meako1973 Reviews

Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007)

This is what comic-book movies should be like!

[10/10 · 14 June 2007]

The first Fantastic Four film was met with a slew of negative reviews from the entertainment press. Not that any of that stopped audiences flocking to see the exploits of the much-loved Marvel family. Audiences lapped up the family friendly antics of the four, and this lit the way for a sequel to follow.

For the sequel all the core cast return - Jessica Alba as Susan Storm, Iaon Grufford as Reed Richards, Chris Evans as Johnny Storm, and Michael Chiklis as Ben Grimm - as the team of heroes with cosmic powers. As The Invisible Woman, Mr Fantastic, The Human Torch, and The Thing respectably the four have now settled into their high-profile super-lives, although it has meant a few problems for them at times. One such problem is the many attempts by Reed and Sue to get married - always put on hold as another world-wide emergency strikes. As the film starts (with a teasing pre credit sequence of a planet being sucked dry of it's energy and a silvery streak shooting away from it towards earth) the family of four are preparing for the big day once more. Even as strange events strike around the world, Reed focuses his main attentions towards the big day. Unfortunately it is on the big day itself that things come to a head and the Silver Surfer makes his presence known. His motivations for the disturbances he causes are unknown, but it seems to have something to do with a strange energy cloud that is devouring planets. Can the four save the day once more, and what is the sinister Victor Von Doom (Julian McMahon) - mysteriously escaped from his statuesque cocoon - up to? The first film, as enjoyable as it was (I'm a huge fan of the four) did suffer from the occasionally glitched effects, and the troubles with being an origin story. The cast didn't quite find their feet in that film. This time around things are much improved! The cast are so comfortable in their roles, and the interplay between the four is spot on throughout. The wit and charm, and the conflicts are all present, correct, and this time natural. This IS the four from the pages of the comics, represented as good as you could hope for. The action is ramped up this time also. With the origin out of the way, the plot can just zip along from set piece to set piece with great momentum. The effects - this time provided by Weta Digital - are much more polished than last time, and the key sequences (such as the London Eye disaster) are jaw dropping and exciting.

Much praise must be laid to Tim Story who once more proves he is the right man for the job of director, and also shows his passion for the comics. The action is fun and glorious, and the characters are allowed to breath - even more impressive given the short 90 minutes running time. The film is paced and edited beautifully, never feeling rushed whilst also never feeling bogged down. Perhaps a lesson can be learned by other super-hero directors that they don't have to make epic-length films.

As for Galactus (which many fan-boys have already made their minds up about) - as a huge (read: lifetime) fan of the Four I was more than pleased with the representation of the big G. It works cinematically without actually showing the 'core' essence in the cloud.

All of this without even mentioning the new 'star' of the film, the Silver Sufer. Beautifully portrayed, and given the heart that the character needed to be given, fans of the Surfer will be more than happy (and here's hoping for a Surfer movie next).

This is what comic book movies are all about, and which the whole family can enjoy together. FF:ROTSS is the best super-hero flick of this year! In addition - Stan Lee spotters can't miss him this time around as he shows up as himself!

Spider-Man 3 (2007)

Fans will weep - Public will love it

[6/10 · 3 May 2007]

The film is the weakest of the series, and shows the strain of too much happening in the 2 hours and 20 minutes of running time. The stories are patched together badly, leaving a very episodic feel to the proceedings. All of the events that take place have their specific chunk of film to play in, and never feel like they are occurring together. The symbiote from the meteorite seems to do nothing for most of the film, despite being in Peter's apartment for a while. No sense that any of the events correlate is felt, and it all feels a bit messy. Some chunks of the film, such as the first fight with the Goblin, could have been taken out completely without damaging the rest of the film. The time saved could have then been put to good use to develop Sandman, or even Gwen Stacy, or Brock. Stacy herself could have been taken out the film completely and you wouldn't notice. Now, consider this for a moment. Gwen Stacy, Peter's first true love, who died in his arms in the comic, who MJ was simply a replacement for – reduced to a minor character with nothing more than a walk-on part! The lack of screen time she offers means that the jealousy that MJ shows towards her is ridiculous! Raimi stated in early interviews on the first film that there were so many villains he liked personally. However, when asked about the fan-boy favorite Venom, he stated his reluctance to use the character as he wasn't a fan and didn't really feel that he was a strong enough role. Seeing how poorly Eddie Brock is portrayed in the film, and how dubious the CGI on Venom himself actually is, you can see that Raimi wasn't all that happy with having to give the 'fans' what they wanted. Sadly the time wasted on Venom takes away from the much stronger, and deeper, Sandman. Not that Sandman is a total loss. Some of the heart of the character is intact, but it is all too fleeting toward the end of the film. As for the new Goblin, well it almost works but plays out in a poor, and unnecessary, direction toward the early half of the film.

Fans of the comic books will be the most disappointed here, as they will know what potential each of these tales had, and given a film each to play out in, well they could have been three amazing films! All three in one means that, sadly, it is too much and not enough at the same time.

The general public, who don't read the comics will get the most out of this as it is a popcorn movie throughout. The CGI is even better than before, and the action sequences are truly amazing throughout! The realization of Sandman works so well, much better than the dubious Venom rendition. Aside from a few cornier elements, particularly during Peter's dark phase (which includes a dance routine in a jazz club – and when did he learn the piano?), this is simple entertainment, and should please the masses.

Kind of ironic that the film in which Raimi gives the fans what they want is also the film that the fans will be most upset with. Even the obligatory Stan Lee cameo, or Bruce Campbell screen hogging does nothing to distract from the fact that this is a seriously missed opportunity. Batman & Robin it ain't, but it certainly isn't what we expect from Raimi.

Sunshine (2007)

Treat yourself to time in the Sunshine

[8/10 · 17 April 2007]

Danny Boyle is a director that refuses to be pigeon-holed. Yes, his first few films (Shallow Grave and Trainspotting) had a certain feel to them, but then he sprung A Life Less Ordinary onto the slightly bemused public, and also The Beach. After that he switched to digital film for the gritty and chilling 28 Days Later, before deciding that he ought to make a family friendly film (of sorts) in the guise of Millions. All differently toned films, with differing styles. So, when he announced he was making a sci-fi about a mission to the sun, who knew what to expect? Would it be an action packed blockbuster, would it be gritty 'Alien-esque' tension, or perhaps Solaris-paced cerebral story? The answer is a little bit of all three.

The time is the future, and the Sun in slowly dying. Mankind's last hope for survival is a mission to launch a bomb into the core of our life-giving star and 'jump-start' its heart. Enter the stunning craft Icarus 2, and the on-board team of scientists, pilots, and tech experts. They are truly the planet's last chance, as the previous mission lost contact and vanished. The crew on Icarus 2 are well into their mission, and some tensions and rivalries, along with a few obsessions, have built up. Mace (Chris Evans – almost unrecognizable at the start of the film) and Capa (the ever excellent Cillian Murphy) have a few disagreements, whilst Searle (Cliff Curtis) 'bathes' in the dangerous rays from the sun. It seems, as the crew prepare to enter the 'dead zone' area where all contact with Earth will be lost, that boredom and frustration is settling in. Then, not long after entering the zone, they pick up a distress signal from Icarus 1. This one event triggers a series of problems for the team that may put their mission, their lives, and the fate of all mankind at risk.

Sunshine owes a great deal to films such as 2001, and Event Horizon, amongst others. From pan-shots of the craft moving through space, to the strange events on the Icarus 1, all the moments in the film have some origin in another films elsewhere. However this isn't a bad thing as in Boyle's skilled hands he has built up an impressive sci-fi drama with a cast who (especially in Evan's case) have seemed to step up a gear. The interplay between the inhabitants of Icarus is reminiscent of those of Nostromo in Alien, totally believable and well written. As the events of the film come to pass the relationships are stretched and pulled, and the cast throw themselves into the drama.

This is a film to see on the big screen in order to appreciate the amazing visuals on offer. The majesty of the Icarus is a sight to behold. With a soundtrack to compliment the visuals, the end experience is a good one. Sure, you've seen it all before, but just because you had gateau last week doesn't mean you don't want to eat it again, does it? Treat yourself to Sunshine.

300 (2006)

Visually stunning

[8/10 · 22 March 2007]

Drawn from the pages of the 300 comic book by Frank Miller, this film is directed by Dawn of the Dead (remake) director Zack Snyder. The film utilises a similar process to another Miller inspired film, Sin City, in which the cast acted against a green screen and everything else was digitally put in afterwards. So much CGI could have made the film a mess of the Van Helsing degree, but instead it works really well, and actually looks much better than, say, Ghost Rider (which had twice the budget and much less CGI).

Set in the time of ancient Greece, the Persian empire is slowly advancing across the known world, absorbing all it encounters. Anyone who refuses to join them are killed. However the thousands upon thousands of the Persian army find their hardest battle against a mere 300 soldiers of Sparta. The King of Sparta, Leonidas, defies the will of the oracle and the council by taking his small force with him to head off the Persians. His stand against the invaders stirs up talk of revolt in Sparta, and whilst he risks his life, conspirators plot to usurp his rule back home.

This is a film that wears its comic book origins proudly, and the lensing of each shot seems to come right out of the pages of the book. The sepia toning of the film gives it that 'ancient' feel, and makes the striking red of the Spartan cloaks, and indeed the blood, stand out so much more. Coupled with some beautiful choreography in the fights, which contain a great deal of slow motion to allow us to truly absorb the grace and skill of the Spartan combatants, it makes the battles looks so fantastic.

The dialogue is perhaps the weakest element of the film, something that Sin City also suffered from. What works on the page doesn't quite work when spoken. However this is a minor quibble as the visuals more than make up for it all.

Amazing Grace (2006)

A tale worth being told

[9/10 · 22 March 2007]

Amazing Grace tells the real life tale of Willaim Wilberforce (Ioan Grufford), a politician who pressured for an end to the slave trade in the British Empire. As a young man, he was torn between politics and the church, and the words of an ex slave-captain John Newton (Albert Finney) turned penitent monk echoed through his life. In choosing his life path as a politician, he is introduced to some campaigners against slavery, including Thomas Clarkson (Rufus Sewell) and Equiano (Youssou N'Dour), an ex-slave turned activist. With them he seeks to change the government's mind once and for all, but find himself stopped at every turn. Even the support of Lord Fox (Michael Gambon) does naught to sway the house. The passion to abolish the trade dominates his career, and also threatens his health, but he never gave up.

The film is based on true events of the 18th Century, and is a powerful and moving period drama. This was a huge moment in the history of the British Empire, and for one man to dare to stand against slavery, which was seen as the cornerstone of the Empire, was brave and foolhardy. Indeed, Wilberforce was practically branded a traitor to the crown, with word that he was a French conspirator, or an American sympathiser being bandied around. England at the time was suffering from the effects of the War of Independence, the problems with the French since the revolution, and also a king who was said to be going insane. With all this going on, Wilberforce's task was not an easy one.

The film avoids showing the actual horror of the slave trade, but instead tells us of it via stories from Newton (who was also the person who penned the words to Amazing Grace), and Equiano. This lack of blood and brutality means that we, the audience, must imagine the horror ourselves, and the film is so much better for it. The film becomes an historical drama instead, and one which all ages can view and learn about a very important moment in history.

The roles are all wonderfully cast, especially Gambon's Lord Fox who offers some small moments of levity. No scenes are wasted, and I found myself transfixed by the tale being told. It possibly helps that I studied this period of history, and it was great to see it so finely represented on the screen. Whether it is a cinematic film is open to debate, and it would work just as well on the small screen. Nonetheless it is certainly a tale worth being told.

Ghost Rider (2007)

Puts comic-book moves back decades!

[2/10 · 22 March 2007]

Ghost Rider has never really been a big title for Marvel comics. Originating in the 70s, the first incarnation was a bit of a mess really, with cheesy stories, and dialogue akin to a medieval monk's writings (all "Thy powers art foulest!" and the like). Over the past couple of decades attempts were made to make the comic more serious, to quite a good degree – but the popularity of the character didn't really increase. There were hopes that this film would be akin to Blade, being a more mature comic book vigilante tale.

Unfortunately it is even more of a mess than the original comics were! The film tells the tale of Johnny Blaze (Nic Cage), a stunt rider who makes a deal with the devil (well, with Mephistopholes anyway) and finds himself transformed into Ghost Rider. His task is to reap all the evil souls and send them back to hell, and in particular he must get the soul of Blackheart, a rogue agent of Hell. Along the way he gets advice from a mysterious (in a 'oh complete lack of surprise when his past is revealed' kind of way) grave-keeper (Sam Elliot). Can he complete his task and save his own soul at the same time? So, where does it all go wrong? Well, for a start the delayed release date "to touch up the effects" didn't do much, and we have yet another badly CGI filled film. Ghost Rider's skull is impressive on its own, but sits (wobbly) on top of a very stiff body which makes him look like he has arthritis! Then there is Cage's complete excitement at finally playing a comic book role, which meant he forgot how to act! Throw in some of the most humdrum action scenes – only a skilled director can make a chase scene which involves cop cars, a flaming bike, and a helicopter really boring – and some totally pointless scenes ("I still have one ride left in me!" for one....what was the point?) and the result is a film that puts comic-book movies back decades! As for the 'penance stare' – it makes the victim see a swirly mess of images that reminded me of watching Mummy Returns and Van Helsing...so I guess that explains why it kills your mind! This is a huge, kiddified disappointment of a film, and it is no wonder that Stan Lee doesn't cameo in it (he always pops up in the first film in a Marvel franchise). He must have seen some rough cuts and refused to put his name to it.

A Series of Unfortunate Events (2004)

Lemony goodness

[9/10 · 17 October 2006]

After the success of Harry Potter, the film industry began snapping up the rights to every book on the shelves in bookstore's kids section. One such series of books were these quirky little tales about some unlucky kids, written my the mysterious Lemony Snicket. Each of these books is very short, taking a mature reader only an hour to read, but the tale they tell is one which isn't quite the traditional kids story.

When their parents pass away in a terrible fire (the first of the unfortunate events to befall them), the three Baudervile orphans, Violet, Klaus, and Sunny, are left the fortune their parents owned. However they can only get it when Violet, the eldest, turns 18. Until then they must remain in care of a relative, which is how they come to be in the care of the disturbing, scheming, and murderous Count Olaf. However will the poor children survive their ordeal? Based on the first 3 books in the series, the film is cast perfectly, portrayed quirkily perfect, and adapted deftly. Whereas the Harry Potter books lost some of the impact on the screen, here the reverse occurs. The book are very visual in their depictions of scenes, and they convey brilliantly on screen. Producer Barry Sonnenfield, who masterminded the gothically comic Addams Family films has had some influence over the look and feel of the film, which retains the same otherworldly feel that those comedies had. From Olaf's decrepit mansion, to the vast lake at sunset, each setting is beautifully twisted from the pages of the book.

All of this is assisted by some stunning casting. Jim Carrey seems to have been let off the lease totally in his role as Olaf, and many of his lines do not exist in the book, but fit the cunning devil totally. Meryl Steep is given chance to shine in a small role as another 'relative', as is Billy Connelly. Even Dustin Hoffman turns up for a brief moment in the film, as it seems that everyone had been clawing to get into this film. The children, unlike those in Potter, not only look the part, but actually convince in their roles. Even the youngest (Sunny), who was played by two children, avoids the 'saccarine cute' and captures a quirky toddler aspect last seen in Addams Family Values. However, it is Carrey who steals all the best lines, and scenes, in the film, overshadowing the other stars in the same way that the dastardly Count overshadows everyone else in the book.

All this is wrapped up with a voice-over, and occasional cut to, a shadowy Lemony Snicket, the mysterious investigator who brings us all these terrible tales (voiced by Jude Law). Telling us many times to leave if we want a pleasant story, he sets the atmosphere well, and some nice tricks are used throughout his story-telling. One nice trick which is sort-of adapted from the books is to provide subtitles for Sunny's random shrieks and gurgles (in the book we are offered suggested translations.) As a recent reader of the books, the tale was fresh in my mind when I went in, and I knew what I wanted to see. Although the story has been flipped about a bit, and a few tweaks made to tuck it together, the look, feel, sounds, and essential ingredients of the story are all perfect. This is a wonderfully quirky family film which should introduce a lot of people to the strangely quirky books. I only hope for the rest of the tales to follow to the big screen over the next few years.

War of the Worlds (2005)

Spielberg pays the bills

[7/10 · 29 June 2005]

After a few years of making his own 'personal projects' like Catch Me If You Can, and The Terminal, Spielberg decided that this year would be a return to the 'event' movie. What better popcorn entertainment could he choose than HG Welles' War of the Worlds, a book which is beloved by sci-fi fans the world over, and has been blessed with many other beloved adaptations over the years, from the radio-broadcasts to the TV series, from the 1950s movie, to a prog-rock album. Even Independence Day was nothing but War of the Worlds with a different name. But, what could Spielberg add which no other adaptation has offered so far? Indeed, why bother remaking it when the 50s film is still a classic now? Well…why not? In this new version, set no longer in Victorian England, but instead in modern day USA, Tom Cruise plays a dock-worker named Ray who, against his wishes, is dumped with the kids by his ex-wife whilst she and her new man go to visit relatives. Ray is far from an ideal father, and in fact can be described as a terrible parent. He has no idea about either of his kids, from the teenage rebel Robbie (Justin Chatwin), to young daughter Rachael (Dakota Fanning), and is not looking forward to spending time with them. Things are about to get worse for him as he witnesses the initial devastation of multiple lightning bolts, and the awakening of long dormant war machines which immediately begin destroying all civilization. From there, the film follows Ray and his kids as they try to escape the carnage, throwing them from one situation to another as the world around them erupts. "Is it terrorists?" is the post 9/11 cry. Nope, it is much worse! This isn't the only War of the Worlds film this year, with a low budget film doing a faithful adaptation due out on DVD soon (set in Victorian England). However this is the most high profile. I haven't really been excited about the film, and went in expecting a typical Spielberg popcorn-flick, much akin to Jurassic Park. The film didn't let me down, and I found myself enjoying it throughout as one set piece led to another. Spielberg has littered the film with his usual shticks, from the dysfunctional family, rebellious youth, to the blue collar hero in Ray, but these shticks are used to simply thrust us from one effects shot to another.

The effects on offer are truly amazing, putting the cartoon fluffy Sith CGI to serious shame. When you consider that Sith spent 3 years on the effects, and War spent 9 months, it makes it even more amazing that they can deliver such impact. From the rise of the tripod, to the cultivation of the weed, each glimpse of the well designed vessels, and aliens is worth the money spent on the ticket alone. Speaking of the weed, this is a nice inclusion into this version having not made it into other adaptations, giving a new slant to why the aliens are attacking (they are terraforming and harvesting).

The cast do their parts admirably. Cruise is a sour swine at the start, but in the later scenes, particularly with Dakota Fanning, he starts to show compassion and becomes the Dad he was never able to be. Fanning is perhaps one of those rare occurrences of a young actress who can actually do her lines well! Tim Robbins is just, well, nuts as the slightly disturbed Oglivy. Spielberg uses all his directorial style to get the best out of each actor on screen, and to ensure the interaction between cast and CGI is seamless.

None of this film is new, and those expecting more than just blockbuster entertainment are going to leave the screen disappointed.. There are touches of poignancy that raise the bar a little (a burning train has never chilled me so much), but in the end this is an adaptation of a great book that is, in itself, seriously flawed. The final act of the film suffers slightly by sticking to the book too much. Anyone who doesn't know how the story should skip to the next paragraph now……….OK, if you are still here, then you already know that the aliens are defeated by bacteria, such as the common cold. This was in the book, and it has been in every adaptation to date. It has never really satisfied as a cinematic or dramatic ending as, just as the film builds, and it looks like all hope is lost, it ends. Just like that. However, if Spielberg had altered this ending to make it more cinematic, he would have created an outcry! Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Nonetheless, despite the failings of the ending, the rest of the film is well paced, with no time being wasted in set up. If you just want some simple popcorn thrills, look no further. If you are after something a bit more substantial, and hated Jurassic Park, go elsewhere. This is Spielberg paying the bills before he picks his next personal project.

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)

Not the worst....but not far off

[4/10 · 12 May 2005]

I am really not sure about Episode 3! If you don't know the story by now, you must have just crawled out from under a rock! This is the film where all hell breaks loose. The Jedi are wiped out by the Emperor and Anakin (now titled Darth Vader). Luke and Leia will be born. Anakin and Obi Wan will face off above the lava we have heard so much about. Boy, does it look spectacular! Unfortunately beauty is only skin deep, and beneath the CGI skin of this film is a very hollow, empty heart! First, the positives! If you are after spectacular action, then look no further. The opening shots of the battle in space are simply jaw-dropping. The lightsaber combat is the best of the series, from the first battle against droids, to General Grievous' 4-way sabre wielding, to the spectacular fight above the lava. Even the Yoda fight (a scene which just looked plain daft in Episode 2 – prompting laughs from an audience for all the wrong reasons) is impressive this time, taking place in the Senate chambers, as the green guy faces up to Palpatine. The Kashyyk battle is wonderful, with ILM giving some of their best CGI to date throughout. Jar Jar is only visible for a few seconds, and doesn't talk (thank you!) However, that is all this film is. Gloss and CGI action. The story is minor, and as weakly written as you would expect from Lucas' pen. The direction of the 'between fights' sections is dull, and Lucas has once again managed to make a bunch of great actors look like they are on stage in a Panto! The romance between Padme and Anakin is as force fed as it was in Episode 2, with no chemistry existing between the pair at all. Is this really Hayden "Shattered Glass" Christensen and Natalie "Garden State" Portman, or are they really clones? Once of what should be the most haunting and powerful scenes – where Anakin walks into the Jedi temple and is confronted with the scared children – is severely weakened by a child actor who has only just learned to read his lines, let alone saying them. Perhaps I missed something there, and maybe the scene was showing the Jedi council as an equal opportunities employer, having recruited a mental retard to the ranks! But I think not.

No doubt there are many of you who will say I am talking rubbish here! You will point out to me how the fights were great etc. Yes, I said that myself…but effects do not make a movie. Think back to the original trilogy – what are the memorable scenes for you? Is it the fights, or is it the pace setting scenes, such as Mos Eisley Canteena ("A more wretched hive.."), the sneak around the Death Star to rescue Leia ("..reactor leak, big leak..."), the banter on Hoth ("Who's scruffy lookin'?"), the training with Yoda, the slow build of romance between Han and Leia, Jabba's throne room, the temptation of Luke by the Emperor? You see, with Revenge of the Sith you will always remember the fights, but the dire-logue is forgettable. It is all spectacle, and no testicle! I used to be a huge fan of Star Wars. This was supposed to be the film I have wanted for the past 28 years! If Lucas really believes this is what I wanted, then I pity him. He really has lost his vision.

I will need to watch the film again to truly decide if it is better that Clones or not. Suffice to say it is not as good as Jedi, and that was the worst of the original trilogy. Thing is, I really can't face sitting through the whole thing again at this point in time. I'm now going to re-watch Empire again to remind me what good Star Wars really is (and I mean the VHS original cut).

Strings (2004)

Wonderfully Traditional

[9/10 · 11 May 2005]

Strings, at it's simplest level, is a dark fairy tale of the Brother's Grimm variety. The film begins with a King writing his final message before he kills himself, asking his son to take up his crown and strive for peace between his people and the rebellious enemy of the nation. However the King's evil brother finds the note first, and wanting to get rid of the son, and also wipe out the rebel faction, he concocts a plot to achieve his goal, and claim the throne for himself. The son soon finds himself an outcast from his land, and learns some shocking truths, whilst also falling in love. Sort of Snow White meets Gormenghast, the tale itself is nothing new. What makes this film different is the style in which it is presented. The characters are all puppets.

Now, this isn't the first puppet film to have hit the screen. In the past there have been various attempts, most recently the spoof Team America. However, in all the films before the puppets were used to represent humans. Here, in Strings, the fact that they are marionettes is integral to the tale, and the strings that hold them are as important as the characters. Each of them are aware of these cords, and they play such a huge part in every scene, and in the grand design of the whole thing. The details such as the city gate being just a piece of stone which is lifted to a high level, preventing the strings from passing, thus stopping anyone entering or leaving. The prison which is a simple grid of beams at a height, leading to some poignant moments when an imprisoned family can see each other, but cannot touch. Fights are enacted where the intention is to sever someone's cords. A child's birth is a different affair, with the baby being carved first before the strings themselves can be attached. Truly imaginative, and quite a high concept, yet working so well.

The marionettes are not the detailed dolls that Team America gave us. The only facial movements here are the eyes which open and close. This could have presented a problem, but thanks to the marvelous animation of the wooden puppets, and some passionate voice casting, it doesn't. There is never any confusion as to who is speaking, and what is going on, as the film presents us with wonderfully conceived scene after scene. Some elements are beautiful and touching, such as an underwater rescue, or the aforementioned birth scene. Some are quite shocking, but without being upsetting. Burning string has never seemed so dark until now.

This is possibly one of the freshest, most creative films of recent years, and is another example of someone doing something new with a genre. Visually superb, and wonderfully played out, the only concern is where the market actually lies for this kind of film. As a kids story it is very mature and dark, and as a mature film, the puppetry is a little alienating to the masses. Instead this film lies somewhere between the two, and if you can cope with a delightful tale, with poignant moments, enacted by some of the best 'classic' puppetry you would ever see, then go and take a seat.

Sin City (2005)

Cinematic Genius

[10/10 · 5 May 2005]

Straight from the pages of the Frank Miller graphic novels comes Robert Rodriguez's best film to date, and possibly one of the greatest film events ever seen! Weaving three tales together (three and a bit if you include the opening segment), this is a throwback to classic film noir, but brought bang up to date with some of the most striking visuals of recent years. I had hopes for this film, but some worries. Being a fan of the comic book, could the film actually live up to the style of Miller's creations? The answer is a resounding "Yes!" as all the frames and characters come to buoyant life. The film doesn't just do the comic justice, it actually becomes the comic, and by doing so surpasses it, as we get to see the once 2D characters live on screen for us! A bit of background for those not in the know. Sin City was a series of short stories, and long tales, set in a fictional town called Basin City. Through it we were introduced to a variety of characters, none of them truly good (except, perhaps, Hartigan – played by Willis in the film), and plenty bad. From Marv, the disfigured ex-con who seeks the killer of a woman he loved, to Roark Jr, aka That Yellow Bastard (played by Stahl), their tales were interwoven, but never interfered with each other. The graphic novels were skillfully drawn in black and white, with the occasional hint of color (a red dress here, yellow skin there), paying homage to the old noir style which inspired them. The tales were the stuff of pulp novella, and the imagery striking. The film takes 3 of the tales and weaves them together, recreating the pages from the comic, and giving a film which many have compared to Pulp Fiction due to the disjointed-time story telling. However, that is an unfair comparison, Pulp Fiction was not this good! Robert Rodriguez has always delivered strong films on a low budget, from El Mariachi and Depserado (the latter cost $8million), to Faculty and Spy Kids. With Sin City he has taken $30million and made a film that looks like it cost $200million!! Frank Miller, the creator of the comics, joined him on set to direct – Rodriguez didn't want to adapt the story…he wanted the film to BE the comic! Miller was reluctant to join – in the past his work has been trashed on screen, with his Robocop 2 script ending up a pale shadow of the original idea by the time it was filmed. Rodriguez managed to convince him that this would be different by bringing him in to witness a 'screentest'. That 'screentest' is the opening segment (featuring Josh Hartnett), and it blew Miller away! It wasn't only the reproduction of a short tale he wrote, it was visually perfect! In order to create the unique look the film has – that being a comic book on screen – Rodriguez turned to the technologies that helped him craft Spy Kids, and used a lot of green-screen. Much like how Sky Captain was made, with the cast being the only real things on display and all else being added later, Sin City was given the look by computers. You wouldn't tell really! The cars are all CGI, the chair, tables, bottles, toilets…all CGI, yet look more real than anything else! Visually the film is a masterpiece, the black and white working well to set the mood. The occasional flash of color ignites the screen, and highlights the focus at the time. The flips to negative are right out of the comic, the silhouetting of characters, and the unique coloration of the blood, all add to the wonderful style.

The film could have been all looks and no heart, but the performances on offer from some of the industry's greatest names lend more than character to the players. Bruce Willis, after a few years of stagnant roles, returns to splendid form, much in the way he did in Pulp Fiction. Mickey Roarke, behind the prosthetics, manages to get you caring for Marv, who, at heart, is a bit of a nutjob! Jessica Alba is delightfully delicious as Nancy, Del Toro is strangely understandable as Jackie Boy…the list goes on and on! No one actor dominates the film, with everyone lending equal might to their roles. Stahl's evil Yellow Bastard is perfect, and as for Elijah Wood's role as the murderous nut, Kevin, all I can say is…wow! No egos come out for the whole film, no one star tries to be the focus of the film. All of the cast seem to know that there is only one star here, Frank Miller! With such strong performances, outstanding cinematic beauty, and well woven story-telling aspects, it only needs a great soundtrack to make this film complete, and here is where Rodriguez shows his genius is complete, by scoring a fantastically atmospheric 'noir' kind of soundtrack! Inspired by the kind of music you hear in old Bogart movies, this is typical gangster/detective tunes, but given that Sin City feel.

For fans of the comic book, I cannot recommend this film to you enough. You will laugh, cry, and be in awe at your anti-heroes coming to life. For those without a clue as to the comic's existence, don't feel you will be alienated. No, this film can reach out to you all as it relies on one simple thing…great stories! Who doesn't like them?

Kingdom of Heaven (2005)

Bloom-ing terrible acting!

[5/10 · 4 May 2005]

The casting of Orlando Bloom in a lead role was a dangerous gambit for Ridley Scott to take. Did he see in Orlando some untapped potential, like Scorcese did with DiCaprio? Would we finally see a performance from Orlando which equated to more than just reading lines, and staring into the distance? Well, the answer to that is no, and this film suffers because of it.

Kingdom of Heaven is set during the first Crusades. Bloom plays a blacksmith, Balian, who discovers that his father is a Baron and a crusader in the Holy Lands. Leaving his home with his father he travels to Jerusalem to try to find forgiveness from God, but ends up taking his father's place, becoming a close companion to the King, and making an enemy of the next in line to the throne. Pretty soon war between the crusaders and the Muslims arises.

This could have been a really good film! Really, it could! Unfortunately despite a decent story, in which neither side is shown as evil, some gripping and brutal action, and a scattering of strong supporting cast, the whole feel of the film is flat. The main reason for this is that extremely uncharismatic Bloom who, in a role where he is built to be a leader of men, looks totally out of place. You end up wondering why the people turn to such a bland personality to lead them into battle! It makes no sense. Bloom does his usual 'one facial expression' performance throughout the film, and it makes it impossible to engage with him, or emote in any way. If we can't emote with the lead character in such a powerful film, then the whole feel is lost. Other performances on offer serve to the detriment of the tale, such as the role of the second in line to the throne, Guy, which is played in the style of Bill Bailey! Over the past 10 years Ridley Scott has made a lot of average films, which people have praised as 'the next best thing since sliced Hovis'. With the majority of them, such as Gladiator or Matchstick Men, they were pretty dull films lifted up by the charisma of the stars. With Kingdom of Heaven what would have been good is dragged down by terrible performances. If Russell Crowe were in the lead role, it would have made a huge difference! Even Liam Neeson could have raised it up if he were the focus of the whole film! I would have believed more if Jeremy Irons' character were the one to lead the people…I'd follow him into battle (if only on the hope he finds a piano and sings "PlayAway" – but that's off on a tangent!) No, we are left with Bloom, and a role that is far above his station.

Overall the film was average. It didn't really drag, and some of the battles (or the lack of in places) are really intense. Just a shame that the cast can't live up to the tale.

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (2005)

Take your towel!

[10/10 · 28 April 2005]

Arthur Dent is having, what could only be described as, a bad day! He was greeted, upon waking, by the rumble of trucks, and the sight of a demolition crew wanting to tear down his home to make way for a bypass. By sheer coincidence (something that plays a lot in Adams' 'trilogy in five parts') the Earth itself is also being demolished to make way for an interstellar bypass. No wonder all the dolphins have scarpered! Throw in the suddenly realization that his best friend is really an extra terrestrial, and you can understand why he may simply want to give up and throw in the towel….only it is possibly the most useful item any self respecting hitchhiker can carry!

And so, finally,Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy makes its long awaited debut on the big screen. What began as a radio drama, was adapted to a book (with a few changes), transferred the jump to TV (with some cuts), and spawned 4 sequel novels, has been bandied around the film studios for over a decade. Adams himself worked on the script, and added a new subplot, and new details to give a new slant on the tale of the hapless earthman (played here by Martin Freeman), and his companions, Ford Prefect (Mos Def), Zaphod Beeblebrox (Sam Rockwell), Trillian (Zooey Deschanel), and Marvin (voiced by Alan Rickman).

Reception to the film by the fans and critics has been mostly praising, with a few averages. A small few have picked at the 'missing jokes', thus missing the whole point of a film adaptation totally! Why describe the way a Vogon ship hangs in the air, when you can see it? As a fan since a very early age (saw the TV series on first run, then read the book straight after. Have read the series of books 6 times now, one more shot puts it on par with LOTR!) I had high expectations of the film. Suffice to say, it delivered!

The casting is impeccable! Freeman gives a marvelous 'everyman' performance as Arthur, mastering the true art of bewilderment to a fine degree. Mos Def is suitably alien as Ford, with a quirky nature that makes you wonder why Dent didn't twig he wasn't right all along! Deschanel is enticing as love interest, Trillian, in some tweaks to the tale that have upset a few sad fanboys (in the book, Trillian wasn't his love interest). The stars of the show, however, are the deliriously manic Sam Rockwell as Zaphod, and Alan Rickman as Marvin. Rockwell is the greatest casting choice ever committed to film, giving a truly zany, annoying, and wild performance which ignites every scene he is in. Rickman's voicing of Marvin is suitably depressed, with hints of sarcasm, providing for some great delivery of lines. All this is without mentioning the support of John Malkovich, Bill Nighy, Steven Fry (as the voice of the book), and a quick cameo of Bill Bailey as the voice of the whale!

Direction from Jennings is wonderful. The zany elements are given a great look, and whole look of the visuals are captured majestically. The true wonder of the space vessels, the planetscapes, and the interior design of the 'planet construction yard' are all presented beautifully, but with little quirks thrown in for good measure. The design of the effects are imaginative and skillfully crafted. If your jaw doesn't drop when the true majesty of the planet yard is revealed, then you must be numb to beauty! Throw in a glorious design of the 'book images' as it explains various elements, and a great use of the old theme tune, and this is a film worthy of the name.

Fans can also have fun looking out for nods towards earlier incarnations with cast members from TV popping up, the original Marvin showing his face, and Doug Adams' face itself being the scape of a planet.

If any complaint can be levied at the film it is that it doesn't feel complete. The new sub-story isn't resolved, and the feeling at the end is that we have only seen half a story. However, seeing as the book pretty much did this too, you can't really hold it against them. All you can do is hope it is a success and then Restaurant At The End Of The Universe can get made! Go see HHGTTG, and remember to bring a towel!

Cube Zero (2004)

A welcome addition to the series

[8/10 · 6 April 2005]

The first Cube film was a modern masterpiece of simple film-making. Take one set, and use for the whole film. It told the story of a group of strangers trapped inside a series of rooms, most of them with traps. The film worked so well, despite never really explaining what was going on. Cube 2: Hypercube followed, and took the concept a step further. Now we had a Cube that broke the boundaries of time and space. As far as films go, it was quite good, but suffered from the hypothetical design of the new cube, and trying to explain how it all existed.

Now comes Cube Zero, a prequel to the series. After the obligatory shock opening (which is gruesomely brilliant), we are introduced to two technicians who work on the puzzles of the Cube. One is a puzzle solving genius, the other his superior, is a chess obsessive. When they watch a new group of people in the Cube, loyalties start to fray, and questions arise, which leads one to attempt to rescue the people inside.

Like Hypercube, this film attempts to explain some of the mystery of the existence of the Cube (which here is in a primitive form). Unlike Hypercube, this one works. Teasing us with glimpses of a fascist society, and showing us the people working on the system gives us clues, but never tells the whole story. The new bunch of victims go through the same routines of 'boot tests' and such, allowing for the audience to get their dose of trap-related-deaths. The traps will not disappoint! Primitive in design compared to the other two films, the 'rusted metal' and bolts look of them actually serves to chill more than the high tech option in the other films.

This is a nice addition to the series, and offers teases as to where the story can go. After all, you can only dump people in traps so many times before it loses the charm. Showing us glimpses of the corruption which spawned the Cubes gives scope for further films in the series.

Rent this one out on DVD and check it out.

Ocean's Twelve (2004)

A second dose of Cool

[7/10 · 1 February 2005]

Ocean's 11 was always going to be a tough act to follow. Breaking the remake rules by firstly remaking a pretty bad movie (as opposed to the usual method of going for a good one to remake), and then making it into one of the freshest films of recent years was quite a double whammy. The cast were cool, the story was cool, the setting of Las Vegas was cool, the soundtrack was cool, and the direction was cool. It was, you could say, a cool movie! Well, when all involved said they wanted to do another one (and even took a pay cut to prove that they weren't just in it for the money), fingers were crossed. Could they repeat the success, or would it be a prime example of lightning never striking twice.

Ocean's Twelve picks up a few years after events of the last film, with all the band of thieves scattered, and still trying to outrun Casino owner, victim of their heist, Tess's ex, and all round nasty piece of work, Terry Benedict. However, it seems, pretty soon into the film, that Benedict has found them, with the help of a mysterious ally. To appease him, they all need to pay back what they stole…with interest! In order to obtain the cash they must plan another heist. To complicate matters there is the small detail of Rusty's (Pitt) recent ex-girlfriend, Isable (Zeta Jones), an Interpol agent tracking down them, and the mysterious thief The Nightfox, who has a small matter of honor to work out.

The film takes around 20 minutes to really get started, and that first 20 minutes will alienate a lot of people who just want to chew popcorn and be excited. The initial set-up doesn't seem to work well, and is what lets this film down. However, for those of you who can keep your attention over this troubled start, what kicks in after that marker is another slice of that cool we were delivered in the first movie. Once Ocean's Twelve hits its stride, it paces along wonderfully, with each scene flowing nicely into the next. The witty dialogue and interplay between the characters is as snappy as before, and you just can't help but get that buzz. This time around Julia Roberts, as Tess, gets her own moment to shine, in a scene which some have criticised for being cheesy, but I thought was immensely fun.

All is assisted by the same snappy cut direction, with good use of filters and cuts allowing each scene to bounce along vibrantly to the cool score. Yup, as with the last film, the soundtrack is toe-tappingly good, and adds a colourful energy to the events unfolding on screen.

All in all, a damn good attempt at a sequel. Not on par with the first, but I never expected it to be. Let down mainly by that off putting first 20 minutes, but recovers nicely to deliver a good end result.

A Very Long Engagement (2004)

A Very Beautiful Film

[10/10 · 15 January 2005]

Jeunet was the director responsible for the atrocity that was Alien Resurrection...but I'm not going to hold that against him. Not when his other output has always been of such a wonderful quality, that it only confirms my suspicion that he didn't really have any control over the fourth Alien film. From his early days with co-writer/director Caro, where they delivered masterpieces of French cinema such as the deliciously dark Delicatessen, and the wonderful twisted fairy tale City of Lost Children. To his last film, Amelie, a beautiful, witty, and charming film about a very peculiar girl who brings happiness to so many, but can't quite achieve her own. That film, his first after he and Caro went their separate ways, was truly a masterpiece of cinema, and in it he cast the delightfully elfin Audrey Tautou. With his latest film, A Very Long Engagement, he uses Tautou's charms once more in the lead role, along with many faces familiar to any of his films.

The film is set in the early part of the century, just after, and with flashbacks to, World War 1. Tautou plays Mathilde, a young woman who is desperate to find out what happened to her fiancé in the trenches. She has been told that he was killed as a traitor, but doesn't believe the story, and starts an investigation, hiring a private investigator, Monsieur Pire (Ticky Holgado) to help her. Along the way she will encounter and change many lives forever, hoping so much that her lover is still alive.

The film begins with some scenes very reminiscent of Amelie, where each of the main characters are introduced via a voice-over and some glimpses into their lives to give a taste of their nature. This wonderful method of storytelling works so well as, within minutes, you know more about these characters than you can garner about most Hollywood characters in 1 hour! Mathilde, we discover, has a limp due to suffering from polio as a child. She now needs various therapies to keep her condition at bay, and this condition meant she had a very sheltered life. Manech (Gaspard Ulliel) is the boy who befriended her, and soon became her true love, who she is so desperate to find.

The manner in which the film progresses, by showing us part of the investigation, before flashing back to the scenes of wartime to allow significance of certain events to be revealed, is played out beautifully, with some elements only becoming significant when you see them from a different perspective, or understand the factors which led up to them. Whilst not original in the manner it is crafted, the skill with which Jeunet weaves the tale ensures that it perfect. Never does the story slow down, and never are we allowed to become bored by any of the characters or situations.

Jeunet's direction and eye for a scene is at its most magnificent here. If you thought the pan-down shot of Amelie skimming stones was wonderful, wait until you glimpse such simple effects as wind across a field. However, this is also one of his darkest films, with the glimpses of wartime (where a different filter is used on the lens to make it bleaker) being brutal and harrowing. Some scenes will make the squeamish cringe, but it allows the film to become more than a fantasy, and grounds itself in the reality of the trenches. There are, however, plenty of lighter moments to alleviate the spirit, from the postman who loves gravel, to the constant hopes of Mathilde.

The cast are superb in their roles. Tautou is an wonderful and enchanting as she was in Amelie, capturing the beauty and sorrow of our lead. Jeunet regular Dominique Pinon is as scene stealing as he always has been, his gurning looks conveying so much character that you just have to watch him. The big surprise was when it seemed that Jodie Foster had turned up. When the character began speaking in fluid french I thought "Nah...that's a French actress. There isn't even a hint of the usual California twang!" Well, it turned out it was Foster, who in a small role puts so much into it, and with a perfect accent!

It is hard to know where to stop when talking about this film! There really wasn't anything I could see as a fault within the long, yet all too short, running time of 134 minutes. The soundtrack, the costumes, the set design, all the details are wonderfully beautiful. That is a word which I have used a few times with this review, and sums up the film totally. Beautiful! I recommend, nay urge, nay demand that everyone sees this film. If you don't, then you are missing out on possibly the best film of recent years. I have stated recently how I can't pick a best film of 2004 from all the great films released. If this was out a few weeks ago I wouldn't have struggled!

White Noise (I) (2005)

Chilling and effective.

[7/10 · 5 January 2005]

White Noise is a film that takes a true scientific phenomenon, and makes a film out of it. The phenomenon is one which involves electronic recording/broadcast equipment. In amongst white-noise (that crackle and hiss you get on a blank recording) and static on untuned TV reception there are voices and images discernible. Sometimes these voices have been clear enough to work out, and many people believe they are the voices and images of those who have died, trying to contact the living.

In the film, Michael Keaton plays Jonathan Rivers, an estate agent who loses his wife. When he is approached by Raymond, a man who lost his son years ago and claims he has heard from Jonathan's wife, it draws him into the phenomenon, and pretty soon he becomes obsessed, recording his own tapes and viewing/listening to them for messages. Then, suddenly, the messages become clear, and seem to be premonitions. Can he decipher the meaning of the messages, or will he disturb something best left alone? I was uncertain going into the film what to expect. Too many times the film world have come up with a great concept, but failed to deliver anything more than mediocre when it is a horror subject. Expecting another Godsend, I was pleasantly surprised to find a pretty good film, with some nice touches, and chills. Admittedly the story wouldn't look out of place on X-Files, but unlike the recent The Forgotten, it manages to feel complete, and doesn't seem to take the easy option at the end.

The direction by Sax (best know for his TV work such as Tipping the Velvet, Dr Who, Clocking Off, and Spitting Image to name a few) is more than sufficient, and he uses the white-noise to great effect. A little buzz here, and flicker there all serve to unnerve, and you could be forgiven for thinking you are watching another Japanese adaptation. There are a lot of similarities to eastern horror throughout, the use of silence the unnerve, the distorted images in the TV sets, and so on. Only the occasion "music to let you know you should jump" lets down the tone.

Nevertheless, with a well woven script which doesn't pander to the lowest denominator, and a sterling performance from Michael Keaton, who hasn't really had a presence on the screen since 1998s Jack Frost, make this an enjoyable little movie which deserves a viewing or two.

Alexander (2004)

Very average and too long

[4/10 · 5 January 2005]

Alexander the Great was a leader of men, and a great conqueror of nations. In his short life, he conquered around 90% of the then known world, creating the largest empire known. From the Persian's and Babylon, to the gates of India, he seemed unstoppable in his conquest. This film focuses mainly on the epic campaign, but with some history about the man himself, and those around him.

Many harsh words have been spoken about this film, with critics deriding it a truly terrible film. This is not really fair, as there is a good film here, just it is buried amongst some of the worst film-making decisions ever. Let's start with the good points.

The cast are all really passionate in their roles. Farrell, an unlikely choice for the lead, surprises by being powerful, emotional, and brutal to an amazing degree. The support cast around him are mostly brilliant (the exception I will get to in a bit). Stone directs with a wonderful vision, capturing the beauty of the settings, and the bloodiness of battle, although the occasional "wobbly camera" does irritate. The 'swooping eagle' view of the battlefield in particular is breathtaking. The general story is strong, and engrossing to a degree.

Where the film suffers are in some ropey factors such as the accents, the extrapolation of plot, and the truly dull voice-over. Accents first, with Farrell in the lead role, for some strange reason the decision was made that, as he is Irish, everyone around him should be Irish too! Why this occurred I have no idea, but you are left with a load of terrible accents ruining some strong lines (and turning some comical). None are worse than Kilmer, the weakest link in the acting on screen. A worse accent hasn't been heard since Heath Ledger in Ned Kelly! I don't' recall this being done for films with Sean Connery in (an actor notorious for being Scottish no matter the role). The rest of the Red October crew didn't try to be from Edinburgh. By making everyone Irish, Stone has distanced the film from the 'historical accuracy' he claims he wanted to depict. It looks even worse when you see that no-one seemed to tell Angelina Jolie about the idea, so she tries desperately to put on a Macedonian accent.

The plot seems insistent on hammering home some factors. One example is Alexander's love for his best friend, Hephaistion. Every 10 minutes we are reminded of their undying love by a minute or two of gazing. After the first few times, you generally get the point and the later interruptions (which get longer still) just break up the rest of the film. Overall there must be around 30 minutes of film wasted in this manner. With the Anthony Hopkins voice-over telling the story, it is surprising I managed to stay awake! The first ten minutes consisted of him droning on about something or other…sorry I lost interest as he really tell the tale in the dullest, most boring way imaginable! Only once the film itself kicked in did I spark up and take note. Every now and again, Hopkins would waffle on to tell us what we missed, and the mind would wander whilst he did so.

The biggest flaw in this film, however, is the decision to suddenly skip the story from his exile to him being King. I thought I had fallen asleep and missed a huge chunk of plot, and for 90 minutes was wondering what happened to his father, what had I missed, when did he come home, and why is he fighting everyone! Then, 40 minutes from the end the missing scene is shown as a flashback. It served the film no purpose placing it late in the film, and in fact served to the detriment of the end result.

As I said, there is a good film in here somewhere. I reckon around 1 hour 45 mins of good film. It is just that it is muddled in with 1 hour 15 mins of bad. Seems like a decent ratio, but you need to ask yourself if you really want to spend 3 hours watching an average film?

The Grudge (2004)

A letdown

[6/10 · 2 November 2004]

Sarah Michelle Gellar stars in this, the fifth time the Ju-On tale has been told, with the original writer/director crafting his spooky tale for a western audience.

The film introduces us to a house where something happened, causing spirits to haunt it. Anyone who enters the house will soon die, as the curse gets to them. SMG plays a student social care worker who is assigned to look after an old lady in the house.

Creepy, atmospheric, chilling, and excellent use of camera-work and sound....that was the Japanese version which was out earlier this year. This remake unfortunately lets itself down by using the Hollywood conventions of building music to let us know something is going to happen, blaring noise to make us jump (why, I don't know), and tricky/jumpy camera-work to add a disturbing edge to the film...thus dampening the overall effect.

The camera-work is the biggest problem. One brilliant scene in the original, of the female spirit crawling down the stairs showed the full journey step by step. Here, we see her at the top, a quick glimpse at the middle, then she is at the bottom (whilst rising music tells us we should be scared). The scene loses the whole effect in making it so quick.

It isn't a total failure. Like The Ring, it is better than most of the usual garbage Hollywood churns out these days, and is a reasonable translation of the story. It's just that once again the essence of what makes Ju-On so chilling has gone. This is even more distressing when you remember the original creator was in charge. WHy did he change his vision so much? Why did he decide to go conventional Hollywood?

Above average, but a letdown at the same time. Go watch the original instead.

Alfie (2004)

New film for a new age

[9/10 · 21 October 2004]

It was certainly a brave step to remake the classic Michael Caine movie! A lot of people have already decided that this film is rubbish without even seeing it. To those people out there, I hope I can convince you to give the film a try as it is actually quite good!

What we need to remember is that Caine's Alfie wasn't the first anyway. It was adapted from a stage production, and so this new version is just an update of the story. Alfie is a womanizer, and a bit of a heartless swine…or is he? As he guides us through some key events over a year or so in his life, he gives us pointers on how to be successful and confident in all you do. Offering advice on how to seduce, how to end a relationship, and much more, as the film draws on Alfie's world seems to fall apart around him, but still tries to hide his true emotions and play like he isn't affected.

Alfie isn't a story based film. Without the talking to camera, and the knowing glances from time to time, it wouldn't be very interesting to watch.

However, as with the Caine version, it is the wit, the banter, and the whole character of Law's Alfie that engrosses you. You can't help but be absorbed by the advice he is dishing out, and then actually start to care for this arrogant b**tard. Is Law as good as Caine? Not quite, but he offers a different kind of charm for a new era. The Caine film was firmly ground in the 60s, with Alfie a true hard-faced man of those times. Now attitudes have changed, and this Alfie is a new-man.

What this film succeeds most in is showing us how all the points that were relevant in the 60s are still fresh today. A lot of attitudes towards the opposite sex still stand, although the film shows us that this works both ways now. Gone are the timid females of Caine's era, in steps Susan Sarandon.

All in all I was pleasantly surprised by Alfie, and will no doubt see it again. The look of the film (with the use of billboards to show the focus of the next step of the film), and the charisma of Law, who delivers one of his rare good performances, keep you entertained. Go and see it before judging it.

Rory O'Shea Was Here (2004)

Absolutely brilliant

[10/10 · 13 October 2004]

Michael (played by Steven Robertson) has cerebal palsy, and lives a quiet, and dull, life in Carrigmore Residential Home. When a newcomer to the home, Rory (McAvoy), befriends him, he proceeds to show Michael how to live past the disability. Despite, or maybe because of, Rory's crippling disability (unable to move all but his head and a few digits on his hand), Rory is fiercely independent, and extremely rebellious. His affect upon the quiet and reserve Michael is spectacular, and the two soon leave the care home to set up lives in the outside world, where they recruit the help of Siobhan (Romola Garai) as a care assistant.

This film is one of the gems of the year! Much like last year's In America, the film goes from being extremely funny, to distressing, touching, upsetting, and truly moving without once seeming saccharine sweet. Knowing exactly where to tug at the heartstrings, and where to simply let the story, and characters, do their thing, O'Donnell has crafted a wonderful film which tells us all to look past the surface, and see what lies within.

The true strengths of the film come in the lead actors. So convincing are their characters that you truly do believe that they are disabled. To further manage to convey humor and sorrow on top of the already great performances is amazing. The pair really seem close friends, and as their tale unfolds you care completely for them.

This is definitely one of the finest examples of film this year, telling a very relevant story in a simple way. If this film fails to touch your heart, then you must contain pure ice inside.

Resident Evil: Apocalypse (2004)

Resident Evil: Atrocious

[12 October 2004]

The first film received a very mixed reception on release. People either loved it totally, or despised it, and the criticism levied towards the director (Paul WS Anderson) was, to be truthful, very harsh. I kinda liked it. As a fan of the games and also one of the few fans of Anderson himself, I enjoyed it from start to finish. The ending of the film hinted at the plot for the sequel, and I couldn't wait. Well, the wait is over…. The film begins with a quick recap of event so far, telling us that Umbrella were developing genetic and viral weapons in their underground labs beneath Racoon C0ity, but something went wrong. The T Virus was released and the dead began to rise from the dead. Into this walked Alice, and ex-employee of Umbrella, who at the end of the first film awoke to find the whole of Racoon City had been infected. There begins Apocalypse! Alice has been experimented on to give her enhanced abilities, and soon finds herself leading a rag-tag bunch of survivors (including Jill Valentine, one of the most popular characters in the game) to rescue the daughter of Charles Ashford, the creator of the virus. At the same time the Nemesis experiment is released to stop her. Cue action scene after action scene, and a film that just plods along without offering any tension or emotion at all.

I was disappointed with the film, not through the story (the concept and script is well woven by Anderson), but through the acting and direction, oh and the effects. This is a film with more ambition than the budget can allow! It is nice to see that the studio is an equal opportunities employer, but having epileptics manning the camera is a tad too much! The term used by Empire this month is 'F**king the Frame' and is a term that defines it perfectly! The camera shakes so much that keeping up with the action is tricky at the best of times, and tension is destroyed. Within the first few minutes a jerky, blurred shot is used to show lumbering zombies and alarm bells rang in my head! 'Are they just covering up some ropey effects and make-up?' The answer is yes, and the shots of the 'big bad' Nemesis attain! Why could they not get a better make-up and effects team! Surely the people who worked on Buffy and Angel were available…even their effects were better than this 'rubber mask' effect! The overall effect is similar to that other terrible 'big bad' creation, the Spinosaurus in JP3.

The acting, aside from Jovovich, is terrible! Maybe it was paying homage to the games where the voice acting is diabolical, or maybe the budget just wouldn't allow them to hire anyone with any talent! If it was intended as homage…well it was a terrible idea as you just can't care for the characters. So, the blame for this very average waste of 1 ½ hours can't be levied at Anderson. He wrote a decent story. The problems here can mainly be put down to the director this time, first timer Christopher Witt, who fails to get any decent results from his cast, and can't really convey a scene well.

Overall a film with far too much ambition! Yes, it would be tricky to convey a city in chaos without having a lot of action, but perhaps a bit of tension wouldn't go amiss! Look at Aliens…lots of beasts attacking, but only a few key action points. Fans will love looking for the links to the games, but that's about it. Go play the games instead!

Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow (2004)

Captures that serial feeling

[30 September 2004]

I think I've mentioned in previous reviews and articles how much of a fan of comic book adventure and pulp sci-fi I am. Well, this film is tailor made for a fanboy like me!

Polly Perkins (Paltrow) is a roving reporter with her mind set on getting a big story. When a group of scientists go missing, and giant robots attack cities around the world, her big story seems to have found her. Forcing the heroic Sky Captain, Joe (Law), to let her accompany him as he tries to find the people responsible for the attacks, the two of them are thrown into adventure after adventure which takes them around the globe.

This is pure pulp sci-fi, and based heavily on the serial adventures of the 30s, such as Flash Gordon and the like. All the characters are drawn from the usual stereotypes, the roving reporter, the dashing hero who she has a history with, the techie assistant, the crazy scientist. Much like Riddick, nothing in this film is really original, but the film is a wonderful homage to action adventure cinema, with some wonderfully humorous moments thrown in.

What makes this film stand out, however, are the visuals. No sets were built for the film, and no location shooting was done. Every scene was filmed with a greenscreen or bluescreen, and the backgrounds were added in afterwards. In some scenes this is obvious, but in some the digital trickery is so amazing that you can't believe it isn't real. To blend the CGI with the actors so that it doesn't stand out as much as, say, the CGI in Van Helsing, the whole film has been given a blended 'airbrush' look to it, emulating the sci-fi posters and paintings of the 30s and 40s. The effect is wonderful.

The homages to old serials don't end at the story. The look of the robots, the ray guns, and the costume design are all perfect for the era. On top of this the use of maps to show movement from one country to another (much like Indiana Jones did), or an RKO style radio mast to send out a distress call.

This is pure entertainment, with some fine dialogue and top action. Definitely for the fanboy crowd, with enough simplicity to make it accessible to the casual observer.

Saw (2004)

The writer Saw Seven

[30 September 2004]

This is the film which everyone has been hearing a lot about recently. The original poster campaign was deemed 'too disturbing' and pulled. All the critics are fighting over who can create the best tag-line (see saw or saw saw?). Everyone is whispering about how it is 'that film where people hack their limbs off!' Well, if that is all you are expecting to see prepare to be either a) disappointed, or b) very pleased depending on what floats your boat.

Saw can be compared to David Fincher's Seven, as both tackle the same subject matter in a similar manner. In Saw two men awaken in a room, chained to pipes, with a corpse lying in a pool of blood in between them. As they try to work out how they got there they flashback to news about a serial killer (nicknamed Jigsaw) who is putting people in situations where they end up killing themselves. From barbed wire, to broken glass, the manner in which the killings take place are clever, well plotted, and very disturbing. Can the two men find a way to beat the killer at his own game and survive? Will the cop (Danny Glover, who is, to be honest, getting too old for this s**t) who has been trying to find the killer solve the mystery?

Comparisons to Seven go further than the tone of the film. The manner in which we, the audience, are given small pieces of information about killings, and are left to visualise the true horror ourselves are very reminiscent of Fincher's masterpiece. This time around we are given speeded up footage of events, but not enough to see the graphic detail. In addition the look of the film is similar to Seven, the lighting, the set design. In fact, had Morgan Freeman been in the Glover role it may very well have been a sequel. As it stands it is a similar film, and it works well.

Saw isn't a brilliant film, and it most certainly isn't the 'great horror' that everyone seems to be raving on about. Overall it is a good quality genre film which doesn't offer anything new to the table, but succeeds in doing what it set out to do…entertain for couple of hours. If you want blood, guts, and gore as people hack themselves up…go elsewhere.

Layer Cake (2004)

A nice slice of brit gangsters

[30 September 2004]

The trailers to Layer Cake left me with mixed feelings. Usually when a trailer needs to draw reference to 'one's we made earlier' (in this case Lock, Stock, and Snatch) when the writer or director of said films has nothing to do with the project, the end result is a poor copycat. After watching the film, I am more than impressed!

Layer Cake introduces us (once more) to the world of the cockney gangsters, and the dealing of drugs. The medication of choice this time is Ecstacy, and the set up involves an up-and-coming name in the dealing trade being thrown a job by one of the big names. Sent to find a missing girl, and also buy and sell on a large shipment, it all seems like easy work. However, as he soon finds, things are not always as they seem, and before long his life is at risk when the deal begins to go sour.

For the first 20 minutes of the film I couldn't decide whether it was going to be a Lock, Stock, or Honest (the dreadful All Saints film). The film uses the obligatory 'catchy' tunes from the past 2 decades, and uses the same type of framing of scenes as the genre. For the first 20 minutes, whilst we were introduced rapidly to the characters in the tale, it was hard to discern where the plot was going, and even harder to care much about the players. By the half way point I was engrossed! The plot twists and turns at various points throughout, and you do begin to care about the lead character and the associates around him.

The film oozes cockney cool, and although not quite on par with the best of the genre, it is still a worthy, and very engrossing, offering from director Matthew Vaughn. Stylishly shot, with a great soundtrack, this is one of those films that blokes will walk out of very pleased, but their partners may not feel the same way. Whilst not really violent or sexist in nature, this is a lads film through and through, and it is one cake that I want another slice of.