klesker Reviews

Buried (2010)

Outstanding

[9/10 · 4 October 2010]

If this doesn't remain in my top five come year-end I will be shocked. Who thought that a movie can not only sustain a full 90mins stuck within the confines of a coffin (and believe me, it doesn't leave the coffin) but that it would be one of the most cinematic and audacious pieces of cinema I've seen in a good few years? Like this year's Inception and Toy Story 3, movies like Buried are the reason I love cinema. It is escapism at it's best, ironic considering the setting. Who thought Ryan Reynolds, Van Wilder: Party Liaison himself could be so utterly mesmerising in such a challenging role? The movie is literally his. Sure, there are those he speaks to over the phone (he's buried with a Zippo and a Blackberry) but for the film's length, he is the only physical presence on screen. He goes through every emotion possible: fear, panic, anger, sadness, happiness, depression, acceptance, and all of it played so convincingly that you almost wonder whether they genuinely buried the actor and left a camera in there with him.

There are minor gripes, all predominantly found in the first half. It feels somewhat episodic at times and there's a lack of any real tension during the first forty minutes but this is a pressure cooker of a film and the last half is unrelenting to the point of nausea, culminating in a truly great finale that caused me to shout-out in the quiet, near empty cinema.

Buried is extraordinary. The only performance to beat Reynolds' in recent years is Sam Rockwell's stunning turn in Moon. High concept thrillers like this rise or fall on the delivery of their challenging set ups. Fortunately, Buried works.

It really, really works.

Inception (2010)

Nolan's Masterpiece

[10/10 · 18 July 2010]

Where do I start with Inception? To delve into the plot would actually take away the film's effectiveness but say too little and it begs the purpose of this review at all. So, on that note, there will be certain, but non-major, plot points spoken about. Some very minor spoilers (again, not plot ruining) but if you wish to go in knowing as little as possible (which is the best way, trust me), then it might be worth skipping the review.

DiCaprio is a gent called Dom Cobb, the best extractor in the business of subconscious espionage. Extraction is easy, however when Dom is asked to attempt Inception, the tricky practice of planting an idea into their target's mind (it is explained why it's more difficult but I can't explain it here), the stakes are raised much higher: there's the promise of finally getting home to his family, of whom he has been in hiding for an undisclosed but lengthy period of time.

One thing to say about Inception, apart from how truly, utterly brilliant it is, is that it is probably the most original film since The Matrix back in 1999. I think one of the key components that will either invigorate audiences or turn them off is the fact that it's not based on an already established name, be it an adaptation or a sequel. That in itself is refreshing enough but the genius conceit of Inception is that it believes so much in the world it's created that it leaves very little catching up time for the audience. The rules for Extraction and Inception are laid down thick and fast and woe betide the fellow that insists on a pee break. Miss even two minutes of this film and you're lost.

But in laying down the rules, the second half of the film (in which DiCaprio's team implement the Inception heist) acts them out with aplomb. We have dreams within dreams within dreams and things that happen in one plain of reality directly effect that in the next, for example: whilst the team is unconscious in freefall in one, in the subsequent dream they're all weightless, and whilst a van in which the team is asleep tumbles down a hill, the gravity in the next starts to shift (giving us that awesome corridor fight from the trailer).

Christopher Nolan really has taken everything he's learned from making mature adult blockbusters and utilised it here with maximum effect. To say it's thinking man's blockbuster is understating things but, unlike the Michael Bay's of this world, he does not feel the need to treat his audience like kids. Whilst Inception may hold a 12A certificate, that's not to say it's for children of that age, not because of any of its content I must add, just that the plot, which is perfectly written and executed, will just be too much for those that crave robots hitting each other.

But, that said, there is a lot here that will appeal to that demographic. The visuals, whether it is during much of the trippy dream imagery or the outstanding action sequences, are spectacular. Whilst grounding much of the dream world in reality, that's not to stop Paris from folding in on itself or have gravity shifting from wall to wall.

But, as stated, what makes Inception work is it stubbornness to stick to it's established rules. So ten hours in real time equates to a week in the dream world but a dream within that dream equates to six months and a dream within that dream equates to ten years and so on, so whilst moments that are instantaneous in one dream, the team knows that they'll have around twenty minutes to get things done in the next, etc. Once you get your head around it, you have to marvel at how well the filmmakers have been able to juggle the different time frames within the dream world. It pays off in spade and once everything comes together in the end (of which it does in outstanding fashion) the satisfaction of staying with Nolan and his convoluted but never confusing mind is like nothing I've experienced in the cinema for years.

Inception is literally like nothing you've ever seen before. A heist movie with some serious balls, this is, hands down, Christopher Nolan's finest accomplishment. There will be those that wont like it (it has already garnered some vehemently hostile criticism) and I can understand why but I was enthralled by not only the spectacle but also the sheer bravura at its ideas.

This is Nolan's masterpiece.

The Dark Knight (2008)

Wow!

[10/10 · 27 July 2008]

There's been a huge amount of hyperbole in terms of this movie. While some of the OTT geekyness just needs to be seen to be believed (it's at Number 1 on IMDb's top 250, i mean c'mon), a lot of it is entirely justified. The Dark Knight isn't just a great movies, it's a super-hero masterpiece and quite possibly one of the best films of the decade let alone the year. OK, so i've fallen into the same hyperbole trap but a movie that is gathering THIS much praise (i've counted only two negative reviews so far) must have something going for it.

Now there has been much praise over Heath Ledger's performance so let's get that out of the way first. Calls for Oscar nominations are totally justified. He is utterly terrifying as the Joker. The catalyst for many of the major events of the film, he is the soul purpose for the escalation of the downfall of Gotham City and stands to make Batman question everything he has fought for. As Alfred says "some men just wanna watch the world burn". That's Ledger's Joker: a clown with a mass murdering, remorseless, pychopathic side who will most likely kill your mother just to laugh at the horrified expression on your face (watch his magic trick with a pencil, funny yet pretty nasty too).

But that's not to say he steals the show. While most will remember this film for Ledger, this is primarily a film about the rise and fall of Harvey Dent. A far more engaging character (and villain) than the Joker, Dent's fall from grace is actually pretty tragic. I liked Harvey, whilst a little up his own ass he is, at heart, a man with very similar morals to Batman. He's not afraid to take down the mob and it ain't for the publicity either. But, essencially, this eagerness to be Gotham's "White Knight" is ultimately his undoing, his actions (and Batman's, and Gordon's for that matter) cause the Joker to push things further until everything descends into utter chaos.

The main theme of the movie is that of escalation, as mentioned at the end of the still excellent Batman Begins. My only beef with this movie is that it takes a little while to hit its stride. Whilst the first half hour is certainly still very good, there is nothing (bar the genius heist that kicks off the film) that can justify outstanding reviews across the board. But after the Joker make a surprise appearance at a top notch party ("Goooood evening ladiiiees and gentllllemen!") does the movie really kick off. There is little in the way of full on action sequences (but when there are, they are HUGE) but literally every scene from here on in builds to something bigger, with the climaxes only kick starting something else that's even bigger and infinitely more frightening, and all the time, Hans Zimmer's score pounds in the background. In terms of narrative structure, it really is flawless. Even at 2 1/2 hours long, there is very little, if anything that can be cut from this movie, the plot is THAT tight.

Now let's talk about the length. One of the chief complaints of this movie is that it goes on for too long. I call bullshit on that! personally, i could've quite happily sat there for a good while longer i was THAT into the movie. If you notice that the movie is running a little too long for your taste then you're obviously not enjoying the movie as much as you should be. There is never a dull moment in this movie and it's certainly the fastest 2 1/2 hours i've ever spent at the cinema.

And speaking of cinemas, this movie really needs to be experienced in IMAX. I'm glad i spent the extra cash to get to London because the experience was just staggering. Not just because the screen was so damn big but the scenes filmed in the IMAX format just looked perfect, filling the entire screen (and that's 20m of screen to fill) the pictures are crystal clear. A screen that size certainly helps to get you into things. No matter where you look, there's just the movie. There's definitely a tinge of disappointment in knowing that when i see this movie again it wont be in IMAX. It just wont seem, well, emersive.

But this really is a powerhouse of a movie. I've never shaken so bad leaving a movie before, the adrenalin was pumping that much. I was also glad to see i wasn't the only one. It is a stagering achievement in film-making and also begs the question: do we really want a third one? Nothing can ever top this in terms of sheer bravado and excitement. It expertly manages to make a superhero movie that feels more like and epic crime saga without losing any of the spectacle that makes a superhero movie what it is. Comparisons to Heat are not far off the mark. Further proof that Chris Nolan is one of the best filmmakers working today. As for me, i'm off to book tickets for my second viewing on the biggest damn screen i can find. I feel a trip to Basingstoke coming on.

5/5

Candyman (1992)

The Candyman can

[10/10 · 6 June 2008]

I love my horror, but what I love most about it is the feeling of being scared. Yes, Im one of these people that will walk into the supposedly haunted house alone whilst bricking myself, the kind of guy that will hang out the side of the roller-coaster in order to raise the scar factor just that little bit higher. I love horror because I love to be scared. Now, the funny thing is I very rarely find horror movies scary. But there is that one film floating around waiting to scare the bejeezus out of us. To date, there have only ever been two movies that have managed to do what they're supposed to and they are The Shining and The Exorcist. The Japanese film Audition came pretty close but it just failed to make the leap from being simply disturbing to being balls to the walls terrifying.

Well congratulations Candyman, for you have succeeded where many others have failed and made me feel the most uncomfortable watching a movie since, well, the first time I saw The Exorcist and The Shining. Sure, you could say this is a slasher movie at heart, I mean, there's plenty of hacking and slashing and the main antagonist has a hook for a hand but in shifting the Gothic tale of pain and suffering from the haunted castle to the urban squalor of the projects in Chicago, the film creates a palpable sense of dread from the get go, personifying what makes urban legends so damn scary in the first place: they take place in a neighbourhood just like your own. How many times have our friends claimed to have known someone who has been harassed by phone calls whilst babysitting only to have the caller be in the house with you (The Babysitter and the Man Upstairs)? I remember hearing these tales all through my college days and never really believing any of them because, well, they were stupid. But that didn't stop them being less creepy. And as the urban legend of the Candyman begins to manifest itself in the real world, you really begin to feel the characters dread.

The Candyman himself deserves to be in the horror hall of fame with the likes of Hannibal Lector and Freddy Kruger. Not showing up until well passed the half way point, his entrance is one of the most unnerving things I've ever had to sit through. Tony Todd really portrays this guy with a great sense of menace, his movements conveying a slight air of pretension but, at the same time, being really imposing. Probably helps the Todd is 9 feet tall and 7 feet wide (well…that's a lie, but he's pretty big). But it's not his stance that makes him so effective. This is a performance that's entirely vocal. In a stroke of genius, the film makers have amplified his voice, making it dominate the soundtrack every time he speaks. It becomes instantly distressing and I found both my brother and I shifting uncomfortably in our seats, looking at each other with big frowns of unease.

Despite the high levels of blood and gore, the death scenes actually turn out to be pretty terrifying themselves, with one in particular taking place off screen, leaving the viewer with a barrage of horrific screams and gut wrenching sound effects that made it seem all the more worse, causing my brother and I, again, to shift nervously in our seats. The main plus points in the effectiveness of Candyman's killing spree ist hat his victims aren't horror archetypes: these are innocent people. And the fact that the film is played so straight faced makes it somehow worse.

Now let me address you quickly about something that bothers me about horror movies. Now if you think about it, the idea of a psychopathic killer running around murdering people is nasty. Sure the horror genre has taken a more tongue-in-cheek way of doing this as of late to, to the point where it eventually becomes fun to see who will die next and how. Now that's OK in a Final Destination kind of way but for me, the idea of someone in a mask stalking teenagers isn't really fun at all, it's really nasty. I mean c'mon, how are you gonna react when you have some sharp instrument thrust into your gullet? You're not gonna have the big breasted blond clasping her hands on her face and scream Hammer Horror style as if she's just had a spider crawl up her leg rather than been stabbed, in reality, it's gonna really bloody hurt. Now being that this film is totally straight face and deadly serious, that is EXACTLY how these victims react. I wont go into the gory details needless to say, it's disturbing.

This is just a very effective horror movie. It managed to scare the hell out of me and that's bloody unprecedented. It was so tense in places that if anyone had walked in at that precise moment they would've been blasted through the roof on a stream of my own terrified p*ss. OK, that's an over exaggeration but to say it's pant-wettingly scary ain't far off. Obviously my gushing review will quite possibly hype it up to the stage that anyone curious enough to see it after this will wonder "Luke, you charismatic stallion, what were you getting so worked up about?" but you know what? Get lost you cynical nit pickers, it's a horror movie that does exactly what it says on the tin and with gusto too. Anyone who doesn't find this scary or at least disturbing on some level is lying to save face…I feel very passionate about this.

5/5

Cloverfield (2008)

Fresh

[9/10 · 4 February 2008]

Well the hype and rumours have stopped now as Clovefield is officially out everywhere. It had an impressive advertising campaign to say the least, creating media speculation as to what the hell it was, (with it's teaser trailer being released before Transformers in the US, giving away very little of the movie, not even a title). Was it about HP Lovecraft's Cthullu? Or Voltron, or another Godzilla movie, a spin off of Lost. Well it's funny that after all this, after all this teasing and hype and everything else surrounding the buzz of this movie, it turns out that all it is, is a monster movie. Good thing it's a bloody good one then.

The big question is has this daring and frankly brilliant advertising campaign worked? Does the movie live up to the hype (let's remember that hype is the number 1 killer of any big movie)? The answer is a resounding yes! It's bizarre in the fact that it takes the already used premise of the "found footage" (used most famously with the Blair Witch Project) yet manages to make it seem fresh and clever all over again.

The film opens with a black screen with the words "Property of the US Government" slapped on it. We are then told, that what we are watching is footage that has been found from "Area site 447" (Or something) "Formally known as central park" and regards the "Multiple sighting of case designated Cloverfield". What we then watch for the next hour and twenty (also like Blair Witch, this film is very brief) is camcorder footage intended as a document of a going away party for our protagonist Rob. The party is rudely (and shocking) interrupted by a monster the size of a skyscraper. From then on in, all hell breaks loose as Rob and his friends attempt to survive whilst the party's camera man (Hud) documents the ensuing events.

It's quite a ride! The last time I felt to tense watching a movie was when I saw United 93 at the cinema! The reason this film works is because we know very little about what's going on. Any bits of valuable information (of which there is hardly any) is found out as the characters do. We are just being taken along with them, experience the frenetic horror as they try to survive and when some of the group die (as the inevitably do in these movies) we really feel for them. These are human characters, not action archetypes. The best move this film made, along with Blair witch and united 93 was to use unknowns. We empathise with them more than a star coz, well, they could be you and me.

The monster itself is odd to describe as we only see it in small bits with the only full body shot being saved for the final moments of the film. It ain't pretty and it's nasty. There's always some element in big monster movies where the creature has a sympathetic streak. Not in this movie. This creature is spooked and is taking it's anger out on the city. We see footage of the thing taking down helicopters, pushing over buildings, little parasite like beasties jumping off it and attacking people. It's quite disturbing sometimes too as the group watch their best friends die (one particularly nasty moment sees one of them exploding).

This is just a great, visceral experience and not for those who suffer easily from motion sickness. The beauty of this film is that we know very little and I find the idea that there's a sequel in the works a bit depressing. It should be left as a stand alone film and go down in history as landmark in film. If you don't feel physically and emotionally drained by the end of the film (trust me, emotions run high all through this) then you are a cold person. This is a brilliant film and, whilst it has it's minor flaws (as do all great films) it needs to be remembered as one of the best monster movies of all time. Original, fresh, heartbreaking and relentless are just a few words to describe this film but only one need be used: Brilliant! .

5/5

Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem (2007)

Oh dear lord....

[2/10 · 21 January 2008]

I'll make this brief.

The first Aliens vs Predator wasn't bad. It wasn't great but it wasn't bad either. Merely watchable. Alien vs Predator: Requiem is a detestable piece of sh*t! Terrible on every level, this can't even be classed in the so-bad-it's-good category. Nope, it's just bad, seriously bad. It's the final nail in the coffin for these once great cinematic monsters. The Aliens are just doing there thing so i can't comment on them too much but the Predator and the horrifically bad Predalien are just terrible. The Predator is the most inept and retarded creature to grace the screen. He's so careful and meticulous about covering his tracks yet feels the need to skin a state trooper for all to find. Go figure. And don't even get me started on the Predalien. Lets just say it makes the Alien/Human hybrid at the end of Alien Resurrection look truly terrifying.

I hated this film, flat out loathed it. I expected the acting, script, pacing to be bad but not on this level. You can't even see what the hell's going on the lighting's so bad. The only decent moment comes when the attractive blond girl get impaled to the wall. But other than that, don't waste your time. The only good thing about this wasted hour and a half of my life was the fact the my buddy paid for me.

1/5

The Fountain (2006)

A unique experience

[10/10 · 15 January 2008]

I am a fan of surreal. Yes i am guilty of enjoying things that make little sense and are open to interpretation. I find it a pleasant release from some of the formulaic drivel that comes out of Hollywood from time to time, spoon feeding the audience with endless scenes of exposition just to let them know where they are in the story. But with surrealism, the movie is very much a different experience to those that enjoy watching it. Look at pretty much everything by David Lynch.

I am also a huge fan of Darren Aronofski with Requiem For a Dream being the greatest anti drug movie since Trainspotting. Surrealism was a key influence on his debut Pi, so we already know the man i capable of tackling such weirdness.

The Fountain is no exception. yes, it is weird, yes, a lot of the time is appears to make little sense and yes, in aims to confront the audience rather than comfort. But this is a totally different surrealism that we witnessed in Pi. This is a different Aronofski all together. And, quite simply, it is one of the finest films of the decade.

There have been few cinematic experiences that have made me want to weep with joy but this is one of. The last time i felt so elated was when i watched Magnolia for the first time at 17. I felt so...involved, beside myself with emotion. Sounds cheesy, i know but i couldn't help but be so moved by it. As a friend of mine put it: "you don;t watch the film, you FEEL it". And he couldn't be anymore right.

This is a collage of images rather than a concrete narrative structure. Like Dali, Aronofski tells a simple story, that of love and loss, using unconventional means. The result is awe inspiring and made me ask (as i did at the end of Magnolia) why movies are very rarely this good.

With a movie of this calibre the performances are incredible yet it's the direction that's the biggest surprise. Gone is the frantic cutting and hectic pace or Aronofski's previous efforts. This movie takes its time, effortlessly so, looking more akin to Kubrick. Patience is required yet the result is all the more rewarding. And it looks beautiful.

I understand wholeheartedly why there are those that hate this film but they can't seem to appreciate the majesty of it. I loved it and as soon as i finished watching it i wanted to watch it five times more. I believe each repeated viewing will bring further rewards. It ain't for everyone but then again, it wasn't made for everyone.

5/5

I Am Legend (2007)

Shame

[5/10 · 31 December 2007]

So we come to the yearly boxing day movie. Last year, bizarrely, it was Perfume: The Story of a Murderer (or what ever the hell it was) and next year it'll be the reboot of Star Trek. This year it was I Am Legend. Firstly, I want to say that this is in no way a bad film and I have certainly seen much worse this year (Hitman anyone?) but it isn't great either. It kinda fits nicely in the middle as one of these interesting non-entities that could've been so much more.

Let's get one thing straight, the book is much better. Robert Nevill is, in fact the last person on the planet that is now inhabited by Vampires. They taunt him every evening into leaving his home which, at times, he seriously struggles to resist. But it's the scientific take on the vampire legend that I found most interesting. It attempted to find I logical reason for the extreme allergies to sunlight, garlic and holy water.

The movie ditches the vampires and changes the creatures into "Dark Seekers", mutated humans that are still allergic to sunlight but are far from the intelligent monsters from the novel. They scream and squeak and are, frankly, a bit rubbish. Director Francis (Constantine) Lawrence opted to ditch the men in make-up for entirely CGI creations. His reasons were that he felt they were not believable. Bit mistake. The CGI on these things is truly terrible. In a year when we've had Transformers and Pirates 3, it shows that special effects can now look REAL. These beasts look less than convincing and, thus, fail to scare. How can you be frightened when they look like they're sculpted from play-doh? Will Smith, however, is terrific. Any lesser actor would've failed at the task ahead of him. He spends the majority of the film talking to his dog. Think Cast Away on a worldwide scale. Smith's Nevill is man about ready to break. One particularly moving scene shows him begging a department store mannequin to say hello.

The opening scenes are excellent too, with Smith wondering around a deserted New York. Visually, the bigger budget has allowed for more impressive deserted city sequences than the 28 Days/Weeks Later films allowed. Take a look at the cheeky nods to other Warner Bros titles that have been in the pipeline over the years (most noticeably, the poster in Time Square for a Batman Vs. Superman film).

Essencially, this is a film of two halves. The first being an excellent post-apocalyptic sci-fi thriller, the second being your bog standard zombie b-movie. It's a shame as the first half really is very good but all falls apart towards the end. Matherson's book had a very pessimistic view of humanity and his ending really is truly ironic and deeply unnerving. The movie couldn't help being Hollywood. It sh*ts all over the idea as to why it is called I Am Legend, twisting it for a more uplifting finale. It's a shame that Hollywood rarely goes so dark. Had it kept it's ending, the film would've worked much better. Oh well, at least it was better than Constantine.

3/5

Hitman (I) (2007)

Oh dear.....

[2/10 · 10 December 2007]

I'm afraid the time has come for a rant. Out of sheer lack of having something to do, I went and sat through all two hours of Hit-man last week. I left the cinema wishing I'd read the next 100 pages of the frankly dull book that I've been plodding through. But hey, it's far more interesting than the latest, god awful computer game adaptation to hit our screens. Yes, Hit-man was balls. There are worse movies out there, based on computer games but this weak and boring action film is still balls.

You'd think they'd have gotten it right by now. We've been "treated" to three Resident Evils, two Tomb Raiders, a Doom, a Silent Hill, a Street Fighter, a Super Mario Bros….the list goes on. Yet none of them have been any good. Not one. Nada. Zip! It just seems to be a pre-requisite that all movies based on games suck. It must be in the contract of all involved to make these movie so truly awful that they've now become the skid-mark of the film industry.

And now we have Hit-man, which continues this glorious trend. As with all of these films, on paper, it seemed to be cool. For anyone who's played the games, the plot centres around a hit-man by the name of Agent 47, a gun for hire, genetically engineered by a faction of the church. He is mean, heartless and totally ruthless, feeling no guilt or remorse for his actions. He oozes cool (bald head with a bar code slapped on there for good measure) and kinda reminds you of Jean Reno from Leon.

But Leon this most certainly ain't. This is a lazily crafted movie that showcases no real merits of talent. I feel almost sorry for Timothy Olyphant at the titular hit-man of the film. He is usually a fairly consistent actor and quite a joy to watch. Just look at him steal every scene he's in during Doug Liman's Go or as the second of the two killers in Scream 2. But here it seems as though he really can't be bothered, and who can blame him, with direction this sloppy and acting this abysmal?

Lets talk about the direction for a moment shall we? Director Xavier Gens shows very much that this is his first movie. He's cack handed with the action (one sure fire sequence in which Agents 44, 45, 46 and 47 engage in a four way sword fight is p*ssed up the wall), and really has no idea how to pace a movie. There is no build up to anything, it just happens. It feels like a car on it's last legs, stop, start, stop, start. Maybe he should watch the Bourne Ultimatum a few times to see how you create truly awesome action sequences. Either that or stop making movie entirely.

The supporting cast members look truly uncomfortable in front of the camera. How Dougray Scott still manages to get work is beyond me. He is, without a doubt, one of the worst actors working today and here he gives one of the worst performances ever committed to screen. He is truly terrible. Olga Kurylenko, as 47's main love interest, is totally unnecessary. Her only purpose is to walk around naked on the odd occasion in some vain attempt to make the movie that little more interesting. She fails.

I think my one main gripe with this film is that Agent 47's actions seem, well, amateurish. When I imagined a film version I imagined it to be like the opening of Leon, where our protagonist is able to take out ten people covertly and professionally, without anybody really seeing who he is. Instead we get the all guns blazing approach. Not very professional for a man who is supposed to be the top assassin in the world.

It's just a missed opportunity. It could have been greatness or at least a pretty effective action movie. Instead we get a mess of a movie, and insult to the action genre and a bad mark on Timothy Olyphant's consistent and solid CV. The only thing it has going for it is it's not Silent Hill. But then again, it was based on a computer game. What did I expect.

1/5

American Gangster (2007)

Ridley Scott's Goodfellas

[9/10 · 20 November 2007]

I'd been looking at the reviews for this film recently and I was quite surprised. It was touted to be one of the biggest films of this month, if not the biggest. I mean it has Denzel Washington and Russell Crowe in it and it's directed by Ridley "Alien" Scott. What's not to like? Well quite a bit apparently. There have been many good reviews but none have been what I was expecting with a creative team of this calibre. I was expecting greatness, comparing it favourably to recent gangster movies like The Departed. But it was met averagely, many critics saying it is good but it brings little to an already established genre.

I disagree. This is better than The Departed. It was only after looking at it's average reviews that I found that the general public seemed to love it. It seems as though the critics were out of touch with the public. This is a masterful film that keeps the viewer enthralled. It is 156 minutes long but it never seems boring, always keeping you on your toes as we move from the mob to the police to the corrupt cops and innocent bystanders that get caught (literally) in the cross fire.

It tells the true story of Frank Lucas, an African American mobster during the late 60's/early 70's who tries to take over the New York drug trade. He travels to Vietnam and finds a way to transport pure heroin via the American Military as they fly back from the war. The result brings him a stronger product that he sells for a discount price. He makes millions and slowly but surely, he takes of the streets of the city.

Hot on his tail is Narcotics Officer Ricky Roberts , dead set on bringing down organised crime and police corruption. He is a failure as a husband and a father and has links to mob members who give him the occasional snippet of info when he needs it. Then he stumbles across the path of Frank Lucas and from there on in, things get messy… This is a fairly graphic film. There is violence from the start and very hard drug use. I was personally astounded at the detail they were allowed to show with the shooting up scenes and not in a good way. Graphic depictions of drug use have always made me feel more uncomfortable than violence and here is no exception. We see needles enter infected wounds as the users lean their heads back and gasp, loving the sensation it gives them. It's a sad sight of a sad time, where evil prays on the desperate without any feelings or remorse. In one particularly harrowing moment we see scenes of Lucas celebrating Thanksgiving with his family inter cut with images of his users lying dead, OD'd off his "product".

One thing we learn about Frank Lucas is that he was smart, calculated, very charming and totally evil. At one point we see him chatting casually with his brothers in a local diner before walking out and shooting a rival gang member in the head, in broad daylight, in the middle of the street. He walks back to where he was sitting before casually asking "what was I saying?". His brothers, much like the audience, are in shock.

In terms of what makes this film good, the main thing is the different direction Ridley "Alien" Scott has taken. He is a director renowned his focus on visuals, creating a perfect pallet of depth and meaning from a single image. In this film though he decides to ditch his trade mark style for something, ultimately, more gritty, down and dirty. Traces of his trademark still exist, for example: the Thanksgiving montage. When we see Lucas and his family the colours are light and vibrant, reminiscent of their mood. When we cut to the dead junkies, however, everything is dark and saturated of colour, with blues, blacks and greys being prominent. But this is not the primary aspect of the image and become more of a background detail. Very unlike Ridley Scott.

But this is only there for those who have either studied film or are out looking for it. For the rest of us, there is just a hard hitting and powerful gangster film. The visuals lay back and let the story and performances take over. And what a pair of actors they have in the lead roles.

As Lucas, Washington creates a man you both admire and loath. In many ways, his rise to power is reminiscent of the typical American dream, albeit a twisted version of it. He is smart and calculated and his charisma will make any woman swoon. He is also brutal and psychotic. You loath a man like him because he is the most charming amoral character you are ever likely to meet, and he kills people as easily as he makes money.

As Roberts, Crowe is a totally different beast. He's messy and disorganised. He has a wife who's left him, a child he hardly sees and, being one of the only honest cops on the beat, is hated by his colleagues. Crowe's ruggedness, designer stubble and awful haircut almost make you believe that we're not watching Russell Crowe but a real cop who's lost everything but still has his pride. The great thing about both these actors is their ability to get lost in their characters. You believe they are who they're portraying.

In short this is just a great movie. Accessible to anyone and written and directed with true gusto. This is essentially a cops and robbers movie but with Washington, Crowe and Scott on bored they have crafted a movie that certainly deserves some attention when the Oscars come calling.

5/5

Grindhouse (2007)

Mixed bag

[8/10 · 12 November 2007]

The disappointment of the spilt of Grindhouse has now died down and, to be honest, I almost feel fortunate to have seen these movies separately. I am still disappointed that the only trailer to survive was Machete but seeing that on the big screen is still a whole heap of fun. Now this review isn't so much for Grindhouse but my comparison between the two movies and, in the end, which one a think is better.

Tarantino has gotten to the stage in his career where he's now become something of a joke. I will be quick to defend him as I am a huge fan but, unfortunately, Death Proof represents the first major dud in his cannon and can be used as a weapon for those who hate him so.

I read the scripts for both movies way back in March and from the beginning I thought that Planet Terror would be more fun but when I started reading Death Proof I found myself in my haven: witty, sharp and punchy Tarantino dialogue intertwined with a slow brooding horror that builds to a gory and really quite scary climax that you've seen coming for ages but are powerless to stop. I was reading this first half in awe. But once I moved onto the second half, it was the same old stuff, just set during the day with a different set of women. I then found myself getting bored which was horrifying considering how much I enjoyed the first half.

The movie has no plot, just scene after scene of women talking with one or two scenes of horror. This is supposed to be a slasher movie but there is minimal slashing. This makes for an uninteresting and boring film. We don't care about any of these women, in fact, you kinda hope that they'll get butchered because they're just that annoying.

The main difference between these two movies is the way they're presented. Both are aiming for tongue in cheek rubbishness that was the staple of grindhouse movies but only Planet Terror succeeds. Robert Rodriguez really nails the tone. Tarantino, however, fails with aplomb. There's a difference between fun/bad and bad/bad. Both movies are deliberately rubbish but only Planet Terror makes it fun. The girls of Death Proof (actually it's pretty much the entire cast) spew out Tarantino's dialogue like cardboard cut-outs of Ben Affleck. Their delivery is not fun/bad but just plain bad. It's over the top and boring with the cast really looking uncomfortable spewing out this dialogue. In fact, it's gotten to the stage now where I'm fed up of people sounding like every Tarantino character ever written. It's gotten old.

I still maintain that Jackie Brown is Quentin's best directorial effort because it's the only proper movie he's every done. It has a plot for one thing and quite a complex one at that. But it didn't do so well as Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs so what did Quentin do? He made more of the same, with a vengeance in the form of Kill Bill. Now I actually really liked Kill Bill but I was stunned when it went from a 90 minute revenge flick to a four hour epic.

It just seems that, recently, Tarantino is getting too in touch with his inner fan boy and seeing as Jackie Brown was made in 1996 it's been 11 years since he's really made a proper film. Maybe Inglorious Bastards will be a return to form. And maybe the failure of Grindhouse will be the kick he so desperately needs.

Now with Planet Terror, I wasn't expecting anything less. Robert Rodriguez has made a living off of making films for boys in the vein of a comic book. To date, his only truly great film is Sin City but even then, it still bares all the hall marks of a Rodriguez film. Planet Terror is a brilliant movie for many reasons: 1) it nails the tongue-in-cheek aspect better than Death Proof could ever dream, 2) it has a plot and 3) it was just so much fun.

Death Proof was trying so hard with the fact that it was supposed to be rubbish that it actually ended up being genuinely rubbish. Rodriguez has made a living off of making movies that a stupid yet unbelievable fun and is obviously in his element where as Tarantino is actually a respected film maker and seems to fumble with the material. Planet Terror is like a bizarre mix between From Dusk Till Dawn and Desperado. Basically it was just better at being rubbish.

It is also unbelievably gruesome. Being a zombie movie you have to expect a level of gore but if this wasn't so over the top I'm sure the American censors would've had a problem with it. Heads are broken open and brains eaten, a hospital orderly has the front of his torso ripped off to gain access to the offal inside, and we also see Quentin Tarantino (who cameo's in the movie) have his penis melt off. You don't know whether to laugh or squirm are the gory bounty that unfolds through every minute of this movie. But it's all so blissfully over the top. When someone if shot, blood spills at impossible volumes and looks more like baked bean sauce than actual blood.

It is also very funny, in a sick kinda way. Gags like sausages being mistaken for innards or a dog being accidentally splatted by a truck and spraying two unsuspecting survivors bring out cringe worthy giggles that were never to be found in Death Proof.

Who knows, I may watch Death Proof again and find that it actually is a pretty good film but until that day I will be recommending Planet Terror to those who like their horror in the same vein as Braindead: Splat-Stick

Planet Terror – 4/5

Death Proof – 2/5

Saw IV (2007)

Fairly decent fourth instalment

[3/10 · 1 November 2007]

This movie was a surprise as I really wasn't sure what to expect. The track record for horror movies hasn't been very good this year (Hostel Part 2, Captivity and Paradise Lost were all rubbish, with only 28 Weeks Later succeeding in the scares department) let alone the forth instalment of a franchise that many critics think should have ended with the first film. When you get to a "part 4" what are we to expect? Just look at similarly placed films in the past. A Nightmare on Elm Street 4? Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter (it still spawned six more sequels)? Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers? By this point these movies have dwindled into self parody or are just plain bad. So the prospect of another Saw movie, a fourth Saw movie no less, wasn't looking too good.

But surprisingly enough it actually turns out that it isn't really all that bad. Are there things wrong with it? You bet there is. There are a LOT of things wrong with it, but, at the same time, it isn't a total failure either.

There is one thing however that acts both as a hindrance and a saving grace. Being only a measly 90 minutes long, the producers and screenwriters seem to think that they need to answer all the questions in this instalment as well as ask more. As such, it means that there's a hell of a lot going on in this movie and, a lot of the time, it doesn't always make a lot of sense. Why cram so much in when it's been publicised that there will be at least six of these movies (released October 2008 and 2009 respectively). Surely there's enough room to keep fans guessing? Not everything needs to be answered all at once.

It also becomes apparent that the screenwriters were uninterested with some of said questions raised in part III and have decided to skip over them quickly (most notably the conclusion of Jeff's story from the previous film). This is the first movie not to be scripted by co-creator Leigh Whannell (who played Adam in the original) and it shows. These new boys obviously feel like a couple of kids in a candy store and have gone totally wild. This ain't necessarily a bad thing, but it ain't good either, as it creates a mish-mash of ideas, too many, in fact, to be contained within the film's short running time. How can we care about any of the characters when we only focus on them for two minutes at a time? You know there's something wrong when the most interesting character in the film spends 90% of it tied up waiting to die (for Saw fans: I'm not talking about Detective Matthews).

But, as I said earlier, this busyness also becomes the movies good point. It's a mess and a confusing one at that, but with so much going on it's very hard to get bored. I did find some characters more interesting than others (Sergeant Rigg = Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz, Agent Strahm = Yay!) but with such a short space of time between each interlinking story-arch (I counted four separate storeys), you never have to wait too long before your favourite characters are back on screen, doing their thang.

And the traps seem to be more back to basics. The great thing about the original was that the traps seemed plausible, you could imagine someone making them, setting them up and executing them (no pun intended) perfectly. Each new instalment though has required the audience to suspend belief more and more to the point where, when it came to the third film (which I actually quite enjoyed) they were just idiotic. This film though shows Jigsaw at the time of his change from mild mannered engineer to full blown psychopath, thus we get too see his early "test subjects". The knife chair trap is just nasty.

Not only that but even the later traps during Rigg's test have been stripped down to the bare elements. Rather than a crucifix like machine twisting limbs till they break (I mean c'mon, does that sound believable to you?) we have an abusive husband and his wife impaled back to back and, most disturbingly, two men trapped in a room, attached to a device that'll break their necks. Not too bad I hear you say? But one of them has had his eyes sown shut and the other his mouth. Communication would seem quite difficult I think.

It's the simplicity of these traps that makes them all the more disturbing. By the third film you were almost laughing at how implausible it would be to make these things thus it detracted you from the sheer horror of the idea. And let's be fair, horror is supposed to be just that: horrific. When you suspend disbelief too much, you loose your grip and your target audience.

It wont be giving away too much to say it leaves it open for the next film, but hopefully they will learn from this one and take more care with Saw V. Whether anyone will still be interested by that point is yet to be seen but so long as the money keeps rolling in (it opened at No: 1# in America) I'm sure we will see more of these films. "Coming 2019: Saw XVI: Jigsaw Takes on Slough". You get the picture.

If you like your horror gruesome with a whit on ingenuity, this'll be for you. Otherwise stay away.

3/5

Zodiac (2007)

Fincher goes 70's

[9/10 · 2 October 2007]

Now I would like to take the Mark Kermode route of reviewing. He always states: "you should go into every movie with an open mind". Now I frankly find that impossible. I'll always have bias towards certain movies. Despite generally negative reviews, I still insisted the Spider-Man 3 would kick ass. It sucked. I avoided Dreamgirls and the Devil Wears Prada due to the fact that they were chick-flicks. Both turned out to pretty damn good.

Now there is a point here. I am a MASSIVE fan of David Fincher, I even think Alien 3, a movie which Fincher himself has disowned, isn't that bad. Se7en is one of the greatest serial killer movies ever and Fight Club, his masterpiece, is just a great great Great film. The Game and Panic Room, although fitting neatly into the constraints of their chosen genres, are damn fine movies. So to say I could go into Zodiac, one of my most eagerly awaited movies of this year, with an open mind, was gonna be a feat more mammoth than Tony Blair's spin Doctor's keeping him popular. I sat down with my girlfriend, turned on the T.V. sat back and watched.

But as I was watching, I noticed something. Now it does fit all the Fincher trademarks: every single detail is in frame, each frame is beautifully shot, etc…but, after such a long wait for a new Fincher movie (Panic Room was WAY back in 2002), it almost didn't seem like a Fincher movie almost as much as it did. It was much more. It was a very Mature picture (note the capital M). There's no Tyler Durden spewing his anti-corporate bilge, no Jodie Foster looking shocked and menaced, what there is, is a meticulously planned and expertly executed police drama. Some American critics criticised it for it's lack of action and lack of focus on the murder scenes. This really isn't that kind of movie. If anything it's a character study in the guise of a detective story. By the end of the movie we know each character in and out, their flaws, their motivation, what makes them tick and what scares them. It all just so happens to culminate during the time the Zodiac was active.

But it is also a detective story and a terrific one at that! It's so compelling, going from the actual investigation itself to Graysmith's obsession towards the end. As is Fincher's style, he studied each character and every inch of the case for years prior to filming. And it shows. The investigative scenes have never been this good since the days of Serpico and Dirty Harry. It may be 40years passed but this looks every bit as 60's/70's as the movies of that era. It echoes Dirty Harry, The French Connection and all those in between.

In so many words, this is up there with the great films of this decade let alone the year. Along with the likes of United 93, Million Dollar Baby and City of God, this is a modern classic. I knew I wouldn't be disappointed but I was in awe of this picture. They should only allow a few select directors make movies and if Fincher churns out movies like this from now on I would be a very happy film-goer. This is sheer brilliance, a masterpiece, a crowning achievement of film making that can rarely duplicated.

5/5

United 93 (2006)

Harrowing, Distressing, Brilliant!

[10/10 · 7 June 2006]

We all know what happened on September 11th, so i wont delve into details. I for one still get upset when hearing about it. Needless to say the world will never be the same again. but is it too soon to make a film about 9/11? I think the answer is both yes AND no.

On the YES side, whilst watching the film i couldn't help but think it was still a little too fresh in my memory. But on the NO side, i think we NEED this film, as a way of answering some questions and also create hope. Not everybody on 9/11 died in vain, some of them died trying. they didn't just sit there and wait to die, they fought back, not for their country, but so they could see their loved ones again, so they can carry on with their lives, so things can be normal again.

the thing that struck me most about this film was the fact that it took a completely neutral stance on what happened. It didn't demonise the terrorists, it didn't portray the passengers as American heroes. It was as if there was someone there, documenting the whole thing.

This film is gut-wrenchingly realistic. Although you know the outcome you can't help but wish it all ended happily. Every emotion, every heartbreaking moment is felt by all, not just on screen but in the audience too.

i cannot praise this film enough. Although old wounds about the day may still be fresh, i couldn't think of a more important, more Nessesary film. Not one for a goodnight out on a Friday but it is a MUST SEE. Watch it, be shocked, yet be glad that a film like this exists.

5/5

Inside Man (2006)

Boring

[3/10 · 18 April 2006]

I don't have much to say about this film so i will keep it brief. Needless to say i found this film dull, boring and thoroughly tedious. It's kinda frustrating too due to the fact that so many people liked it. Am i missing something? Did i see the same film? I'm not saying its a terrible film, just...well painfully average.

The only thing that stopped this from being a total waste of time was Denzel and Clive. Both performances were good and in effect saved the film from being a waste of money. And Jodie Foster? Well, lets just say she doesn't play the hard nosed b*tch very well.

All in all, a disappointment. Sorry for the shortness of this review but id rather spend my time gouging my eyes out with a rusty spoon.

2/5

Ichi the Killer (2001)

The Extreme Limits of On screen Violence

[8/10 · 18 January 2006]

To be honest, I don't know what to think of this film. Personally, I couldn't think about it in a critical way like I do with most films purely because of the extreme levels of on screen violence. Essentially, the violence is the protagonist of this film and anyone who thinks otherwise is sorely mistaken. How can anyone know what the hell is going on when every five minutes or so there's another scene of extreme brutality?

Being a hardened gore fan, I thought I'd seen the worst there can possibly be in terms of on screen violence (Hell even Saw pushed me) but this film dared to take it one step further. Mere minutes into the film, we are greeted with the grisly aftermath of an extremely brutal murder (blood covers literally every surface and innards are strewn around like confetti), and, for the first hour at least, the violence doesn't let up.

What follows is the most brutal portrayal of on screen violence that I have ever seen. Tongues are severed off, boiling fat is poured over people (with close ups of skin melting and such) and even a child is decapitated. The boundaries of what can be shown on screen are pushed to the very limits and even die-hard gore fans will feel sick to the stomach as the violence continues scene after scene after scene.

I believe that, in order to take a critical approach to this film, I will have to watch it again. The audience is so engrossed (or repulsed?) by the carnage that they see or take in very little else. On a second viewing, I may be able admire the film, as the violence is necessary to the story, but it is the carnage that will be remembered. A case of style over content maybe?

What can I say? Personally, with repeated viewings, this film may turn out to be masterpiece in the guise of a Japanese gore fest but until those viewing (and they won't be anytime soon), a Japanese gore fest is what it'll remain to be.

3/5

The Descent (2005)

Kicks 28 days later's ASS!!!!!

[9/10 · 7 November 2005]

I have found it hard to find anyone that hasn't enjoyed the joy that is Dog Soldiers. It's grim, gory, action packed and very very funny. But for all it's wonders, it is (forgive me for saying this) very flawed in places. Thank god for The Descent, a film that takes all the good points of Dog Soldiers and amplifies them ten-fold.

If Dog Soldiers is Six guys, one house and a whole lot of guns then The Descent is Six girl, one cave and a whole lot of pain. Despencing with the pitch black humour of Dogs, The Descent plays it completely straight, working more on the sheer terror of the situation rather than the quirky one liners.

Although this is most definitely a creature-feature, the first half of the film focuses very much on, not only the characters but the aspects of primal fear that are inherit in all of us: claustrophobia, paranoia, and most importantly, the fear of the dark. We are with the characters every step of the way and, as such, we empathise with them, sharing their dread, as the situation worsens and their relationships begin to crumble.

Director Neil Marshall adds to this tension in the first hour by only showing us fleeting glimpses of the "crawlers". Marshall is a man the truly knows how to scare the living sh*t out of us and does so with expert precision. Only minutes into The Descent, he has audiences throwing popcorn in every direction. But this is just a mere taste as to the pain that'll unfold.

And there is a lot of pain in this movie. Once the "crawlers" finally make their grand entrance (and what an effective entrance it is) the movie takes an unsettling turn for the worse, turning an already dire situation into a truly epic nightmare. And there is gore...lots of it! Although we see the monsters in full for the second half (often a HUGE mistake for this kind of movie) the film still has the audience in its clutches, ripping away every aspect of comfort, leaving the viewer feeling bare and vulnerable, very much like our characters.

If feeling deeply uncomfortable for an hour and a half isn't your sort of thing, then avoid this movie at all costs because this is not for the faint hearted (or the squeamish). But if being scared beyond all belief IS you thing then this is a must see! Like Saw, The Descent has no saving grace, no Dog Soldiers style humour to ease us, just pure, relentless, unadulterated terror, complete with it's very own downbeat ending.

Hurry up Neil and makes us another!

5/5

The Island (2005)

Typical Michael Bay

[5/10 · 18 August 2005]

I feel somewhat disappointed in the circumstances in which i saw this film. There were two choices as i stood in the Que of my local cinema, one being Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and one being the new Michael Bay movie. Alas i was overruled by my fellow friends and i am still yet to see the new Delight from the unquestionable Depp/Burton collaborative team.

That's not to say i didn't want to see this. For all his flaws, Mr. Bay can produce some entertaining popcorn fodder. Both Bad Boys and The Rock had their moments and Armageddon is still watchable (albeit only on the odd, rare occasion). I'd rather not mention Pearl Harbour (notice the "U" is intact) or Bad Boys II although they, too, had some pretty impressive moments.

The Island, on the outset, looks like a break from the regular Bay/Bruckheimer mold (The fact that old Jerry ain't involved in this one is a huge step in the right direction). It deals with some very interesting themes (Cloning. Should we/Shouldn't we?) and features what i call "guenuine" actors rather than the next pretty face to appear on MTV.

And it works...well almost.

For all it's promises, this is, at the end of the day, a Michael Bay Movie, and however high my hopes were, they all came crashing down on that basis. What is it with this guy and cutting every 30 seconds? I may not be in the business Michael but i know that cutting on this magnitude is only a hindrance. There is no need for it so, in future DON'T DO IT! It is also apparent that he feels more at home when the carnage starts. The first act of the film feels..not rushed but haphazard. The only truly engaging scene, i felt, was McGreggor's 1st encounter with bad-guy of the year Sean Bean. His constant questioning of the environment around him provides a brief glimpse of the turmoil that's about to unfold. But this is not enough i'm afraid (the scene happens some 10minutes into the film). Until things start going tits up, the film buckles on it's own premise, unsure of how to achieve what it set out to do.

Once the pace picks up however, Bay is in his element. In a bizarre twist, the major saving grace of this film is Bay's precise knowledge of how to blow sh*t up. An boy does he put this knowledge to good use. Explosions, car chases, more explosions, more car chases. Once our Protagonists are on the run it seems that nothing is safe from bay and his pyrotechnic team. And although you can't help but titter and the extreme amount of collateral damage caused, you can't help but stare in awe at the raw intensity of the middle act.

And one can't accuse Bay of lacking in style. This film is full of it. Even when the film lags or feels uncomfortable (and with the excessive cutting you bound to feel uneasy) it is still stunning to look at. The noir drenched look of the real world as a dark, dinjy, dirty place. The calm, paradise-esquire feel of the cloning facility. All these aspect enhance the emotions of our characters, and many a camera technique shows this too.

It is the third and final act however that causes the audience to crave something more. The man on a mission side of things seems tired and used, as McGreggor sets out to save his fellow clones. The clichés are as transparent as they are obvious and, in all honesty, a bore to watch. By the time the final cringe-worthy moments arrive i had had enough.

It is as if it is 3 films as opposed to 1 as it comes off as a Sci-Fi-cum-fugitive-on-the-run-cum-man-on-a-mission mish-mash. You can't blame Bay for trying, but what he has here is something that could've been so much more. Not a complete failure, but still a disappointment. A truly promising concept has been turned into your generic action yarn.

3/5

Batman Begins (2005)

What a gem!

[10/10 · 20 June 2005]

For all fans of Batman 1997 was a desperate and depressing year. Not only was it to be George Clooney donning the bat suit (a woeful choice of casting) but Batamn and Robin was to become one of the most universally hated films ever made. It was a crying shame really, as a fairly decent series (the Burton films were works of pure genius) came to cataclysmic end with such a diabolical piece of s**t.

Thank god, then, for Bataman Begins, which not only re-invents the tale of the dark night but gives the character the moody edge that the Schumacher instalments sorely lacked. Written by Blade scribe, David S. Goyer, this film puts a fresh new spin on things, showing us events leading up to the creation of the Dark Knight.

As the title suggests this is the beginning of the story. We start with Bruce Wayne as a young boy, playing hide and seek. after falling down a well he is confronted by a swarm of bats, that terrify him. We then cut forward 20 years or so to see him in a Korean prison where he is met by a man that calls himself Ducard. He takes Bruce under his wing and teaches him the ways of the Ninja. Once Bruce find out that this group (known as the league of shadows) plans to destroy Gotham, he takes them out. Desiding that he must return to him home town, he gathers all the equipment he can in order to become the fearless vigilante that we all know and love.

This film is essentially a two act film. the first half focuses more on the drama, on the desperation of Bruce Wayne. In fact we don't see him in the Batsuit until an hour in. But once he become the Dark Knight, the drama takes a sidestep for some breathtaking action sequences. There's a car chase around the streets of Gotham, a scene of mass pandemonium around Arkham Asylam and the end monorail set piece that is a non stop ride of hard pumping action.

This film is a fan boy's dream. It has non of the campy god awful one-liners that made Batman and Robin such a failure. This is a much darker Edgy film and works all the better for it. This could be the start of another beautiful franchise. With Marvel stealing the limelight in recent years, it's good to see that D.C. Comics is making a grand return. Lets just hope Superman Returns will b this good.

5/5

Saw (2004)

The most disturbing film for years

[9/10 · 12 February 2005]

As an avid horror fan i can safely say that the majority of horror movies released today are average at best. they are either crap yet fun or just plain crap. Even films such as Cabin Fever, although trying to go back to the original 1970's style of horror, fail to hit the mark. Which is why i was stunned by this little beauty. If you thought serial killer flicks could only ever b as good as the next Ashley Judd thriller then you were gravely mistaken.

It tells the story of two men (one a photographer, Adam, and the other a doctor) who wake up to find themselves chained up in an old abandoned warehouse, With no knowledge of how they got there or why. Then a mysterious killer by the name of Jigsaw informs them the the doctor must kill Adam by 6 o'clock or his wife and daughter will be killed. Although the premise is very basic, after the opening the majority of film is played out in flashback informing the audience of how the characters got there and looking back at past killings Jigsaw has committed (the barbed wire murder will make you sick to your stomach).

Shot on a budget of only $1,000,000 this film looks as professional as Silence of the Lambs and as grim as Se7en. Although at many points the director seems to delve into MTV syndrome (look at anything by Michael Bay and you'll know what i mean), the overall tone of the film is probably the bleakest in film history. There is nothing pleasant in this film. No comic relief, no assurance that everything will be OK, just twist after twist the keeps you guessing till the very end and even then things look pretty bad. If your movie preference is that of soppy rom-coms or chick-flicks this is definitely not for you. I have a fairly high tolerance for this kind of stuff but even this tested me.

This is a truly great and utterly disturbing film that deserves to be up there with the great horror films of our time. This is pure nightmare inducing material. If they were as well made as this gem then i would openly welcome many more movies like it. Apparently there is now a sequel in the works set for the end of this year. Lets hope it works as well as this.

4/5

Resident Evil: Apocalypse (2004)

Oh dear!

[1/10 · 26 October 2004]

PLOT SPOILERS!

Does anyone else here think that Paul Anderson should be handing in his P45 right about now? With the exception of AVP and Event Horizon this man should be hung for war crimes against the film industry. OK so he may not have been in the director's chair for this one (not that it would have made much of a difference anyway) but his screenplay is anything but inspired or original.

But he isn't the one who should be taking all the blame for this piss poor travesty. First time director Alexander Witt, although having a better knowledge of what it takes to make a better movie, has barely improved on the original, and considering what a mess the first one was you would have thought it'd be quite simple to make a superior sequel. Well apparently it ain't as easy as it looks.

As with every bad movie the acting is appalling so i wont even bother wasting my breathe givin it an earful although Sienna Guillory looks stunning as Jill Valantine. The main flaw in this film is the pacing and the god awful clichés that just come at you again and again and again. Mr Anderson claims, so passionately, that he is a huge fan of the games. so why, in all you mystical wisdom, did you choose to have the Nemesis have a sympathetic streak? Why did you take one of the most terrifying characters from the game and turn him into a hero at the end of the movie? He'd better have a damn good reason to justify that.

The timing and the overall pacing of this movie is terrible. rather than use the psychological fear that the games thrived on this movie opts for full on jump tactics every single time. OHH scary. Watch me quiver in my shoes.

The movie starts off well enough. Sights of the town being over run were pretty cool, echoing moments of the far superior "Dawn of the Dead" (2004). But after the movie builds the middle just lags. And then when the climax comes in, Witt chooses to unleash a string of dumb assed action scenes that never once get the adrenaline going. Add to the mix the turning of the Nemesis and you have yourselves a terrible movie.

The fact that it leaves it open for a third film is just upsetting. Leave where it is now. This franchise has done enough damage already.

1/5

Children of the Corn (1984)

WHAT?

[3/10 · 2 August 2004]

POSSIBLE SPOILERS!

I know that everyone is entitled to their own opinion but when reading that some people on this page have called this a classic i just laughed because i thought they couldn't be serious. To my horror i found that they WERE serious and my laughter turned into muddled confusion. I would just like to ask what is in this film that makes it any good let alone a classic? Sure it has a creepy concept but I'm afraid to say that in MY opinion that is all it has going for it. Hell even the trailer was scarier than the movie itself.

OK i'm getting ahead of myself here, this movie isn't as bad I'm making out to be but it suffers from what i like to call Jeepers Creepers syndrom. This is when a very promising first half is let down by an absolutely god awful second half (in Jeepers Creepers the second half is crap coz you realize the monster is actually a man in a latex mask).

This film also takes far too long to get going (ala Dreamcatcher). There is a decidedly grim opening in which the children of the town kill all the adults, and a scene where one of the kids tries to escape through the corn fields only to have his throat cut up, but pretty much from then on in (20 mins and onwards) the film goes from being dull, to boring, to stupid, to laughable and then starts all over again.

And Linda Hamilton, what are you doing? You've made two of the greatest sci-fi movies ever made along with the crap yet strangely fun Dante's Peak and you chose to do this? And so early in your career too, I'm surprised you were able to work in Hollywood again. It's as if your name on the poster (after the success of The Terminator) would add some credibility to the film but alas no, it seems that nothing can save this film.

And can i just ask what makes and man with long ginger hair, a mouth like Steve Tyler's and gangly teeth scary? And the fact that he's taking orders from a kid half his size, i mean how does that work? I was surprised he didn't mutiniy earlier on in the film.

It also has one of the most laughable endings on the planet. Oh a red cloud coming out of the corn field. Come on I've seen episodes of the Teletubbies that a more terrifying.

This movie is low, boring and crap. I would advise you to stay away from this one.

1/5

Heavenly Creatures (1994)

Different.

[9/10 · 5 July 2004]

POSSIBLE SPOILERS!

When i say different i mean different to what Peter Jackson had done before this. He may now be the hottest directorial talent around now (with a little trilogy by the name of Lord of the Rings giving him a push in the right direction) but before all that he was notorious around the cult circle for his excessively gruesome yet incredibly funny horror/splatter movies.

As entertaining as these movies may be, they are not cinematic gold like Lord of the Rings or this gem that he churned out in the early 90's. In fact it was this type of movie that proved to the world that Jackson can be a mature and adult film maker if given the right material (another example would be Steven Spielberg and Schindler's List).

This film takes place between the years of 1952 and 1954 and focuses on two young schoolgirls that develop a bizarre friendship in which they create a fantasy world that only they know about. When their relationship appears to become something more than just mutural friends their parents try to put and end to it by separating the two, ending with tragic results.

As with every Peter Jackson movie the film starts off with his usual bravado and energy with the performances played out with his slightly OTT take on the world. There is not a bad performance in this movie, and it also displays Jackson's ability for spotting new talent (this was Kate Winslet's first big role).

However when the relationship starts to take a turn for the worse, Jackson shows his talent as a great film maker. The performances become more subtle and eerily precise as the truly shocking reality of what will happen starts to unfold. The leading ladies become more disturbing than any screen psycho to date, with the added oomph that they are just children.

The ending is the icing on the cake for me and i know that'll sound sick and sadistic to anyone who has had the pleasure of seeing this film, but it just proves what a disturbing picture this is. It shows how far, too far can go and how strong the relationship was if, in the end, it would lead to murder to keep them together.

This is a movie that is endlessly watchable. Definitely a more mature and adult film than the rest of his cannon (apart from LOTR of course) and it also showed the start of what would become a truly great talent that would dominate Hollywood ten years later. There are not many films today that can be funny, compelling, heartbreaking, chilling, disturbing and beautiful all at the same time, but this one pulls it off with effortless ease.

5/5

Dawn of the Dead (2004)

Surprising!

[7/10 · 28 March 2004]

Im not a massive fan of remakes (The Blob and Psycho anyone?). I avoided The Texas Chainsaw Masacre like the plague because the original is one of my favourite horror movies and dont even get me started on The Italian Job. Dont ask me why i went to see this one. The original Dawn of The Dead, even though it was overly long, was still a damn good film! I guess i was curious and i had heard good things about it (unlike Chainsaw).

After watching it i can conclude that other than the fact that it's set in a shopping mall this is a very different beast to the original. There's more characters, more action and the Zombies are a hellovalot more scary! This is a cross between the original and 28 Days Later (which was also a damn good film). The fact that the Zombies can now run makes it more believable that they can take over the planet. They're just so relentless.

The opening ten minutes of this film are possibly the most disturbing i have ever seen. i cant explain why just see the movie and find out.

Like the original though this movie starts to drag in the middle. Although there are the odd moments that are disturbing or disgusting (or both, the Zombie baby is not a pleasent experience) that keep your attention until the final act, which ditches the horror aspect for all out action.

This is where the movies major flaw lies as the end half hour is a mission to make you feel sick and its not because of the gore. Every shot is handheld and after the first five minutes you'll be craving for a break or attempting to keep you pop-corn in. It is very dissorientating and is only for people that dont suffer from motion sickness.

The end of this movie does leave it open for a Day of The Dead remake to follow but how it will be done i dont know. As with every remake these days this is the very definition of the term "re-imagining" and if you're expecting the original walk away coz this is a totally different film and a damn good one at that.

4/5

Finding Nemo (2003)

Fun!

[8/10 · 10 March 2004]

You should never be worried about going to see a pixar film because not only do they not make bad movies, they dont even make average movies. Everyone of their films have been both a stunning techniqual achivement but great family entertainment as well.

When it comes to the battle between Pixar and Dreamworks, Pixar is the overall winner. Both Shrek and Ice Age were blissfully over-rated as the jokes tried to be too adult and in the end failed misserably.

This newest effort tells the tale of Marlin and Nemo, a father and son that have a great relationship yet Nemo cant help feeling his dad is too overprotective (watch the film and find out why). It is when Nemo is taken away by a group of divers that Marlin searches the ocean for him, with the help of the wonderfully stupid Dory (She suffers from short term memory lose).

Visually this film is great as it looks as if it is actually taking place under the sea. Unlike the rest of their films, this one is ridicuously cute and it works. The animation also helps in the comical value of the movie. Dory is by far the funniest character as she constantly looks confused and blissfully unaware. The surfer sea turtles are a major plus point too "DUDE!"

The only major downside to this film is that the ending feels rushed. With all of the Pixar films before this there was always a gripping chase that not only showed the hero status of the main characters but the bonding between them. This had the bonding element but a school of fish trying to escape from a net is, frankly, not as exciting as a showdown at an airport (Toy Story 2) or a chase in the rain (A Bugs Life). There are also no outakes to make us chuckle which is missed.

But at the end of the day this is family entertainment at the higher end of the spectrum. Forget trash like The Little Mermaid or Pochontas and watch a film that shows the comical side of family values.

4/5