http://www.pagetworld.co.uk Steve Paget's opinion on films, old and new Copyright 2002-2007 Steve Paget. http://www.pagetworld.co.uk/movies.php?ID=237 http://www.pagetworld.co.uk/movies.php?ID=237 Go and have a quick look at it and then come back. It's OK, I'll wait.

Done that? Good. Now, did it look a bit odd to you? Apart from the dodgy acting and poor script that ruins all Doctor Who episodes, what was with the restless camera and the intrusive foreground objects? Why does every scene have to involve something rotating, or the camera mysteriously drifting past the action? It's because it was shown in 3D, using a novel technique that has fallen out of favour. In order to create the illusion of depth, the viewer wore glasses with one lens slightly darker than the other. If an object was moving at the right speed, one eye saw it slightly later than the other so it gave the impression of stereoscopy. The problem was, it results in rather weird-looking camerawork.

Resident Evil: Afterlife falls into the same trap. Released at a time when 3D is flooding into our cinemas, the film-makers clearly wanted to produce a top-notch 3D experience. They must have looked at the technology and tried to decide what makes 3D work best, and where it falls down. The answer is simple: 3D works best when you have small floating objects, moving slowly. It is terrible at large objects which stretch outside of the frame of the image, as our brains recognise that the object has been cut off at the edges and the illusion is broken. With small things in the centre of the screen, we are fooled. Look at films like Avatar, Tangled and Monsters Versus Aliens. It's the drifting seed-heads, lanterns and jet-pack guy that work best. And they are moving slowly around the screen. Our brains need time to work out what's going on, especially if we're peering through cheap lenses which make everything darker.

So, in Resident Evil: Afterlife, everything moves in slow motion. Every fight scene (and there are many) features things being thrown in slow motion, bullets whizzing past in slow motion, shrapnel flying in slow motion, and the lead character Alice jumping in slow motion. She jumps everywhere. She's like Sportacus on a hot-plate. The slow motion gets very tedious after a while. And when I say 'a while' I mean 5 seconds. I'm all for clever technology but when it gets in the way of telling a story, or when entire scenes are added simply to exploit a technique (like the gratuitous 'roller-coaster' scenes in IMAX films like Robots and The Polar Express) it just winds me up.

I didn't watch Resident Evil: Afterlife in 3D. I saw it in 2D. And what I saw was not pretty. It had virtually no plot, fundamentally unscary monsters and a script consisting of hackneyed machismo. In fact, I expect you'll get more in the way of thrills from watching that Doctor Who episode up there. At least it has Ross Kemp and a mysteriously-moving step-ladder.
]]> Rating: 2 out of 10 http://www.pagetworld.co.uk/movies.php?ID=236 http://www.pagetworld.co.uk/movies.php?ID=236
Directed by Edgar Wright (Shaun Of The Dead, Hot Fuzz), it follows the adventures of 20-something slacker Scott Pilgrim (Juno's Michael Cera) and his attempts to woo a mysterious young lady, Ramona (Mary Elizabeth Winstead). Before they can be together Scott must fight her "seven evil exes", seven of Ramona's previous boyfriends, each of whom have outlandish comic-book abilities and unfathomable tempers.

What ensues is part teenage love story, part beat-em-up. The movie's style is incomparable, taking cues from a massive catalogue of arcade and home-console entertainment. Sound effects from famous games such as Zelda, Mario and Sonic The Hedgehog pepper the soundtrack, often in subtle, almost subliminal ways. The explosive fight scenes crackle with gaming visuals, and even the quieter moments are graced with captions and effects which reference familiar gaming lore.

Aside from the presentation, the story of Scott Pilgrim keeps up the pace. The "seven evil exes" structure effectively marks out the movie as a series of "levels" and, although one might worry that endless fight scenes might become repetitive, there is enough variety and human interest in the intervening scenes to sustain a fairly entertaining love story amongst the carnage. Michael Cera does his Michael-Cera-thing, which has served him well so far, and Kieran Culkin stands out as Scott's room-mate Wallace.

This is the sort of movie that will probably only work once, and I can imagine that any sequel would find it hard to ramp up the excitement.]]> Rating: 9 out of 10 http://www.pagetworld.co.uk/movies.php?ID=235 http://www.pagetworld.co.uk/movies.php?ID=235
Who is watching this film and enjoying it so much they encourage their friends to do the same? Who is it that doesn't find the combination of soft-core porn and pre-teen comedy to be creepily unsettling?

This is is a film which spends half its time ogling semi-naked teenage girls, bent over motorbikes and hitching up their skirts, and half its time attempting to be funny, with silly little robots speaking in quirky little voices, reminscent of Small Soldiers or Gremlins. It's like a freakish episode of Bagpuss, where Professor Yaffle gets a job in a lapdancing club.

Throughout the movie, we are presented with large-scale scenes of mayhem and fighting robots, which are supposed to be impressive but which are so visually complex that it's all but impossible to see what's going on. The robots don't appear to have physical substance, and there is so little emotional connection that it really doesn't matter how many buildings are blown up, or how many aircraft carriers are sunk. It all means nothing.

But then, what do you expect from a toy advert?]]> Rating: 3 out of 10 http://www.pagetworld.co.uk/movies.php?ID=234 http://www.pagetworld.co.uk/movies.php?ID=234
In this second camp are such favourites as Silent Running, Wall-E and now Moon. Sam Rockwell plays Sam Bell, an astronaut coming to the end of his three year contract as the sole occupant of a moonbase. Sam's job is to look after the machines which are mining fuel for dispatch back to Earth. Fighting loneliness and hallucinations, he looks forward to the day when he will be reunited with his wife, and his young child whom he has never seen. The story that follows is thoughtful and, while not exactly unpredictable, is satisfyingly deep and delivered with style. Events unfold with a suitably slow pace, and there are more than enough little touches that evoke the realism of space-bound life, reminiscent of 2001's zero-gravity toilet. In quiet space films, things are worn and dirty and the technology is a little bit clunky.

Nice to see Matt Berry getting a serious role among the tiny cast, even if he is barely recognisable. Sam Rockwell goes some way to restoring my good-will, after the mess of the Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

If you're a bit sleepy, don't watch Moon. But if you can cope with the tedium, you'll be gripped.]]> Rating: 8 out of 10 http://www.pagetworld.co.uk/movies.php?ID=233 http://www.pagetworld.co.uk/movies.php?ID=233 Peggy Sue Got Married, in which he played an annoying berk with a horrifyingly whiny voice. I avoided him for a while until he cropped up in Face/Off, and he annoyed me then. National Treasure: annoying. Ghost Rider: stupid and annoying. You'd think I would avoid his movies, wouldn't you? Then I wouldn't have to see his lumpy stretched face any more.

Now he's in Knowing, which is directed by the guy who made I, Robot. It's a sort of sci-fi mystery which aims to keep you guessing about what the hell is going on. It starts in the 1950s, when a small school decides to bury a time-capsule. In it, the kids all place drawings of their visions of the future. But one girl, an odd-looking mite who will probably grow up to get Summer Glau's roles, is different. Rather than a drawing of a rocket or a jet-pack, she feverishly writes down strings of numbers, seemingly at random. All the pages are put in the capsule and buried. 50 years later, the capsule is opened and, of course, Nicolas Cage's son gets the sheet of numbers.

When Cage spots the sheet, he is pretty shocked to see "09112001" in the string of digits, and immediately links it with the September 11th attack. He starts to make more links, and it appears that the list of numbers is offering predictions of future disasters. To be honest, I'm not sure I would have had the same reaction on seeing 09112001 on a sheet of several hundred digits. Even if it did jump out at me, I would probably put it down to coincidence. It doesn't seem very likely to me that someone would act like that, but then this is a film where Nicolas Cage is an astrophysicist so perhaps we shouldn't expect realism.

I'm not going to give anything else away, because there is some fun to be had trying to work out what is happening. However, it doesn't take long to work it out and the clues are pretty blatant. It's more interesting trying to guess how far the movie will go, which is pretty far. Every now and then there is a nasty shock, which is all too rare in movies. Not a lazy ghost-jumping-out-of-a-box shock, but something actually quite upsetting. The effects are pretty decent, at least on the small screen. Cage even puts in a pretty good performance. He doesn't get a free pass from now on, but it's a start.

Knowing isn't up there with the Sixth Sense, but it is very entertaining. A rare treat.]]> Rating: 8 out of 10 http://www.pagetworld.co.uk/movies.php?ID=232 http://www.pagetworld.co.uk/movies.php?ID=232
We watched it again this morning, in preparation for the sequel. In retrospect, having seen number 2, it's starting to look better. The sequel takes the worst aspects and amplifies them, giving us more shouting and more falling over, and little else.

The story seems to take place a few years after the original. Larry (Ben Stiller) has left the museum where he worked as a night guard, and is now a successful inventor and businessman. He still pops back every now and then to visit the living exhibits he now calls his friends. But when he visits at the start of the movie, many of the exhibits are packed away in boxes, to be carted away to the storage facility at the Smithsonian Institute. When the magical tablet that bring everything to life arrives at the warehouse it revives the Egyptian Pharaoh Kahmunrah, who starts a plan of world domination.

Most of the old cast are back, including Robin Williams, Ricky Gervais, Owen Wilson and Steve Coogan. The latter couple are allowed to reprieve their on-screen friendship and deliver some of the best lines in the movie. But laughs seem scarcer this time around, and the plot as a whole seems far more disjointed. It's a film where a series of things happen, and everyone seems intent on doing something, but at the same time there is little sense of purpose. Amy Adams is a nice screen presence as pioneering aeronaut Amelia Earhart, but even her chipper demeanour can't hold our attention for ever and, even though the film is shorter than it's predecessor, it's not long before it starts to drag.

Also, the film plays on what are presumably iconic American works of art and historical memorabilia. Much of this was lost on me, so I suspect that I was unable to appreciate some of the jokes.

Night At The Museum 2 is more of the same. If you think that's worth your money, get in line.
]]> Rating: 3 out of 10 http://www.pagetworld.co.uk/movies.php?ID=231 http://www.pagetworld.co.uk/movies.php?ID=231
In a way, Bolt represents the shape of things to come. Pixar's next crop of films are all going 3D, starting in the summer with Up. But Bolt is not a Pixar movie. It may have John Lasseter's name in the credits, and it may riff on several Pixar themes, but this is a Disney venture and it shows. It's the story of a dog who, in the 007-style opening sequence, is involved in a daring bid to rescue his owner from an extravagant villain. Soon, however, we learn that Bolt is not what he seems. We have been watching the shooting of a TV series of which Bolt is the star. The only trouble is, he doesn't realise that he's on TV. As in The Truman Show, Bolt thinks everything is real. Then he gets abandoned in the real world.

Straight away we are exploring familiar ground. Like Buzz Lightyear, Bolt is unable to let go of the illusion that he is a super-hero. He has to find his way back to his owner, enlisting the help of Mittens, an alley-cat and Rhino, a hamster and the star of the show.

The movie pushes the right buttons, with the 3D helping things move along without becoming intrusive. The scenes all look beautiful, solid and immersive, with only a few instances of things arbitrarily pointing out of the screen. There are some genuine laughs and some meaty action sequences. It nods towards Pixar's The Incredibles and a few bits from Cars have been drafted in for good measure. As Bolt learns the value of being a simple pet, I couldn't help picturing Buzz and Woody in Andy's arms.

But the story is not as innovative, and the script not as sparky as in Pixar's classics. Couple that with a truly weak Pixar short at the start of the film, and it makes for a cinema experience which is surely enough just to tide you over until the summer.
]]> Rating: 7 out of 10 http://www.pagetworld.co.uk/movies.php?ID=230 http://www.pagetworld.co.uk/movies.php?ID=230 Hellboy was lots of fun. Director Guillermo del Toro, on his way to Oscars glory with Pan's Labyrinth, had taken time out of his busy schedule (making mostly Spanish-language art films) to bring us a raucous, noisy adventure with a little-known comic-book hero. Since then, Del Toro is more widely known. When his two Hobbit movies are released he will be even more famous, assuming they won't also be in Spanish.

This sequel to Hellboy is aimed firmly at the mainstream sector, but don't let that fool you. This is no Fantastic Four: Rise of The Silver Surfer. Hellboy 2's quality shows through the gloss.

The story picks up a short while after the prequel. Hellboy is still working in the Bureau for Paranormal Research and Defense, protecting the world from demonic bad guys and keeping it all secret, Men In Black-style. His beautiful fire-starter girlfriend has moved in, and things are ticking along. That's before a long-dormant feud between mankind and the Elves starts to reawaken. Before you know it, all sorts of vicious, toothy creatures are bringing mayhem to the streets.

A pretty standard setup, but what impresses about Hellboy is the execution. Del Toro must be one of the most imaginative writer/directors in the business. What could be a standard monster movie is transformed by the wit of the script, the likeable characters and the inventive creatures. As I watched the cavalcade of odd creations, from the nasty little tooth-fairies to the city-smashing elementals, I was reminded of Terry Gilliam's work. If you have seen Pan's Labyrinth you will know Del Toro's style. This film is crammed with frankly barking monsters, most notably in the Troll City sequence. The characters inhabiting this secret market-place make Star Wars' cantina patrons look like bank managers.

But the story is also solid, with some lovely plot developments and a real emotional draw. This is one of those rare times when the prospect of a trilogy doesn't make the heart sink.

If you haven't seen the first Hellboy, grab it now. Then get this and marvel.
]]> Rating: 9 out of 10 http://www.pagetworld.co.uk/movies.php?ID=229 http://www.pagetworld.co.uk/movies.php?ID=229 Batman Begins seems a bit sniffy. The film was a bit of a revolution of the Batman series and, while I thought it was a good start to the new series, I found the lack of a decent foe to be a problem. Nobody can level that criticism at The Dark Knight. Everyone knows what this film is all about, and not just because the actor died.

As hinted at the end of the last movie, The Dark Knight is Joker's film. The central plot is about the emergence of The Joker, a freakish, scarred, knife-wielding maniac in dreary clown make-up who sets about shaking up the criminal underworld and demanding control of Gotham's hoodlums. Alongside this is a plot about Batman trying to hand over the responsibility for protecting Gotham's citizens to a new District Attorney, clean-cut Harvey Dent. Dent is "Gotham's white knight", and Batman tries to help him into office.

This is a more satisfying movie than Batman Begins, and that is down to the roles played by Heath Ledger and Aaron Eckhart. Joker is one-dimensional, but so watchable that he shines in every scene. After such light-hearted portrayals from Cesar Romero and Jack Nicholson, this is the film where the Joker has real menace. Even so, we learn very little about him and no solid back-story is offered. It doesn't seem important, though. His role as an agent of chaos is enough to drive things along. Harvey Dent is a more interesting character. He too has appeared in previous Batman films and, without wishing to give the game away, this version is the best yet.

So what of Christian Bale, the Batman himself? In truth, he doesn't really set the film alight. When he's Bruce Wayne he is spoilt and lumpen, and when he is Batman he adopts a ridiculous growl that sounds like someone doing an impression of Phil Mitchell from EastEnders. If it wasn't for the fact that he punches people, he might as well not feature at all. The fight scenes are better, possessing a solidity that was missing from the previous movie, and the violence levels seem to be higher than its 12A certificate would suggest.

The film is also too long. At almost 3 hours, it starts to outstay its welcome well before the end. Some parts seem superfluous, such as a predictable and preachy predicament involving two ferry ships. Cutting half an hour would have been a sensible move.

I like the way that the series is going, taking the source material seriously and producing thoughtful films aimed at the more mature audience. If they can resist the temptation to cram too much into each outing (a mistake which hurt the Spiderman series), they should continue to hold interest. The Dark Knight is interesting, if imperfect.
]]> Rating: 7 out of 10 http://www.pagetworld.co.uk/movies.php?ID=228 http://www.pagetworld.co.uk/movies.php?ID=228 just about to see! Anyway, that's a minor irritation, and is just one more reason to wait for these things to come out on DVD.

So, as you probably already know, WALL-E is a robot. He has been left on Earth after the human race got fed up with the amount of waste that centuries of industry had dumped on the planet, and decided to leave the planet and go on a nice cruise while the robots cleaned up the mess. Originally there were thousands of WALL-Es but only one is left, going about his business, gathering junk and making nice, neat piles.

That pretty much covers the first half of the film. Just as The Incredibles had a low-key start, WALL-E is brazenly slow-paced. He trundles around, doing his thing, picking and puzzling over the odd things that the humans left behind and making a little collection of his favourite knick-knacks. There's little or no speaking, and the main motif is one of loneliness. I'm not the first person to notice the astonishing similarity between the first half of WALL-E and the classic Seventies weep-fest, Silent Running.

After a while it picks up the pace with the arrival of another robot, EVE (these names are all acronyms, of course), whose purpose is initially vague. Eventually the story moves into space and we meet the humans. Then the film becomes more of a zip-bang action movie, and it's a little easier to follow, but that still leaves most of the film with no dialogue and with some pretty complex concepts. My six-year-old was confused from the start and, when EVE's mission became clear to me, she still didn't have a clue what was going on. She claimed she was enjoying it, but she seemed very restless.

When it gets going, WALL-E presents a fairly obvious moral about the dangers of relying on technology. It's nicely done, but doesn't have the emotional appeal of Finding Nemo or Pixar's previous release, Ratatouille. Perhaps kids need a vision of a junk-covered planet to encourage them to tidy their bedroom?

Some people are tipping WALL-E as a potential Best Picture Oscar winner. I think that's going a bit too far. As a kids' film, there are problems with it. It would be nice to be proven wrong, but I'm not sure that the downbeat opening was a hit with my daughter. I would be surprised if she wants to return to this as she has the previous Pixar films.
]]> Rating: 7 out of 10