were pointlessly used. The writing though was top class and some of the dialogue was laugh out loud funny. The words used were typical of their style of writing and at times very controversial. As the film is set in the 70's the pair have managed to write dialogue which could be classed as placing a statement in today's society but not even blinked at in the era of the film. Lines involving racism, feminism, and class derogatory were the norm back then and some of the issues raised highlight how different the world is today. It is as if Gervais has used some of the issues to spout off his own views. Not that this is an issue and instead it makes for some cringe worthy comedy.

Overall I was pleasantly surprised with this film. It does have a few pacing issues towards the end but it was a lot better than I was expecting. It is definitely a feel good movie that comes to a satisfying conclusion for all the major characters. By stripping back their work of sarcasm and in your face humour, Gervais and Merchant have produced a film many would believe they couldn't and I think if they continued with this type of genre they could make something even better.

3.5 / 5

For more reviews: www.tolli-movieworld.blogspot.com

Valentine's Day (I) (2010)

A bad movie that is a bit of a laugh

[4/10 · 28 November 2012]

Valentine's Day is one of those really typical films that uses a well known day across the globe to stitch together a host of famous actors/actresses and thread them loosely together using very thin story threads. Here we have Julia Roberts, Jamie Fox, Anne Hathaway, Jessica Alba, Ahston Kutcher, Jessica Biel, Queen Lafitah, Bradley Cooper, Kathy Bates, Patrick Dempsey, Jennifer Garner, and Topher Grace all in the same film. The surprising thing is despite the amount of names I have just reeled off; there are other well known faces among the crowd. Does this then make Valentine's Day a good film? The answer is no. Does it make Valentine's Day a fun film, which I let wash over me? Yes.

The plot interweaves many of these characters so that they all have some connection to each other no matter how small it is. The main thread though seems to be with Ashton Kutcher's character Reed, who proposes to his girlfriend Jessica Alba on the morning of Valentine's Day. She says yes before realising she has made a mistake and leaves. Reed owns the florist in town and it is here that he mopes about his situation and also comes into contact with many of the characters. Here is my attempt at how these threads connect, without giving too much away; Ashton is best friends with Jennifer Garner who is in a relationship with Patrick Dempsey but doesn't know he is married, however Ashton finds out and tries to tell her. Jennifer is the teacher of a young boy whose grandparents are looking after him. This boy has also met Ashton as he is trying to get a bunch of flowers sent to his valentine. Jennifer is also friends with Jessica Biel, who hates Valentine's Day, and is the PR for Eric Dane's pro-footballer who announces he is gay. Due to this Biel is chased by news reporter Jamie Foxx who wants an exclusive. Eric Dane's agent is then Queen Latifah who employs as her receptionist, Anne Hathaway who moonlights as an adult phone entertainer. Hathaway is in a new relationship with Topher Grace who ends up meeting the young boys Grandfather. On top of this we have school kids attempting to lose their 'v' plates and two people having a chance meeting on a plane. I hope that was easy to follow. There is no major through thread other than that all these people's stories interconnect. It seems to start on Kutcher but there is a big gap in the middle where his thread isn't seen so perhaps they just got his part out the way first.

The connections are done rather well but they are slightly generic and something a British audience would have seen before in the much better Love Actually. The stories fail to ever really connect emotionally other than a smaller one right at the end. If anything the better threads are the daft ones such as Taylor Lautner and Taylor Swift's relationship which is just kissing lots in the school field, or Emma Robert's pursuit at losing her virginity. The stories that are supposed to tug at your heart strings don't so much and instead seem rather contrived. I may have said the connections are done well but that is only with some of them, others are done so blatantly in order to get them to meet and seem very set up. Then again there are a ridiculous number of stories they are trying to connect.

Some of the emotional problems come from the fact that the actors aren't in the mood to step it up a gear. It is one of those typical films with a large cast who have such little screen time that they just play their own selves. It really seems like the performances are for the pay check instead of the morality. One thing that really annoyed me was the scene with Jamie Foxx playing keyboard when it was obvious he wasn't playing it. Why have him act like he is playing the keyboard when you can quite simply remove the keyboard playing all together. It is moments like these that show the lack of enthusiasm gone into the film.

It is a bad film but I did watch it not giving much of a care, meaning that I actually quite enjoyed some moments. There are a few laughs to enjoy and some emotion right at the end, involving two characters that seemed throw away at the start. If you watch this expecting to see something good you will view it as garbage but if you view it expecting garbage you may find it to be alright. It will never win any awards, or many plaudits, but to watch if you're chilling out as a daft naff film that you like than you won't be so disappointed.

2 / 5

Edge of Darkness (2010)

Hopefully the series is better than this

[4/10 · 20 November 2012]

Before we begin I would just like to state that I am fully aware this film is based on a English television drama, but as I have not seen it some of my points in here may seem wrong to someone who has watched the 1985 series, which was also directed by Martin Campbell. I have to say though after watching this I fully intend to watch the series especially since I have heard it is better, although if I'm honest it wouldn't take much to turn out better than this feature length version.

The film stars Mel Gibson as Boston police officer Thomas Craven who is looking forward to the visit of his daughter to his home. When she arrives she becomes rather ill and then continues having nosebleeds and fits of sickness over the course of one night. Hoping to find out what's wrong the pair decides to get themselves to the hospital but as they leave the house his daughter Emma is gunned down by a man in a ski mask. Despite having an emotional connection to the case Thomas demands to take it and sets off to unravel the mystery of who killed his daughter. Despite the press announcing it was a hit on Thomas gone wrong, Thomas is determined to prove that, that wasn't the case and begins to seek out the people who meant something to Emma, leading him to a conspiracy plot that Emma had got on the wrong side of. Meanwhile Darius Jedburgh (Winstone) has been hired by the government to sort out the mess and destroy the evidence that could possibly lead Craven to understand what was really going on in his daughter's life.

When I first sat down to watch this I was fairly excited to watch Mel Gibson taking on the role of a cop once again and to see him work as a detective in linking pieces of a bigger puzzle together. The trailer showed plenty of action and plot twists to make me think I was about to watch a film I could really sink my teeth into, unfortunately though I felt the plot of the film to be fairly flat and with very little really going on. It was like a conspiracy film that had been done so many times before but with a different title and a different lead actor. The way Mel tracks down the conspiracy seems a little too easy considering this plot has been designed by the government to erase anyone who could potentially threaten what they are doing. Mel also seems to have plenty of help from people willing to tell him what is going on instead of him ever really having to do much detective work. It all came about a little too easy and as if the writers of the film were being a little lethargic with the script. To me Winstone's role had very little to do with the overall picture and his character could have been cut. I know this character was a big part in the series but I'm pretty sure he had more to do than he does here. It is as if the character had been written in because he was in the series instead of because he was actually needed to be there. I have read that the series has the same plot and I can only hope that, due to it being a longer running television series, Thomas Craven has to work a lot harder to achieve his goals and that the conspiracy is much better that it needs longer to be explained. This ended up feeling rushed and a little pointless.

There are some rather tense moments in the film but not nearly as many as there should have been. One part where a speeding car heads straight for Mel but ends up in the lake is fairly impressive, as is Mel's escape from two government agents tracking him down. There was however one part that could have been great with Mel being handcuffed to a hospital trolley and doctors coming into him as if to operate despite them being in an abandoned warehouse, however this scene is over all too quickly and might as well have been cut altogether. The narrative seemed to be too generic and scenes like this were placed in after three or four scenes of exposition. There really wasn't much for an audience to get their minds working in order to keep up and I was hoping for something that could have turned out quite dark and tense. Winstone's character had the potential to do that but it never really paid off, and his final involvement in the film is nothing short of confusing.

Overall I was disappointed with this film. It had some good scenes but it never managed to hook me in. The opening with the daughter's death was over far too quickly and I never felt sad at Mel's lost. This wasn't particularly the acting but I felt it came about all too quickly. By the end I was shocked at how easy it all became for a battered Gibson and with the people being behind the conspiracy being so tough it seemed daft how one man managed to put their plan to bed. It is also blatantly obvious from the start who the mastermind is and as an audience you will never have to work hard to put together the mystery. All I can say is I will be watching the series and hoping that it is much better than this turned out to be.

2 / 5

For more reviews: www.tolli-movieworld.blogspot.com

Brothers (I) (2009)

Starts poorly finishes terrifyingly.

[5/10 · 7 November 2012]

Brothers is a film that explores what it is like for a soldier who returns home from war and how his life now seems more alien than what it did when he was out fighting. Once he returns a hero people think his work is done, but with some of these men the psychological trauma is too much to take and the mundane tasks of the real world are tougher to be a part of than shooting at the enemy. This film looks at this condition through the eyes of one family who grew stronger after hearing of his death but fell apart on his return to life.

Brothers stars Tobey Maguire as Captain Sam Cahill. He is married to the gorgeous Grace (Natalie Portman) and has two young daughters. At the start he is the only one willing to pick his brother Tommy (Jake Gyllenhaal) up from prison as the rest of his family have disowned him since he was put inside. Sam is a good husband, father, brother, and from his proud Father's (Sam Shepard) perspective; son. Sam is sent back out to Afghanistan, much to the dismay of Grace, and is shot down in a helicopter whilst crossing the desert. Believed to be dead Sam's family are given terrible news and after much grieving do all they can to get back on with their lives. Grace is supported by Tommy who after his brother's death grows into a better person and does all he can to make Grace's life easier. Grace and Tommy's bond strengthens and one night they kiss. Both stop before it goes any further but they both know a line has been crossed. Meanwhile out in the desert Sam is still alive and has been imprisoned by the Afghan troops. After being tortured and flirting with death Sam is found and sent back home to his family. Once there it is apparent he is not the same person. He confronts Grace believing she is sleeping with Tommy and something inside is eating away at him causing violent tempers and rages. With the entire family becoming frightened of him Grace tries to get to the bottom of who this returned man really is and what actually happened when he was a prisoner of war.

The film could have and should have been a lot better than it was. The synopsis for it reads well and the stars of the piece are audience grabbers, however it is other moments of the film that bring it down. For starters the script is terrible. The dialogue is some of the most unrealistic I have heard in a movie. I lost count of the amount of times Tommy and Sam told each other they were brothers. It was like the writer thought that we wouldn't understand the theme of the movie or that the title of the film related to these two men. Relating to the title I felt that the brother's relationship was the one that was the least explored. It showed each brother's relationship with the family but not really with each other, which I thought would have been the key element of the movie. However it was an interesting role reversal by the end where the one in the army became the lunatic and the one from prison became the most free. This arc for both worked really well especially through their father who I hated at the beginning and was glad that Tommy won his approval by the end. If the script for this film was tighter than it could have been much better.

The acting is a major point to talk about. When I first saw Maguire was starring as the lead I though instantly that he was miscast. After seeing the film I don't disagree with my original thinking. Maguire is very good in this film. Not so much at first but by the end he has transformed into a different person and in the last scene he is brilliant, however he just does not look like a man in the army. He is a tiny scrawny man but we had to believe he was the leader of a troop out in Afghanistan. I failed to believe that he was a patriotic war hero because he never looked like one, I kind of felt that Gyllenhaal and Maguire should have swapped roles. That way I could believe Gyllenhaal was in the army and Maguire was the scrawny thief from prison. This was a major issue for me as, no matter how good he turned out to be, Maguire just didn't look the part. He even looked out of place to be married to the gorgeous Grace. Portman isn't on show stopping form here but she looks beautiful and brings a heart to the story. Gyllenhaal does his job but his character doesn't have much about him.

By the end I was unsure what to think of the film. At the beginning the choice of music, the acting, and dialogue really put me off watching the rest. It looked like it was going to be a poor movie, proving why it had a limited release in cinemas. However when Sam came back the whole story changed and it became more gripping and tense. The final third of the movie ultimately saved it. The middle act tended to drag and felt like some of it could be trimmed but much of that is forgotten when you see Maguire's terrifying performance in the final act. The whole movie shows a good arc when it comes to characters and as a film. What starts off as a little dull and drab turns out to be frightening and dark. If it wasn't for the opening half this could have been much better.

2.5 / 5

For ore reviews: www.tolli-movieworld.blogspot.com

Daybreakers (2009)

Started off full of promise before slipping away towards the end

[6/10 · 26 October 2012]

A bleak future is on the horizon if Daybreakers is anything to go by. A film that shows the world only seven years away (ten when the film was released) run by vampires with only a few remaining humans still fighting for the race. Starring Ethan Hawke and Willem Dafoe this vampire flick is like no other where it is more unusual to be normal than it is a blood sucker. In 2019 95% of the population are vampires who feed off human blood. With only 5% of the people on Earth being human their major source of food is on the verge of coming to an abrupt end, meaning the vampires will die out by becoming mutated savages through their un-quenching thirst. Edward Dalton (Hawke) is a scientist drafted in by corporate boss Charles Bromley (Neill) to create a blood substitute so the vampires can survive. His company hooks humans up into giant machines and farms them for blood and his is one of the only companies who still charge top money for 100% pure human blood as opposed to others who have rationed their supply out. When a trial on human testing goes horribly wrong Edward starts to question if there is a cure for their kind instead of a substitute. He sympathises with the humans especially since he used to be one. After a close encounter with a mutated vampire craving human blood he is approached by Audrey (Karvan) one of the last remaining humans. She claims to need his help to rebuild the human race. Edward agrees to help when he meets Elvis (Dafoe) who was once a vampire himself only to find an unusual way to cure himself and change back. The humans hope that Edward can recreate the device to cure the vampires in order to keep alive their race but the group are hunted down by the army who want these humans for food, and Bromley who is desperate to prevent a cure. The film is full of some really interesting ideas. It is an unusual take on the usual vampire flick and Hawke makes us sympathise with a blood sucker. The blacked out windows on their cars used to protect them during the day, the curfew an hour before sunrise, the human blood farm, the coffee shops that sell blood with their coffee are all a good way of imagining if the world was actually run like this. The vampires are the dominant race and going to work or catching the train is an everyday thing to them and the world has adapted to meet their needs instead of humans. The Spierig Brothers have given us a vampire film which looks at ethnic cleansing, curing disease, and corrupt business moguls who only care about money. In a supernatural world they have managed to ground it to be about human aspects. The colours of the film are amazing and reminded me of a film noir with a twist. In the vampire world everything is done at night and the colours are neon blue on a dark back line. It is really prominent and stands out making the vampires look pale and cold and it really works. If anything that is all lost when we see the humans as their world isn't like that. The cinematography is very crisp and adds to the look and feel of a future which has evolved. The human blood farm is a good idea and looks frightening when seeing live humans hooked up to a giant machine whilst their blood is pumped from them. There are many good ideas within this film that erase the memory of any terrible vampire films made over the past few years. There are many good points but unfortunately there are just as many bad points. The acting for starters is alright but nothing is going to blow you away. The dialogue at times seems fairly unrealistic and too many lines are explaining to the audience what is going on instead of the characters just inhabiting their world. The music is uninspiring and seems completely out of place in this futuristic world. It is a score we have heard many times before in old school action or drama films and instead of drawing me in actually pushed me out of the action. The music is good when it goes unnoticed; here it was the only thing you could hear as it didn't feel right. In the end the film also turns into a bit of a typical shoot out which is a shame when so many dark themes had been explored. It was as if the writers felt without these action moments no one will be interested. I was the opposite and found the dark drama elements of the film the much more pleasing to watch and wish it hadn't of taken a generic route. It is an enjoyable film and really could have been more than that. For the first time we see a vampire film that isn't typical and explores areas that were never even mentioned in others of the genre. If the film had remained like the first half of it then it would be a hell of a lot better but unfortunately in the second half it loses the dark depth it had at the beginning. So in the end we have an intriguing idea that, although directed well, has as many good points as it does bad. 3 / 5

The Wrestler (2008)

Rourke and Aronofsky make this a moving, powerful film

[8/10 · 19 October 2012]

In 2008 Darren Aronofsky helmed the movie that would bring Mickey Rourke's career back to potential stardom. The Wrestler is a film about a former legend refusing to accept when his time is up and would rather be respected for something he can't do than be forgotten for something he can. It is a powerful, moving story that simply uses wrestling as a way to highlight the obstacles that approach a man who has lived life from the inside out.

We open watching Randy 'The Ram' (Rourke) preparing for his next match up. In the title sequence we see that he was once a top wrestler, one of those ones we all gawp at on the television, now twenty years later he is performing in front of a few hundred in a sports arena as opposed to the millions in front of a TV camera. We witness him and his opponent going through the motions of their fight back stage and then we see the real thing. It may be fake, but boy it is still brutal. The wrestlers cut themselves with razors in order to gain affect and literally talk to each other so they know the next move. Even the poor referee gets in on the action. This is Randy's world. This is where he is appreciated. We later see him meet the woman he desires in Cassidy (Tomei), a stripper at his local bar, who he sees as a sounding board for all of his wrestling experiences. He used to have it good and he wishes to one day get back there, but his crippled body now sees him struggling to pay rent and having to take on a part time job at a grocery store. His next fight pits him against the 'crazy one' who uses staple guns to hurt his opponent. This is a bloody fight and although premeditated they really are hurting each other. So much so that once the fight is over Randy suffers a heart attack. After being told he can never wrestle again Randy cancels his big comeback fight and settles for attempting to woo the affections of Cassidy and renew the friendship between him and his estranged daughter, but he soon realises that without the ring, without the cheering, without the bloodshed he can't cope with life and the temptation of one day fighting again is just far too much.

The first thing that deserves a mention is the personnel involved. Mickey Rourke is fantastic as 'The Ram'. He isn't playing this character, he is this character. It was rumoured that Nicolas Cage was first in line for the role and I am so glad Rourke got it as he is the only one you can really see playing it. The long bleach blonde hair, the fake tan, the steroid induced body all work when it comes to Rourke's style and look. He is Randy 'The Ram'. When he isn't kicking lumps out of fellow wrestlers, Rourke pulls us into his trouble personality with an emotional turn at the midpoint. His world is on the up and he is enjoying his new found life, but when it all turns bad Rourke's performance makes us feel his pain. Emotion is his pain not the ass kicking in the ring. Tomei is also brilliant and very daring in a role that has her wearing nothing but a tiny g-string. She is 'The Ram's' sounding board although they are very similar, she is the female version of him in a different world but manages to handle it a whole lot better. Evan Rachel Wood is also affective as his daughter but doesn't have as much screen time as the others.

Aronofsky's direction is also top notch. This man has always delivered fantastic films (Requiem For A Dream being one of my favourites) and he delivers yet another one here. His decision to not show us Randy from the front until at least ten minutes is a great one. At first we see a fighter but when we finally see him for what he is a lonely old man. The choice to give us many following tracking shots also works. Many of them are following Randy as he walks through corridors, through the shop, through the woods, basically through life, and it makes us experience his world. The best piece is when we hear the crowd as Randy prepares for his first day on the Deli Counter at the grocery store, only for the crowd cheers to disappear when he enters the deli instead of the ring. It's such a meaningful shot.

The story feels like that of a prisoner who struggles to live outside of a jail cell. This is the sort of man Randy is but his prison is the ring. He doesn't know how to be or how to act when it isn't in spandex. This set up and story arc leads us to a powerful ending that really shows how a man can struggle through life when he has tasted something he loves. It is emotional, it is powerful, it will make you understand the world of a onetime hero, Rourke and Aronofsky are to thank for that. Don't be put off by the fact it is wrestling, there is a much deeper story and his profession is simply the rope he leaps off to find himself in a troubled world. This is a must see.

4 / 5

For more reviews: www.tolli-movieworld.blogspot.com

Pandorum (2009)

Dark and chilling but not good enough to make me care

[3/10 · 12 October 2012]

What happens when you awaken on an abandoned ship in space alone? Is the simple premise of Christian Alvart's Pandorum. Starring Ben Foster and Dennis Quad as the two men who find themselves on an abandoned space craft with no memory of what has happened. This dark tale should leave you feeling lonely, claustrophobic, and above all frightened about the prospect of having no way of survival.

We open with Bower (Foster) who awakens from hyper sleep and finds himself wandering a space craft's flight deck alone. After freshening himself up and attempting to remember what he is doing there he finds another man, Payton (Quaid), who has also just woken with no memory of how they got there. With all doors having been sealed shut due to the failing power Bower climbs through a ventilation shaft, breaking himself into the main decks of the ship, in order to get answers and turn the power back on. Meanwhile Payton stays behind in order to guide him through the dark corridors via the control computer that can be powered manually. Whilst searching the ship Bower comes across others who have also awoken to the silence, however it doesn't take long before Bower finds himself meeting the one reason the ship is so desolate. With monster like killing machines hot on his tail Bower, and his new team, must be lead by Payton through the dark tunnels of the ship in order to regain power from the nuclear reactor before they are killed by the mutations breathing down their neck.

The mood of the film is very dark, chilling, and silent. When the film opens we spend several minutes alone with Bower and the silence with him is almost overbearing. Instantly you find yourself in the midst of space alone with him. Again when he ventures into the heart of the ship we hear nothing but silence until the high pitch screeching of the zombie like monsters startles you. The cinematography by Wedigo von Schultzendorff highlights the light amongst the dark and gives us a futuristic feel to proceedings. The vision of the film is actually one of the only highlights as much of the rest of it doesn't feel as good. The characters aren't very fleshed out, we learn very little about them and at times failed to really care if they survived or not. The script is poor, especially some of the dialogue. At one point a character says 'I remember last time I woke from hyper sleep I couldn't remember anything for months.' That's funny you just remembered that!! The story also fails to grip you and at times it is hard to follow where the characters are going. The dark corridors actually work against this part of the film.

The story is a major issue with the film. The intrigue and tension at the beginning was infectious but as soon as we were introduced to the zombies in space I found myself losing interest. It was a mash of many films put into space. At first it felt like we may get an Alien type film but ended up getting The Descent crossed with Event Horizon. Throughout the film we also see many flashbacks which seem to have very little need to be there, especially considering by the end they had little to do with the story. The overall reason for the story turns out to be quite an interesting idea, I won't give it away here, but it ends in such a poor way as if it is all a happy ending which my interpretation of the film is that it is not. The B story has us learning about a space paranoia called pandorum; see the title comes in somewhere, which sends people into a mad state when they believe that everyone around them is there to kill them. This is constantly mentioned throughout and the problem with this is that is then becomes slightly obvious what is happening in one strand of the story. The finale of the film is also a major let down with things coming together quite poorly and with none of it ever really making sense. There are two stories going on throughout, in a much bigger story, but they seem to become confused with each other by the end.

This is not a film I would recommend. Of course it will have its fans out there but for me this was a poorly executed movie. The tense scenes from the beginning soon dispersed and it became something we have seen before. The performances weren't particularly good either with Quaid delivering his poor lines poorly, and Foster seeming wrongly cast as the hero. The film is packed with problems and issues and it is one I fail to see what the point actually was. Not much makes sense by the end and the finale becomes too easy and happy for a film that started so dark and morbid. Overall a disappointing piece of work which shows why it struggled at the box office, meaning a sequel is not going to be made. Phew!

1.5 / 5

For more reviews: www.tolli-movieworld.blogspot.com

The Peacemaker (1997)

A tired cliché of a movie which at least has a good opening

[4/10 · 2 October 2012]

Made in 1997, although very much relevant in today's world, The Peacemaker stars George Clooney and Nicole Kidman in this action thriller revolving around potential terrorist attacks in New York. The film takes us to a variety of countries as our two leads hunt down the men responsible for selling nuclear warheads to those hell bent on causing pain and disruption to a country they feel is responsible for destroying their families lives.

The Peacemaker opens with a brilliant opening sequence where a corrupt Russian General steals nine nuclear war heads from a train transporting them across the country. In an attempt to cover up their actions they set off one of the bombs in the process, killing up to 15,000 people. The cover up however is not successful and Lt Tom Devoe (Clooney) sees straight through the smoke screen, and upon briefing the acting adviser Dr Julia Kelly (Kidman) the two dart off across the World on the trail of the missing warheads, both using very opposite techniques to find their answers. From Vienna to Eastern Europe to New York City, Clooney and Kidman do all they can to prevent one of the biggest disasters to occur in western civilisation.

For starters there is nothing particularly original about this film. The premise is a slight variation on something we have seen so many times before. The problem with this is in the writing where included throughout are several clichéd moment that we have seen in many films of the same era. For example we have the typical cursing every time something bad is said or a gun is fired, we have the typical screaming sidekick teamed up with the unfazed hard man (Kidman and Clooney), and as well we have the run 'with only ten seconds to spare' and jump as the bomb explodes in the background, as a matter of fact we have that twice. It is a slight shame really considering the opening sequence is very well done, but the pacing there on in just drags until the next set piece which is then followed again by slow pacing before the next set piece. This can only be a fault in the writing where we are literally given all the stereotypes of this type of film in one two hour block. The best part about the writing is the B story involving a diplomat who has an agenda for his deadly act. The story is dripped in slowly at the beginning and then brought to the forefront for the final act. It is the best part about the story as it is something slightly different than your typical Russian baddie plot; however it isn't particularly the norm that a B story actually completely overtakes the main plot of a film for the final thirty minutes of it. It makes the opening ninety minutes feel a little clunky and shows how weak the main plot actually is.

Some of these issues could be down to the direction, which although not entirely bad does seem a little flat. Mimi Leder does manage to get a decent performance from Clooney but Kidman doesn't seem out of her comfort zone. The opening sequence is very well directed, and the music really adds to the drama, but the other action sequences seem pretty lifeless, especially the chase scene through the streets of Vienna. Also something that was heavily noticed whilst watching was the amount of time taken to chase this man throughout New York without the bomb going off when he had put a time limit on the bomb for a much shorter amount of time. Put it this way an entire third act which is about twenty minutes of screen time told us it was only about seven minutes in their world. It was definitely not plausible and there is a way they could have got over this.

The film isn't entirely bad but there is enough wrong with it to make it not particularly good. The tired clichés really take over after such a promising start to proceedings. The film could have, and probably should have, been better but the lifeless way in which the story was told, and the dull action sequences, really hindered the possibilities the film could have had. The music was one of the standout points, composed by Hans Zimmer, and from knowing his work in this day and age it is very obviously his work and the soundtrack booms over every tiny piece of action, unfortunately the action fails to live up to the score. I can't particularly say I was disappointed with this film as the opening scene was definitely one I was pleased to have seen, the thing is I could have happily turned it off after the opening twenty minutes and have ended up seeing a much better film.

2 / 5

For more reviews: www.tolli-movieworld.blogspot.com

Drive (I) (2011)

Gosling proves he really is damn good

[7/10 · 27 September 2012]

Set in present day LA but with a large finger pointing towards the 70's & 80's, Drive stars Ryan Gosling as an unnamed driver, alongside Carey Mulligan, Bryan Cranston, Albert Brooks, Christina Hendricks, and Ron Perlman. An all star ensemble cast you would have to say. Directed by Nicolas Winding Refn, of Bronson fame, Drive is an action thriller with a hint of old school movies as an influence. For me A Clockwork Orange seemed to be on show here.

Driver works in a car garage, drives cars for movies, and getaway cars for robberies. He is the best driver around and is soon to be the racing for Bryan Cranston and Albert Brooks combined adventure into NASCAR racing. However our anti-hero soon becomes distracted when he strikes a connection with a woman in his building, Irene, (Mulligan) and her son. He soon finds out her husband is to be released from prison and when he is the husband is instantly threatened unless he does one last heist. Out of his infatuation with Irene, Driver decides to help her husband in order to protect her from this violent mob, only the job they undertake goes array and Driver is left holding a million in cash of one of the most dangerous men in town. Our Driver must act fast using cunning, speed, and ultra violence to be able to escape these men and protect the woman and child he has fallen for.

For starters the acting is fantastic. Gosling is given very little dialogue, very little back story, and very little characterisation. He spends most of the film silent, talking only when he is spoken to. His thoughts and emotions are portrayed through his expressions and his body language alone and this is something we haven't seen Gosling do before. He shows that he really can lead a film and without much to say as well. His character change about half way through is also handled excellently, from the quiet, subtle character in one line becomes frightening when sitting in a diner he snaps at a man, 'shut your mouth before I kick your teeth down your throat and shut it for ya!' This is the moment Driver finally shows some emotion and in one line Gosling has intrigued us into who this character really is. Mulligan is sweet as the girl next door and Cranston really shows how good an actor he is, once again not showing us any signs of any other character he has played in the past. Another star was Albert Brooks as the primary villain. He may seem as an odd choice considering the whole way through you will hear him as Nemo's Father from Finding Nemo. But in some violent actions we realise he certainly isn't a clown fish. The acting really does drive this story that actually has very little substance in terms of plot but delivers in performance and direction by Refn. If I had to criticise a problem with the characters it is that I never particularly felt hooked by them and by the end of the film I didn't feel overly moved I just felt like I had watched some top acting in a good film.

The music certainly has to be mentioned. From the opening scene where the music purrs in the background along with Gosling's heart rate and car engine during an eight minute chase sequence through LA, to the booming songs from the Chromatics, Vincent Belorgey, and College. The music gives you a sense of where you are and a big hint to the 70's and 80's. It fits in perfectly with how the film is told and the visuals. Gosling's attire is very thirty years ago and his actions whilst wearing it reminded me of Alex from A Clockwork Orange. Even the feel and look of the opening credits sets the style of the movie instantly, the letters being as if scribbled on and in fluorescent pink. A nice touch from Refn.

Overall the film is a must see. It maybe isn't quite as out of this world, like many have said, in terms of story but the acting, music, and vision are things you have to see. The direction of the opening scene alone is also worth paying the money for; the camera never leaves the car whilst Gosling attempts to escape the cops during a getaway. It throws you into the film almost instantly. The slight problem is that after this it does become quite slow whilst we learn the placid nature of our Driver, and his emotional connection with Irene. Here we never feel like they totally connect and I was never drawn into these scenes. When the action kicks in about half way we are treated to a severe case of the ultra-violence, and despite being very well done it doesn't particularly make us care for the characters. That being said you shouldn't see this for the story as it is one downfall in an otherwise very good movie. Gosling alone makes this worth watching, and combine that with the excellent music and great direction and you will be very happy with the film you have just watched. Recommended to all those out there who would love a hint back to the 80's.

3.5 / 5

For more reviews: www.tolli-movieworld.blogspot.com

Animal Kingdom (2010)

This film should be protected by the strong!!

[9/10 · 9 September 2012]

I had been told about this film several months ago, and had been told by this anonymous person that it was their favourite film of its year. With Inception and The Social Network being released the same year I was rather dubious as to this person's suggestion. I have to say however after giving this film a watch I can completely understand where they are coming from because this film is absolutely brilliant, and I am annoyed at myself that it has taken me this long to see it.

Set in Australia revolving around a crime family, Animal Kingdom follows the story of J (Frecheville), who is taken in by his Grandmother after the death of his Mother. Whilst in the company of his Grandmother and Uncles he realises that they are involved in some of the hefty crimes that have been taking place in the community. One of his Uncles; Pope, (Ben Mendelsohn who is absolutely fantastic) is currently in hiding and the police are after him over a recent bank robbery. However instead of finding him via looking the police decide to kill his partner in order to entice him out. The only problem with this though is Pope then decides to retaliate and he and his brothers kill two policemen in an act of vengeance. After being broadcast all over the news, the police bring in Detective Senior Sergeant Leckie (Guy Pearce) to bring the Cody family in, and their first port of call is J. Once J has been interviewed though his own family turn against him in the belief that he has turned them in. J then finds himself on the run from the evil Pope and the cops, and is unsure of which one to trust.

The film is not like anything we haven't seen before but it is the way it is told that stands this film above the rest. For starters the setting being Australia really adds to the tension, especially with it being set during the time when cops were killing criminals and finding excuses afterwards. It is also interesting to side with the 'bad' guys, but also showing how the police can also be just as bad in their own way. We are actually pulled in to care for this family despite how evil they are. J especially is someone we side with despite the fact that his character has no real qualities that we can cling to. We just go with his situation and you ask yourself what you would do in his position. The film also delivers us a chilling ending, which is certainly crucial to the outcome, and a highly powerful scene in the middle that had me frightened for a good ten minutes. The dark, moody tone of the cinematography really adds to this.

The acting in the film is very good. Mendelsohn is on top, top form and it is good to see him being rewarded with roles in films such as The Dark Knight Rises as he is a top class actor. Jacki Weaver is also really freaky as the Mother of these evil brothers. She plays the part full of tension and even hints at a sign of incestual nature between her and her children. It is the performance and the way she kisses them that highlights this. She also comes out of her shell later on in the film and she grows even more into the role. These two are the stand outs of the cast but Edgerton, Pearce, and Sullivan Stapleton are also good. Frecheville has come into a lot of criticism of his performance by other reviews; however I feel they are slightly harsh. For a newcomer his performance is good and I believe it is his character that lacks personality as opposed to the actor.

Another top area of the film is the music. Even the music on the DVD menu had me gripped by what I was about to watch. Every time a piece of music kicked in I was instantly drawn into the scene. Even an image of three lions on a picture, with the central one standing proud, is racked full of tension due to the brilliant score.

There isn't much I can point out as wrong with this film. Maybe it is a shame that a top actor disappears quite early on, but this also adds more to it. I have to say this film has affected me. I can't get the creepy music out my head, or some of the powerful scenes that go with it. I haven't seen any other Australian films that have moved me quite like this, but from now on I will not be put off by them. David Michod has managed to produce a script full of believability and character building, and has also directed and drawn some excellently creepy performances by some actors who are possibly unheard of on the Hollywood circuit. Thanks to Animal Kingdom however, I think Michod has highlighted his own name, and his casts names, on the Hollywood 'to get' list.

4.5 / 5

For more reviews: www.tolli-movieworld.blogspot.com

Real Steel (2011)

Could be a guilty pleasure

[6/10 · 5 September 2012]

Rocky with robots would have been the pitch for this robot enthusiastic movie, and that is certainly what it is. The film is set in 2020 where boxing has been replaced with robots beating hell out of each which are controlled by humans. Hugh Jackman plays Charlie, who is a former boxer now attempting to find a way to making money in this new robotic sport. Unfortunately for Charlie though he is constantly failing in his goal and his robots are being smashed up by either other robots or rodeo bulls. His other trouble is his arrogance in that he keeps gambling his make believe money on fights he believes he will win but ends up losing, meaning he owes lots of people lots of money.

After hearing the news of a former partner's death he learns that he has a son who he must now care for. A son that he instantly sells to a former relative for money towards his next robot, the only catch is he has to look after the boy for the summer as his new parents are off across the World. Charlie continues on with his life despite the interference of his new son, and once again continues to lose his robots, up until his son becomes his lucky charm and finds a robot buried in a scrap yard. This robot was generally used as a training machine but the now Father and Son team begin to train the robot and slowly begin to rise through the ranks to the major leagues of the robot boxing world.

As you can tell this is definitely Rocky with robots. The underdog will rise through the ranks, he will get his title shot, he will be the people's champ, and he will connect a bond between other people in his life. This could simply be what Real Steel is and from watching the trailer alone it is showing us a generic story made completely original. This really put me off in the trailer and I was never fussed about watching it but to be honest I am so glad I did.

This is definitely one of those films that will be many people's guilty pleasure. It is such fun to watch and really has an emotional core to it that I didn't expect it to have. Everyone loves watching robots beating hell out of each other but what is good about this is it stops that before it has the opportunity of becoming boring and propels us to the other story which is the building bond between Father and son. These are not the only two story threads however as there are others that connect Charlie with a love interest, former relatives, and former enemies without even mentioning their main nemesis in the robot boxing world. For a story that seemed so unoriginal in the trailer it really does have many story threads to keep you gripped. That certainly was a shock for the system.

Hugh Jackman is known mainly for playing Wolverine but here he plays something completely different. Granted he won't win any major awards for this performance but at times I forgot who he was and believed he was Charlie. Other than a couple moments of over acting and a few cheesy lines, he pretty much nails this performance. Dakota Goyo is also a strong performer as his son Max, my only quibble about him being that he seems awfully knowledgeable and confident for an eleven year old kid. Everyone else in the film does the job they set out to do.

The script is also surprisingly good. It does have many cheesy moments especially in the final act but the dialogue throughout is realistic and there is some obvious and subtle humour put in there. At times there are some great lines, delivered really well, that are so subtle you need to really listen to hear them, and they are great. The direction is also really good, especially the fight scenes which will have you on edge. The CGI for the robots also looks fantastic, and despite the fast cutting to avoid continuity, look very realistic for the world they are in. The robots also look like they are standing alongside humans and not actual effects.

The film is definitely a pleasant surprise. It does have a few cheesy moments and the second act does have a slight lull but there is enough in there for everyone to enjoy. It is a film I have seen twice now and I enjoyed it as much the second time as I did the first. This isn't just Rocky with robots, it certainly has something more.

3 / 5

For more reviews: www.tolli-movieworld.blogspot.com

Colombiana (2011)

Revenge is beautiful; so is Zoe Saldana

[6/10 · 21 August 2012]

Luc Besson is well known for his typical assassin films such as Leon, Nikita, and Taken. Colombiana fits in this category so if you are going to see this film as you believe it will be something new and original then turn back now as that is not what you are going to get. However if you decide to watch this with a loose thinking cap on then I have to say you will be thoroughly entertained because I certainly was.

It is not the greatest film ever to be released and it isn't Besson's best film either. The story he is written up here is fairly simple to follow and you won't be scratching your head trying to figure it out, but you may be scratching it with some odd plot points that seem to disappear half way through. The film then begins in 1992 where we meet an assassin in Colombia. He tells his boss that he is done with the assassin game and wants to spend time with his family; however the boss doesn't accept this and kills his former assassin and his wife in front of their daughter. Before they were killed however they managed to explain to their daughter what to do if they were killed, which involves taking a microchip to the police and getting herself to her Uncle's in America. After a chase through Bogota, the young girl manages to escape, hand the chip in at the Embassy, and be shipped to America where she meets her Uncle and promises to train to be the best hit woman and gain revenge.

Catalaia, the young girl, grows up to be Zoe Saldana and is a hit woman for hire bossed by her Uncle. However on the side she is slowly picking off the members of the gang who killed her parents, and leaving them with a wild orchid painted on their chests in order to tell the big boss that she is coming for him. The first hit we witness her doing brings the attention of the FBI and we are introduced to a typical agent whose job it is to stop the killer in their tracks.

The story is very simple. It is a typical revenge thriller with a couple of side twists thrown in to try and make it a little more thoughtful. However it doesn't need to be any more thoughtful because Colombiana is at its most fun when it is just mindless action. There are a lot of inconsistencies to overlook to enjoy it though. Such as a grown woman hiding in extremely large ventilation ducts which seem to lead into each prison cell in a heavily guarded prison, but if you can get past this you will completely enjoy watching the gorgeous Zoe Saldana look incredibly sexy waltzing round in skin tight, or minimal, clothing clasping onto an assault rifle which looks way too big for her to be carrying.

That is where the film is at its best; when we are simply admiring Zoe doing her thing. She is very good in the role and really packs a punch quite literally. The tagline is 'revenge is beautiful' and that is captured very well with Saldana doing her stuff. Saldana and the major actions set pieces are the reasons to watch this film.

With the few positives of the film there are negatives. There are too many characters that are just pointless and simply there to fill a gap. Take for example the love interest of Catalaia. He does inadvertadly do wrong by her but the character is never fleshed out and it is hard to believe he would sympathise with her when he realises she is a cold blooded assassin. The FBI agent is also highly clichéd, and Catalaia's Uncle is told to have had a son who was killed but that thread is quickly quashed and nothing else is said. This is the same with the chip at the beginning which is never mentioned again, but I do presume it is a list of the people involved in assassination and these people then become protected by the CIA after this. This is something I have guessed at, and something I've only thought of whilst writing this review, as nothing is mentioned of it again. It also seems slightly odd that the top gangsters in Colombia are protected by the CIA so I have simply put two and two together. It is a bit weird not to have this strand fleshed out considering how simple the rest of the plot is.

Anyway this film has a few positives and quite a few negatives. For mindless action this is a top film but if you take that away it is nothing. As a matter of fact the action was going to give Colombiana quite a good score from me, until the final act where the action became a little cheesy and clichéd, which ruined it slightly. For a bit of fun watch this film, and if you know much about Besson or Director Olivier Megaton than you will know exactly what to expect before you even sit down to watch it.

3 / 5

For more reviews: www.tolli-movieworld.blogspot.com