Stuff for Dads

  Movie selection

The kids have been ill, I've been ill, everyone's been ill. I've spent really rather a lot of time recently switching between playing Dragon Age: Origins and blowing my nose. The reviews have slipped a bit. Here's a quick catch up on some of the movies I've been watching:

District 9 (15) - What would happen if aliens landed in Johannesburg rather than Manhattan? Rather than getting blown up, they might get segregated from humans and shut away in a township.

It's an interesting metaphor but it doesn't get very deeply explored before one of the jailers finds himself forced to fight for alien rights with the aid of nothing but the F-word and some very big guns.

It's still comfortably more thoughtful than Avatar, though. (4/5)


Dorian Gray (15) - In Victorian London, a man stays young and innocent-looking while his portrait becomes old and corrupted by his dubious deeds, a mirror for his soul.

If you don't already know, you can probably guess how it all ends. (Hint: Badly.) Nonetheless, Ben Barnes is magnetic in the lead role and the story is expertly told. It's a decent (if slightly unpleasant) change from movies with explosions. (3/5)


Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen (12) - Conclusive proof that giant robots and lingering shots of Megan Fox can only sustain one blockbuster movie.

The plot is even dafter than before, there are too many transformers to tell them apart and they seem to develop new and unlikely abilities whenever it's time for another 'cool' action sequence.

A mess. (2/5)

Next (12) - Nicolas Cage has the power to see two minutes into the future and the FBI attempt to recruit him to help stop a terrorist attack. Strangely, he's always just left whenever they arrive...

This film has plenty of clever moments but is rather too eager to drop the two minute constraint, changing its own rules halfway through. This feels like cheating. The final act is also unexpectedly missing. Entirely. The movie simply ends half an hour short of a conclusion. In some ways, this is one of the clever moments. Whether it's actually smart or just irritating is another question.

Slick and enjoyable, all the same. (3/5)


X-Men Origins: Wolverine (12) - Another superhero movie that I should hate. The main X-Men series is fairly incoherent, choked by dull character development and overly full of angst. Going back specially for a prequel to learn how Wolverine developed his powers seems like asking for tedium.

Happily, someone realised this and it's in fact a big excuse for lots of smashing right from the start. Things are occasionally stretched a little far in order to fit events into the timeline of the previous films but enough stuff explodes to make up for it. (4/5)


The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (12) - A man is born old and gets steadily younger. This has its advantages and makes his life interesting but is mainly rather awkward. Think Forrest Gump with reverse ageing rather than stupidity (and not as good).

It's OK. It just goes all over the place but never really gets anywhere. (3/5)

The Taking of Pelham 123 (15) - John Travolta plays his stock talkative, smug, psycho bad guy and hijacks a train on the New York subway. Denzel Washington has the bad luck to be the network controller on duty. They negotiate in a tense and dramatic fashion.

It's a gripping game of cat-and-mouse let down by a stupid foray into Die-Hard territory in the last twenty minutes. It also gave me unfortunate flash-backs to Money Train. (3/5)

Right, now that's done, I need to go back to saving Ferelden from the Darkspawn. Er, but I may go buy some more tissues first...

Labels: film review

 
Agree? Disagree? Got a question? Add your comment here.

11:30 AM - Permanent Link - 0 comments - Post comment - Links to this post

  G.I. Joe: The Rise of the Cobra (DVD)

Starring: Christopher Eccleston, Darth Maul, Dennis Quaid, the green girl from Star Trek, Sienna Miller, Marlon Wayans (remember him from Dungeons & Dragons? No? Maybe for the best...) & some generic action guy (Channing Tatum).

Rated: 12.

Story: An elite unit of super soldiers must recover some 'nanomite' warheads that have been stolen by a lunatic and his army of henchmen. In an effort to stop him destroying Paris, they, er... destroy Paris.

Comments: And I thought Outlander was daft...

The plot of G.I. Joe makes very little sense. There's all kinds of nonsense involving unlikely technology and overblown conspiracies but you can't help feeling that both sides are simply too busy travelling the globe blowing things up to think about what they're doing.

Luckily, they move very fast and the explosions are enormous.

For a movie based on a range of action figures, G.I. Joe has clearly had a large amount of money thrown at it. Things almost constantly leap and drive and fly and go boom, so there's little time to worry about why on Earth they're doing it. The chase sequence through the French capital is particularly fresh and exciting.

There's a large cast of heroes and villains, each with their own specialities. Despite a fair number of flashbacks to explain motivations, however, the pace seldom flags. Although the the set-up feels quite like X-Men, there's none of the angst. Within moments, it's time to blow stuff up again.

In many ways, G.I. Joe is great. It's a non-stop rush of dumb spectacle with a high profile cast and some intriguing ideas. Sadly, it's maybe just a bit too dumb. I can put up with an awful lot if it leads to some really big fireworks but, honestly, this is the kind of film where ice sinks. Even while watching Sienna Miller and Rachel Nichols fight each other in the middle of a pyrotechnic apocalypse, I was still thinking, 'What? But why? Eh? That'd never work? And, oh goodness, please, please, will someone tell Christopher Eccleston to stop with the Scottish accent?'

Ho well, at least it's much better than the game. It's probably not as good as a whole load of action figures and accessories, though...

Conclusion: Lots of fun but liable to make you stupid.

Explosions: Loads.
Emotional realism: Lacking.
Scientific realism: Slim.
Political realism: Sparse.
Any kind of realism whatsoever: Pretty much absent.
Does that matter if it means the chance to watch beautiful people throw each other about while France blows up around them?: Possibly not.

Rating: 3/5.

Labels: action, film review, sci-fi

 
Agree? Disagree? Got a question? Add your comment here.

11:00 AM - Permanent Link - 0 comments - Post comment - Links to this post

  Outlander (DVD)

Starring: James Caviezel, Sophia Myles, Jack Huston, Ron Perlman and John Hurt.

Rated: 15.

Story: An astronaut from another world crash-lands his spaceship in eighth century Scandinavia. Unfortunately, he brings a fire-breathing lizard monster with big teeth along for the ride.

He's forced to earn the trust of the local Vikings and then they all go dragon hunting...

Comments: Daft. The whole set-up of Outlander is just plain daft. If you can get past that, though, it's a passable action flick which is more fantasy than science fiction. Plenty of care and attention has been applied to the sets and costumes, and the combat is authentically swift and bloody. The 'dragon' itself gives the impression that the computer graphics guys got a little carried away but at least it's an excuse for some fire and explosions.

The cast generally seem as if they'd rather be elsewhere. Caviezel spends most of the time looking like he's just bitten into a lemon, John Hurt is John Hurt, Jack Huston weirdly gives the impression of playing Russell Brand playing a Viking (or maybe that's just me) and Perlman, for some inexplicable reason, appears to think he's in Braveheart 2. Myles' character is lumbered with every cliché going - she's the pretty (but tough and headstrong) princess who is promised to an arrogant prince but is strangely drawn to the mysterious stranger... and winds up needing saved from a dragon. Sigh.

Despite everything, however, Outlander is a likeable adventure tale. Sure it's stupid and predictable but it's also slick, full of action and looks good. You could do worse.

Conclusion: The Lord of the Rings meets Alien on a weekend break to Norway. Lots of guys with swords fight heroically, then get eaten.

If that sounds mildly entertaining, then you'll be mildly entertained...

Explosions: Occasional.
Unlikely plot developments: Several.
Spirited shield maidens: One.
Crazy guys with swords: Tasty.
Things not to do when hunting dragons: Split up and look for clues...

Rating: 3/5

Labels: fantasy, film review, sci-fi

 
Agree? Disagree? Got a question? Add your comment here.

10:00 AM - Permanent Link - 0 comments - Post comment - Links to this post

  Crank 2 - High Voltage (DVD)

Starring: Jason Statham, Amy Smart and a granny in a cardigan made of synthetic fibres.

Rated: 18.

Story: Chev Chelios wakes up from a coma to discover his heart has been stolen and replaced by an artificial one. He sets out on a rampage of destruction to get the original back before his batteries run out. Along the way, he finds every daft method possible to give himself a quick recharge.

Mmmmmmm... Friction.

Comments: Despite all its gore and violence, the original Crank was actually quite a thoughtful metaphor on hedonism and the transitory nature of life. Coupled with non-stop action, this made it rather good. At the end, however, I was disappointed to discover that it left absolutely no room for a sequel. Then again, upon thinking about it, I realised a sequel would entirely undermine the very nature of Crank. It's simply a headlong thrill ride towards death without time to pause or think, poking fun at the ultimate emptiness of a life of self-gratification.

Of course, it's also possible that the whole thing was just an excuse for a frantic sequence of fights and chases...

It doesn't matter, though. Either way, the ending of Crash is as emphatic as Titanic or Hamlet - pretty much everyone is dead. Any sequel was always going to be something of a stretch.

Enter High Voltage.

Oh dear. After Chev gets better from being dead in the first five minutes, the writers simply know no shame. The rest really is merely an excuse for a frantic sequence of fights and chases, tied together by coincidence and attempts to shock (sometimes in the eletrical sense, sometimes in the 'Eugh!' sense). It's like they put together a focus group of sixteen-year-old boys and asked them what they wanted. It probably says something that easily the funniest joke involves a guy with Full Body Tourettes.

The action isn't even that great. The pace helps keep it all relatively diverting but there's nothing very spectacular.

The only conceivable reason anyone thought creating Crank 2 was a good idea was to make a fast buck off the success of the original. The one consolation is that the movie is mercifully short, stopping pretty much randomly at the point the makers got bored.

Conclusion: Like a reel of scenes deleted from the original for being too daft and puerile.

Explosions: Occasional.
Strippers and hookers: Everywhere.
Mutilation: Unpleasant.
Violence: Extreme.
Foul-mouthed old lady: One.
Happy sixteen-year-olds: Probably many.

Rating: 2/5.

Labels: action, film review

 
Agree? Disagree? Got a question? Add your comment here.

9:20 AM - Permanent Link - 0 comments - Post comment - Links to this post

  Moon (DVD)

Starring: Sam Rockwell and the voice of Kevin Spacey.

Rated: 15.

Story: Sam Bell is coming to the end of a three year contract supervising an automated mining operation on the moon. He's had no company the whole time apart from a robot which sounds like it was designed by the same team as HAL. Even the satellite is out, so he can't have live conversations with Earth - he has to make do with pre-recorded messages from his wife who is beginning to seem apprehensive about his return.

Unsurprisingly, this isn't exactly turning him into a poster child for mental stability. With only weeks to go, he starts to suspect he's not quite as alone as he thought. This leads to something of an existential crisis. Sadly, he has no one to talk to but himself and a mechanical version of Keyser Soze. Things go quietly downhill in a ponderous, Space Odyssey kind of way...

Comments: Moon is difficult to categorise. It's a science fiction film of a sort which isn't often made these days. There are no lasers, space battles or sweeping alien landscapes. It's one guy on the moon going a bit mad. The space setting is as much about giving an excuse to raise questions of individuality and identity as it is to look cool. This is a pleasant change. That said, it all feels very familiar, aping the spartan whiteness of 2001 and feeling reminiscent of a dozen movies where the crew of a space station/ship/colony get hunted down and eaten. Most of these associations are purposefully invoked in order to set up surprises later in the film but it does mean Moon sometimes lacks individuality of its own, overwhelmed by references and in-jokes.

There's some brilliant cinematography but it's not actually that impressive to look at - it's only brilliant when you think about the effort they must have gone to in order to get some of the shots. Trying to remember this while simultaneously avoiding thinking about the daft plot and the questionable science is tricky.

And yet, despite its flaws, Moon is unquestionably engrossing. Sam Rockwell is fantastic throughout and the pacing of fresh revelations is excellent. It feels likes something is always going on, even though very little actually happens. The story itself might not stand up to a second viewing but I'll probably watch it again at some point anyway, just to pick up on the little details and marvel at the clever camera work.

Conclusion: Good but lacking in identity. (Which is rather ironic...)

Explosions: None.
Space battles: None.
Time-travelling killer robots: None.
Exotic, green alien women: None.
Chesney Hawkes songs: One.

Rating: 4/5.

<

Labels: film review, sci-fi

 
Agree? Disagree? Got a question? Add your comment here.

9:00 PM - Permanent Link - 0 comments - Post comment - Links to this post

  Terminator - Salvation (DVD)

Starring: Christian Bale and Sam Worthington.

Rated: 12.

Story: It's the future... but the future of an alternate past where nuclear war has already happened. Or something like that. Anyway, everywhere is covered with dust and burnt-out cars, and the machines have taken over large chunks of the world. The human resistance is surprisingly well-equipped with submarines, fighters and helicopters, and has a plan to take the fight to Skynet, the computer leading the robots.

Meanwhile, John Connor, the prophesied leader of humanity, struggles to make anyone listen to his stories of time-travelling cyborgs and explanations of how he's older than his own dad. For some reason, no one agrees to put him in charge...

Comments: Right. Let me get this straight: in the original Terminator, a cyborg travelled back in time to stop the victorious leader of the post-Apocalyptic humans from being born. In the process it both brought about his birth and the Apocalypse. In Terminator 2, a couple more temporal tourists cancelled nuclear Armageddon. Only for it to be reinstated in Terminator 3 and bypassed again in The Sarah Connor Chronicles. Then they put the cyborg in charge of California. Or was that before? Possibly. But was it before the original now, the actual now or one of the alternate nows? I'm not sure.

Who am I again?

I dunno. I've lost track of which Terminator timeline is the official one. It doesn't really matter for this new sequel, however. All the time travelling has already finished (even though it's yet to happen), Judgment Day has come and gone, and it's down to a straight fight between humanity and the machines. Cue lots of explosions in the desert.

Paradoxes aside, Salvation has all the established hallmarks of the Terminator series - a friendly cyborg, a robot that won't die, a strong female character (who just happens to be hot), someone saying 'Come with me if you want to live', an endless fight in a factory and lots of stuff blowing up. It's a fun return to a fondly-remembered franchise. That said, the generic wasteland setting and the lack of time travel does make it a little bland in its own right. It's all action and no plot and gets a bit silly by the end, finishing with an almost comically literal take on "it's what's in someone's heart that counts." Bale's performance is totally forgettable. Thankfully, Worthington manages to display enough charisma for the both of them.

Still, if you're in the mood for explosions and killer machines, this is one of the better choices available. (After the first three movies, of course... and the TV series... and The Matrix... and, oh, never mind...)

Conclusion: Booms, guns, robots, planes, bikes and Moon Goodblood. Turn it on and break out the beer.

Explosions: Loads. If it's on the screen, then it's liable to go up in a ball of flame at any moment.
Time travel: None.
Talk about time travel: Lots.
Impossibly tough robots: Dozens.
Will it be back?: Almost certainly. Going on past form, expect more time travel, a female cyborg and a detonation every three seconds.

Rating: 4/5.

Labels: film review, sci-fi

 
Agree? Disagree? Got a question? Add your comment here.

9:30 AM - Permanent Link - 0 comments - Post comment - Links to this post

  Watchmen (DVD)

Starring: A woolly mask with splodges on it and a man with a very unhealthy blue glow.

Rated: 18.

Story: In an alternate version of the 1980s, a retired superhero is murdered and his old comrades endeavour to track down the killer whilst simultaneously whining about how much they miss the old days.

Comments: I should hate this film. It contains the two things most likely to irritate me in an action movie - angst-ridden superheroes and a narrative that's told in a strange order to make it seem more interesting. Oh, and some excessive gore for the sake of it. Not to mention a plot that promises more than the ending delivers. So it has four things that... No wait, there are some gadgets that might as well be powered by magic in there as well. That makes five things that... Er, did I mention it's half an hour too long? So that's, erm...

Hang on a minute while I go get some red robes and a comfy chair...

...

Right. That's better. As I was saying, Watchmen has any number of elements that are liable to grate. Happily, however, they're all thrown together which such style and spectacle that it doesn't matter. The characters are somehow sympathetic (despite being mostly crazy) and there's nearly always something interesting happening.

The soundtrack is fantastic, the editing is superb and the mix of time-frames and locations keeps the film visually fresh throughout. It may not be the rip-roaring superhero adventure full of smashing and explosions I've been waiting for but it all makes Spider-Man's recent cinematic moping seem doubly tiresome.

Conclusion: Would you believe it? Telling the story in a jumbled order makes superhero angst bearable.

Explosions: Relatively few.
Vicious brawling: Plenty.
Silly sex scenes: Two or three.
Spectacle: Lots.
Stretched Lycra: Slightly less than is entirely seemly.

Rating: 4/5.

Labels: action, fantasy, film review, sci-fi

 
Agree? Disagree? Got a question? Add your comment here.

9:30 AM - Permanent Link - 0 comments - Post comment - Links to this post

  Planet of the Apes (2001)

Starring: Mark Wahlberg, Helena Bonham-Carter and Tim Roth.

Rated: 12.

Story: An astronaut ventures too far into a temporal storm and crash lands on a planet where the apes are in charge and humans are kept as slaves. He attempts to phone home but ends up leading a rebellion instead.

Comments: With the postal strikes disrupting my film rentals, I decided it was time to delve around at the bottom of the hard-drive recorder and rediscover whatever was lurking there...

Along with some repeats of Top Gear, fifty-seven episodes of Pokémon and an inexplicable recording of Hole in the Wall, I found the 2001 remake of Planet of the Apes. I've been meaning to watch it for years but never entirely dared. I have fond memories of staying up late to see the original when I was a teenager and being blown away by the ending. The possibility of a new version being as good seemed remote. Nonetheless, devoid of other entertainment which I hadn't seen before and which didn't involve celebrities attempting to squeeze themselves through narrow gaps, I faced my fear and settled down to watch Helena Bonham-Carter in a chimpanzee suit...

I should probably have watched Top Gear again.

Although Planet of the Apes (2001) has its moments, it's generally a clunky mess. The first half is rather slow going in places with apes frequently arguing over the treatment of humans. This is thinly-veiled commentary on civil and animal rights in our own society but the two get a little mixed and the whole thing comes across as both moralising and shallow. (It also ignores the fact that the various different species of ape live and work together quite happily without batting an eyelid.) The pace picks up in the latter stages but it all inevitably leads to a big CGI battle and a final showdown between psycho ape (Roth) and hero human (Wahlberg).

The make-up and costumes are great, at least, and the actors do a good job of mimicking simian movements. Some dubious wire-work breaks the spell, however, as does the appearance of an actual chimpanzee - the men in costumes suddenly look like just that.

Mark Wahlberg is never convincing. To be fair, the plot and script don't help him out but he fails to convey the trauma of finding himself in such an upside-down world. The rest of the cast do OK, though.

There are a few references to the original but these are amongst the low points of the movie. Charlton Heston's cameo verges on farce and the sets in the ape city look like they've been lifted from 1960s Star Trek. Special mention has to go to the ending, which is beyond stupid. Clearly the makers wanted to come up with something to bring shock and surprise in a similar manner to the earlier version. It's certainly surprising but, unfortunately, there is no way for it to convincingly make sense. You'll remember it but for all the wrong reasons. I kind of wish I'd dozed off before reaching it and dreamt of Jeremy Clarkson in a silver jumpsuit being shoved into a swimming pool by an oncoming barrier of polystyrene.

Conclusion: You could probably make a more entertaining remake with the kids' cuddly toys and an Action Man. Planet of the Teletubbies, now there's an idea...

Explosions: A couple (and a few burning tents).
Apes: Loads.
Holes in the plot: Big enough to fit a considerable number of celebrities through.
Better than the original?: Not a chance.
Better than repeats of Top Gear?: Not really.
Better than watching a comedian, a rugby player and a weather girl get knocked into a swimming pool by a perforated wall?: Probably not...

Rating: 2/5.

Labels: film review, sci-fi

 
Agree? Disagree? Got a question? Add your comment here.

10:15 AM - Permanent Link - 0 comments - Post comment - Links to this post

  Knowing (DVD)

Starring: Nicolas Cage & Rose Byrne.

Rated: 15.

Story: An astrophysics professor, who is struggling with the randomness of the universe after the death of his wife, stumbles upon predictions of impending disasters. In trying to figure out what's going on and how it can all possibly be true, he finds purpose, a love interest and some big explosions...

Comments: Knowing is a strange mix of genres: one moment it's a science fiction extravaganza, the next it's a thriller and sometimes it's a ghost story. Unfortunately, although it flits between these subplots with style and ease, it's never very good at following all three at once. Each strand is tense and intriguing but the way they tie together at the end is very unsatisfying. The premise of a mysterious list of numbers warning of catastrophe is great but it ultimately turns out to be a very elaborate scheme to solve a simple problem. Like a mousetrap involving cuckoo clocks, marble runs and toy yachts, it's entertaining to watch but doesn't necessarily seem that useful.

The film feels as if it's trying to say something about the nature of belief and hope but the bizarre conclusion confuses it all. The professor's personal path to faith is providentially laid out before him, showing him exactly what he needs to see, but as with many Damascus road experiences in real life, it's perhaps not very convincing for anyone else.

Still, the acting is passable and the plot is gripping for most of the film's length. It just doesn't make much sense. The end result is both riveting and underwhelming at the same time.

Conclusion: A scenic route to a mundane destination.

Explosions: Occasional but enormous.
Weird blokes who lurk in the woods: Several.
Spooky stones: Thousands.
Scenes involving frantic paint-stripping: One.
Captured mice: None.

Rating: 3/5.

Labels: film review, sci-fi

 
Agree? Disagree? Got a question? Add your comment here.

9:30 AM - Permanent Link - 0 comments - Post comment - Links to this post

  Toy Story in Digital 3D

Starring: The voices of Tom Hanks and Tim Allen, a fantastic script co-written by Joss Whedon, and some newly added depth perception.

Rated: PG.

Story: Disney decides that it's simply impossible to have too many 3D computer-animated kids' movies released in one year and sets Pixar to work adding a third dimension to its back catalogue.

Some time later, small children up and down the land scream and swallow their magic glasses in terror as Scud the dog leaps out of cinema screens at them.

Comments: If you're old enough to be able to read this, then you've probably seen Toy Story. If you haven't, then rush out to see it now. It was the first full-length computer animated movie and it's still one of the best. Pixar's output in recent years has become rather ponderous and overblown but Toy Story maintains a fast pace and has excellent dialogue with something for both adults and children. It truly is a classic.

Believe me - I've seen it dozens of times.

When my boys were small, it was their favourite film for a month or two. They watched it at lunch-time and tea-time every day. Over and over. Five years on, however, they couldn't remember anything about it but I heard every line in my head before it came out the speakers...

Without having any real need to pay attention to the words or plot, I was able to concentrate on the 3D effect:

Looking at the screen normally, there's a mild fuzziness to the picture. Putting on the polarised glasses brings everything into focus and introduces an impressive amount of depth. The effect works best on fairly stationary, close-up shots, appearing very convincing. Fast action is quite blurred, though, and landscape shots tend to be divided into distinct planes. It's a huge, full-colour improvement over the old red-and-green glasses, nonetheless.

The 3D is certainly cool but I'm yet to be convinced it's the future. I found it hard work figuring out where to focus at times and wearing the polarised glasses over my normal specs was initially uncomfortable and remained slightly niggly throughout. It will be interesting to see what film-makers achieve with the technology once they've really got to grips with it. Then we'll discover whether it can add some depth to their vision, not just the picture.

As for Toy Story itself, the boys (aged 7 and 9) loved it but Sproglette (aged 5) was less impressed. She could probably have done with some stronger female characters (not to mention some fairies and a mermaid). It didn't help that she refused to keep her glasses on and that she's scared of dogs. Ho well. Even with her sitting whining next to me, it was still great.

Conclusion: Toy Story in all its glory and in your face.

Explosions: A couple.
Quotable lines: Scores. ('We need more monkeys!' is a solution worth suggesting in the face of almost any problem.)
Dodgy 3D moments: A few.
Flying toys?: Two or three (but they're really just falling with style...)
What does 'To infinity and beyond!' actually mean?: Er...

Rating: 5/5.

Labels: family, film review

 
Agree? Disagree? Got a question? Add your comment here.

9:45 AM - Permanent Link - 0 comments - Post comment - Links to this post

  Doomsday (DVD)

Starring: Rhona Mitra. Bob Hoskins and Malcolm McDowell show up on occasion. Everyone else is cannon fodder.

Rated: 18. (Expect blood, squishiness, graphic cannibalism and exploding rabbits.)

Story: An outbreak of a lethal (and messy) virus in Glasgow causes the whole of Scotland to be quarantined. The English throw up a great big wall and leave everyone north of it to their fate.

Thirty years later, the virus reappears in London. Desperate to obtain a cure, the Prime Minister sends a military team over the border to investigate reports of survivors.

Unfortunately, it transpires that half these survivors have had nothing to do for decades but watch DVDs of Mad Max and Escape from New York. The other half have been making armour and working on their jousting skills.

The expedition runs into trouble pretty much instantly...

Comments: The world will end in New York. Fact. I've seen it on screen so many times, it must be true. Whether it involves zombies, plague, meteor showers, giant lizards, nuclear weapons, talking chimps, unexplained giant bat monsters or thirty feet of snow, New York is going to get it first. This being the case, I'm expecting to have a certain amount of warning before the apocalypse arrives. With a B&Q round the corner, I should have plenty of time to nip out and stock up on batteries, torches and chainsaws (not to mention some soothing magnolia paint to decorate my panic room).

Or that's what I thought. After seeing Doomsday, I'm not so sure. If civilisation ends in Glasgow, I might not even have opportunity to sprinkle the driveway with bear traps before the lizard and zombies arrive and start fighting on it...

Ho well. Apart from raising the disconcerting possibility of disaster striking just down the motorway, Doomsday is rather good. It's essentially a homage to any number of stunt-heavy adventure flicks from the Eighties, combined with an extra touch of polish and quite a lot more gore than I remember. As such, its plot is wafer thin but it never takes itself seriously enough for that to matter. It's all a slick excuse for a rollercoaster of shoot-outs, car combat and sword fighting. Despite these sequences being over the top, they're not reliant on wires or copious CGI, resulting in a pleasingly solid feel.

Characterisation is limited but the cast does an excellent job with what they're given. It really is refreshing to see a fully-fledged action film full of Brits and with a British setting. Watching a chase through Glasgow Queen St station, complete with signs in Gaelic, makes a welcome change from the New York subway. (Although the layout is all wrong. The real Queen St is tiny - they'd have run out of platform halfway through.)

Don't expect genius, mind you - merely dumb spectacle and plenty of fond memories of other films. I was beginning to wonder whether they made them like this anymore...

Conclusion: It's like a greatest hits compilation of action movies from the Thatcher era (with added Glaswegians). All that's missing are some aliens and a Terminator.

Vehicles that explode on impact: Several.
Cows: Hundreds.
Nefarious politicians: Two.
Kilt-wearing Can-Can dancers: Too many.
Violent uses of a pheasant: One.

Rating: 4/5.

Labels: action, film review, sci-fi

 
Agree? Disagree? Got a question? Add your comment here.

9:30 AM - Permanent Link - 0 comments - Post comment - Links to this post

  Underworld - Rise of the Lycans (DVD)

Starring: A grumpy Bill Nighy, a former Lara Croft and Michael Sheen's wild, staring eyes.

Rated: 18.

Story: The first two Underworld films are set in the present day and focus on a war between vampires and werewolves. This is a prequel, detailing the beginnings of the conflict in the Dark Ages. The majority of the werewolves are bestial and brutal but the vampires have enslaved those able to switch to human form. These Lycans guard the vampires during the day.

Problems arise when the chief-vampire's daughter falls for one of the Lycans. This leads to a Romeo and Juliet situation, a touch of rebellion and lots of supernatural creatures dismembering each other by moonlight.

Comments: The ending of the second Underworld film was pretty conclusive, so this third effort is rather superfluous to the story. It fills in some history but it doesn't add much of significance. Viewed in its own right, however, it's a well-paced and satisfying fantasy adventure. There's nothing truly spectacular about it but neither does it wander off into endless, self-indulgent excess. The combatants never end up doing backflips in a burning building on top of a moving dragon merely for the sake of it. The simple mix of love story and revolution is actually refreshingly restrained in the context and, although the combat is fast and bloody, it rarely feels excessive.

Rise of the Lycans isn't exactly Shakespeare but it's nice to watch an action movie which doesn't descend into total stupidity by Act III. The plot is also more intelligible than the first films, so this is definitely worth a look if you fancy some fantasy brawling to entertain you while you collapse exhausted on the sofa with a beer. I'm now in the mood to watch the other two again.

One thing to note is that the casting is very peculiar, feeling more suitable to a Richard Curtis comedy than a swords-and-incisors action flick. I kept expecting Hugh Grant to pop up at any moment... then rip someone's head off. This was disturbing. Nevertheless, the choice of actors works out in the end. Rhona Mitra's performance is surprisingly adequate and Bill Nighy finally seems to have got the hang of playing a ruthless, immortal overlord. Michael Sheen's teeth, meanwhile, are somewhat too perfect for a werewolf slave in an age before dentists but his impressive, physical performance is astonishing considering he's best known for portrayals of Tony Blair, David Frost and Brian Clough. His versatility is more frightening than the CGI monsters.

Conclusion: Oddly, if you haven't watched any of the Underworld movies yet, this is maybe the place to start.

Explosions: A few remarkably flammable barrels of oil.
Computer-generated werewolves: Hundreds.
Bits you won't follow if you haven't seen/can't remember the other movies: Occasional lines here and there.
Great dental work: Twinkly.
Will I ever be able to see Tony Blair the same way again?: Probably not...

Rating: 4/5.

Labels: action, fantasy, film review

 
Agree? Disagree? Got a question? Add your comment here.

9:30 AM - Permanent Link - 0 comments - Post comment - Links to this post

  Pathfinder (DVD)

Starring: Karl Urban.

Rated: 15.

Story: A Viking invasion of North America goes pear-shaped and a traumatised Norse boy gets stranded. He's taken in by a tribe of Native Americans and grows up to be a bead-wearing, sword-wielding, white-skinned brave with identity issues.

When some more Vikings show up, he methodically goes about slaughtering them saving his adoptive people.

Comments: Vikings have had some pretty good PR in recent years, portrayed as traders, craftsmen, seafarers and explorers. The rise of the caricature of beardy blokes with horned helmets having a drink and a singsong has seen the more dubious elements of their culture reduced to some light pillaging and a minor charge of real estate fraud over the naming of Greenland. Vikings aren't so bad after all and are suitable material for topic work in Primary 3. (Sprog 2 is learning about runes and legends at the moment. Next week he gets to build a model long boat out of lollipop sticks.)

It's a shock to be presented with the savage Vikings of Medieval propaganda, lopping chunks out of foreigners for the sake of it. They wear scary outfits, destroy mindlessly and laugh evilly. They act more like orcs than people. In contrast, the Native Americans are all fluffy, peace-loving and wise.

As you can guess from this set up, Pathfinder isn't exactly bursting with narrative or complex motivations. It's an excuse for Die Hard meets The Lord of the Rings. There's plenty of action and everything moves along quickly. This is something of a mixed blessing, though. There's no clear sense of time or geography to events. The Vikings and the protagonist all run round the landscape and meet up whenever and wherever is most dramatic, however unlikely the relative journey lengths and sudden cliff drops seem. The next set-piece fight is never far away.

The film also goes off the boil near the end with the final showdown being somewhat ludicrous. The Vikings might be savage but they'd need to be dumb as anvils to walk into the trap that's laid for them.

Pathfinder is nowhere near as good as Apocalypto. Nonetheless, it's still an entertaining action film if you don't take it seriously and aren't overly squeamish.

Conclusion: The sort of Viking movie that features a chase involving sledges and spiked flails. If that thought makes you grin, you'll probably enjoy it.

Explosions: None.
The sort of gory melee combat where eyes go rolling across the floor: Rather a lot.
Stupid Vikings: Plenty.
Historical accuracy: As if.
Suitable as study material for seven-year-olds?: Not really.

Rating: 3/5.

Labels: action, film review

 
Agree? Disagree? Got a question? Add your comment here.

9:15 AM - Permanent Link - 0 comments - Post comment - Links to this post

  Taken (DVD)

Starring: Liam Neeson.

Rated: 18.

Story: Bryan Mills, an ex-spy, attempts to live a normal life and get to know his seventeen-year-old daughter (much of whose childhood he missed because he was too busy explosively fixing things in far-flung countries).

When she is kidnapped on a trip to Paris, he jets after her and finds himself caught between the French police and a human-trafficking ring.

He 'fixes' things.

Comments: There's a surprising amount of scene-setting in Taken. Getting on for half the film is filled with laying out the premise and establishing Mills' backstory and his relationships with his daughter and ex-wife. Thanks to Neeson's charisma, these elements are watchable enough but you can't help thinking it's all rather excessive for such a clichéd scenario.

Things only really get going once the dramatic (but somewhat unlikely) kidnapping occurs. Once he's in France, Mills utilises all his cunning and training to hunt down those responsible. There are some clever moments but events become rapidly unbelievable as the action ramps up. What starts as a tense investigation turns into manic car chases, ruthless brawls and the kind of gun battles where one determined dad with a pistol takes out a horde of bad guys dual-wielding Uzis. Unfortunately, the gung-ho action doesn't sit entirely comfortably with the sordid setting. Some of the scenes of human exploitation are quite depressing - turning the situation into Die Hard is unsettling for the wrong reasons.

Ultimately, Taken is rather unbalanced. It feels like the first and last episodes of 24: Season 1 slammed together with some extra implausibility and a protagonist who's slightly too old to be throwing himself off bridges.

Oh, and remember, if your teenage kids don't appreciate and respect you even though you're a nice guy and working really hard to make them happy, nothing fixes things better than saving their lives by going and wreaking havoc in a European capital...

Conclusion: Like someone held the script the wrong way up so most of the common sense fell out and all the action settled to the bottom.

Explosions: More like a couple of small fires.
Body count: Exponential.
Profound insights into parent-teenager relationships: Not many.
Bad guys capable of hitting a stationary man using an automatic weapon in a confined space: None.
Portrayal of France: They should sue.

Rating: 3/5.

Labels: action, film review, thriller

 
Agree? Disagree? Got a question? Add your comment here.

9:15 AM - Permanent Link - 0 comments - Post comment - Links to this post

  Max Payne (DVD)

Starring: Mark Wahlberg, Mila Kunis & Beau Bridges.

Rated: 15.

Story: Max Payne is a New York cop hunting the guy who murdered his wife and child. After some moody investigating, he discovers a link to the new narcotic, Valkyr. He goes on a gun-toting rampage of revenge. It snows a lot.

Comments: I have a strange affection for movies based on videogames. This isn't that unlikely, I suppose, given that I clearly enjoy both movies and games. The 'strange' part is that I keep being drawn to these tie-ins despite not a single one of them being that good. Hitman, Doom, the first Tomb Raider and Resident Evil 2 & 3 are all OK but nothing to get excited about. I only remember them because of the much better games they're based on. Worse, for every one of these mediocre efforts, there are a couple of real clunkers like Alone in the Dark. Being a follower of videogame movies is a bit like being a Norwich City fan - somewhere along the line you begin to wonder if it's really worth the effort...

Among the numerous mistakes made in converting games to films, one of the biggest is simply latching on to the wrong elements. The two things I can recall about the original Max Payne game are endless, grey, crumbling corridors and stylish, slow-motion gun play. The shooting was the whole point of the game while the drab, repetitive scenery was as much a technical limitation as an atmospheric device. It feels like every second game I've played since has had me creeping through warehouses, abandoned offices, derelict tenements and run-down hotels, thanks to a lack of imagination and a shortage of programming resources. That the film has almost no gun play for the first hour and instead concentrates on deserted streets and decrepit locations seems a bizarre choice. The feel is much more Condemned than Max Payne. By the time the action arrives, it's somewhat incongruous.

Throw in a wonky plot with an obvious twist, some dubious acting and a selection of side characters whose actions make no sense, and the result is hardly stellar. Oh, and there are strange hallucinations of Norse angels on a regular basis, seemingly for no other reason than to look cool.

Hey, never mind, maybe that Halo movie will get made one day and it will actually be good... In the meantime, watch Shoot 'Em Up instead of this.

Conclusion: Dark, bleak, predictable, slightly weird and occasionally a little tedious.

Explosions: A couple.
Snow: Loads.
Slow-motion shotgun moments: Surprisingly few.
Best bit: They didn't include the infuriating, flash-back platform sequence.

Rating: 2/5.

Labels: action, film review

 
Agree? Disagree? Got a question? Add your comment here.

9:30 AM - Permanent Link - 0 comments - Post comment - Links to this post

  Movie mini-reviews

In another three months, all my children will be at school and I'll be a housedad of leisure, able to spend many happy hours watching daytime TV and then blogging about it to my heart's content. For now, though, I seem to have less time than ever. The boys are staying up later, Sproglette isn't being distracted by her meals for so long and the summer holidays are almost upon us.

So many films, so little opportunity to wryly slag them on the internet...

Ho well, to keep you going, here are some quick thoughts on what I've seen recently:

Dungeons & Dragons 2: Wrath of the Dragon God - A straight-to-TV sequel which was clearly made on a fraction of the budget of the original. The enormous spired city of the first film appears to have been replaced by a single castle, for instance. The action also takes ages to get going. The many references to the source material will help D&D fans persevere but others will struggle to soldier through a first half full of long names, haughty characters and tedious mythology. 3/5 if you have a fondness for 12-sided dice, else 2/5.

Frost/Nixon (15) - A film about an interview doesn't sound promising. Nonetheless, the performances of Frank Langella and Michael Sheen bring alive the duel of words as the ex-President and the chat show host fight for their reputations and careers. There's maybe too much padding devoted to David Frost's financial difficulties but the movie is still enthralling. 4/5.

The Day the Earth Stood Still (12) - Keanu Reeves arrives on Earth as an alien in a human body, intent on saving us from ourselves. Unfortunately, since he talks in a monotone and can't persuade his face to do anything but frown, someone shoots him. This makes his pet giant robot very angry...

The film isn't a classic like the original but it's passable if you can put up with Keanu behaving like an emotionally stunted version of Al Gore. (Concentrate on Jennifer Connelly or something...) 3/5.

Quantum of Solace (12) - Oh my goodness. What on earth have they done? An incoherent plot, a host of second-rate characters and a string of action sequences in which the camera angle.................. jumps...........
around................
.................. every....................
few................................................................................
moments............
inanefforttoincreaseexcitement... th....... at actually
mak........................... es things
difficult...... to foll........
ow.

Daniel Craig remains great as Bond but this doesn't feel much like a Bond movie. After only two films, the series is in desperate need of another reboot. 1/5.

Eagle Eye (12) - Shia Labeouf comes home from work one day to discover his apartment full of terrorist equipment and the FBI leaping in through the windows. A series of phone calls from an anonymous woman helps him escape but, as the extent of the caller's influence becomes apparent, he quickly finds his life channeled along a path he'd rather not take...

Eagle Eye is one of those action films that basically boils down to one long, fast-paced chase. It's tense and entertaining but no one stands still for a moment in the hope that this will stop you from thinking too hard about the plot. Honestly, the whole thing wouldn't be much more unlikely if it involved aliens, giant robots and possibly unicorns. It's fun, though. (WARNING: Contains dubious facial hair.) 4/5.

Chaos (15) - A bank heist movie with Jason Statham playing the cop and Wesley Snipes playing the robber. I can barely remember anything else, apart from a couple of disastrous plot twists and Snipes' inability to act. It's so forgettable that I may not even [TO DO] 2/5.

The Core (12) - More science fiction hokum as a team of geonauts pilot a vessel into the centre of the Earth in a desperate attempt to kick start the planet's slowing core. Surprisingly, however, a decent mix of characters and plenty of melodrama keep events interesting. Worth watching if you stumble across it late at night on ITV3, even if you've seen it before and should really have gone to bed already... 3/5.

Happy Father's Day! Watch out for the inevitable selection of game mini-reviews coming soon.

Labels: film review

 
Agree? Disagree? Got a question? Add your comment here.

8:30 PM - Permanent Link - 0 comments - Post comment - Links to this post

  Tropic Thunder (DVD)

Starring: Ben Stiller, Robert Downey Jr, Jack Black, Matthew McConaughey & Tom Cruise.

Rated: 15.

Story: The filming of an action movie based on a 'true' story from the the Vietnam War goes totally pear-shaped. As a result, the director decides to go for a Blair Witch approach and a bunch of pampered Hollywood actors find themselves wandering the jungles of South East Asia dressed as GIs and waving fake guns.

Unsurprisingly, they blunder into a load of locals with real guns...

Comments: A touch of humour can do wonders for a trashy action film. Some proper jokes and a sense of fun are an effective means of papering over the holes in the plot and easing the transition between daft excuses for explosions. Tropic Thunder proves, however, that a touch of action can also do wonders for a trashy comedy film.

The jokes are generally reasonably funny with a handful of truly hilarious moments poking fun at the movie industry. A couple of recurring gags are a little tiresome, though. (It's particularly hard to tell whether we're supposed to be laughing at the idiocy of Tom Cruise's character or simply at Tom Cruise. In some ways, that's incredibly clever. Sadly, it's pretty excruciating to watch.) As a standard comedy, the film would be OK but instantly forgettable. Happily, the action scenes are more entertaining than in a fair few action movies I've seen recently, picking up the slack whenever the humour starts to wear thin. The final product is both fun and exciting.

Ultimately, your reaction to Tropic Thunder is likely to depend on how you feel about Robert Downey Jr's character. His performance carries the movie in places and so you'll need to be able to see the funny side of a white dude playing a white dude playing a black dude who acts like a stereotype of a black dude invented by a white dude who has lost sight of the dude he really is...

(Oh, and the best bit is actually the spoof viral-video planning meeting that's in the bonus features.)

Conclusion: All comedy films should have more explosions. Maybe even My Best Friend's Wedding could have been good with a couple of air strikes and a truck full of AK-47s.

Explosions: Loads.
Funny jokes: Enough.
Very confused dudes: Two.
Life-saving uses of a TiVo: One.
Tom Cruise embarrassing himself: Slightly too much.

Rating: 4/5.

Labels: action, comedy, film review

 
Agree? Disagree? Got a question? Add your comment here.

9:20 AM - Permanent Link - 0 comments - Post comment - Links to this post

  Burn After Reading (DVD)

Starring: George Clooney, Brad Pitt, John Malkovich, Frances McDormand, Tilda Swinton and an absolutely vast amount of swearing.

Rated: 15.

Story: Er... I suppose there was a story somewhere. Let me think... Oh, yeah... A group of people in Washington DC go through mid-life crises over their work, appearance, marriages and/or sex lives. Through a series of affairs and a misplaced CIA disk, their lives become intertwined. Everything gets seriously out of hand.

Comments: At what point does open-ended become inconclusive? When does multi-stranded simply cross-over into disjointed? Where is the line between art and chaos?

Call me a scientist, but I like a story to have a beginning, a middle and an end. Usually in that order. A story should make its way cleverly and amusingly from somewhere to somewhere else with a couple of unexpected turns in between.

There are other people who think a story should be all about the characters - going nowhere is fine as long as that is consistent with the relationships and inner turmoil being portrayed. The point can be that there is no point. As one of the characters in Burn After Reading so aptly puts it near the end, 'What have we learnt? Not to do this again.'

Yep, if you like a good plot, then this isn't a film for you. Burn After Reading is quite simply a story about some crazy people, some of whom have guns. Brad Pitt's character is easily the most likable because he is an idiot, not just being one. There's less story than in No Country for Old Men, and what is there is held together by a huge coincidence.

That said, the bizarreness of it all does produce some genuinely funny moments and the star cast does a good job. The film is always interesting to watch if seldom out-and-out entertaining. Maybe it's open-ended, multi-stranded art.

Or maybe not...

Conclusion: One of those films that was clearly more fun to make than it is to watch.

Explosions: None.
Body count: Higher than you might expect.
Best bit: Brad Pitt's hair.
Suitable for viewing with your gran, kids or church youth group?: I wouldn't advise it.
Lesson: Impending middle age leads to madness (and incoherent movies).

Rating: 3/5.

Labels: comedy, drama, film review

 
Agree? Disagree? Got a question? Add your comment here.

9:15 AM - Permanent Link - 0 comments - Post comment - Links to this post

  Star Trek (2009)

Starring: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto and a whole lot of other talented people.

Rated: 12A. There isn't much tension and there are only a few 'scary' bits, so children who are a little younger could probably cope. Everything moves so fast, though, they'll spend the whole time asking you what's going on.

Story: Someone remembers that, once upon a time, Star Trek was fresh and exciting. They try to recapture that by going back to the original crew and adding lots of special effects, action, humour, slick editing and energy.

Everyone else remembers the Star Wars prequels and the new Indiana Jones and feels slightly nervous...

Comments: I used to enjoy Star Trek. I remember avidly watching re-runs of the original series as a kid and then again as a teenager. Some of the films were great. The announcement of The Next Generation was big news.

When TNG arrived, however, it all felt rather bland. I never liked any of the characters much and the Enterprise always looked as if it had been recently hoovered. The spin-offs weren't anywhere near as interesting as Babylon 5 and the movies became less essential with every passing Roman numeral. The franchise slowly sank to a point where I didn't care anymore.

The announcement of a new film set in the early days of Kirk and Spock only managed to raise a small sigh of despair. There were so many ways the project could go wrong, it wasn't even worth thinking about...

Bearing all this in mind, quite how the movie turned out to be so unbelievably fantastic is something of a mystery. I suspect Voodoo.

From the opening moments, everything thunders along with pace and spectacle. Somehow the movie manages to trade on every fond memory of the Kirk era while wiping away recollections of countless tiresome TNG 'human interest' episodes. It's a cracking sci-fi adventure full of recognisable characters that are at once comfortably familiar and pleasantly unpredictable.

The casting is a work of genius. All the main characters are portrayed in a manner that's true to the original but the prequel setting means their roles and relationships aren't fully formed, allowing plenty of room for development. Zachary Quinto is superb as Spock and Chris Pine captures the cavalier attitude of Kirk in the days before he needed a corset.

There are plenty of references to the original TV series but a deep knowledge of Trek lore isn't required to appreciate them (although anyone who has never heard of Captain Kirk before might struggle to keep up in places). The only real issue with the film is the slightly ropey plot which almost falls apart two-thirds of the way through thanks to ten minutes which combine stupendous coincidence, dodgy physics and the magical use of a transporter, stretching plausibility further than even the lightning pace can entirely paper over.

Then again, maybe that's just another homage to the source material...

If you've ever enjoyed Star Trek, go and see this.

Conclusion: I didn't actually applaud when the film ended but if someone else had started, I'd have totally joined in...

Explosions: Lots.
Nostalgia: Plenty.
Memorable moments and lines: Loads.
Dubious Scottish accents: None. (Surprisingly.)
People who won't like this movie: Big fans of Patrick Stewart, dubious beards, Holodecks and freshly vacuumed carpet.

Rating: 5/5.

Labels: film review, sci-fi

 
Agree? Disagree? Got a question? Add your comment here.

11:00 AM - Permanent Link - 0 comments - Post comment - Links to this post

  Transporter 3 (DVD)

Starring: Jason Statham and Natalya Rudakova's freckles.

Rated: 15.

Story: Bad guys have kidnapped the daughter of a Ukrainian government minister in an effort to force him to sign contracts with an evil corporation that wants somewhere to dump its bubbling, green toxic waste. For some reason, they decide it's necessary to drag Frank Martin (Statham) out of retirement to ferry the girl about. Since he's no longer in the business of transporting dubious goods, they force him to cooperate by giving him an explosive bracelet set to detonate if he goes more than 75 feet from his car.

(Obviously, you're not so much going to have to suspend your disbelief for this one, as staple it to the ceiling...)

Comments: I guess alarm bells should have started ringing in my head about dodgy sequels involving Jason Statham as soon as I saw the trailer on the DVD for Crank 2. I mean, what? That's like a sequel to Titanic. It's simply daft.

Nevertheless, I was quite looking forward to Transporter 3. The first installment in the Transporter franchise is an all right action flick and the second is a completely mental succession of fights and stunts that roars along without taking itself too seriously. Sadly, number 3 is an uncomfortable mix of elements from both of them. The plot is as stUpid as number 2 but everything plods along at the pace of number 1. The laws of physics are regularly broken but to no great spectacle. Nothing makes sense. It's all something of a mess.

Even the whole premise of the series has changed. Frank has gone from villain to hero, and his three rules for pulling off a successful job are out the window. They're now enforced about as regularly as the Prime Directive, seemingly only there for other people to remind him he's breaking them. Transporter 4 probably won't even have a car in it.

Ho hum.

The movie isn't a complete disaster, since there are a few laughs and a couple of interesting stunt sequences. If you like action films, you'll find it enjoyable enough while lying on the sofa with a beer after a hard day with the kids. It just lacks both plausibility and style, making it for genre fans only.

Conclusion: It's hard to create an action film which is coherent, meaningful and spectacular. Making one which is none of these things seems pretty easy, though...

Explosions: Fewer than the number of conversations the main characters have about what they would like for lunch.
Frequency of Jason Statham finding a reason to take his shirt off: High.
Ludicrous moments: Several.
Number of handguns held by the two primary characters between them in the entire film: Zero.
Number of handguns held by the two primary characters between them in the main promotional image: Four.
Chances of Crank 2 being any good: Slim.

Rating: 3/5.

Labels: action, film review

 
Agree? Disagree? Got a question? Add your comment here.

9:30 AM - Permanent Link - 0 comments - Post comment - Links to this post