The Movie Madman

Death on the Nile (2022)

2022-02-21T12:12:00.001+11:00

Running Time: 127 minutes

Media: Cinematic release at local cinema

While I love my local cinema, it's cozy and simple, and reminds me of the times I used to go to the Beverly Hills Twin Cinema when I was much younger, I've had to deal with the fact that a) we're still living our lives within a pandemic, b) seats are a lot tougher to acquire as a result and c) I was surrounded by other movie-goers wanting to watch the film. I'm still a little paranoid about other movie-goers being too close, can you blame me?

Anyhow, I tried to not let this detract me from enjoying this film. Like the first film, Murder on the Orient Express, the audience is treated with a star-studded ensemble cast, including director/actor Kenneth Branagh once again as the famous Hercule Poirot and his good friend, Bouc, played by Tom Bateman. Throw in Armie Hammer, Gal Gadot, Annette Benning, Letitia Wright, a very serioous Russell Brand (which blew my mind) and the team up of none other than both Dawn French and Jennifer Saunders among many others and you have a feast for the eyes and ears.

We're treated with a brief history look back at 1914 during World War I, which explains a few things regarding Poirot, and his double handlebar moustache. I love the fact that there was consideration of detailing this as a means of explaining part of his own history, and detailing information about his lost love, Katherine. I felt this was a great way of tying up the two films together to provide context that viewers of both films could enjoy. While you didn't need to be a fan of Agatha Christie's books to enjoy these films, these small details provided something that can help sutain the cinematic universe being created by these two films.

The film fast forwards to three years after the events of Murder on the Orient Express, which lead to Poirot witnessing events unfold between a love triangle between Linnet Ridgeway (Gadot), Simon Doyle (Hammer) and Jackie de Bellefort, and then having his life entwined when he finds himself in Egypt and coming across Bouc flying a box kite on one of the Great Pyramids ("because no one has ever done it before" according to Bouc... Hell, why not?)

Poirot is then invited to join in the festivities of Linnet and Simon's wedding, with Jackie in stalker mode, and a number of guests at Assouan; and then leading to the events of all parties boarding the S.S. Karnak to travel along the Nile. Some time later, despite Linnet's concerns that she does not trust any of her guests (which to be honest, is a bit of a weird thing... after all, why invite a number of people you don't trust to your own wedding?), she is found dead, shot in the head. Let the investigation begin!

All guests have underlying stories as to why they are there, and their relation to the bride and the groom. A former fiancee, a cousin lawyer, a former school friend, the groom's former lover, the godmother, a family friend, the maid and more, all get their time in the spotlight. I have to admit, seeing Russell Brand in a serious role floored me... He needs to do more of those... Armie Hammer, I don't know... he seemed... very out of place in this film, almost a caricature of himself, and his dance routine with Emma Mackey as Jackie at the start of the film seemed like nothing more than a raunchy distraction which felt like it didn't belong in this type of film. I guess I'm speaking from a place as one who has read a number of Agatha Christie's novels, and the storyline compared to what I saw in the film, I guess I had some difficulty making the connection.

Having seen Gal Gadot in a number of empowered roles (Fast & Furious, Wonder Woman, Wonder Woman '84, Justice League, Batman vs Superman, and more recently Red Notice) recently, it's difficult to see her as a vulnerable woman in the eyes of the audience. I keep expecting her to kick ass, so her character potrayal while refreshing is not as believeable. As usual her beauty shines, but unfortunately, in this film her character shines far less...

Letitia Wright's accent as Rosalie Otterbourne feels forced, and thus sounds fake, despite her character's wholesomeness. Ali Fazal's portayal of Andrew Katchadourian comes across as a token villain, and the portayal of French and Saunders together as a duo once more in more ways than one in the story (you will understand what I mean once you come across the relevant scene three-quarters through the film) feels contrived to appeal to certain modern-day demographics, especially considering that this wasn't how they were portrayed in the source material. It seems it was only really thrown in there as an afterthought. Annette Benning as Bouc's mother comes across like an overbearing mother who wants nothing more than to protect her son.

The background scenery throughout the film is beautiful with wonderful shots of Egyptian landmarks, even though filming took place only in England, so kudos to the editors to blending in these shots with the filmed work in England. The costumes are more vibrant than what I expected to be present in the late 1930's, to help brighten the plot and help the audience focus on the majority of the somewhat two-dimensional characters.

Throughout the film, Branagh's Poirot shines, not just with regards to his egotistic behavior of being the world's greatest detective, but also when this persona is flipped on its ass when he realizes how vulnerable he himself is. Seeing Poirot as vulnerable is something you wouldn't see in Andrew Suchet's or Peter Ustinov's portrayals, so this is refreshing and we as an audeience find ourselves relating and empathizing with him as we take the journey with him. Bateman as Bouc follows through from Orient Express with his whimsical devil-may-care outlook on life through to the end, and this is commendable. You find yourself getting hit hard towards the end when you find this lifestyle coming back to haunt him. Russell Brand... Oh my f[CENSORED]king god, knowing what I have seen of his other films like Arthur, Get Him to the Greek, and Forgetting Sarah Marshall, and then seeing this side of him has made me appreciate the man much more. I want more serious roles for him. This is like what I saw with Jim Carrey in The Majestic, a flip side which makes you think "Wow."

The soundtrack is peppered with jazz numbers sung by Sophie Okonedo and others which are catchy, amid orchestration which is easily forgettable. This film is just enough to get you escaping to the 1930's and having you observe the unravelling of the tale without having to delve into the source material, while still maintaining a considerable grasp of it, with enough changes to warrant a 21st century's audience's attention. I'm giving Death on the Nile 3½ stars and hoping that they bring the third of the series out... Hopefully a rendition of "Death in the Clouds"?

Ghostbusters (2016)

2022-02-21T09:54:00.006+11:00

Running Time: 117 minutes

Media: Streamed via Netflix

Okay, I find myself at a bit of a crossroads at the moment, trying to figure out how to approach this movie in a more critical yet fair sense while not appearing fanboy or mysoginistic... I think I have a way to do it so I'll just run with it...

This movie isn't perfect by any means. The four leading ladies who are all brilliant comic actors in their own right pull this movie off reasonably with a little cringe-worthy humor, but I must admit I'm a little bit sold on this movie paying some homage to its original source despite the fact there were times I felt they were trying. Like the original Ghostbusters film, it's meant to be a light-hearted film with comedic bits as the four main characters do what they can to save New York (and the world as we know it) from a full supernatural invasion... Unlike the original, it's gag after gag after gag after gag after gag... You know the family friend or uncle that consistently tries to tell jokes over and over again without taking the time to take a breath? It's like that... It feels like being clubbed to submission with a water-soaked towel - you can handle the pain, but after the sixth or seventh time of being hit, you kinda just want to roll over and take it without a care in the world... The humor becomes dull and drawn out and you just surrender... but not in a good way.

You have Kristen Wiig as the Peter Venkman type, the skeptic who eventualy believes in ghosts; you have Kate McKinnon as the Egon Spengler type who seems more into the scientific and logical side of things, Melissa McCarthy as the Ray Stantz type who just seems to be enthusiastic about everything, and Leslie Jones as the Winston Zeddemore of the group... Four talented women, but together, it seems they're trying to compete for who gets the most laughs from the audience...

There's male eye-candy in the form of Chris "I played Thor" Hemsworth as Kevin, this movie's answer to Janine Melnitz, Kevin... a somewhat more immature answer to it, and basically a himbo. Which kinda put me off, kinda reminded me of his character in MIB International, but worse...

And while there are the occasional cameos in place, with Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Ernie Hudson, Annie Potts and Sigourney Weaver... they are drowned out by the overly-extroverted attempts laid out by the four leading ladies who appear to be improvising in many cases within the film.

This competitiveness is somewhat indicative of them trying to work together, but in the end it comes across as them all effectively both trying to vie for individual attention and adulation... and it starts feeling like you're being swamped by one's nieces and nephews at Christmas time. The special effects were great considering it's been about three decades in between the original film and this, but it temporarily detracts from the true meat of the film, which isn't much. The plot is thin, there's ex-machina moments scattered throughout, and you are constantly reminded by all four leads that they're omnipresent within the film and not allowing the film to present itself and tell the story.

I walked away from this film feeling like I needed a shower to wash the feelings of just plain meh from having watched this film. It was a valiant attempt at trying to reboot the franchise, but Columbia Pictures clearly realized that this was only going to be a one-off and decided to focus their efforts on the original movie universe with Ghostbusters: Afterlife. As a result, I'm only going to give this film 2½ stars for a great idea, but a poor execution.

Alien (1979)

2017-02-03T07:01:00.001+11:00

Running Time: 112 minutes

Media: DVD

A few months ago, a great actor, John Hurt died from cancer at the age of 77. This was one of his earlier movies, and it seemed to be a great idea for a tribute review in dedication of him. He will be forever remembered in his varied roles, including that of the titular Elephant Man, as Ollivander in the Harry Potter series, and the War Doctor in the Doctor Who franchise. He captured our hearts and imaginations and for that I am truly grateful that he graced our lives. Rest in peace, John.

So, without further ado, we move our focus to the actual film itself, Alien, released in 1979. Star Wars – A New Hope, which released some three years earlier served as the coat tails, for which this movie pretty much ride on, with Ridley Scott clinging on to George Lucas with his interpretation of what aliens could be.

Scott paints an eerie picture of isolation, desperation and horror in this film. But how well does it pay-off?

I will tackle the one at a time… Isolation, we have a deep space towing vessel, naturally, in deep space, making its way back to earth with a huge haul of some kind of magical space ore that must be worth a motza on the profits alone. Looking back on this some 38 years since its release, it seems quite cliche to say the least. To be honest, this movie did pretty much set the trend for many well-used film cliches over the next forty or so years. The sets alone, cold, dark, dimly lit and yet, correct me if in wrong here, some look like they had been padded with leather in places (?), still give a feeling of solitude. Hell, they even throw in a freaking cat into the mix to add the "We're all alone up here, let's give it the 'Crazy Cat Lady' feel" cliche. The cat served as a semi-plot device for part of the film, kinda like how Wilson the volleyball did in Cast Away, but less convoluted. Cat does jump-scare, where's the cat, must save cat from villain, end scene with cat...

I know the tagline of "In space no one can hear you scream" was meant to send chills down your spine; I mean, come on, this was meant to be for all intents and purposes, the first space horror, right? I kinda took this a little literally. Of course not, I thought, once you're in space, there isn't sufficient atmosphere to carry sound waves, not to mention, if you're in space, you'd freeze-dry before you could get the scream out. Maybe the tagline should have been written as "In the right kind of pressurized atmospheric environment, people could probably hear you scream"...?

But I digress... It's this setting that makes the audience feel isolated, kinda depressed and trapped, that it forces them to sit and live the plot as it unfolds. You feel the cabin fever and paranoia of Veronica Cartwright's character creep inside you as crew members get cut down, one by one. It's like watching Scream in outer space, but without the crazy motive. You already feel the inevitability of Tom Skerritt's character as soon as he enters the air ducts. You know he's gonna die in there. The lovely xenomorph does the lovely jump scare and you half expect it to say "Whassup!"

Personally, I thought this scene was somewhat comical in nature, a bit like the scene in The Exorcist where Reagan does the projectile vomit bit.

Desperation seems to drive paranoia and vice versa. Parker, played by Live or Let Die actor Yaphet Kotto, seems more focused on surviving for profits' sake. I have to admit, I was surprised that he and Lambert (Veronica Cartwright) lasted as long as they did. I'll be brutally honest, I wanted Lambert to die far sooner than she did in the film.

Now, let's focus on the horror aspect of Alien. I was three when this came out, I'm forty now, so thirty-seven years of experiences to prepare me for this film and what it had in store. I was gripped on the edge of my seat for about forty or so minutes while the Face Hugger latched onto Kane's face and played tonsil hockey, only to have it die later on, and then have the tiny alien burst out Kane's chest... It kinda went all anticlimactic after that. Jump scares and things latching onto faces and aliens bursting out of chests is all very well and good. But somehow, this teensy little alien hit xenomorph puberty and grew to umpteen feet in a few hours film time... What..!? How does that f[CENSORED]king work? Ridley, you have some explaining to do, bro.

Aside from these, there's the mouth on the tongue in a mouth thing... That's the stuff nightmares are made out of... How many levels does that go?

And to be honest, if you're into something that will make you feel both in awe and disgust, google "Xenomorph Pikachu".

But that aside, one thing most of us didn't expect seeing was an android, in this case, Ash, who basically blindly followed orders without a care. All crewmen were expendable. Fast forward to when Ripley, Lambert, Parker and Ash were the only crew members left, the 'android murder' scene was both scary and ridiculous at the same time. Parker managed to cut Ash's head off and was still flailing about like a headless chicken, but with what looked like semi-cooked linguine sticking out of his neck, and bleeding what looked like condensed milk... In fact, the android interrogation scene kinda looks like an orgy gone wrong. You just have to take my word for it and see the movie...

So let's cut to the chase. What did I think of Sigourney Weaver in the film? This initial performance as Ellen Ripley, I have to confess, was actually kinda wooden in places. Bearing in mind that this was her third film at that point in time, I kinda also blame Dan O'Bannon for writing her character that way. Ripley became less one-dimensional in later movies and so I fail to see why O'Bannon didn't consider any character development for Ripley within this film. I mean, she's meant to be the surviving cast member of this film, and we barely see her running away from the alien, let alone really facing up to it. More stay put, dodge, then blow it out the airlock... I don't know, it felt like it needed something to kick it up a notch. The face hugger scene was great, but once Tom Skerritt's character was on the chopping block, the film kinda followed suit. It almost feels like they were in a hurry to get to a happy-ish kind of ending and weren't afraid to make certain sacrifices to achieve that...

I'm willing to give Alien a 3½ star rating only because this was one of those watershed moments that dramatically changed the way we thought about horror and science fiction, even though it does lack in character development of the main protagonist and it rushes to the ending such that its lustre is lost on the audience. I hope to be reviewing the sequel Aliens soon, and I hope that I'll be giving it a higher rating.

The Queen

2014-01-03T23:09:00.000+11:00

Running Time: 97 minutes

Media: TV Broadcast

I have a big crush on Helen Mirren, and she is by far one of the most attractive women of the silver screen. Seeing her in the role of Her Royal Highness Queen Elizabeth II was by far an inspired move on the part of the casting director, about a close second to the casting of Robert Downey, Junior as Tony Stark in Iron Man.

The film The Queen focuses on the events surrounding the death of Princess Diana on the 31st of August, 1997. Despite efforts of the Royal Family to treat the matter as a private affair and not to be treated as an official Royal death; public outcry throughout the United Kingdom as well as the firm, but gentle hand of then Prime Minister, Tony Blair (played by Underworld star Michael Sheen) the focus is moved to match the general public's desire for an official expression of grief by the Royal family. The events that transpire to this conclusion are reflected by the general public's steady decline of the monarchy, and an increase of Blair's popularity since his election some few months prior to the death of Diana. Ironically, the situation was reversed in real life with the film's release (September 15, 2006), which coincided with a revival of favor in the eyes of the public in respect to the monarchy and a downward trend in popularity for Blair, who resigned some several months later (June 27, 2007).

This film is a difficult one to critique, because the separation between truth and reality is somewhat blurred in historical/political films such as this. One could only really gather that this film is an aggregated average of events that transpired, based on witness testimony, the various television reports and the formal inquiry findings relating to Diana's death. Mirren plays the role of Elizabeth beautifully, portraying her in a manner that reflects the stern-faced monarch a number of people have associated her to be, how a queen should be portrayed, supposedly devoid of emotion. The ending scene is quite hilarious in the nature of her reaction to Blair's attempts at "small talk" (to put it mildly). Mirren plays the role with strength, courage and humility; I mean, let's face it, this is a huuuuuuge role to play... I am incredibly enamored with how convincing she plays the titular character. Mirren's popularity increased with the release of this film, which garnered general critical and popular acclaim for her; so much that Mirren was invited to dinner at Buckingham Palace after the film's release. However, due to filming commitments in Hollywood, Mirren couldn't attend the event. I just hope HRH didn't take the decline of the invitation to personally!

Blair played by Michael Sheen is effective; a little comical and his head is a little on the inverted egg shape, which differs somewhat to Blair himself, but indeed effective. His portrayal, no doubt, received some praise due to his reprisal of the role in movies The Deal (the previous film in which he played Blair) and The Special Relationship (a later release). Should I consider that reason enough to boost my rating of this film? Perhaps, but there are other factors.

James Cromwell, the only other A-grade actor to appear in this film plays the role of Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, is a well received panacea amongst the other events and characters that transpire throughout the film. He almost serves as comedy relief due to the use (or perhaps abuse) of the character and the stereotype set upon him as a prejudiced, opinionated royal who has nothing but insults to hurl at other characters and the general public. it's actually quite amusing seeing him refer to the crowds gathering at the memorials as Zulus, it's enough to make you cringe, but also enough to make you chuckle, in realizing that this is exactly what Prince Philip is renowned for. Cromwell looks and acts very similar to how I pictured the Royal back then, and not as the frail but still quite opinionated Prince Philip of today.

From here the cast kinda falls apart with semi lookalikes and events that may have just been added to the film as filler to pad it out to over ninety minutes. The chap playing Prince Charles, Alex Jennings... Where the hell did they conceive that this was a good idea? The poor casting of this character made Charles look like a crude caricature of himself at the very best! I'm sure that if they had looked a little harder they could have found three or four other actors who could very well have filled the role better than Jennings.

The Land Rover stuck in the river and the glancing of the deer scene, some five or so minutes that I will never get back again, regardless of the fact that she "was a mechanic during the War." I have no idea if this ever really happened... and yes, it was a beautiful stag. So was Bambi's dad, I hear... It seems incredibly irrelevant. The casting of Sylvia Syms as the Queen Mother was imaginative at best, almost making her seem like they had taken Hattie Jacques from the Carry On films and popped her in the film. Yeah... Nah.

So where does this leave us? It leaves us with a film that despite the brilliant casting of the title role, is screaming for attention and not really getting the full attention it deserves. It's like a 1972 Corvette Stingray, but with faded blue paint, high mileage and balding tyres... The potential is there, and we know what it is meant to be, but all we see is that it's trying to be something it no longer is... or at least something it could be with a little more work on it, including a tune-up and oil change. Peter Morgan has written the film wonderfully, but I'm left wondering whether I can take the overall film seriously, or the serious parts of the film overall. If I were to knowingly shave the non-essential parts of the film off, it could potentially be reduced down to about 17 minutes. However, despite this, this film has reaped the various awards set upon it, including 29 awarded to Mirren alone; so I cannot demote it completely. Therefore, I award this film 3½ stars, and still maintain that Helen Mirren is still one of the most attractive 68 year-olds in my humble opinion.

Justice League of America (1997)

2013-10-01T17:43:00.000+10:00

Running Time: 82 minutes
Media: TV Movie

I remember seeing this when this first came out... I was young, I was naive, and I had seen The Flash TV series some seven years prior, thinking "This will be great!"

How cruelly wrong I was... I have dubbed this movie with a new label "Cringe-worthy", because it is just so... so... so ugh! What can I say... this is like Friends meets Modern Family plus superpowers... It just doesn't gel too well. I have to confess, it comes off almost more camp than the original Batman TV series, and even that show was more classy by comparison...

The story revolves around Tori Olafsdotter who eventually develops powers of ice manipulation, joins a somewhat ragtag team of superheroes that make the members of the Misfits of Science team seem top of the game, and defeats the arch-villain in this storyline, known as the Weatherman, who, surprise surprise, is actually a meteorologist gone mad with power...

The only real actors in this dismal failure of a TV series pilot were Miguel Ferrer, David Krumholtz, David Ogden Stiers and John Kassir... And even then, the parts they played have more cheese in them than a pound of Jarlsberg. The other actors in this film are relative unknowns who have appeared in various TV programs here and there... It's these other actors who seem like the unknown variables of a complex algebraic equation, hard to figure out, but it's no real loss if the overall answer is not important enough.

...And... it isn't... They throw in a lot of gimmicks, like the rather poor special effects, the superfluous dialogue, the poignant background music which is meant to appeal to the audience... It doesn't. I'd like to say that it's eighty-two minutes of my life that I am never getting back... but at least by having watched it, I can set myself up for bigger and better movies to watch, and thereby use this movie as a yardstick for comparison... This movie may even rival Sharknado or Sharktopus as a sheer contender for worst movie I have ever seen... until I get to see Plan 9 From Outer Space.

There are definite holes in the plot and the backgrounds of some of these superheroes deviates widely from the norm. Even Kenny Johnston, who plays the role of Barry Allen (aka the Flash) in this film, who is by far my all-time favorite superhero from DC Comics, plays a dead-beat unemployed lackadaisical version of the comic book incarnation I have grown to know and hold as a part of me; and that in itself, speaking as a comic book fan, and a fan of the Flash... is almost tantamount to sacrilege.

Miguel Ferrer, who plays the part of the "Weatherman", which seems to be a very poor attempt on the part of director Félix Enríquez Alcalá to envisage the Weather Wizard in human form seems almost (pardon the pun) comical in nature due to the sheer seriousness of his role. Not to mention that the alter ego of the Weatherman is not "Mark Mardon" (or Marco Mardon if you're reading The New 52 series, which would have been more effective, given the Latino derivation of Ferrer's name), but "Dr. Eno"... Ironically, his hammy portrayal as a criminal mastermind made me want to reach for the namesake antacid to counter the effects of how ill I was feeling watching this movie.

David Ogden Stiers, you may remember him as Major Charles Emerson Winchester III from the TV series M*A*S*H and I have to admit, the role doesn't suit him at all... mainly because his role is that of the Martian Manhunter J'onn J'onzz... J'onn is meant to be tall and muscular... Stiers, does not fit into either category... if anything, he was somewhat rotund... but that blue cape on his costume kinda hid that fairly well...

John Kassir, if you are a hardcore geek like I am, you will know is the voice of the Crypt Keeper from Tales from the Crypt TV series... He plays the role of Ray Palmer, a more timid, less bold version of his DC name-sake as The Atom. As a fan of his work, I am a little biased on this performance, but common sense kinda won in the end. I have to admit, he does well, but it is a little corny, but not so much as to render the role he plays as over the top... His romantic interest with Tori is a bit of an attempt to win the hearts of the audience, but it doesn't pull it off altogether... also the cliché of having face paint over the eyes, and yet when removing the mask there's none at all is a bit weird... and makes no sense...

David Krumholtz, who has appeared in other TV series, namely Numb3rs; plays B.B. DaCosta's (aka Fire) love interest in the film. I'll put this simply, it's cute and endearing, but the fact that he knows so much about her kinda feels like border-line stalking... it's actually kinda creepy... That's just the role Krumholtz plays... He's a great actor, but it just didn't cut it.

I have to confess, the TV movie was clever but I don't think it would have made it as a TV series if it had taken off, maybe a season of 13 episodes at most... and then it would have not survived going into a second season... But it was an honest mistake in well-intended efforts to get something off the ground... Maybe the fact that the animated series of Justice League, Justice League Unlimited as well as Young Justice may provide a foundation to how the upcoming live-action film should be. Meantime, Justice League of America receives 2½ stars... And a huge sigh of relief that it didn't surpass anything more than the pilot episode.

Sweeney Todd - The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007)

2013-09-04T11:51:00.002+10:00

Duration: 116 minutes.

Media: Blu-Ray.

I only just noticed that this movie came out in 2007, and my immediate reaction was "S[CENSORED]t, has it really been that long!?" I never thought that this movie has been around for a good six years, so I guess the real question begs, what's taken me so damn long to see this movie?

To be honest, time and opportunity to watch this without my wife, as she is prone to getting grossed out with movies such as this. Various incarnations of Sweeney Todd have inundated us from days of old, and they all have one thing in common... blood, blood and more blood... oh, and pies... I have to admit, since watching this movie I have been very hesitant to tuck into the Aussie fave, the honorable meat pie, lest I find a severed toe or finger in it.

This movie is no exception, what with the darkness that only a, what I like to call a "Deppton" collaboration, can provide. The Tim Burton/Johnny Depp dynamic seems to pop up every so often with the occasional addition of Helena Bonham Carter thrown into the mix. Everytime Deppton make a film, there seems to be a bit of a random effect as to how well it goes...

I will quote Rotten Tomatoes' overall film ratings for the benefit of this example.

Edward Scissorhands (1990) - The first Deppton collaboration, a somewhat dark movie, 7.6/10;
Ed Wood (1994) - considerably dark and quite hilarious, 8/10;
Sleepy Hollow (1999) - and hey, what do you know, it's rather dark as well, 6.3/10;
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005) - a dark version of the original 1971 film (are you seeing a general pattern here?), 7.2/10. By this time, Helena Bonham Carter and Tim Burton had been together for about four years and this was the trio's first group collaboration, a "Deppton Carter" film;
Corpse Bride (2005) - Let's face it, they're all dark... Another "Deppton Carter" collaboration that scored 7.2/10;
Sweeney Todd (2007), our titular movie in question, yet another "Deppton Carter" film, rated 7.7/10;
Alice in Wonderland (2010), another "Deppton Carter", but this one rated 5.7/10; and finally
Dark Shadows (2012), which surprisingly was another "Deppton Carter", fared worse at 5.3/10;

All Burton's collaborations with Johnny Depp have been fairly considerable but have waned past Sweeney Todd, and I'm not sure why to be honest... I think it was more that there were considerable risks with projects that have had... a previous past that were in themselves, an acquired taste. Sleepy Hollow, inspired by the legend of the Headless Horseman, was a short story, and the film was a fairly broad extrapolation from that. Alice in Wonderland was meant to be a sequel to the story, inspired by the original story and Through the Looking Glass, which is also an acquired taste - I mean, even my wife hates the story, much to my surprise. Dark Shadows was inspired from the original 1960's and 1990's TV series of the same name, also acquired tastes. One guesses that the reason these three weren't as strong is because hard core fans of these movies went there with high expectations and were bitterly disappointed and that the critics themselves placed similar expectations on what to expect in these films and marked them down accordingly.

Bearing this in mind, what is it about Sweeney Todd that pushes the ratings to being one of the highest rating films out of the eight or so that Tim Burton has worked on with Johnny Depp?

Well, for starters there is the Johnny Depp factor, he's a handsome chap... though have you seen him lately? He's kinda started looking like Mickey Rourke... But nevertheless, still a handsome chap...

It's a musical, this gets some points. Musicals always seem to have a way of getting interest from the general populous. Look at High School Musical, Hairspray and the most recent incarnation of Les Miserables. They all raked in big... although it kinda helps when you have leading men in these movies like Zac Efron and... Zac Efron (I only just realized he was in Hairspray too... and Hugh Jackman...

But I think the most captivating and attractive factor in this film, would have to be the blood and gore. It's something that seems to draw us in... Like it or hate it, the horror factor (despite it being in overly-abundant bucketfuls, sometimes quite literally) seems to have this raw appeal that makes you want to squirm, and yet you can't look away. In at least a dozen moments of the film, I found myself cringing in almost sheer disgust and horror, and yet, it was so... over-the-top it was hilarious. I have a tendency to treat horror films of late as though there was a comedic element within them. A guy gets his head taken clean off by a giant blade, I laugh my goddamn ass off... I guess it's more because of the overall nature of the deaths that seems rather incredulous that it deserves such a response... it's so far fetched and over-the-top and yet so... predictable but you want to see it again and again, laughing so hard that you almost wet yourself. And that's how it is with Sweeney Toidd.

So why, with this film? To give you an understanding, you need a quick synopsis of how this film plays out...

Johnny Depp plays Benjamin Barker, a barber who was wrongfully imprisoned by Judge Turpin, so that he could marry Barker's wife and raise his daughter as his own. This is the ultimate spoiled brat concept... I have no toys, so I must take someone else's... Barker returns to London, and boy is he pissed off! He wants to off the judge that had him banished, so he returns as "Sweeney Todd" a barber with a razor sharp wit, as well as a razor to match... He loses the chance to off the judge by pure chance and as a result collaborates with Mrs Lovett, played by Helena Bonham Carter, who owns the pie shop downstairs, so that he can start offing people, because in his eyes they're all deserving of it... But how to get rid of the bodies? Enter Mrs Lovett, who has found a wonderful new source of protein that makes Soylent Green look like a Snickers bar in comparison... She starts baking human flesh into her meat pies... (Nummy)

Long story short, there are a lot of deaths and twists toward the end of the film that I never foresaw... and surprisingly, it kinda appealed to me, which kinda makes me sound quite twisted and sick, but to be perfectly honest, it's a work of fiction, so who really cares? The musical numbers are peppered nicely throughout the film, and that sorta gives you a more deeper insight into the natures of the characters of Todd, Lovett, Turpin and Pirelli... The timeline is set to what is believed to be Victorian England... though it is never really implied anywhere throughout the film, and to be perfectly honest, that doesn't bother me at all...

The color scheme which is predominantly in its black-and-whites, and sepias as well as the occasional splash of red reminds me of throwbacks to say, Frank Miller's 300 or Sin City, which adopted those sorts of visual techniques to get the message across to the audience - and that is that this movie is about one thing, and one thing only. Revenge, pure and simple. Depp pushes the boundaries as the revenge-driven title character and delivers that role with such conviction that the audience feels the pain he lives with and has for the past fifteen years. You start rooting for him with every progressive throat that he slits and you pretty much find yourself cheering towards the end of the film. It's a very addictive plot device, all that blood...

Depp as Sweeney Todd looks slightly gaunt and ambivalent of the surroundings as he focuses on his tasks at hand, namely, dispatching the lives of those, who just in general, piss off Sweeney Todd. He seems to have acquired a singing voice which is great... Not amazing, but still great... But for some reason, he still sounds a lot like Captain Jack Sparrow, less complicated hair and he was... focused more than anything, whereas Sparrow was more laisser faire. The gaunt and pale face make up on Depp is great, though I am having trouble understanding the huge gash of white hair that seems like a throwback to Anna Paquin's character of Rogue in the X-Men movie franchise. nevertheless, it suits him... All these dark movies that Deppton do together seem to work in his favor for the most of it... I could see him playing the part of an aging rock star. His singing voice isn't too bad either.

Helena Bonham Carter... I know she's Tim Burton's partner and all, and she does add a bit more humor, but she always tends to look like she could do with a few Big Mac McValue meals. As Mrs Lovett, her intentions are endearing but misplaced, looking to have a wonderful life with Sweeney Todd despite her baking people into pastries. I have to confess though, after seeing her in the Harry Potter movies as Bellatrix Lestrange, every time now that I see her in a film that's "dark" she seems like she's playing the role of a corpse. Given that she played the title role in Corpse Bride, it seems rather befitting, but the stereotype with Bonham Carter and roles that make her look like she's post-mortem seems to have stuck. This isn't Bonham Carter's fault in any way... I blame very good make-up in this case... and scriptwriting, and hey, if you're good at what you can do, by all means go for it... Nevertheless, she plays the part of Lovett well, rather comically in places which suits the role of Lovett as it did in the stage productions.

I also have to give kudos to Alan Rickman who plays the part of Judge Turpin rather well, a bit of a send up of the alluded corruption of Victorian justice back then. Note that Bonham Carter, Rickman and Timothy Spall (who stars as Beadle Bamford) all played roles in the Harry Potter movies, they can't seem to get enough of one another, can they? Rickman always seems to be stereotyped into roles as a bad guy time and time again, in a way that's a shame, but at the same time, that's also great. Turpin is a bit on the sick side, supposedly taking a leaf from Woody Allen's book and trying to marry his ward. If you think that's the most disgusting thing in Sweeney Todd, however, throat-cutting and baking people into pies aside, then maybe you may need to seek professional help.

Sacha Baron Cohen however, who plays Adolfo Pirelli, is a somewhat of a surprise... he does the same thing as he does with Monsieur Thenadier in Les Miserables, steal the stage... I personally feel he loves the musical roles inasmuch if not more than the non-musical roles, as he gets to be a little more serious, and that seems quite admirable. So it's a shame that he dropped out of the Freddie Mercury bio-pic project in July 2013, over "creative differences" between him and the surviving members of Queen, because I think he would have made the role his own, in the same way that Hugh Jackman has done with Wolverine.

Saying that, this movie is quite enjoyable, given the blood and gore that the movie brings. It made me cringe, rather receptively, and I strangely hope to see it again in the near future. Sweeney Todd get two thumbs up (which are not found in any pies quite luckily) and receives 4½ stars... Now I feel hungry for a Four 'N' Twenty pie for some strange reason...

The Wolverine 3D

2013-08-19T15:24:00.000+10:00

Duration: 126 minutes.

Media: Cinematic Release
(Parramatta Event Gold Class Cinemas).

You know what I love about Gold Class cinemas? The comfy reclining seats, the amazing food, and most of all, the limited seating. I tend to prefer to sit smack dab in the middle of a cinema, whether it be Gold Class or a standard cinema... I think it's more of a matter of acoustics as well as being able to view the entire screen directly in front of me so that I can take in the entire scene.

The fact that I was going to be watching The Wolverine was just the icing on the cake. My brother-in-law and sister-in-law gifted me a pair of Gold Class tickets for my birthday, and seeing I'm the sharing type; and because my wife absolutely loves Hugh Jackman as the titular character she and I headed off to Event Cinemas to see the sixth Marvel Studios movie starring Jackman. It seems that Hugh is pretty much a staple (and necessity) for the continued success of the X-Men related franchise. As a result, I am pleased to hear of the upcoming seventh film, X-Men: Days of Future Past to be released in 2014, although this is also implied, given the mid-credits sequence; which [SPOILER ALERT!] is played so well given the reprisal of roles (albeit at a cameo capacity) by Patrick Stewart and Sir Ian McKellen as Charles Xavier and Eric Lensherr respectively. Given the nature of Wolverine's character his presence within the Marvel Universe is such that he can pretty much appear to be the same no matter where, no matter when. And in this movie, it is no exception, especially with respect to Logan's immortality.

The timeline of this movie lays some time after the events of X-Men: The Last Stand where Logan has pretty much reverted to the life of a hermit, still having dreams (or nightmares - I guess it depends on the context) with Jean Gray, whom he had killed when she was in her Dark Phoenix incarnation, while living off the land, in what as far as I can tell is his homeland of Canada. He is then approached by a mutant called Yukio who has been asked to bring him to see her employer, Ichirō Yashida, of whom Logan had saved back in the time of the Nagasaki bombing during World War II, when Yashida was an officer at the POW camp where Logan was held. It seems Yashida wants to thank him personally and to also say good-bye; well, he is dying... as sixty-five years added to something as gruelling as surviving an atomic blast can take its toll on a person it seems (who'd have known?)

But it seems that Yashida-san has more. He wants to give Logan a gift, he wants to give him mortality. It's at this point a comics fan such as myself would think "Why the f[CENSORED]k would he consider the possibility that Wolverine would accept such a gift? Much to our delight he is resilient and flatly refuses the deal, only to later find himself losing his gift of healing/immortality due to some weird electronic gene-suppressing bug that must have been inspired from the tracking bug that was hidden inside Neo in The Matrix. Pretty soon, Yashida is dead, and his granddaughter, Mariko, is being targetted on all sides for no apparent reason from the time she attends her grandfather's funeral.

Mariko, played by Tao Okamoto, is an absolute babe. I kinda had a bit of a crush on her during the length of this movie, and her tenacity and tough persona shines through as Mariko, which I think is a great garnish to Jackman's dish of Wolverine that's been served up here. Tao's character of Mariko is a very determined, independent young lady and personally, I wouldn't want to mess with that either... Though I must admit, the role is left somewhat empty to an extent. I kinda feel that Mariko's nature is very different to what a number of us have read in a number of different comics, particularly in the Age of Apocalypse and Exiles versions of the comics. Do I appreciate the way that Mariko is handled in the course of this movie? I'd like to say "yes", but only because her initial hardened exterior is swapped for a more vulnerable persona later in the film. I'm not saying that I want women in film to be demure or damsels in distress, but it's nice to see a hardened character like Mariko become less so...

Hugh Jackman... where do I begin, he totally owns his role, and he's worked hard at it. As I said before, this is his sixth role as Logan, with a seventh one to come, there's bound to be a few more requests for Jackman to don the claws once again. In this incarnation in this movie, we see a more humanized version of Wolverine, one with the inability to heal (What? Oh, quit being surprised, they mentioned it in the trailers, so it's no shock...) And one who eventually reverts to a slightly retro-version of himself, I shan't say how, but stick around in your seat long enough and you will see how. Logan, as always has the subtlety of a sledge hammer, the strength of many men, and his razor sharp but dark wit; and you know, what? If he had strayed anyway beyond that, he'd be a different mutant altogether, and we prefer the Wolverine as he is, and I think I speak on behalf of every fan boy when I say that.

The other main star that seems to come through and shine is Famke Janssen, who plays, I guess the ghost of her former character, Jean Grey. She seems to appear as a sort of conscience factor, almost a Jiminy Cricket of sorts, but she more or less haunts Logan in his dreams or when he's all alone. In this film, the "ghost" of Jean and Logan have a somewhat complicated relationship of sorts, where Logan is still coming to grips with what he did in The Last Stand. Hugh himself said Jackman said, "There's no doubt that the most important relationship in his life is - we've seen through the movies - is his relationship with Jean Grey. Yes, we saw her die at the end of X-Men: The Last Stand, but in this movie, she has a presence which I think is vital to the movie, particularly for him confronting the most difficult thing within himself." And it works... We all feel bad about Jean being killed but to Logan, it seemed like the only way that she could be defeated, and yes, I cried inside when Jean died. I also kept wondering why she always appeared in this film in nothing but a silky lingerie number... Not that I minded... Nevertheless, the interaction between these two characters does push the story onward, and I think we would have seen a very different film had this dynamic been left out.

One other character comes into mind, and I only say that because she is absolutely annoying and I really couldn't see the justification of her presence within the movie save for there being a need to have a villain... and that's the character called Viper. Now, my knowledge of Viper in the Marvel Universe gives me a very different picture than what I saw in this film. To tell you the truth, she seems a little more likeable in the film than the comics version... but even then, this character of Viper is kinda... gross. Over-confident, self-absorbed and poisonous; a bit like my ex-wife.... (I'm not kidding). Viper in this case has a few more traits more related to her nickname, she is immune to all toxins , able to shed her skin if infected, as well as being a master at creating toxins. I really didn't see the point of including the skin-shedding part even though it would have justified the nickname. She's played by Svetlana Khodchenkova, who would have been a complete unknown to me, if it wasn't for the fact that I also recognize her from Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy as Irina. I don't know, maybe it's because she's the main villain... or is she? (No spoilers this time, sorry!)

Secondary characters accumulate throughout this movie here and there like scraps of paper awaiting to be thrown out... They seem to have little purpose save to help bring the story together, even though the story doesn't truly involve them. The fight scene between Logan and Shingen seems almost parodied from elsewhere, as Shingen seems to have either the brazen courage or blatant stupidity to keep going even though he's beaten... it could be the whole honor code that he abides to there in Japan, I can't be certain. The fight scene between Yukio (another mutant whose power is the ability to see people's deaths... Wow... How thrilling that must be...) and Viper is a necessity as we see the need for the good guy to triumph over the bad guy... The final fight scene between Wolverine and the true nemesis in this film raises a few questions, and seems a little too corny towards the end, albeit for a split second or two. I personally found the post-funeral fight scene a little more than any of these other ones, the choreography is great and Logan, Yukio and Harada (some ninja type who thinks he can't be seen in broad daylight, dressed in black, tip-toeing over the rooftops... Hmmm...) worked well together in this scene.

Oh, and Harada... Will Yun Lee plays the role well, but I have to question the writers on the logic of his storyline. He kept switching sides quicker than he can jump from one rooftop to another... There may have been a fairly limited number of people in that Gold Class cinema, but I think they were having just as much trouble trying to figure out which f[CENSORED]king side he was fighting for... Funnily enough, he plays a very limited role in another movie I'll be reviewing very shortly, Total Recall (the 2012 reboot), and the difference between his character in there and in this film is astounding... Here, Harada looks fit, well-fed and has a fairly good length of hair... Whereas it seems the total opposite in Total Recall. Lee underwent rigorous sword training for The Wolverine, and I have to say, it pays off... it doesn't seem fake or flaunted, it has certainly paid off.

The visual effects are seamless and very smooth, including the Silver Samurai which appeared to be all CGI. After a number of films, Marvel have pretty got the X-Men universe pretty much worked out. That being said, I was quite happy to see an old favorite come back towards the end of the film during the final fight scene.

Am I happy with the film? Yes, but the film is just a prelude of what is to come next year; it feels somewhat incomplete... and I was left wanting more. The movie, was kinda like a lunch time yum-cha session... I'm continuously being fed, and loving every morsel, but after leaving... I'm left feeling even hungrier and wondering whether there could have been more... That said, I am giving The Wolverine 4 stars, and hoping the next installment delivers more to warrant that five star rating.

Argo (2012)

2013-07-22T18:50:00.000+10:00

Running Time: 120 minutes

Media: DVD

There are very few Ben Affleck movies I dislike, I think Ben is a reasonable actor and he does fairly well. He's made mistakes along the way and he seems to have gotten himself a decent momentum with which to forge on. Argo is no exception, it's a film I did enjoy, and seeing it was based on real life events, I wanted to find out more.

So I took it upon myself to go to Wikipedia and check out details of the Canadian Caper and I was intrigued... There was even an illustrated children's book about the event called Escapes! Now while there were there already was a TV film made back in 1981, based on the original cover story (i.e. "the Canadians saved the day") Argo is based on the true events, namely, that the CIA were responsible for the cover story and development of a fake film studio and fake press releases and fake this and fake that, just to provide a definite background story to prove to the Iranians that the six escaped staff from the U.S. embassy were actually six Canadian film crew members getting locations for the film. Basically the CIA used some serious bull[CENSORED]t in order to complete their mission. And boy, did it pay off!

This two-hour movie has a strange property, it makes you feel like you're watching a documentary that's only half the size. The events that led to the seizure of the United States embassy in Tehran seemed somewhat minimal in length, and the process of the set up of this Canadian film crew cover story took some considerable time to be put into effect, but once that was done, from the moment Affleck's character of Tony Mendez touches down in Tehran, the rest of the movie seems to disappear in the blink of an eye.

Interesting thing about the events that transpired in 1979-1980 which were the inspiration for this movie; when the Canadian Embassy became hosts to the six refugees from the now seized US Embassy, the Canadian Government started the ball rolling by getting six fake passports ready, complete with fake identities ready to be sent through to them. The only thing is, they lacked the resources to pull it off. Enter Tony Mendez and the creation of the fake film studio, press releases, etc. with thanks to the CIA, and it all came together...

So, is it convincing? Yes... And yet no... Here's the thing, just like the pretext of the movie within the movie, Hollywood has a way with artistic license. I took the liberty of reading more into the events of the Canadian Caper and they're actually quite dull... In a way it's no surprise that they decided to add extra bits to jazz it up. By doing so, the historical inaccuracies have been criticized considerably and have resulted in a few disgruntled critics bad mouthing the film despite the various awards won by this film.

I'll be blunt here; I did like the film, even though the film kinda smacks of the old Mission: Impossible TV series of 1969-1973... Given that the events took place some seven years after the TV series finished, the analogy kinda fits like a comfy old pair of gloves. I have to admit though, that the number of "Hollywood" thriller clichés within the film kinda added to the effect of the film. According to the Rotten Tomatoes, 96% of critics gave a positive review for this film... So why people keep pummeling these movies based on real life events puzzles me... I mean, why didn't they pummel Titanic or Men of Honor or Apollo 13 just as equally?

I think the whole point of Hollywood is to add a layer of glamor to everything it touches, just like within Argo and its fake film counterpart. And that's what makes this movie work on so many levels... Even though there are various clichés that permeate the film. There's the doubting people to be rescue; the rescue plan that's so crazy that it may just work despite the lack of confidence by everyone involved; the near-capture scene; the quick thinking actions of one of the people to be rescued (who conveniently speaks fluent Farsi like a native) and the protagonist's right-hand man who seems to stop at nothing to help his friend in need...

Cringeworthy as each of these clichés seems to be, I think a number of us have grown rather accustomed to them being present in films such as this. The funny thing is, during the film they're not as noticeable as they are in retrospect. I guess the convenient Farsi speaking embassy worker cliché kinda haunts me a little but otherwise I'm okay with it...

Ben Affleck, he starred, directed and produced this film... He's done pretty well, I think, with George Clooney also sharing production rights along with Grant Heslov, who was also responsible for The Men Who Stare At Goats... I think he's made an exceptional performance as exfiltration specialist Tony Mendez. What made Affleck so believable in this film was that he didn't bring an overconfident, cocky and expert-of-everything character to the screen. Tony Mendez in this film was a vulnerable man; separated from his wife and son, self-doubting at times and has a genuine demeanor about him that doesn't feel it's forced.

You then have Bryan Cranston, who has been one busy man. Amid starring in seasons of Breaking Bad, and fourteen movies over 2010 to 2012, Cranston's character of Jack O'Donnell is bold and determined which is a credit to his acting stamina... I honestly don't know how he does it to be honest...

John Goodman as John Chambers, a perfect fit. Both Johns were big men and Goodman must have studied his namesake very carefully as I had difficulty seeing anything but Chambers on the screen. I know Goodman has been selective of late choosing his roles but I got to hand it to him, he's done well with this role.

Finally Alan Arkin, one of the first films I saw him in was the 1968 film Inspector Clouseau... A spin-off film from the Pink Panther series... I haven't seen him in much else of late, save for "Get Smart", but like Goodman, Arkin doesn't hammer out films like Affleck and Cranston do... He too is selective, and in his case his roles are more a subject of quality than quantity. Nevertheless, his portrayal of Lester Siegel was remarkable... Arkin's cynicism and candor come out strong in Siegel in aiding Mendez to get the script for the mission, in fact, it stays with you for the length of the film... But not in a bad way. Arkin's good at what he does, he adds a little wit to help quell the tension within the film, as he seems to do.

The film, all in all, was quite enjoyable and I'd watch it again... My only regret is that Hollywood, in the name of making it a great film, took an interesting story, and added more Hollywood to it to make it worthy of screening... Sort of like the film cliché where the girl who is the ugly duckling gets made over so that she'd fit in with the rest of society... Given that, I'm happy to award 4½ stars to Argo.

Superman III

2013-07-17T15:28:00.001+10:00

Running Time: 125 minutes

Media: TV Broadcast (Late night movie)

You know, I always have been a fan of the original Superman series (known by various fans as the Donnerverse series of the Superman movies. It's different to the stuff we've seen with Brandon Routh or the new one with Henry Cavill, and also different to the Tom Welling series of Smallville. Most people are aware of these movies, probably though, less and less so as we go further into the series... Everyone remembers the first one, and the second one about as much... Once you start getting into the third and fourth films, you start scratching your head in confusion...

And with Superman III, it's pretty much that, it's a bit of a head-scratcher, alright... What with the five or so minutes of introduction credits with the additional footage of the previous two films, followed by a five or so minute long slapstick routine that featured a lot of men getting injured from accidents resulting from ogling Pamela Stephenson. This is just the top of the food chain of stupidity that has culminated from the plot of this movie.

I think this seems to have resulted from one thing, and one thing only: the introduction of Richard Pryor as the focus of the film, as opposed to Christopher Reeve; and with the redirected focus, things definitely go wrong... Pryor stars as August "Gus" Gorman, a chronic suffer of unemployment who decides to try his luck with computers, and miraculously develops a talent for it... He gets a job, and decides that because he's not being paid enough, to start "salami-slicing" everyone else's salaries and whack all those shaved pennies into his pocket. This alerts his boss, Ross Webster (played by Robert Vaughan), who with the help of his sister, Vera (there's no explanation why she's there...?), blackmails Gorman into helping him rule the financial world.

Let me stop right here for just a second... okay, maybe more...Webster's immediate plan is for Gorman to hijack a weather satellite that measures weather changes like any other weather satellite and turn it into a weather controlling satellite to ruin Columbia's entire coffee crop... Now bear in mind, the last time I had seen this movie in full, I may have been seven, maybe eight years of age... Back then I would have smiled and nodded and thought "Cool, I'm still watching Superman III!" Now, I just had my jaw drop in shock and thinking "What the hell is this bulls[CENSORED]t?!?"

This attempt to switch everyone from Columbian beans to slow-roasted Arabica is thwarted by Superman. Not only that, but Supes also decides to go to his high school reunion in Smallville as his alter ego, Clark Kent... On his way he stops a chemical plant from going up in flames, inclusive of preventing several hundred vials of "beltric" acid from bringing down the plant. He does this by freezing the top part of a nearby lake and dropping it on the burning buildings... I can't imagine the number of fish that may have perished from Superman freezing the lake.

The concept of these things happening just gets weirder and weirder as time goes by... Once again, another love interest, this time Lana Lang, played by Annette O'Toole, fails to see that Superman is just Clark Kent without glasses. Superman rescues her son Ricky, who for some unknown reason is found unconscious and lying in the direct path of a crop harvester. At a celebration to honor Superman, Pryor once again, dressed as an army officer goes into some weird tirade about plastics with the citizens of Smallville and in a roundabout way manages to thank Superman for saving the chemical plant, presenting him with some faux Kryptonite. This crap Kryptonite manages to turn Superman into an evil version of himself. You would think that Superman was clever enough to avoid any hunks of green rock by instinct given the information he would have learned based off the first two movies...

I could go on and on, but to do so would make my brain melt... The focus seems to be more on Richard Pryor and his supposedly bumbling but logic-defying computer genius than it is on Christopher Reeve and the struggle to free himself of his evil self... In the end, the creation of some super computer that is capable of doing anything that Gus tells it to do seems quite illogical considering we barely can program iPhone's Siri to recognize the words "Call my wife at home", but yet there it is... The idea of it then coming alive and trying to kill off Superman by the attempted conversion of Webster's sister into a cyborg of sorts is far-fetched, but then again, there it is...

All I can ask is, what the f[CENSORED]k were Ilya and Alexander Salkind thinking by allowing David and Leslie Newman write the script? I would never have let the script leave the desk... well, save for making a bee-line for the trash bin. Argo, the script that helped fuel the Canadian Caper in 1979 made better sense than this... And even the film based on the incident was a better film than this. Robert Vaughan's portrayal of Ross Webster proves to be nothing save for a Lex Luthor wanna-be. Pamela Stephenson who plays Lorelei Ambrosia, his "psychic nutritionist" (what?!?) seems to have more lucid moments of clarity than anyone else in the film, and it seems was really hiding her intelligence for some other reason... I wish I knew what that was... Margot Kidder, our lovely Lois Lane, and even Gene Hackman (who played Lex Luthor in the first two movies) were more or less punished for their anger towards the Salkinds' treatment of Richard Donner in the first two films, and he refused to reprise his role for Superman III, only to be persuaded to reprise his role for Superman IV: The Quest for Peace. Kidder on the other hand, suffered an even more embarrassing scenario of having her role in Superman III reduced to a brief cameo in the beginning and the end... Surprisingly Ilya Salkind denied these allegations in his commentary in the 2006 DVD release of this film.

The film itself left me with so many unanswered questions, that I thought I was on an episode of Jeopardy. I've never really considered this previously when I was a child because, hey, all young boys love their superheroes, but now that I'm thirty-seven, I'm now seeing a movie with more holes than ten pounds of Jarlsberg cheese, and ironically, was just as cheesy in plot, if not moreso. When Richard Donner was hired to direct the first two films, he thought the Newmans' scripts were somewhat distasteful, and so he hired Tom Mankiewicz to do some serious re-writing of the scripts... As they were not attached to the franchise come Superman III, the Salkinds were able to bring their vision of Superman to the big screen, hiring the Newmans to write the script. I think this is what happens when super-egos get in the way of Superman. Sadly, this failed the film considerably. Despite these shortcomings... Reeve does get some praise for his portrayal of his corrupted version of Superman, the junkyard battle scene was kinda predictable with respect to the good side winning. However, Superman III has not won me any favor of any kind, and as a result gets two stars.

Iron Man 3

2013-07-14T16:22:00.001+10:00

Running Time: 130 minutes
Media: Cinematic Release (Hoyts Penrith)

I have two comic book heroes that I absolutely love, no questions asked. One of them is DC Comics' the Flash, and I have always loved anything that has come out regarding him in all of his various incarnations.

The other is Marvel Comics' Iron Man. And I have to confess, when I first heard that Robert Downey Junior was going to be playing the part of Tony Stark, I was fist pumping the air in celebration! He was the most perfect fit in my personal opinion... RDJ was a broken man, rather much like Stark was in the comics... And if I do say so myself, the Iron Man franchise has pretty much resurrected Downey's career. Four movies on and a cameo to boot (see "The Incredible Hulk" for a lovely little Easter egg most would miss because they don't watch past the credits, let alone stick around for them...) and it's plain to see that Iron Man and the Avengers are here to stay... And will be coming back for even more.

And most of you may think I've pretty much written the review in my head and made my mind up... I have, but before I write a glowing review on what I already consider a great film, a few caveats. I'm writing this as a fan of film and comics, not as someone who has been endorsed by Marvel Studios (if only!) Secondly, I'm a bit of a traditionalist and appreciate when good ideas can be translated seamlessly from one medium to another, the Harry Potter franchise comes to mind (book to film, albeit with a few minuses here and there... But I'll get to those in future reviews...), but at the same time I will, on occasion mark down attempts to push the boundaries too far... For example, the original Spider-Man series using organic web creation... And a much wimpier and vulnerable Peter Parker...

So, Iron Man 3... Where do we begin? Good or bad? Let's start with the bad and work our way up...

Gwyneth Paltrow as Pepper Potts, undeniably gorgeous, but I've noticed her hair has gotten lighter and lighter with each film... Where's the redhead from the first film?? Granted, the sassiness is still there, but why did Pepper let her red locks fade to blonde? Am I being a little sentimental? Possibly, but as I said I'm a bit of a traditionalist...

Next, Stark's near brush with death against the alien race trying to enslave the planet, what were they called again, the Chitauri... That's it... Now, I was still trying to figure out what it was that keeps freaking Stark out when people mention the battle of New York... He pretty much killed them off with the nuclear device he pointed at the Chitauri mothership... He then passed out until the Hulk... er... "jolted" him awake... So the question begs, what the f[CENSORED]k makes him break down at the thought of recalling the events of that day?

Also, I know Marvel Studios is owned by Disney but did they have to hammer that point home by borrowing elements from "The Incredibles"? You don't follow? Okay, prepare for spoilers...

In Iron Man 3, Tony Stark (aka Iron Man) is approached by an idolizing young scientist, Aldrich Killian, hoping to join forces with Stark, but is turned down by Stark; only to come back as an evil version of himself several years later, who is then subsequently killed but not by Stark.

In The Incredibles, Robert Parr (aka Mr Incredible) is approached by an idolizing fan, Buddy Pine, but is turned down by Parr; only to come back as an evil version of himself several years later, who is then subsequently killed but not by Parr.

They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery... I guess when you consider the parallels between "Avatar" and "Pocahontas" are far greater, then this thing with "Iron Man 3" and "The Incredibles" is considerably forgivable in comparison.

So let's go through the main cast... Robert Downey Junior... RDJ, well what can I say? RDJ is RDJ, he was born for the role in my personal opinion and I can't fault him... His role is serious with a side of funny, though his little freak-out episodes throughout the film seem odd... They seem... "out of place", and I'm having trouble making sense of it... And his collaboration with this kid Harley just seems a little fortuitous, almost convenient... This was the only part that has made me question the film really...

Well, that and Pepper Potts' ever fading red hair to blonde... That's questionable too. Paltrow's portrayal of Potts, however, is much stronger than the original character portrayed in the classic comics or even the two/three minute cartoon mini-series I used to watch when I was younger. And you know what? It suits the franchise; Potts is the Jiminy Cricket sitting on Tony Stark's shoulder to help guide him... with Stark, just like Pinocchio, striving to be more than he currently is.

Guy Pearce as the bad guy, it seems a little... "odd"... Don't get me wrong, I think he's a great actor and he's a fellow Australian, but his character, Aldrich Killian, comes off as snobby, arrogant, his fake tan looks a little bit too fake... Perfect teeth, and, perfect pecs… and a very petty attitude to those who aren't perfect like he is... Basically, he looks and acts like a complete douche bag. When I think about it though, that's probably the whole objective, make Guy Pearce a douche so that Robert Downey Junior looks angelic by comparison, and you know what? I think they succeeded.

Wait a second, almost forgot about Ben Kingsley as The Mandarin... Remember all that hype that was made when they announced The Mandarin as the baddie for Iron Man 3? Well, take that hype, stick it in a luxurious envelope, seal it, add a pretty bow on it... Got that? Good, now take that envelope and promptly feed it into the nearest document shredder you can find... As soon as I saw his face and heard his voice I knew that something suspicious was up... Being known as The Mandarin and yet sounding like a Texan sheriff with a fake over-enunciated drawl rang alarm bells from my cinema seat... This Mandarin was (from my already-formed opinion) merely a figurehead or a patsy or rather, the "customer sales representative" to something more sinister. How anticlimactic my conclusions were when I found that I was right... It's rather disappointing...

Now enough of the cast, let's go to the visual effects... I can't fault them, I really can't... That's more because of the forty-something special suits that Tony Stark has created since the New York incident in "Marvel's The Avengers" some months back... Though a question is raised regarding the suits, that one being why he didn't use them all in the first major battle scene as he did in the final scene... Once you see the film, you'll be wondering the same. The transition of Stark hopping from one suit to the next is seamless... and left me wondering "where's my god damn Iron man suit?" The other somewhat cool effect is this "Extremis" virus thing... It seems very heat and fire orientated and the visuals for that are pretty awesome.

The ending of the movie, well, what can I say... It's left me wondering, will Stark take on the mantle of Iron Man ever again? It's left it somewhat very open-ended and although it seems to point to a definite retirement, what's gonna happen seeing there's plans of a sequel to the Avengers? Lets just say that I'm still wanting more... In the mean time, Iron Man 3 receives four stars...

Warm Bodies

2013-06-28T02:16:00.003+10:00

Running time: 97 minutes

Media: Cinematic release

I saw this movie a few months ago after an aunt's birthday party, and I have to admit, I actually enjoyed this considerably. And while I normally tend to read the books of these book-to-film conversions, I didn't know that a book existed until I read about it in its respective Wiki article.

I kept looking at the two lead characters, R, the zombie and Julie the non-zombie, and I realized I had seen them in other movies recently. R is played by Nicholas Roult, who played Dr. Hank McCoy in X-Men: First Class who also became Beast in that film. Julie, is played by Aussie girl Teresa Palmer, who was the love interest in the Disney movie The Sorceror's Apprentice. It's a thing I do, it's not a sign of a mental condition or anything, I just try to recognize everyone I can in a film where possible, just for my own interest and curiosity... But I digress...

The premise of the film is that we have the post-apocalyptic world scenario where zombies are rife throughout the area in question, and there's small fortified cities where survivors venture out to find food, medical supplies, etc. It kinda reminds me of an iPhone app I have called "Zombies, Run!", which, I kid you not, is a fitness program to help with running away from virtual zombies! Anyhow, in one of these missions Julie and her somewhat ass of a boyfriend, Perry are trapped in some medical facility. Perry gets killed by R (that's all he remembers of his name... just the R), who proceeds to also eat Perry's brain... Now supposedly a zombie eating someone's brain somehow makes them telepathically aligned with the person they're eating, feeling their emotions and thoughts. So as a result, R starts having feelings for Julie, which turn out to be feelings of love as far as it can be told. Julie is freaked out about some zombie trying to woo her... And probably not as much as her dad, played by John Malkovich... Who thinks that the only good zombie is a dead one...

Just as an aside, here's a quick thought-provoking question. When R eats someone's brain, he absorbs their thoughts and feelings... If R were to eat some of his own brains... would he find himself in that restaurant scene in Being John Malkovich? I have no idea where that thought came from... I think my glass of Sprite may be tainted or something...

Anyhow, R tries to woo Julie, and at the same time tries to avoid both of them being torn apart by "boneys" which are zombies that have gone off on a bender, never to return; or being killed by Julie's dad and his troops, as well as preventing Julie from being eaten by fellow zombies like R's friend, M (played by Rob Corddry). But it seems that not only is R changing, the love R feels for Julie is spreading to other zombies like M, and they're changing too... It's a little leap if faith on the part of the audience, but it does pay off a little... It's a kind of a feel good movie, but without the bubblegum goodness that makes you want to gag like you've had a cup of fake-cherry flavored cough syrup.

Now while I haven't read the book, I would suspect that the movie ties in very closely to the plot of the movie; and for that I am actually quite thankful. Though I may have to question the almost convenient way that the movie resolves to its final conclusion. It's a little cutesy-putesy to say the least, but it's tolerable, probably more tolerable than say, World War Z. I have to admit though, there were times that I thought that the zombies had more character than any of the non-zombie ones... Well, they seemed the funniest, after all, they were trying to become more and more human again.

In summing up though, Warm Bodies is one of those films that is a film that you could take your other half to see, as there is a somewhat touching relationship... You know, girl meets ghoul per se. The acting is fairly decent, even though Malkovich is seen as quite an obnoxious bastard. But the way the movie plays out the relationship being built up is quite enchanting and it does draw you in. I enjoyed this movie immensely and I'll have to look far and wide for the DVD or Blu-Ray to enjoy later. Warm Bodies receives a very heart-warming four stars.

World War Z

2013-06-28T01:39:00.003+10:00

Running Time: 116 minutes

Media: Cinematic Release

The only reason I managed to get to see this was because my lovely wife is away seeing a friend of hers who just had a little boy... Me, I normally don't get time off... Wait, yes, listeners, that's right, I did say "wife"... I got married back in May and so far things are going rather swimmingly. It also explains my three month absence, so I do apologize... Things have been hectic with work and all, and so I have a number of reviews to write and little time with which to do them.

That being said, I decided to see this on a whim, seeing my wife was away and I needed some down time... and come to think of it I seriously need to find time to do yet another movie marathon... I am so itching to see six back-to-back... And who knows I may even be able to make it seven if I'm really clever... Anyway, I digress...

Okay, World War Z... was conceptualized by Max Brooks, and yes, it is based on a novel... well, not a novel per se, but a "written oral history of the Zombie War" in a matter of speaking... I have read the novel, and it covers the geo-political, socio-economic, religious and environmental changes to society resulting from the spread of zombies and the ensuing battle for survival by the human race. That's the book. The movie, slightly different... It has Brad Pitt shooting, hacking, slicing and wrestling with zombies while at the same time out-running explosions and surviving miraculously with each turn in his quest to save humanity.

So naturally, what the book and the movie have in common is that they're both entitled "World War Z"... It's a bit of a stretch, isn't it? Well, here's where we have the closest thing to a plot in this movie. Brad Pitt a former United Nations investigator (it seems his "new" job now is to make pancakes for the rest of his family), called Gerry Lane, finds himself running from a swarm of rapidly turning zombies whilst waiting in traffic with his family. Miraculously, the Deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations manages to reach him with pretty much clear reception and offers to pick him and his family up from some high point somewhere in Philadelphia where they manage to escape even more zombies, including the newly zombified family of a Hispanic child called Tomas, whom they take with them.

Guess what? The Deputy Secretary-General wasn't doing Gerry a favor. No, he needs his help... he's supposedly the only man for the job? No, there's a virologist who is to team up with him to help find the answers. It seems the virologist has a thing for loaded weapons, as audience members will soon discover...

Gerry finds that he must travel to Korea, Israel and Wales in order to find the answers. And of course, he finds he just can't get away from those damn zombies, they're everywhere, man! So in his process of running from zombies, explosions and anything else preventing him from running, it seems that he finds solace in Wales along with a research team in Cardiff, only to miraculously figure out a solution that may help sort out this nasty zombie business...

The climax towards the end, really isn't, because, let's face it, it's so f[CENSORED]king predictable that it just had to have that Hollywood type ending... And my worst fears were founded when the scene played right before my eyes, almost schmaltzy in nature... A whole spray can of Easy Cheese has nothing on this... To add insult to injury the anti-climax is followed by a thirty or so second scene which involves a soda pop dispensing machine; and will send you cringing as you try to stifle forced laughter as the disbelief-a-meter rises, and lo, and behold, the great Messiah Brad Pitt has pretty much saved humanity.

The only other name I recognized in the cast of the film was David Morse, who barely gets a mention as a toothless weapons merchant who sold guns to people in North Korea. Total amount of screen time? About five minutes... That's about 4% of the total screen time of this film... To be honest, he was there as filler, nothing more.

J. Michael Straczynski, who also wrote 92 of the 110 episodes of Babylon 5 was responsible for the adaptation of the book to film... Did he do a good enough job? I literally have to think about this... Yes... and then No... Yes, in the sense that there is enough action and thrills to get the heart racing and the blood flowing fast enough to make you watch to the end... And no, in the sense that there are a number of points in the film which are never mentioned in the book, as well as scenes which would make a Babylon 5 episode seem more believable. I found myself shaking my head at the time-again-tested predictability of the film. It was enough to make me want to cry at times...

I also stuck around to watch the credits... And I just have to ask... why are there so many rotoscopers in the film crew? What are they rotoscoping? The last time I heard the phrase used it was regarding the graphics required for the lightsabers in the newer (but older) Star Wars movies.

To sum it up, the make up was good for the zombies, it seemed fairly suitable given the nature of the film, but everything was taken from the book and ramped up several notches. It's like taking a Bugatti, adding a nitrous oxide booster, and then slamming on the gas pedal... yes, you get a ride, but it's one that feels too out of control, too unbelievably fast and hard to escape from. And then the anti-climax comes and it's like driving that Bugatti straight into the walls of the Hoover Dam. Alonso Duralde of The Wrap reviewed this film as well, saying, "For all its effectiveness at portraying the horror of possible human extinction, the film's actual humans are so soulless that this could just as well be the movie version of the video game Plants vs. Zombies." I couldn't agree with Duralde more, there's no real advancement or development for the characters in the story save for that of Pitt, explosion-dodger extraordinaire. If it wasn't for the heart-jumping scenes at the start, this movie would have gotten far less than what I'm prepared to give it. When it comes to recent zombie movies over the last few years, even Warm Bodies will earn far higher than this. World War Z receives 2½ stars... You know, zombies may not be real, but after seeing this... I feel like my brains been eaten anyhow...

The Three Stooges

2013-03-06T00:11:00.001+11:00

We ain't gonna take it any Moe.

Running Time: 92 minutes.

Media: Blu-Ray.

Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk! The love I had for these guys back in the 1980's was unfathomable, and now that this film was available on Blu-Ray actually made me want to see it more. I had little chance to see this film when it came out, especially considering it was also in limited release here in Australia. A real shame, as I would have loved it.

I saw one very adamant Youtube member post that he was boycotting the film, that it was disgraceful and that it besmirched the good name of the Three Stooges. Had he seen the film in its entirety? No. Had he considered that three minutes or less was sufficient enough to guarantee a suitable review? No. I had similar aspects with regards to Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, and look where that has led. I decided to give this film the benefit of the doubt and tried it myself.

Boy, was I far from disappointed! The movie has been "divided" into three separate acts, just like the old Stooges TV movies, and it graces many concepts that were essential to the Stooges genre. The hair ripping, the ear pulling, the nostril grab, face slaps, eye pokes, the list goes on. And I never laughed so much in my life.

The story revolves around the Stooges' attempts to raise $830,000 to save the orphanage where they grew up. Everyone else pales in comparison when the Stooges appear. Secondary characters appear here and there, as well as the tertiary characters, who appear maybe twice to three times throughout the entire film; but your focus is forever placed in the Stooges when they appear. Possibly my bias comes from having grown up on them, as well as the cartoons based on these three.

The casting for these characters was a tough process, Benicio del Toro and Hank Azaria were originally destined to play the role of Moe... Hank, I could see as a possibility, but Benicio? That's a bit of a stretch! Chris Diamantopoulos was eventually cast, and having seen some of his previously work (for example his amazing portrayal of Robin Williams in Mork and Mindy - The Unauthorized Story). His ability to mimic voices is uncanny. And the hair and make-up have virtually transformed this Hellenic-Canadian actor into what would be the spitting image of a 40-something version of Moe Howard. I was gob-smacked, the gob could very well have been smacked by Moe himself. I have to say, Diamantopoulos does an undenyingly brilliant job, from his vocal portrayal, to his scowl when facing his fellow stooges, to his commanding ability to out-poke and out-wit and out-hit Larry and Curly. Chris, if you are reading this, I salute you.

Sean Hayes, where do I start, he seems to work well as Larry Fine, though I have to admit, like the comedy shorts of the mid-20th century, he does seem to come a close second to Curly. He only took the brunt of Moe's wrath when he said something out of line or he interfered with something; this is no different in the film, which is not a bad thing. He actually pulls off the role play of Larry inasmuch as Moe is able to rip out giant tufts of Larry's hair. The "looking into the sun" look that Larry does is ever present in the film, and although this did come across as an issue I could raise, I kinda swept it under the rug. That said, I couldn't see a better pick for Larry than this. Now, bearing in mind that there was a possibility that Sean Penn was due to play the part, I'm actually glad that Hayes got the role. Hayes has a unique ability to generate laughter, he is a genuinely funny guy, and has made a lot of his success from his portrayal of Jack McFarland in one of my favorite TV sitcoms Will and Grace. I guess he's managed to bottle this and release it in sizable amounts within this film and many others he has starred since Will and Grace. The hair and make-up for Larry was well done, and I can still picture him now. The resemblance was uncanny.

Will Sasso, who starred in MAD TV for a number of years plays Curly. Now he stands a little taller than the other two, which kinda conflicts with the original heights of the three, as the original Stooges were all roughly the same height. Despite this little oversight (and it is indeed little), Curly is well played, Sasso has no doubt studied the character long and hard and has perfected it to an art-form. The voice, actions, the dancing, and even the "Woo woo woo, nyuk nyuk nyuk!" is better than I can do... Sasso also has the right bulk and has the perfect ability to play the innocent numbskull demeanor (No offense, Will, I think you're incredible!) to play Curly and it shows. I find it amazing to read that Jim Carrey was once attempting to land this role, but gave up the role due to health reasons, as it seems he attempted to gain between 60-70 pounds to get into the role of Curly; but gave up after a 40 pound gain. Now, I know that 40 pounds is a lot of weight, and I can totally understand... but I personally feel that Sasso gave Curly Joe the justice he deserved, and paid homage to him perfectly, and without the weight gain. Will kinda reminds me of a humorous version of Michael Chiklis!

Other characters such as the nuns played by Jane Lynch, Kate Upton, Jennifer Hudson and Larry David no less, all seem to be upstaged and don't get their chance to shine; which is a shame, but our focus is forever drawn to our loveable loonies of Larry, Curly and Moe. Jane Lynch plays a moderately benevolent Mother Superior, whereas Hudson who plays Sister Rosemary shows up with a smattering of appearances throughout the film, and even has the opportunity to sing in the film, well... sort of... She's kinda interrupted in one scene, and another scene she's somewhat upstaged when singing with the Stooges. To me, she seems like she's there simply for her voice than anything else. Similarly, there's Kate Upton, playing the role of Sister Bernice, a very vivacious looking nun, who can be spotted in something that can only be referred to as a "nun-kini"... As much as I love Kate, and I do, she seems to have been exploited simply for the fact that she has an amazing body, and far be it for me to say this, but it's worked well, but I still wonder if it was for all the right reasons. She added comedic elements here and there, but only to the extent of her presence.

Larry David, however, playing Sister Mary Mengele is the real scene stealer. He... er, she (Mary Mengele) is sharp, crude and a laugh a minute, a perfect role for David, and it's as funny as Tracy's mom on Hairspray, but without the actual drag... A lot of controversy has been placed on the fact that "Mengele" is also the surname of Josef Mengele, one of the SS officers who decided the fates of Auschwitz prisoners. There was also controversy of this film being highly anti-Catholic... Seriously? Give me a break... this movie is a spoof, and should be treated as such. The elements of slapstick aren't capable of being done in real life without causing some genuine farm. Slapstick itself is a form of spoofing... And I'm willing to bet that if I searched for Mengele in the White Pages, I'd find maybe a half dozen people with that surname, who don't take offense of having the surname. I count at least fifty entries in the American White Pages web site. A name is simply that, a name. If people are going to poke critique on every little thing that offends them in a comedy, then they have the right to not watch the film; but to chastise others for watching it, or bemoaning the fact that it offends others... As a wise comedian once said, there's no such thing as "an inappropriate joke", it's inappropriate, that's why it's a joke. Comedy can't please everyone, it will always offend someone, and there's no way to correct either. The Catholic Church has gotten the poops as well because of the nun-kini that Upton wears towards the end of the film. This is a harmless poke at the versatility of the nun's habit (i.e. none at all), and so the nun-kini is also yet another joke. Let it be.

Complete the cast with Craig Bierko, Sofia Vergara and Stephen Collins, as a trio of con artists out to use the Stooges to get their hands on an inheritance and you have a very well endowed cast of actors who can pull off this comic juggernaught. Sofia is gorgeous as her usual self and emphasizes her ability to play the role of the gorgeous wife, as she does in Modern Family. I wish I had seen her with more lines in this film... Craig Bierko, of whom I last saw in The Thirteen Floor, and more recently in an episode of Elementary on CBS, plays the role of Sofia's lover, who seems to stumble along and suffer blow after blow with all the accidents he winds up in... Poor guy, I really do feel for his character... I would have loved to have seen more of him in the film too, a shame that it kinda wraps up a little toward the end, but it's fun to watch these two interact with one another and with the Stooges.

Overall, the film is wonderful, and plays homage to the eponymous Stooges with the way this film has been written out. The Farrelly Brothers excelled themselves in the direction and production and they definitely did their homework to ensure that Diamantopoulos, Hayes and Sasso embodied their roles. I will however, be stripping half a star for the slight gap with characters that seemed a bit out of place, the Stooges themselves are faultless and with the possibility of a sequel coming up, I am salivating at the prospect of grabbing my popcorn and sitting back in a cinema chair to watch. Four and a half stars.

The Sum of All Fears

2013-03-05T22:57:00.000+11:00

Running Time: 124 minutes

Media: TV Broadcast

I thought, "Why not?" The idea of seeing Ben Affleck play the role of Dr. Jack Ryan was appealing enough, and I had attempted to watch this once before, and had given up... So last night, by the advice of my future father-in-law, I settled back and watched this film.

Tom Clancy, the author of the originating book, also plays the role of executive producer here... and it seems he was quite pleased with the results... Despite the fact that originally Jack Ryan was portrayed by Harrison Ford in Patriot Games and Clear and Present Danger, and then by Alec Baldwin in The Hunt for Red October; it seems that Ryan is getting younger and younger...

But it seems that Ben Affleck is a good fit for this reboot of the series, though up to a point, and I will explain this further in my review. Surprisingly, there has been little encouragement since the film came out ten years ago to push for a sequel. A bit sad really, as I did enjoy this film, but once again, to a certain degree, and this too will be explained later on in the review.

That being said, there were significant changes from the book to film conversion. Tom Clancy joking admitted on the commentary track on the film's DVD that he was "the author of the book that he...", Phil Alden Robinson, the director, who is present with Clancy, "...ignored." And the fact that the author is happy to joke about the changes made is a good sign that it should be enjoyed. The strongest change was the deviation of the villains in the book from Islamic extremists to Neo-Nazis. This change was not due to the 9/11 attacks, as filming ended in June 2001, some three or so months before the 9/11 attacks.

Here Jack Ryan played by Affleck is brought in by the CIA director, William Cabot (played by the all powerful Morgan Freeman), to advise on the ever mounting tension between the United States and Russia, with the death of the former Russian president.

Alexander Neremov is sworn in as the new president, and he's supposedly a real hard-ass... Ciarán Hinds, who plays the role of Neremov is frightening, almost too scary too approach, but his portrayal is quite seasoned actor on both TV, stage and screen, he's done very well. He has this stone cold look, one that says "I can't feel a thing, I cannot show emotion." True, but sadly, he also looked like he also had suffered a mild stroke with his look. But given the nature of his role I am willing to let this slide.

Throw in a potential nuclear threat in the form of a dirty nuclear bomb to be detonated somewhere in the United States and it becomes a race to find the culprits before it's too late. With Ryan taking orders from none other than William Cabot, the director of the FBI, played by Morgan Freeman, one of the most charismatic actors of all time, the scene changes dramatically with every new revelation... The problem is, is that this change seems to occur a little too quickly. I mean, come on, granted, they have two hours within this film to bring us up to speed, but a lot of it seems to happen all at once, making you lose the flow of the plot. I had a little trouble trying to wrap my head around what was happening, and wondering why certain... "unnecessary" scenes were thrown in to make things connect together.

Freeman is great as Cabot, he plays the role well, and had me convinced of his leadership and ability to command, but then again, he seems to have that effect, doesn't he? I'm not sure what it is about him, but he seems to embody every role with such confidence. His demeanor in the film is such that he comes across as dry, but humorous when he needs to be. It makes the audience side with him and treat him as someone other than a cold and heartless man who is only concerned about his job. Thus, kudos to Freeman, as per usual.

Affleck... Ben Affleck, does he pull it off as a former military man turned CIA analyst? Yes and no. He works well as Jack Ryan, but having first seen Patriot Games many years ago, I half-expected some of the grittiness of Harrison Ford to seep into his younger counterpart. Not so, as he seems somewhat unsure and unready to tackle things head on; which kinda conflicts with his military history. It's not convincing enough, very amateurish, kinda like watching a newly-born giraffe get on his feet for the first time and walking. He kinda stumbles through the plot and discovers various things by pure accident, albeit a lot of it through secondary characters that seem to favor the odds to complete serendipity than focused research.

My final focus is on James Cromwell... This man has played presidents here and there, from West Wing as D. Wire Newman, to RFK, as Lyndon B. Johnson, and now as President J. Robert Fowler. My God, Fowler is a hard-ass, he's stubborn, he's emotional, he's a tortured soul... He's brilliant. I think having had played presidents after this one has confirmed his fit for such a role. Normally when I think of Cromwell, I think of peaceful characters, but he amazingly pushes through regardless of the madness around him. Cromwell is convincing enough to follow through.

Secondary characters abound, the convenience of Grushkov coming through towards the end, as well as the set up of the initial encoutner between Neremov and Ryan kinda spoils it toward the end. I also found the logic of the "engagement" between Ryan and his girlfriend a little strange, especially considering that they had only been together a few weeks according to the film (maybe I heard it wrong, but it seemed a little quick to me!)

Given the pace and the cast of the film, I was tempted to score high, but I'm compelled to score it three and a half stars as I'm not thoroughly convinced that they pulled it off completely, sure, it was wrapped up towards the end, but a little too neatly... It gave me one of those involuntary cringes when I discovered this tying up, and as a result I'm sticking to my guns. The Sum of All Fears as a result, get 3½ stars.

Les Miserables (2012)

2013-02-04T15:46:00.000+11:00

Running Time: 158 minutes.
Media: Cinematic release (Hoyts Broadway)

True story, when I was seven, my mother had a number of books in French that I was interested in reading... There was Around the World in 80 Days, The Three Musketeers, From the Earth to the Moon, and Les Miserables. I couldn't help asking my mother "Who's Les? He's got a pretty awful surname...?"

Alright, you can stop laughing... I did think it was a pretty unfortunate surname. And I never thought to see the musical until recently, and now that I have seen this adaptation, I would love the opportunity to see this once it makes its way back to Australia... that and Avenue Q, but I digress...

I was really happy about seeing this widescreen, and I knew that being a 2½-plus hour movie, the category of "EPIC!" would consistently flash in my head as I watched it, I made myself comfortable. Being a late session there weren't many people around... in fact I would have been surprised if there were no more than ten people in this particular cinema. This made for a wonderful viewing session.

Moving on, Les Mis has managed to garner nine (count them, nine) BAFTA Awards, including Best Film, Best British Film, Best Actor in a Leading Role and Best Actress in a Supporting Role and eight Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture, Best Actor and Best Supporting Actress. Now given that Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway have already won Golden Globe Awards for Best Actor and Best Supporting Actress respectively, the odds of them bagging an Oscar each this year are quite high... I wouldn't be surprised if this movie gets a clean sweep.

For those living under a rock, Les Mis, is the story of the struggle of one Jean Valjean (played by Hugh Jackman), who has made a promise to a former and now dead worker of his to look after her illegitimate daughter. Valjean is also on the run from parole after serving a nineteen year sentence for stealing a loaf of bread... Times were harsh back in pre-revolutionary France. Valjean's nemesis is a prison guard, Javert (played by Russell Crowe), who has made it his life's work to hunt Valjean down and bring him back to jail for breaking parole.

Cosette, played by the ever adorable Amanda Seyfried is the adopted daughter of Valjean, with her mother, Fantine, played by Anne Hathaway. The musical is such that very little of the script is spoken, it's sung through pretty much from beginning to end... which kinda reminded me of how it was with Evita. The music is wonderful and it captures your heart, because it is bubbling with raw emotion... especially from Jackman and Hathaway... all other characters kinda pale in comparison... Russell Crowe less so, seeing that a number of critics have said that his only real musical experience stems from his involvement in his band 30 Odd Foot Of Grunts, and an assortment of random appearances... But you know what? He pulls it off just fine, I like his performance as Javert. Javert is a very troubled character, and as a result, the singing must follow in a similar manner to reveal the character through their music. Valjean is hurried and passionate and loving and determined for survival, and his singing conveys that. Javert's character is focused and troubled at the same time, with an obsessive streak with finding Valjean and bringing him to justice, and Crowe's singing conveys this too.

Hathaway's... just... extraordinary, I had to shake my head in disbelief in how beautiful and heart wrenching it was... It put Susan Boyle's rendition to shame. Fantine (Hathaway's character) is only focused on one thing, not herself, but the life of her daughter, Cosette. She's literally sacrificed herself so that he daughter could live. I believe her portrayal of Fantine. I wanted to cry, I really did.

Jackman, though said by a number of critics as "not as good" as his 1985-1987 London production counterpart, Colm Wilkinson, is actually remarkable, he embodies that role... and he's quite believable. What I was surprised about though was how he managed to shape up for the role. He actually lost 15 pounds (6½ kilos), to become the gaunt and emaciated ex-convict Jean Valjean, and gained 30 pounds (13 kilos), to become the mayor, Monsieur Madeleine, the new identity adopted by Valjean. Jackman is known for the vigorous regimes he undertakes for certain roles. He had a similar regime when he underwent a high intensity weight training regimen to improve his physique for the role of Wolverine in X-Men Origins: Wolverine. He altered the training program to shock his body into change and also performed cardiovascular workouts. So that shot of him as Wolverine rising from the tank after having his bones infused with adamantium - no digital touches whatsoever.

Rusty's portrayal of Javert is complex, but you kinda feel sorry for him after realizing he (Javert) is only just trying to do his job... He's taken a lot of flack for his performance, and I can see why some people may think that way, but I feel he gave it his all in this role; and while though that may not be enough for some, without Javert there can be no Jean Valjean. For those who don't care, look towards the end of the film at Javert's final scene where his soliloquy kinda makes you understand why he spent all that time chasing Valjean, and the inevitable demise thereafter, but prepare to cringe at the very moment.

There are a few surprises scattered here and there throughout the film. Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter play Monsieur and Madame Thénardier; and they previously starred together in Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street, so their ability to work together musically is surprisingly upbeat. Bonham Carter looks like she tends to, a bit necrotic... She does star as a number of unusual roles, doesn't she? But she works well as Cohen's husband on-screen. Cohen works wonders as Monsieur Thénardier, and I think kinda steals the scenes he's in. He's a hidden jewel in the movie... a built in "easter egg" of sorts.

Who else, oh yes... For those playing at home, the Bishop is indeed Colm Wilkinson, the original Jean Valjean from the London production back in the 80's. I hear there's also a cameo of Frances Ruffelle as a prostitute who harasses Fantine, but I have yet to find her. I almost squealed in my seat when I did, not that the other ten or so audience members noticed... Being a late session I enjoyed this movie without much interruption, and I enjoyed it so much, I almost came close to singing along... But I didn't, but any musical that makes you feel like doing so must deserve some sort of credit for moving you.

That is why I am giving Les Miserables a 4½ star rating. It comes very close, but there's a feeling that it doesn't quite give you the opportunity to sit back and take in the performances, it's almost as if it wanted to finish a lot sooner than expected. I may also be docking the ½ a star due to the slight tranquilizing effect that Crowe gives as Javert in certain scenes. Although he does well for what I believe is his first musical, he doesn't bring it home. Sorry Rusty, don't get me wrong, I enjoyed your performance, but I feel that somehow you seemed a little subdued in the final edit; that could very well have been to direct our attention to Hugh, who knows? Four and a half stars.

Hop

2013-02-04T10:49:00.002+11:00

Running Time: 95 minutes.
Media: DVD.

Be warned, I did give this movie 2 stars. Why? I mean sure, it's got cute little bunnies, cute little chicks, well... a whole heap of cute little chicks and one larger Spanish speaking chick; and Kaley Cuoco... but it kinda screws up within the first minute of it playing.

James Marsden does a little narration, only to throw in the biggest spoiler of the movie some thirty seconds into the movie. To me, it sounds like a bit of a dig. Why give it away? I don't know why Universal Pictures thought this was a good idea... After all, the focus, according to the previews of this movie that had seen was all about our furry friend here, E.B., played by Russell Brand. It eventually gets turned around to be a stronger focus on Marsden's character of Fred O'Hare, a slacker in Hollywood who lives with his parents, Gary Cole and Elizabeth Perkins.

Now, I was under the impression that this movie was meant to detail E.B.'s strain with his father, a real square, and the Easter Bunny, played by a very not-so-square Hugh Laurie, who wants to pass the torch down to E.B. and make him the Easter Bunny Elect so to speak. E.B. is not so happy with the idea, wanting to be a famous drummer. And dammit, there's only one way he can do it, by leaving Easter Island (what a brilliant location for the Easter Bunny and his son!) and going to Hollywood to make his dreams come true.

E.B. meets up with Fred and causes a little chaos for him, only for Fred to still help him with getting onto Hoff Knows Talent, a talent show in which it seems David Hasselhoff has stripped away possible co-hosts and plans on doing the job himself. And speaking of which, Carlos, the second in command to the Easter Bunny, wants the head job himself... only to really do away with sending kids chocolate eggs and candy, only to replace it with bird seed, dried crickets and worms... Now, while I appreciate Carlos' thoughts on nutrition, and I admit, crickets are nicer when they're deep fried (they taste like chicken), I'd rather have the chocolate. E.B. and Fred do what they can to stop Carlos' reign of error (that's no typo, it actually says "error", play on words), only for both E.B. and Fred both being given the title of co-Easter Bunnies... Trust me, I'm not spoiling it for anyone here, Marsden gave it away at the beginning of the film. I'm actually surprised to see it come to bear fruit at the end of the film.

Where to begin, where to begin... Okay, good points... Number one, Russell Brand's portrayal of E.B., brilliant choice in casting, I wouldn't have picked anyone else... but the funny thing is, I didn't really think it as Russell's voice, it was just a beautiful meld of fur and funny... Russell Brand is pretty much the rock star of the comedy world; and E.B. is the rock star of the bunny world. It's a nice smush of characteristics and it goes so well... like... fried eggs and Tabasco sauce...

Number two, Kaley Cuoco, she's cute, and she's got a lot of promise, and in this film she's Fred's sister... But sadly, she's not in the film as much as I would have thought... the film does focus on Fred and E.B. a lot but not much on the supplementary characters... a bit of a disappointment, but it's nice to see Cuoco in something other than The Big Bang Theory...

Number three, Hugh Laurie as the Easter Bunny... He's regal, majestic and carries the fate of Easter on his ears... I mean, shoulders... And yet he can put a brilliant spin on a role as equivocal as that of the Easter Bunny... Just as good as Mr. Bunny as he was as Dr. Cockroach, PhD in Monsters vs. Aliens.

Bad points... Gary Cole and Elizabeth Perkins, it's great they've been portrayed as parents, but it all seems so damn bubblegum... it honestly made me want to go back in time to the 1980's and barf... A movie like this... no, but I could honestly see these two being recast as Ward and June Cleaver in a new Leave it to Beaver movie.

Next bad point, Tiffany Espenson as Alex O'Hare, Fred's adopted younger sister... nice idea, but no... She's meant to be cute, adorable and more cute and more adorable... Please cue the puke noises again... I understand that she was there to add further character development to Fred because she was only there because of some play where she plays "Peter Cottontail" with tone deafness, but that's all she is, padding...

Next bad point, Fred wants to be the Easter Bunny? He wants that job?? The logic of this is kinda sick... inclusive of him hanging onto a twenty year-old chocolate bunny that was given to him upon seeing E.B.'s dad when he was like, six or something... Twenty year old chocolate... honestly? Who does that?

Final bad point, and this kinda poops on the whole concept of Easter, and Christmas in the one go... more so than E.B.'s ability to poop candy jellybeans... The Easter Bunny drives a sleigh, at night, pulled by a bunch of magical flying yellow chicks... I can only shake my head at this in disappointment in response.

Hop runs for 95 minutes, which tends to put it in the children's maximum enjoyment level before they want to go play outside or before they ask mommy for a McHappy meal. I actually liked parts of it, but not all of it... the only real stars in this were Brand and Laurie; everyone else kinda brought it down several levels. Granted the animation is fantastic, as is the interaction between Marsden and a cartoon bunny, but that's as far as the enjoyment goes... As a result, and as much as I want to poop on a movie starring both Hugh Laurie and Russell Brand, Hop gets a two star rating.

Looper

2013-02-04T10:09:00.000+11:00

Running Time: 118 minutes.

Media: Cinematic release.

Now I have to confess, I was a little slack in reviewing this film when I had the opportunity, but I did have a trip to Hawaii some few days after and no opportunity to boot up the blog and make it happen. This film has recently been released on DVD and Blu-Ray, so I recommend that you consider purchasing it.

"Recommend?" you hear me say... Does that mean that the Movie Madman is endorsing this movie? He is indeed, endorsing this movie. I actually found it quite an interesting one, albeit with some reservations, which I'll explain later. But then again, I am a science fiction fan (as opposed to being a science fiction freak), and this movie does play on the concept of time travel fairly well. The trick is with this movie is to bear in mind that there are certain sequences that must be considered in a certain order when watching the film. It also kinda helps if a diagram such as the one below, is drawn to help you understand what's going on. This kind of timeline in comparison to that of, say, the timeline of Primer, is tame in comparison. Take a deep breath before clicking that previous link, you have been duly warned.

We don't need no stinkin' Deloreans!

So how did this story line come about? Well, here's the Cliff Notes version. Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays the role of a hired assassin, Joe, who eventually has the opportunity to retire from the business when he shoots his future self sent back in time. Only drawback is, of course, that he would naturally know that some thirty years down the track he'll be sent through time to be shot by his younger self.

Now, here's the clincher. Bruce Willis, action hero extraordinaire, plays the older version of Joe. He's purposely sent himself back in time, not to get shot, but to kill the guy that eventually got his wife killed, who is at this point in Young Joe's life is just a little kid. So we have a young assassin trying to kill his older self who in turn is trying to kill some kid. Sounds a bit far-fetched, but that's only the time travel talking. You kinda get used to the ride once you start recognizing what's happening and when.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt, what can I say about this guy that I haven't previously? In the last three years, he's appeared in Inception, The Dark Knight Rises, Looper and Lincoln. He's made his performance in this recent film an incredible one and he just keeps on ticking, adding more and more to his repertoire. He's a fairly high commodity right now, and I wouldn't be surprised if this is just his way of warming up! JGL's performance as the younger version of "Joe" is remarkable, even down to the prostheses he wore to resemble a young Bruce Willis. He actually has a kind of James Dean look about him, and the nuances and voice intonation are remarkable. Throughout the majority of the movie, his demeanor is very calm and collected and that just added another level to it all. The chemistry between JGL and Willis is perfect, showing to sides of the same coin, though showing it some thirty years apart, and it works.

As to Bruce Willis, the man does not give up, A Good Day to Die Hard will be appearing in cinemas in 2013, and as far as I can tell John McClane's ex-wife is still yet to thank him for saving her life... Twice... As per usual his ability to play action hero pays off in playing the role of an action anti-hero, per se; or better yet, playing the role of villain without being the actual villain. I wish I could elaborate on that, but it's a little difficult to do so. Let's just say that he's a victim of circumstance. The role of Old Joe is corrupted enough to suit Willis, who seldom plays bad guys, to help portray him in the light best suited to view him as someone who didn't want to be bad, but had to be in order to get back what he lost so undeservingly. You almost feel sorry for the guy, who has risked everything to turn back the clock, quite literally. But OMG, there's a scene later on in the film where you see some serious need for anger management classes. He really lets his rage fly and that only brings us a little closer to understanding how much he's lost and what he'd do to get it back.

And speaking of anger management, Whoooooo! It seems the rage thing is a common trend in this film, the kid I mentioned earlier that Joe Senior has to kill off... I wouldn't want to piss this kid off, because his rage is some serious s[CENSORED]t right there, let me tell you. He makes the stuff that you see with Jean Grey at the start of X-Men 3 seem timid in comparison. Though he didn't really capture my heart either... Part of me kinda wishes Older Joe had succeeded because this kid is a bit of brat behaviorally, or in need of some serious mood-controlling medication.

Oh, and how did Emily Blunt get an American accent all of a sudden? I was kinda shocked to hear that kind of enunciation from her... Not that I was disappointed with it, far from it, I was just very surprised. She plays the role of the kid's mother who plays some pivotal role in this time travel affair. She's very nice in the film, although, she was waving a shotgun in the direction of JGL... It doesn't cancel one another out but she's seriously got issues with getting close to people, if the first date involves waving a shotgun in your face. She's very different to how I remember her from The Devil Wears Prada. Throw in a few second rate characters like those played by Jeff Daniels and Piper Perabo and... who haven't appeared in much lately and you have a semi-plausible cast who do make the plot move forward, but not with the enthusiasm I had originally anticipated with this movie.

As much as I liked Looper I have to confess I didn't really love it. The movie starts off well and gives a full rundown of how the time travel schtick works, but it seems to hurry up and try to sort everything out as quickly and neatly as possible. Angry kid, Joe Senior and a number of baddies resolve to do this with bullets and explosions and a couple of grunts here and there and the final ending as performed by Gordon-Levitt actually kinda serves as a sigh of relief for the film but also for the audience. I actually was glad that it ended when it did. I'm sure it did well in the box office, last check I made it had reached over $166 million in the States, but I don't think this was from repeat viewers; and if it was it was from geeks who were desperately trying to understand the timeline. I am awarding Looper 3½ stars for a valiant effort, but with a very haphazard rush to the finish with a cast of characters that seriously need a Valium or two to settle down...

The Shawshank Redemption

2013-02-02T23:31:00.001+11:00

Running Time: 142 minutes

Media: TV Broadcast

You know, after having seen this at least ten times before in the past on DVD, TV and when it first came out on the silver screen; I never really thought to do a review on it. Shawshank is to films in the same way lasagna to me is seen as a comfort food. The movie is sorta like chicken soup for the soul. It's warming, nurturing and it cuddles you to sleep at night. As a result I was a little worried that I wouldn't do it justice. Sure, there are a few bumps along the way but in a drama you have to have the bad parts to make the protagonists appreciate the good parts. The Shawshank Redemption is no exception to this rule.

Now I have to confess, I don't watch much in the way of Tim Robbins; if anything, I'm more of a fan of his former partner, Susan Sarandon. But there's something about his character, Andy Dufresne, that seems to reach out and place a comforting hand on your shoulder to assure you that everything will be alright.

Andy Dufresne is a banker in the 1940's who is wrongfully sent to prison for the murder of his wife and her lover. Sent to Shawshank State Penitentiary to serve two consecutive life sentences. He befriends a fellow inmate called Ellis Boyd Redding, also known as "Red", played by the only man who could narrate a sunrise and make it happen, Morgan Freeman. There is something about the narrative nature of Red's that makes you want to sit up and listen.

As Dufresne lives out his sentence, he struggles to survive from day to day amid a corrupt warden, violent guards, money laundering schemes and a group of sexually aggressive prisoners whose main objective is to break Andy's spirit, bones and teeth... The thing is, with a character like that of Dufresne, it blows the audience away with how strong this character is, how he keeps standing up, blow after blow after blow. Tim Robbins is symbolic as the battler, the underdog, the survivor; who still rises on top despite the challenges that face him. As a result, this movie has actually touched a number of people who have faced hardship in their everyday lives, and see this movie as a shining beacon of hope. The Movie Madman himself is also quite partial to the film, having been through certain hardship himself and managing to emerge to the other side, so I will say that this film does have a certain place in my heart.

Robbins' portrayal of Dufresne is heart-warming and there are times where you could just reach out and give him a hug. I guess what I'm saying is that you can really identify with him, especially if you can relate to being once down-trodden, or an underdog. As I said, this film is like comfort food... It makes you feel better after experiencing it, and this is definitely the case with Shawshank.

Morgan's character of Red was originally planning to be cast to Freeman. There were originally considerations to cast either Robert Redford, Clint Eastwood, Paul Newman, or even Harrison Ford. The novella that it was based on, written by horror author magnate, Stephen King, had written the character out as a middle-aged Irishman with greying red hair. When Frank Darabont cast Morgan Freeman because of his authoritative presence and demeanor, he stated that he couldn't see anyone else suitable for the role, and I'm inclined to agree. I will soon be receiving a copy of the novella in the mail and hope to read it and see how well it gels without the presence of Freeman. He seems damn near perfect for the role...

There are a few additional actors who graced the screen within the film. Gil Bellows, who would have been quite young then, before he graced TV screens as Billy Thomas in Ally McBeal, plays a thief called Tommy Williams who helps give Andy some hope. Clancy Brown, of whom, serious geeks such as myself would recall, also played Victor Kurgan from the Highlander movie, reprises yet another type-set casting as a corrupt and sadistic guard, Captain Byron Hadley. Brown is a very good actor in my personal opinion, and he does take his work seriously. But an interesting thing I found out about this particular role of his, is that he didn't want to study the mannerisms or work of real-life guards, as he didn't want to base the character of Hadley on anyone in particular; which when you think about it is quite a noble gesture.

Who else... who else... Oh yes, the late James Whitmore, who died almost three years to the day, back in 2009. He is probably one of the more interesting actors in the film, playing the part of Brooks Hatlen, the prison's librarian, and one of the longer serving convicts of Shawshank State Penitentiary. Brooks is broken by the system, not knowing what to do with himself were he ever outside of prison. And that gets to me, he is basically the symbolic representation of those who accept what they are going through and let it happen to them. I shan't say what happens to him within the film, as that's a major spoiler alert. But it is one of the scenes that does make your heart stop momentarily.

Being a two-hour plus film, you expect something of some epic proportion, and the film delivers. This film has been nominated for seven Academy Awards back in 1994, but was beaten by a very much deserved Forrest Gump and a few other films. It seems a shame that none of the awards went to Shawshank as a number of awards also went to Ed Wood surprisingly.

This movie is certain of a lot more recognition due to its popularity and cult classic following and I can see why. This movie is well deserving of its five star rating, and I hope to see a few more films of this caliber, at a later time, even though there are very few films worth the standard of appreciation that warrants a five star rating...

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol

2013-01-08T21:50:00.001+11:00

Running Time: 130 minutes.
Media: DVD

Now, despite the crazy Scientology crap he's received from the press, the couch jumping on Oprah several years ago and three ex-wives, Tom Cruise has managed to put all this behind him and score big with this film. You know, Philippa Hawker of The Sydney Morning Herald rated this film 3 stars out of 5, and said it was "ludicrously improbable, but also quite fun." To Philippa I say, Have you not seen the previous three films? The reason it's quite fun is because it is ludicrously improbable!

Explosive gum, helicopters flying into the tunnel, skydiving from an airline jet, face masks, voice chips, explosive charges injected into the brain, and now it's magnetic suits, electronic climbing gloves and perspective projection screens... The entire Mission: Impossible series has been based on the audience's ability to suspend their systems of belief for two-and-a-bit hours and enjoy the film for what it is; good, clean and wholesome fun.

The good, clean and wholesome fun starts with Tom as the ever-athletic and acrobatic Agent Ethan Hunt trying to escape a Russian prison when he is alerted by his fellow agent Benji Dunn, played by the jocular Simon Pegg. Pegg's been a very busy boy lately, especially with his latest movie coming out later this year, Star Trek: Into Darkness; so he's moved about a fair bit. Kudos to Simon Pegg for his performance in this film. I have to confess, he's actually grown up considerably in this sequel, it's actually quite engaging.

Pegg is joined by one other agent, Jane Carter, played by someone who's a bit of an unknown to me, Paula Patton... Now, it took me a little Googling to figure out where I had seen her before, she was the female lead in Déjà Vu, also starring Val Kilmer and Denzel Washington. In that film she was the "damsel in distress", whereas here she is far from it, she's kick-ass, vigilant and very independent. She could certainly take me down in a fight... Not that I would, she's also very alluring... That comes in very handy later on in the film, as you will no doubt find out.

Tom Cruise is still rather refreshing as a seasoned IMF agent such as Ethan Hunt. He's determined, means business and doesn't like to give up on anything without a fight. Tom Cruise is actually quite the bankable actor. This film alone has hit $694 million worldwide, $209 million of that in North America alone. It was the highest grossing film in the franchise, the fifth highest grossing film in 2011, and currently the highest grossing film our boy Tom has made at that time, which has knocked out War of the Worlds flat on its back. Given how ridiculous the plot line was for *that* film, it's a much received change for the title. Tom Cruise is actually making it big on the Hollywood Stock Exchange (HSX), trading at $H96.89 at the time of writing, with a trailing average gross of $103 million. Given his latest movie, Jack Reacher, has yet to finish its four week release, it's possible that this too may be another hit. It seems of late that there's very little to slow him down now that he has his second wind.

One of the other IMF members to join the team is none other than Jeremy Renner, as Agent William Brandt, and quite predictably, his character is a brooding anti-hero who doesn't know his true worth until later on in the film. I hate to say this, but this is a recurring pattern for him of late. Observe:

1. Agent William Brandt (Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol), a brooding agent who doesn't know how big his contribution is to the mission until later in the film.
2. James Coughlin (The Town), a brooding bank robber.
3. Clint Barton aka Hawkeye (Marvel's The Avengers), a brooding superhero who doesn't realize his worth until he becomes one of the team.
4. Aaron Cross (The Bourne Legacy), a brooding assassin who doesn't realize his involvement with the American government until he meets up with Rachel Weisz.

There are a few more examples, but I'd rather not go into them. Now, seeing a brooding Jeremy Renner, isn't a bad thing either. On HSX, he actually is a more lucrative investment, trading at $H127.86 and rising. His trailing average gross is at over $130 million, even higher than Cruise himself. Renner, is bound to be one if those stars that is bound to have a huge career ahead of him; especially with two sequels, for The Avengers and Bourne sequels releasing in the years to come.

Another addition to the cast that I did not expect was the appearance of Michael Nyqvist, star of the Swedish trilogy, the Millenium series, which includes The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. I think what threw me was the almost perfect British accent he used when he is brought into the scene where we first come across him. Also, in this film he's got dark hair and looks like a seasoned actor and quite debonair. In the Millenium series he was blond, looked a little haggard and much older than he appears in this film. It was actually a delight to see him in this movie. Nyqvist takes his time with films after having received international attention from the Millenium trilogy and he has already had another hit with Abduction back in September, 2011.

These five characters interact incredibly well within the plot line which sees the IMF organization getting completely disavowed when a Swedish nuclear strategist played by Nyqvist steals the Russian nuclear launch codes from the Kremlin, and blows it up; leaving Agents Carter, Dunn and Hunt accused of doing it. With the help of Brandt, who has his own inner demons regarding a previous mission gone wrong (thus the brooding) and some rather unreliable IMF equipment, they get the job done after traveling to places like Russia, The UAE and India. The pace is seasoned with enough drama and humor to move it along and the action is not as "in your face" to keep you firmly riveted to your seat. The movie is there to make the experience fun, and the movie is quite enjoyable, I kept on wondering what was going to happen next.

J.J Abrams and Brad Bird... Never in my wildest dreams did I think that there would be a producer and director combination like this for a movie. Abrams has directed a number of films including the new Star Trek remake and its soon-to-be-released sequel, Star Trek: Into Darkness, and when Abrams is involved with a film, it's usually a smash. Brad Bird up until recently has been involved more with animated films like the Iron Giant, Ratatouille and The Incredibles to name but a few. Ghost Protocol was his live-action directorial debut, and he has excelled expectations. I hope to see more of his work in the future.

Now, although the flow of this movie was well-paced and the actors were great in their performances, the impact of the action sequences don't hit you like an unexpected punch in the face. There is a general build up to these points, there's no la-di-dah and then Wham! I don't know if this crescendo effect is a good thing. The very first movie had things we did not expect, the second and third kinda petered a little. This fourth movie has a few unexpected turns, but they're not enough to leave you hanging on the edge of your seat. Don't get me wrong, the whole Jim Phelps betrayal in the original sparked controversy throughout online and offline. There's none of that here in this film. I think there's a general pattern to this franchise where it all works out in the end, but there is a final twist in the very end that kinda ties things up from the third movie, and a few uncredited cameos which add the cherry on top. This said, I'm giving Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol 4½ stars, and hope that when Simon Pegg and Tom Cruise start on the fifth film that there's a little more umph!

Quartet

2013-01-03T17:47:00.003+11:00

Running Time: 98 minutes.

Media: Cinematic Release, Hoyts Penrith, NSW.

I must admit, I had some hesitations about seeing this film at first... It's a bit of a stand-alone film, distributed by The Weinstein Company and BBC Films... it's a British comedy, and in my belief they kinda stopped being funny after "Are You Being Served" disappeared off TVs worldwide... I was also concerned that this movie was not going to get its point across in the 98 minute time frame. I mean, what a challenge, I thought! I sat there in my seat at Hoyts Penrith at 4:50 p.m. wondering whether I was going to enjoy this along side of my fiancée.

I found that I had considerable time to think, as it took 30 minutes from the projected starting time for them to get the film on the projector. I did sit through a half-hour's worth of movie reviews and ads, and I have to say, I could feel the audience's mounting anticipation too... That being said, I sensed everyone's relief when the screen curtains parted further to signal the beginning of the film.

Now, British comedies are a sort of like Forrest Gump's "box of chocolates" analogy, you'll never know what you're gonna get; particularly when you're dealing with a plot line such as that in this film, but I wasn't sure what to get from a directorial debut film by Dustin Hoffman. Pauline Collins, Tom Courtenay and Billy Connolly play three-quarters of a operatic quartet that sang Verdi's Rigoletto several years ago. Now the've since retired and living in a retirement home for gifted musicians, who put on a concert on Giuseppe Verdi's birthday every year. Reg, played by Tom Courtenay, is quite comfortable with his life there, giving talks to young kids about music, and his occasional performance. Enter Reg's ex-wife, Jean, played by Maggie Smith... Reg's life is run a-shambles as a result... It seems that he hasn't forgiven her all those years ago.

Reg is accompanied by his other Rigoletto members, Wilfred, played by lovable Scottish larrikin, Billy Connolly; and Cecily, also known as "Cissy", played by Pauline Collins, who is known for her role as Shirley Valentine in both the play and 1989 movie. Jean is still not ready to accept the idea of singing in public again, stating she's a confirmed retiree; Reg can't get over Jean's presence; Wilfred keeps flirting with staff... and the leading doctor... and other retired musicians; and Cecily keeps forgetting things... supposedly due to an inferred case of Alzheimer's. Combine these personalities with the rather loud and obnoxious character of Cedric Livingstone, played by Michael Gambon, and you've got a very interesting dynamic. Michael Gambon as most people would know played the part of Professor Albus Dumbledore in the Harry Potter series after Sir Richard Attenborough's death. Strange as this may sound, it seems that Gambon decided to raid Dumbledore's wardrobe and use it for the role of Cedric; he's shown in a number of robes and unusual hats that could only be found Hogwart's School of Wizadry and Magic. Most amusing.

Courtenay plays the role of Reginald well, and despite my lack of knowledge of other films I've seen him star in, he is a fine actor in Quartet. He plays the betrayed soul quite well, and hams it up just a bit to seem like a drama queen, but without overdoing it. I wish I could say the same about Gambon...

Billy Connolly... he's an enigma, this one... I know I used this word in a previous review, but he is... I'm not sure why he got the role, but I think it was simply due to the nature of his character, a rather randy musician who likes to talk up the ladies. His one-liners and brazen boldness in chatting to anyone with cleavage brought a number of laughs to the audience, including myself. But one thing kinda keeps niggling at me... Connolly isn't known for his operatic vocals... if any. So how did he land a role that involved his "attempts" at singing, and singing opera no less? The mind boggles as to the reasons.

Pauline Collins is a great actress, and she shines in this film. She seems younger than she's meant to portray and I think that's kinda reflected in her character's occasional bouts of Alzheimer's which send her back a few decades, making her think she's still a young girl, or making her forget simple facts. My heart went out to Cissy, and it's an incredible film that can make you want to reach out to a character on the screen and give them a hug. Her BAFTA for Shirley Valentine is testament to her performance ability.

Maggie Smith, another Harry Potter alumnus like Michael Gambon, is supposedly the star of the show. When Reg, Wilfred and Cecily approach Jean (Smith's character) about the idea of singing their Rigoletto quartet at the annual concert, her reactions are quite astounding. She's accepted and yet not quite accepted her age, and her now retired vocation as an opera singer, she comes to blows with Reg about their past (which is never fully revealed) and there is the still lingering love between her and Reg that is the focus of the story and Jean's shell which she is desperately trying to come out of in order to move forward.

The dynamics of the quartet are healthy, albeit a little dry, but enjoyable to watch. Gambon's flamboyance throughout the film are somewhat of a annoyance, however... Honestly, he wasn't this annoying in the Harry Potter series, but then again, one shouldn't pigeon-hole him. I am a little disappointed that the film didn't show the quartet singing (even if they were miming, it would have been pleasant to watch), but there is some compensation with a number of the cast being portrayed in the ending credits in their long-ago performances. It seems a number of the cast were indeed stage and musical performers in their own right, and this final realization has salvaged my ritique of this film. As a result, Quartet, gets a star for each of its four main characters. Four stars.

The overall experience in the cinema itself also gets four stars, but they would have gotten the full five if it weren't for the plethora of ads and previews they inundated us with before the actual movie.

The Hunger Games

2013-01-02T11:20:00.002+11:00

Running Time: 142 minutes.

Media: Blu-Ray.

A friend of mine decided to do something rather silly for me when he loaded the Blu-Ray for the first time. Having not seen the movie on the big screen, I looked forward to seeing the film. My friend decided to switch the subtitles to Hungarian... Thus turning "The Hunger Games" to "The Hungarian Games"... I know, it was a bad joke, but to be honest it had no change to my thoughts on the film.

I have to confess, this movie was intriguing. It's medieval and at the same time, it's futuristic. It's full of normal people and also filled with... "freaks" for the lack of a better word... This clash of old and new, young and old, past and future... it pulls you in and grabs your attention.

The Hunger Games put simply is what would happen if the game "Mortal Kombat" had mated with the reality show "Big Brother". The film is set in what seems like a post-apocalyptic world where twelve districts in the nation of Panem every year send two tributes each in a fight to the death. Katniss Everdeen, played by the very youthful and very ravishing Jennifer Lawrence is one of the latest tributes to have been recruited into the Hunger Games, an annual fight to the death competition forced on twenty-four randomly picked kids, after volunteering herself to compete in place of her sister when she gets picked. Katniss is somewhat an anti-hero in this film, she doesn't want to be famous or be anyone's savior, she just wants to survive, live well with her family and grow old.

Lawrence, who is a blonde, dyed her hair dark to play the role of Katniss, embodies the role with all her being... I'm guessing she's read the books prior to starring as her nuances are pretty much how I had pictured as I read the first book. She's only 22, and already has managed to star in not only this movie, but a number of others including X-Men: First Class, The Poker House, and the somewhat controversial Mel Gibson movie, The Beaver. Some would say that Mel finally cracked with that movie because he's talking through a puppet... But I digress. Lawrence does hook and reel you in, and you find yourself living the Hunger Games themselves, as though you were an observer from within the playing field. I can see this movie franchise raking in big in the upcoming sequels based on her performance alone, with The Hunger Games: Catching Fire currently in post-production, and coming out later this year.

Josh Hutcherson, who plays the male lead in the film, Peeta Mellark, is a bit of an enigma; and I think this is simply because he's starred in a rather diverse miasma of B-grade films. I don't mean this in a bad way, but it's these films that have built up his filmography extensively; The Polar Express back in 2004, RV starring Robin Williams, Zathura, Bridge to Terabithia, and most recently the new Red Dawn remake, which is not so B-grade, but has so far collected a modest 43 million in the box office. Mellark, Hutcherson's character is the other tribute from Katniss's region of whom she despises at first but then kinda warms up to slowly once it's revealed he has a thing for her. And how complex does it get when someone who likes you ends up being someone who has the possible option of killing you in a forced competition in a post-apocalyptic Earth? If can get pretty complicated indeed. But somehow, Hutcherson pulls Mellark's character off rather well, albeit making him seem like a fairly timid but strong character within the film.

Secondary characters such as Haymitch, their mentor, played by Woody Harrelson give a little meat to the film. Harrelson in this film looks like Aragorn straight out of the Renaissance. I actually pictured the character from the book to be a bit older, uglier and crueler; but somehow Woody wins me over with his performance with his lax and somewhat inebriated character portrayal. Elizabeth Banks, who is an absolute hottie off-screen, is probably the closest thing to comedy relief as playing the part of Effie Trinket, Peeta's and Katniss's chaperone, who attempts to go one over Lady Gaga with her outlandish hair, makeup and wardrobe... She seems to represent the upper class in Panem's Capitol, but I think her entire goal throughout the movie is to not be taken seriously, which isn't hard to do... I found myself stifling bouts of laughter every time she came on the screen... I have to admit, it's rather sad to see her like this. I absolutely adore Elizabeth, she's talented, witty, and an utter babe - but this role kinda undermined her true talent.

There is a somewhat obligatory casting of Donald Sutherland as yet another person high up in the food chain with a slight hint of evil in his agenda... You know, I hate to say this, but Donald's been cast a lot in these types of roles of late, and when I say "of late" I mean, even before he played the role of X in JFK back in 1991. What is it about him that attracts these kind of roles? He's a strong silent type, granted, but is it the way he looks? He plays the part of President Snow, a somewhat elderly gent who is resistant to the possible uprisings of the remaining twelve districts within Panem, and wants nothing more than to see the districts trodden underfoot. He doesn't stay on for very long on screen, so hopefully we may see some further character development in the sequels.

Finally, I have to give kudos to Lenny Kravitz, playing the role of Cinna, Katniss's pre-competition stylist. I don't think have ever seen Lenny without the nose rings, the wild hair and sunglasses until now... But, man, I am impressed, the man can act! And he does it so well... I had to re-read the start of the book and picture him playing Cinna, and it just clicks. It's a bit of a juxtaposition, seeing him very plain-clothed and toned down in comparison to who he is in real life and his known performance value, and then realizing that the outlandish side of Kravitz in the film is manifested in the wardrobe choices worn by Katniss and Peeta. I think this movie would not have been the same or as appealing without Lenny being cast in the film, as his character adds a considerable amount of emotionality and balance to the craziness and violence surrounding the rest of the film.

The death scenes are not as explicit as I thought they would be, having read the book prior to watching this. If anything, they were a lot more subdued than I had anticipated; I found a Coca-Cola ad inspired by the film to be incredibly gory in comparison. The timeline for the film doesn't jump around with respect to the book, so you don't go questioning the linearity of it, and the film towards the end leaving you with a sense that there is definitely something to follow. I enjoyed this film, but I can't say that I felt completely convinced to award this a full five stars. It feels like there is something missing, I'm not sure what, maybe a little more blood... But it is something worth seeing, and I'm sure with it currently raking in over $680 million in the box office that Suzanne Collins, the author of the book series will be pleased to know that she can retire comfortably in her gold-plated yacht for many years to come. The Hunger Games scores 4½ stars.

Pearl Harbor

2012-12-14T23:05:00.001+11:00

Screening Time: 184 minutes.
Media: Blu-Ray.

Michael Bay has a lot to answer for with regards to this film. Despite earning nearly $450 million in the US Box office, and thereby giving it the title of the sixth-highest earning film in 2001, "Pearl Harbor" has received so much flak in the way of reviews and critiques, it's been deemed as the second worst film of Michael Bay's movie career. Second. Not the first, but second. What was the first? It seems "Pearl Harbor" had some stiff competition against "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" only to lose out for the title.

Okay, here's the low-down. It's a war movie which is wrapped around a somewhat predictable love triangle. The problem here is that the movie is meant to reflect the real life events of the attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii on December 7, 1941; but in doing so it is filled with a number of inaccuracies, I won't go through the list as the Wikipedia article of the movie is considerably thorough. Needless to say, being based on a historical event as significant as the trigger that led the Americans to enter World War II against the Japanese, it's no wonder that Pearl Harbor attack survivors dismissed the film as "grossly inaccurate and pure Hollywood."

The concept of artistic license appears to be considerably stretched in terms of what happened, how it happened, where and with whom, et cetera; and I'll come to Bay's defense here, these changes were more than likely done to help improve the plot line of the film. While this'll not have been the perfect solution and despite the plethora of bad press and reviews it received, the film was simply this: a piece of fiction based on a real life event. And yes, it wasn't necessarily the best way to go about it, but the movie did make $450 million dollars, so there must have been something that deserved that kind of return.

Let's take for granted that yes, Michael Bay did push the limits of twisting the events of the attack of Pearl Harbor to suit the story line of the film. Let's look past what we can with respect to the actual war components and look beyond that to the interwoven love story, A difficult task for some, I know.

Ben Affleck and Josh Hartnett play lifelong buddies who join the US Air Force. Kate Beckinsale plays Affleck's love interest... And then plays Hartnett's love interest... And then Affleck's again... After he supposedly returns from the dead after nearly getting killed in a mission with the British Royal Air Force fighting the Nazis...

The storyline is fairly predictable, and right now I don't rightly care about giving out the spoilers for this film: Boy meets girl, boy goes to fight Nazis, boy supposedly killed in action, boy's best friend comforts girl, boy's best friend and girl fall in love, boy comes back "from the dead", boy feels betrayed, boy and his best friend go to war against the Japanese after being attacked, boy's best friend dies after discovering girl is pregnant, boy and girl get back together and raise son named after dead best friend.

So let's see, a few clichés scattered in this film; the lifelong friendship, the love triangle, the betrayal and the consequent forgiveness, the naming of the kid after the dead friend... I always found that last one a little creepy... Oh, and let's not forget the somewhat hammy death scene of Hartnett's... I actually found myself asking these very words: "Are you f[CENSORED]king kidding me?" To see that particular scene was as painful as wiping my backside with sandpaper.

I have to confess I am very much divided as to how to rate this movie. Granted, there's the love story and the war, and the attacks and the special effects; but I have to say that I must lean towards a low rating... This movie was meant to reflect the historical account of the Pearl Harbor attacks, and as someone who recently visited the Pearl Harbor memorial site, and learned of the story first hand from footage and personal account from survivors from the attacks, it saddens me that a number of inaccuracies were made in the name of entertainment... It kinda sullies the historic value of what Pearl Harbor represents, kinda craps over it... And it's because of this that I award this film two stars for the effort.

The Dark Knight Rises

2012-12-12T23:00:00.001+11:00

Running Time: 165 minutes

Media: Cinematic Release

The Telegraph gave its review of this film the full five stars stating that this was "a superhero film without a superhero", praising Tom Hardy's performance... Can I confess something to you, my dear readers? I winced in pain when I found that out... The only reason I say that is I feel that the film doesn't deserve five stars... It's just way too generous!

I don't like the idea of being too critical of the films, but I have to be realistic here... Granted, Christopher Nolan and Christian Bale have done well together to pull out three movies... And the first two in my opinion have been considerable, I'd even go as far to say that the second film excelled over the first. But to then go and say that the third film deserves five stars...? The Movie Madman suspects a little peer pressure based on the premise of the performance of the previous pair of productions... Sorry, a lot of alliteration there, couldn't resist... But my point still stands, the past two films were great, so there's this huge expectation that this last in the series would be just as good, especially given its $1.08 billion box office takings, right?

Unfortunately, the logic of that kind of expectation falls short there and then. Bruce Wayne, played by Christian Bale, seems to resemble a more broken and frail shell of his former self and is now more of a cripple at the start of this movie... His character looks gaunt, weak and at one stage looks like he could do with a hot meal because he looks like a homeless man. There's no explanation as to why he's gotten this way over the eight years since Harvey Dent's death. To many Batman fans such as myself, it boggles the mind as to how Wayne can become more of a recluse than he was before? The other films show him to be a little rebellious and somewhat flamboyant and there's none of that here... One can only assume that taking on the mantle of the person supposedly responsible for the death of Dent was too much for him and he basically caved. I find the idea of this happening to Bruce Wayne shocking; I mean, he's the Goddamn Batman, for crying out loud!

On the other side, you have Commissioner Gordon, played by the immortal Gary Oldman, who has had to share the lie of Dent's actual cause of death with Batman. As a result he has been consumed from within like Bruce has, but from a different angle. Oldman's performance in all three films has been consistent and has shown a strong progression, maturing from his experience as a cop to now running the entire police division of Gotham. He is close to losing hope but ends up seeing some glimmer of hope in a young policeman, John Blake, played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt.

Gordon-Levitt is a complex character. He's switched on and resourceful. He also believes in justice and the strength of the human spirit as Bruce apparently once did. In a sense, he's upholding the values that Bruce Wayne once upheld, and without giving too much away, seems to be determined to carry on the legacy that Batman had begun long ago. He's changed a lot since his time in Third Rock from the Sun... So props to this Joseph for the maturation of his roles.

Michael Caine reprises his role as Wayne's butler and confidant Alfred Pennyworth, and as much as I admire Caine in almost everything he does, he's become very... emotional in this role in comparison to the other two films, though as much as I know that this was necessary to drive the plot line across, I'm not sure if it was to the benefit of the audience to further advance the plot or whether it was a gratuitous display of emotion to grab us in and make us want to watch the movie.

The use of Tom Hardy as Bane is confusing... In the film he's a bald guy with a mask, that's built like a brick outhouse, and yet he sounds like a old man with a case of acute asthma... He hits like a sledgehammer and yet has the language and vocabulary of an plantation owner below the Mason Dixon line. Put simply, he's contradiction personified... And a damn nuisance to boot... What I couldn't understand was why he couldn't have been shot ages ago and saved us all a lot of trouble? Because of Bruce's "no guns" rule... Why no one else thought to kill Bane within seconds of his making himself known is beyond me.

There is some redemption in Marion Cotillard's portrayal of her character as Miranda Tate, a very noble role, but there is one scene towards the end of the film that kinda flips it on its head. This particular scene kinda destroyed my hopes for the film due to the absolute hammy-ness of Cotillard's character... Okay, I'll be honest, the scene made me wince... It was so bad, that it was laughable and could be classed as the worst scene of its kind given the blockbuster nature of the film. Was director Christopher Nolan not paying attention when filming...? Hard to say, but it seems that a final film should bring it all together, not leave you feeling empty... Shall I explain? I may as well now as most people will have seen "The Dark Knight Rises" by now. Cotillard's death scene raises some serious eyebrows, as it is so hammy that if it were a sandwich would have choked Mama Cass. See it for yourself.

Anne Hathaway's portrayal as cat burglar turned vigilante, Selina Kyle is commendable... She's beautiful, talented and OMG, she looks great in black leather cat-suits... Hathaway underwent intense training to ensure her body was in optimum shape for the role, including dancing sessions to help maintain her figure. Her presence in the film is a well-needed breath of fresh air, inasmuch as Heath Ledger's portrayal of the Joker in "The Dark Knight Returns" was magical - and as a result well deserving of his post-humous Oscar.

Sadly, "The Dark Knight Rises" is no "The Dark Knight Returns" and as a result, it suffers accordingly; and not even the ravishing Anne Hathaway nor the dulcet tones of Morgan Freeman can lift this film up to the level of its predecessor, or the one before that for that matter.

So where does that leave us in terms of the film's rating? Disappointingly, it ranks lower than what I would give the two prequels. "The Godfather - Part III" is not the best of films in comparison, but "The Dark Knight Rises" is no better, in fact, it's worse. The plot line is lacking, certain characters play out as hollow or weak and there are too many questions left unanswered... I'm just disappointed, to say the least. I'm actually going to give this film three stars and hope that the next DC Comics film to grace our screens, "The Man of Steel" will fare better.

The A*Team

2012-10-10T00:36:00.000+11:00

Running Time: 117 minutes.
Media: DVD.

There has been a lot of controversy regarding this film's performance... Supposedly Roger Ebert, critic extraordinaire was a little "zealous" in his review, citing examples in physics to justify the ludicrousness of the scene with the falling tank... Ebert, in his efforts to do so, however, missed the important part of the film... The film itself.

Most films will require some amount of a thing known as "suspension of belief" where you tell your mind to not worry about certain concepts not making sense. Personally, if the suspension of belief is such that you have to say "hold on, let me call my physics professor to find out if that can actually be done..." then you're thinking too much and not enjoying yourself, and you just need to sit back and enjoy the ride...

And boy, does this film take you for a ride, a very thrilling one at that... This film is full of non-stop action scenes peppered with little sequences of suspense that keep you thinking. The film has kept a considerable adherence to the original TV series, paying homage to the original van, Hannibal's use of cigars and even B.A. Baracus's fear of flying. We have an alternative storyline that introduces how the A*Team became fugitives, and it works incredibly well. What seems to work just as well is the casting for each of the four members.

Now, a number of people have sledged those who made the movie saying that the casting for Liam Neeson as Hannibal was all wrong... That he wasn't the right fit and all... I hate to mention this but, George Peppard is dead, (may he rest in peace), and Liam is a very charismatic actor; who has been in more movies that have come out recently, than other characters of his caliber. This particular role was not intended to be an incredibly dramatic one, and Liam seemed to take to this character with the original spirit as Peppard did back in the early eighties... The only difference I see between the two versions is that though Neeson's Hannibal is still tactically brilliant and capable of making a plan come together, is not quite as unflappable as his TV counterpart. In fact, due to the betrayal nature of the storyline (concerning the "crime they did not commit"), Hannibal's often shown as intense and angry. But this kind of shake-up is good for a film like this... so I think he was perfect for the role, in my humble opinion.

Next! Bradley Cooper playing the role of Templeton "Faceman" Peck... I have to admit that this was an inspired move on the part of the casting directors... He's comedic, handsome and sophisticated. He seemed to channel the same flirtatious and womanizing nature of Face as his 1980's counterpart, Dirk Benedict. Both versions of the character are as charismatic as one another. Face was always seen as the roguish and debonair character, and Bradley has this in spades. Dirk Benedict actually has a little cameo near the end of the film, so keep watch for it!

Next! We have Quinton "Rampage" Jackson as B.A. Baracus... His actual name alone spells trouble! Rampage is an American mixed martial artist and a former UFC Light Heavyweight Champion. This man is one brother you wouldn't want to mess with... And his use of his skills does not go unnoticed in this film... His mohawk is not as prominent in the film as Mr. T's was in the TV series, and there is a reference to "I pity the fool" with his fists... It works well, but not as well as one would want... this would somehow be the only downside to this film. This does not say that Jackson cannot play the role of Bosco. He can, but this is a Bosco Albert Baracus of the twenty-first century, whereas the B.A. Baracus of yore, Mr. T, is now a born-again Christian and has lately appeared on infomercials for portable self-cleaning ovens...

Lastly, Sharlto Copely as H.M. Murdock... I was a little skeptical at first, only having then seen his performance in District 9, and not really having known him in anything other than this other film. So imagine my surprise when a South African opened his mouth only to have an American accent come through with the gusto of an insane man possessed... Sharlto has swallowed and embodied the essence of Murdock that would do Dwight Schultz (the 80's version of Murdock) proud... Dwight also appears in a cameo role in the end of the film as well, so another bonus for pop-culture enthusiasts such as myself!

The film also boasts the appearances of actors such as Gerald McRaney, for those who remember him in shows like Simon and Simon, and Major Dad; Jessica Biel, who always graces my presence whenever I see her on the big screen, and also Brian Bloom, who plays Pike, who also co-wrote the script for the film. Throw in some amazing special effects and creative distraction techniques to help suck you deep into the world that these people find themselves in and you have an incredible film which is guaranteed to entertain... If you're a voice-actor enthusiast, you may also notice Corey Burton narrating towards the end of the film. Corey is well known for a number of voice roles, including Braniac in the animated DC universe as well as Spike Witwicky and Shockwave from the Transformers cartoon series from the 1980's.

This film shows itself to be entertaining, humorous, intense and gripping its audience from the word go. It is filled with action, thrills and spills... And will keep you guessing what is happening... I thoroughly enjoyed the film and am pleased to award it five stars.

The Amazing Spider-Man

2012-09-12T11:48:00.001+10:00

Running Time: 136 minutes.

Media: Cinematic release.

When Batman went through four movies and seemed to lose its grip, having gone through two with Michael Keaton, one with Val Kilmer and one with George Clooney... well, what can I say, there was a lot of talk about how schmaltzy it all started to become... plus the fears of continuing it may considerably drop in popularity.

I feel there was a considerable push in that direction when it came to the first Spider-Man film series that starred Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, James Franco and Willem Dafoe. Now, don't get me wrong, it was a great film series... but this schmaltzy feel to the films was something that seemed to raise its ugly head probably around the time of maybe the second movie when Franco's sole purpose became more focused on the killing of Spider-Man than that of being Peter Parker's best friend. It seemed to continue onto the third film where the hammy-ness of acting seemed to escalate where even Peter Parker's symbiote possession in the third movie was parodied in the Youtube channel "How It Should Have Ended", which is also worth seeing, by the way. That being said, there was also a lot of talk about how this new movie came about... There was some mention of some time that early May last year would be the release date for the new movie by Sam Raimi, and unfortunately Raimi had admitted that he could not meet the scheduled release date and retain creative integrity. By this time, Columbia Pictures had admitted that in January 2010, that the whole series would be rebooted.

Bearing this in mind, does The Amazing Spider-Man live up to expectations? I say yes, and rather whole-heartedly. The main reason is that while the Raimi series of films with Tobey Maguire brought an incredibly fresh spin to the Spider-Man canon; this new series which has been directed by Marc Webb (and may I say, a perfectly apt surname for a director for this film!) has basically taken the original mythology of how Spider-Man came to be, and brought it to the 21st century, and without much need to alter the original story. They've kept the original bite concept, the technical web-shooters, as opposed to the organic ones seen in the original film series and they've introduced Gwen Stacy as the first love interest, as opposed to Mary Jane Watson, which was how it began in the original comic book canon.

We have Andrew Garfield, who is probably known better for his roles in Lions for Lambs and The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, gives us the troubled teen in angst, Peter Parker, coming to terms with his newly found power as well as his loss of his Uncle Ben, played by Martin Sheen. Aunt May, played by Sally Field works well to help balance out the cast with being the maternal figure to Peter.

We have Gwen Stacy, played by a blonde Emma Stone... the second actress to go from redhead to blonde as Gwen, the first being Bryce Dallas Howard, Ron Howard's daughter... which is interesting considering that Kirsten Dunst in the original film series went from blonde to redhead to play the role of Mary Jane Watson... But I digress... Stone's portrayal of Gwen Stacy is one that radiates a more confident, warming and intellectual version in comparison to Bryce's cheeky, confident and seductive version. Gwen seems to play the anchor to Parker's angst and responsibility... rather much like Pepper Potts is to Tony Stark in Iron Man. To see such a strong character in an important female role to this movie is refreshing.

Gwen's father, Captain George Stacy, played by comedian and actor, Denis Leary is formidable, but you can't help but chuckle by seeing the comedian side of him come out with his attitude and blasts of sarcasm that seem to seep out in most of his roles. Whether this is intentional, I'm not sure, but I find that it brought out the character well.

One final character which seems to work incredibly well, is that of Doctor Curt Connors, played by Welsh actor, Rhys Ifans... who also doubles as Connor's alter ego, the Lizard... Kudos and credit must be given to Ifans for taking the concept of Connors and throwing in a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde sort of theme... it works brilliantly in this kind of genre, and I have to confess that this performance of his has brought him up several notches since I first saw him as Spike in Notting Hill all those years ago. I did see some potential in him to be a great actor when he played Xenophilius Lovegood in the first part of the last Harry Potter film, and now he has excelled beyond my expectations.

The film works well together, the characters seem to complement each other perfectly, though there are a number of "holes", for the lack of a better word, that I know will be filled in the sequels to come. This is not a bad thing, this is just very well-structured screen-writing. I'm glad that Avi Arad from Marvel Studios and Laura Ziskin decided to continue to produce this film after Columbia Pictures announced the reboot, because this storyline will pave the way to not only more gripping scenes with the next film in the series, but hopefully, for the unanswered questions to be answered. I am very pleased to award The Amazing Spider-Man a five-star rating.