Avatar 3D (2009)

--** This blog has moved to www.averagefilmreviews.com, so if you like what you read then please come over and have a look! You can read all the old reviews over there including this one for Avatar. You can of course continue reading this article here though. **--


There is only one film worth seeing in the cinema this week. Avatar. Well, if we are to believe the hype anyway.

Personally, I had been rather apprehensive about this whole Avatar business. I can't remember the last time a film promised so much (well... maybe Snakes on a Plane but that was really a different kind of promise). It's been 12 years since James Cameron made a feature film... 12 years is a long time. Of course that film was the highest grossing movie of all time ($1.8 billion worldwide, just so you don't have to look it up)... but then again, not everyone looks back kindly on Titanic. I actually liked and still like Titanic, but the idea of Titanic in space with a load of blue monkeys? Uh... I just wasn't so sure about that. And of course Cameron also directed Terminator, Aliens and True Lies. All great films but I just don't know how this all fits together.. what kind of films does James Cameron do? What kind of film was Avatar going to be? And there's so much riding on Avatar - Cameron's reputation of course, but the way it's being sold, the future of 3D cinema as well. This film is supposed to push 3D out of kids films and horror and into the mainstream. It was too much, too puzzling, I just couldn't get behind this film wholehartedly.

I'm almost hesitant to tell you what I thought of it. I think you'd be better off if you go see it yourself first. Stop reading now if you haven't seen it... or read on if you've seen it, or if you prefer to hearing other people's opinions before you see a film... it's up to you, just don't say I didn't warn you, but I do think it's one that you might want to keep your ears and eyes closed about it beforehand.

If you are still reading on then I think Avatar is going to be a bit of a divisive one, particularly because I think there's a chance it'll draw in more than a few people who don't watch movies a lot... I hope it does anyway. Which is not to say that I think people who don't watch movies a lot will particularly love it or hate it. Some will and some won't. I just mean that there'll be more people talking about it than your average genre film. For example, I doubt My Bloody Valentine was particularly divisive. Not many people who don't like horror would go to see such an obvious horror/slasher film so it's not like there'd be many arguments about it. Avatar on the other hand is being sold very wide, wider than I think the genre/s fit. I'm not sure exactly what genre it is but it's definitely being sold outside it.

Mind you, the genre is irrelevent in a way... I think everyone should see this film. Not everyone will like it but I definitely think everyone should see it. There will be people out there who just aren't going to buy into the big blue aliens. There'll be other people who just don't like sci-fi. There'll be sci-fi fans who aren't happy because it's not sci-fi enough... that doesn't matter. The fact is, it looks amazing... let me say it again, AMAZING. I could go on with a few more superlative adjectives but it's not worth it, you'll just think I sound nuts. Amazing I tells ya. You just have to go see it. It is worth it.... Even if your brain hates it your eyes will enjoy the feast. I liked the 3D in it too. It was used very effectively, there were a few "coming out of the screen at you" moments but a lot of it was giving depth to scenes, just making things look more realistic. It was different from the other 3D I've seen. Then again, it's a very different film from the other 3D films out there.

Will it revolutionise cinema though? I don't know. First of all, I don't how much this kind of thing costs and let's face it, big budget film making is all about the money. But also I don't know how well it would work with other films. I can see it with the big summer blockbusters, certainly Transformers and Star Trek would benefit from it but I still don't think that it's worth it in every case. I guess it really depends on the maths...

In general though, it's not a great film, it's a good film but not a great one. Or at least I wouldn't put it up there with the rest of Cameron's work. I think in another review, I mentioned that I don't particularly watch individual films in the context of a director's overall work. And that's true. But in this case it's easier to reference his because... well... I'm just finding it difficult to find a genre to review it in. It's not really a sci-fi film. Sure, it's in space and there's aliens all over the place, but it's really just a normal drama set against the backdrop of an alien planet. But, you couldn't compared it to something like... I dunno, Almost Famous or something. I was very much reminded of The Lord of the Rings trilogy watching it. It truly is an epic film. Cameron has created a whole world for us, so I can't say it wasn't great because it was a bit of a corny love story. It's like saying The Lord of the Rings films are just three films about a very long walk. That's just bollocks.

Ok anyway, this film has really got me waffling. Let's get down to it. Avatar is a good film but it's a bit mainstream for my taste. It's not really entirely a straight up love story like Titanic but it's more than half way there. The pacing is reasonable but it's slightly long (about 2 hours 40 mins) and I found the music more than a little annoying (it's comments like that that are the reason you should watch a film before reading the reviews - now when you watch it you might be listening out for the music and this isn't a film where you should be worrying about the music... but anyway...). That said, it's not like the music spoiled it for me, it was just annoying. Characterwise, it's ok. I wouldn't say they are well developed but it's not that kind of film so it doesn't matter. Acting is fine, a bit shaky in places and the best actors probably aren't on screen for long enough - I'm pointing at Sigourney Weaver and Giovanni Ribisi here - but there's nothing painful or shocking about it. The plot is predictable... but again, that's just the type of film it is. Some films are predictable, it's not a bad thing, it's just a thing. It's not awful though, it's engaging enough and generally sustains itself across the 160 minutes or so.

All these complaints aside though it's still a good film. In fact it's almost a great film. I found myself immersed in this alien world and if a film can do that then it can't be bad. It is thanks in no small part to the visual effects but also it's pretty much a full realised world. The Na'vi are a distinct culture and they are a believable culture in my eyes given the world they inhabit.

Anyway I do urge you to go and see it if you haven't already. It does look AMAZING and yes, it is worth it just for that. And do spend the money on seeing it in 3D. This kind of work deserves to be seen the way it was designed to be seen. Just don't expect too much from the story. In that respect it's competent but it's not worthy of those superlative adjectives I didn't use to describe the visual effects.


8.5/10

Share

2012 (2009)

--** This blog has moved to www.averagefilmreviews.com, so if you like what you read then please come over and have a look! You can read all the old reviews over there including the one below for 2012. You can of course continue reading this article here though. **--


I haven't actually seen many Roland Emmerich movies... well ok, looking through his IMDb I've seen Stargate, Independence Day and 10,000BC but I didn't know he did Stargate so... anyway... The point is I haven't seen The Day After Tomorrow. Though, I've seen bits of here and there and it looks an awful lot like 2012. I guess he has a type, he goes for a epic story... and he has a slight fondness for the epic disaster. That's cool, I like a good epic film as much as the next person. I haven't actually seen that many disaster movies though and they're not know for being great films though so I didn't want to expect to much out of this one.

Then again, I loved Armageddon; and Independence Day; and Deep Impact... So maybe I never really had anything to worry about with 2012. It's a big, silly, cheesy, funny epic disaster movie. I laughed a lot, I might even have shed a little tear or two; what more do you want! It is as cheesy as quattro formaggi pizza, but like Armageddon, you just have to go with it, this isn't high art here...

The best thing about it really are the action sequences, when things start exploding and flying through the air you kind of forget that they had just spent half an hour or so trying to tell you when and why this was going to happen. It doesn't matter anyway. Though, for what it's worth, the plot exposition at the start wasn't particularly painful. It was kind of interesting. Looking back though, I couldn't really tell you what excuse they gave for this particular armageddon... it had something to do with solar flares, mutant neutrinos and bubbling magma (I don't think they actually used the word magma though. That might involve having a character explaining what magma is). Anyway whatever, like I said, it doesn't matter at all. All that matters is that it leads to some amazing, fantastic special effects sequences. I saw this in one of the biggest cinema screens in Ireland and I wished it was bigger, and louder. I guess I should have just sat closer...

In case you don't know, 2012 actually has a great cast as well. John Cusack, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Thandie Newton, Oliver Platt, Woody Harrelson and Danny Glover, all great actors who perform ably in this. Woody Harrelson in particular is excellent. In fact I do think that with a lesser cast this could have been awful. As it is, it gets away with it. I'm sure it wasn't a particularly taxing role for any of them but a script like that requires some skill to not make it not sound horrific...

Let me make this clear though. This is not a good film. Don't blame me if you go see it and you think it's the stupidest film you've ever seen. I never said it wasn't stupid. The stuff that happens in it is actually outrageous. Really ridiculous. But it's also an enjoyable, hilarious film and honestly, I've never seen the likes of those effects before. Well, not on that kind of scale. I mean really, they're amazing. Amazing and funny. I do recommend that if you don't mind your movies served with cheese you should go see this. See it now.

8/10

Oh actually, I do have one criticism. At 158 mins it is a bit long. I was fine because I knew it was going to be long but I know some won't be up for that. They could have shaved 15-20 mins off it easy. We don't really need the monk stuff, and the boat stuff is a bit unnecessary. Ok, it was a bit emotional and I like that but there was already plenty of space for that kind of thing with the rest of the characters. So that's the reason it's getting an 8 not a 9 or 10.

Share

The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus (2009)

--** This blog has moved to www.averagefilmreviews.com, so if you like what you read then please come over and have a look! You can read all the old reviews over there including the one below for The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus. You can, of course, continue reading this article here though. **--


Looking over Terry Gilliam's filmography on IMDb, I notice that I've actually seen 9 of his 14 films... so you'd think I'd have an idea by now of what to expect. But the fact is that you just can't know what to expect with him. Except that it's going to be odd.

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus is odd. To be honest, I don't know if I liked it. It was interesting but it wasn't particularly satisfying. It looked good but I don't know... I thought it would look amazing, that it would be set in this fantastical whimsical land and it wasn't. But at the same time I don't know why I really expected that... jumping to conclusions... I guess the word Imaginarium conjures up, for me, a carnival kind of atmosphere and that's kind of backdrop we'd have on the story. But it wasn't. Which is fine, it just wasn't what I expected.

What it was, was a loose modern-day old style cautionary tale. Or at least that's the best way I can describe it. My problem with it was that the story was... clouded. Or not clouded enough, they could have gone either way and like so many films, they just didn't really decide which way to go. I suppose my opinion has to come in here as well... I like a good reveal and it kept looking like there was going to be one but in the end it was split. There was a reveal but there was a drip feed as well and I just don't know if the timing really worked. There wasn't really that convergence that you need with if you're doing both.

There is, of course, the inevitable question. How much of an effect did Heath Ledger's death have on the film? I don't think the effect is particularly apparent but how can I know? Terry Gilliam's films are such personal works that it's hard to imagine that it wasn't affected in some way. I do think the transitions are seamless though, Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Colin Farrell can be proud of their work. They really do uphold Heath Ledger's legacy, they completed his last work while in no way treading on it. The faces changed but the character continued on.

Quick mentions as well, I thought Lily Cole was very good. I look forward to seeing her in more films. Andrew Garfield (who played Anton) on the other hand was crap, he almost spoiled the film on the me to be honest. What surprises me is that I've read other reviews where people really like him. I don't know why he was in the film at all... either get a better actor to bump up the character or write a role for him that is *ahem* better suited to his talent. Actually it's annoying me thinking about him... I'll forget him now.

So, what more can I say? It's a strange film. I would recommend it because I definitely think it's worth a watch, it's extremely imaginative... In fact the more I think about it the more I liked it, maybe I should watch it again. But the problem remains, I just didn't think it was that fulfilling... though it did remind me... if you play with fire...

7.5/10

N.B. You know what, I'm not actually sure what the Imaginarium was in the end... was it the mirror, the show or the imagining?

Share

Whiteout (2009)

Tuesday night and myself and a friend thought we'd go to the cinema. We had been trying to go the The September Issue but it was on too late and the only thing that looked good that we hadn't see was District 9... but I had promised a mate I would see that with them... so... Whiteout was the compromise.

I didn't know much about this film going in. In fact, up until the Monday I thought it was about vampires. Look, Kate Beckinsale is in it and it looked a lot like 30 Days of Night. Anyway it turns out the film has nothing to do with vampire at all. Once I got over that it was more interesting... I did not like 30 Days of Night

The premise is that Kate Beckinsale is a US Marshal who's based in a research station on the South Pole. A quiet job for a troubled cop. We pick up just before the station plans to pack up and head north for the winter. Just before they go, a murder takes place... I'm sure you get the idea.

To be honest, it's a pretty predictable film, they throw in a couple of extra plot details here and there but they really extraneous. More than a few ridiculous things happen along the way though and it can be fun to say things like "WHAT?" and "WHY??" when you're watching a film. The performances are bog standard, Ms. Beckinsale looks great as usual but no-one stands out really. You might spend a little while going "Who's that guy again?" - it's Tom Skerritt. I'm not sure where I know him from... I think it might have been Picket Fences

There really is no reason to watch this film other than the bask in the beauty of the landscape. That's not a bad reason though. I gather it was mostly filmed in Canada so I don't know how much is CGI and how much is real tundra but it doesn't really matter. It does look stunning.

Should you see? Probably not, but if you're in the mood for an almost half decent thriller and there's nothing else you want to see, then you may as well. It's harmless, there are a few good tense scenes and you shouldn't be too angry at the end as long as you're not expecting too much.

6.5/10

noSPicedhAM just reminded me about the completely random shower scene... I'd forgotten myself but for those who are interested then considered yourselves notified! That could be reason alone to go and see it...

(500) Days of Summer (2009)

Saw this one courtesy of Phantom 105.2 Thanks guys!

(500) Days of Summer is essentially a love story. I know it says it isn't, but it is. It may be a quirky indie love story, but it's still a love story. I wouldn't let that put you off though; that is, if you are the kind of person who is put off by love stories. Personally I'm not but off by the idea but that's because I like a good weepy film... this isn't actually one of those but it still has plenty to recommend it.

First up is Joeeph Gordon-Levitt; who I suspect will be known as "that kid from 3rd Rock from the Sun" long after the kids who've never heard of 3rd Rock from the Sun grow up. I'd like it if he were known as "that guy from Brick" but that's not going to happen. Brick, by the way, is a great film but to be honest, it's not for everyone...

Anyway... the last film I saw with Mr. Gordon-Levitt was Stop-Loss. I thought he could have done better in that one, it was ok but it was no great shakes, fortunately that isn't the case with this one. I do think he puts on a strong performance as the lead in this, he's likeable as Tom Hansen and not too whiny, which could have been a risk with another actor in this part.

Zooey Deschanel performs ably in her role as well. Summer Finn not as well-developed a character - it wouldn't be, since the story is told through Tom's eyes really - but with a weaker actress it would have been easy for the character to just hang there as a cold bitch and I don't think this was the case.

The supporting characters all worked for me too... in particular there was a line from Matthew Gray Gubler's character that I really liked. I won't quote it here but if you can guess which one is was (I think it's obvious anyway) then comment, I'm just wondering if it stood out to other people as well...

The only problem with me saying that I liked the characters is that (500) Days of Summer is undoubtedly one of those films which will be seen differently through different eyes. It's about a relationship and everyone's lives are coloured by different relationships, good, bad and indifferent. I can't imagine it will be possible for anyone to watch this without relating to it somehow, even if the feeling is a thanks that you're not anything like any of them.

Through my eyes it was a cute story about a mis-matching of emotions, an amusing look at a modern relationship. I liked how it was all told in a very genuine way, after all, it's a story that's been played out a thousand times in real life and on the silver screen and for once it was nice to see the two tellings match. Funnily enough I found myself wishing that Tom was someone I knew, just so I could give him advice like all the other characters... but then again that might just be because I'm nosy.

So, (500) Days of Summer is definitely a film worth seeing if you're in the mood for that kind of thing; but it really is a film you have to be in the mood for. If you fancy seeing The Final Destination or Inglourious Basterds then don't go see this just because they're sold out... on the other hand if you were thinking about The Time Traveller's Wife then this might be a good alternative.

8/10 - but like I said on twitter, I'd like to see it again to be sure it wasn't too clichéd. I'm not sure I was entirely focused on it and I'd like to have been, who knows? Maybe it was better than 8/10...

Inglourious Basterds (2009)

There's only really two directors that I would say I'm a big fan of, Michel Gondry and Wes Anderson, in case you were wondering... but I do admire the films of Quentin Tarantino. They're always so stylish, so cool. I met him briefly once at a signing in HMV Dublin and he was just as cool as I expected, security were keeping us all moving but I'm sure if he could he would have had a chat with all of us.

But like I said, I wouldn't describe myself as a big fan. I haven't exactly enjoyed all of this films. They're all classy and they're all... cool but I didn't really like Reservoir Dogs or Kill Bill: Vol. 2 that much and to be honest... and I know this is some kind of blasphemy to some, but I wasn't that pushed on Pulp Fiction either. Parts of it were good... I should point out that I only saw it a few years ago, so long after I'd heard a lot of hype about it, and I thought the same thing as I did after I saw Taxi Driver; is that what all the fuss was about?

Anyway, this isn't a review of QT, it's a review of Inglourious Basterds, so I should really get on with it.

I knew going into Inglourious Basterds that it's a long enough film, this theatrical release is 153 minutes long. I know it's a thing that might put people off and I think that's important to know from the outset. Personally I don't mind relatively long run times, as long as I know in advance. In fact I check how long all films are before I watch them. It saves me the annoyance of thinking a film is over when it isn't; in the past this had spoiled my enjoyment of a film... not any more. I recommend this tactic. So now you know how long it is, don't complain if your bum gets sore or you have to go to the toilet. Drink less and go to a comfortable cinema. Actually, these days 153 mins isn't even that long... so perhaps I didn't even need to mention. But now you know.

None of this tells you about the film though and to be honest I think you're better off not know much about it. It's a lot more interesting plotwise than I thought it would be. I guess I'd forgotten that behind all the talking and all the style, QT always holds his films up with a strong plot. (I haven't seen Death Proof though, despite having a signed book of the script, so don't go moaning at me if it doesn't have a plot). QT keeps the action in bitesized chunks and it makes the length easier to... digest as it were.

So finally, what did I think of this one? I thought it was a good romp, great fun and it futher reinforced my belief that Brad Pitt absolutely deserves an Oscar. I've thought that since 1996 though... but he is just so funny in this, if I hadn't seen 12 Monkeys or Fight Club I would have said he should just do comedies. Not that Inglourious Basterds is a comedy. Nor is it a war movie. It's kind of a thriller, action, drama with some funny parts. QT has done a great job of melding together the different genres and balancing them so it holds your interest. It's worth mentioning Christoph Waltz too, well cast.

It's not really like any other movie I've seen recently so I don't know how to recommend it really. Obviously if you're a Tarantino fan you should see but if you're not... then I guess it really depends on the kind of films you like. I wouldn't say that it's a big crowd pleaser. I thought it was brilliant but I just don't know how other people will experience it. Course it could be one of those films that captures the imagination and everybody loves. Certainly I didn't hear anyone complaining as I was leaving the cinema and I always listen around on the way out. On balance I think I should recommend it to everyone... but just don't go in with any particular expectations.

The thing about QT is that I don't really think his films have a definite signature. I mean ok, some people say his storytelling is his signature, or his reference to pop culture, or his use of music... but the fact is, you can't have three signatures, certainly not if you don't use all of them in all your films... He's not like Wes Anderson or Michel Gondry, who both have a definite visual style. It's not a bad thing that he doesn't but it just makes it hard for me to be sure about him. That's why, even though I really loved Jackie Brown, Kill Bill: Vol. 1 and a number of other films he was involved in - (though not Hostel, let me make that clear... not Hostel) - I'm just not sure if I love QT. This film's taken him one step closer though. I'm not entirely convinced that it's a masterpiece but it's definitely one of the best films I've seen this year, it's a film that I'd be happy to watch again.

Oh, also, it's not particularly gruesome or violent but if you are squeamish you might need to look away once or twice. It really mainly plot and dialogue driven.

8.5/10

An afterthought: I had a look at a couple of negative reviews and I must say, I just don't see why some people are criticising it because it doesn't accurately portray WWII or the different sides of the war. I really don't get it. It's a film, a work of fiction. Ok, it takes one idea from reality, but that doesn't mean it then has some obligation to be a documentary. It's not even particularly about the war, it's just set during the war. You could have made this films about an epic struggle between cats and dogs if you wanted to. Actually....

Antichrist (2009)

At this stage any film reviewer worth their salt has seen Lars von Trier's latest film, Antichrist. The controversy that ensued after its screening at Cannes meant that it was top of my list of "must see" arthouse films this year.

I know this is a bit pretentious and all and maybe slightly disqualifies me from the monikor "average" but what can I say? I like making up my own mind about films and if I didn't see this one then I'd never know what the other reviewers were talking about. Well, ok, I don't actually have a list of "must see" arthouse films, just "must see" films, but I wanted to make it clear from the outset that Antichrist is an Arthouse film with a capital A.

As I'm sure I've mentioned before, I only read other reviews after I've seen the film and in other reviews I keep seeing mention of Saw and Hostel. I can only assume that some of these people haven't seen any of these films. First of all, they are completely different from each other and second, they are worlds away from Antichrist. Seriously I don't know where they get this stuff. And as a word of warning to horror fans, if you want to see a film like Saw or Hostel don't watch Antichrist. This is not a horror film, but it is a film about horror.

There's no point in me talking about what other people thought of it though. I hope by now you're reading because you want to know my opinion... and in my opinion, this is a really good film. Now ok, we're talking about a certain type. This is not a film to watch for a relaxing Friday night, like I said, this is Arthouse and if you're going to watch it then you have to be in the mood for it. But if you are in the mood for a good think, it's well worth a watch.

On a basic level it's an interesting exploration of the structure of a relationship, how this particular couple interacts following a tragic event. I suppose you can gather from this that it is not a plot driven film. It's driven by studying character and emotion, or lack there of. It's also a stunning piece of cinematography, it is a beautiful looking film. I did think at times it was slightly unsubtle in its use of that whole "enviroment reflecting the state of mind" device... but then again, I do think it can work so don't take that as a strong criticism. In terms of acting, Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg both perform ably in what I do think were very difficult roles. I'm certain that this all could have gone horribly wrong with less gifted actors. I don't know if the performances were sustained throughout the film, but still, given the focus on them (they are the only two characters in the film), it was excellent work.

I have to reference a couple of films here - Irréversible and In The Bedroom. I know I'm straying away from the "average film review" ethos here but hey, sometimes a film demands it. Also I wouldn't recommend Antichrist to anyone looking for an average film so I'm saying it's ok to talk about films that the average person may not be familiar with. You can leave me a comment if you disapprove ;-)

But anyway Irréversible and In The Bedroom. I thought of both of them while watching Antichrist. Now I hated Irréversible, I thought it was pretentious, overwrought, self absorbed crap. I really thought it showcased a lot of what makes arthouse films so inaccessible to the general public and for that reason it really galled me. I liked the idea but the execution was sh!t. The reason I was thinking about it though, was that it caused the same kind of controversy on its release and it wasn't worthy of it either. In The Bedroom, on the other hand, is excellent film. It has the same kind of undercurrent as Antichrist, they both make you feel slightly voyeuristic, like you're watching a situation that you have no right to see. If you haven't seen In The Bedroom and you like Antichrist you should definitely watch it. Though I should be clear, they're not similar at all. If anything they are contrasting ways of making a film about a similar subject.

There's been a lot of talk about misogyny and many reviews I've read seem intent on judging Antichrist on Lars von Trier's body of work rather than just looking at this one film. I suppose that's personal preference. I would never judge a directors work based on another film just because it's their film. If there's some link in the stories or if it's a sequel then that's different but personally I think every film stands on its own. Ok, there is such thing as context but I believe that when a director puts a film out there it is there to be personally interpreted by the viewer. Who directed it isn't important, it's the film itself that we watch and hopefully enjoy, why should who directed it and what films he or she has directed before play any part in our viewing? For the record, I didn't think it was particularly misogynistic. I do think it's open to be interpreted in different ways and if that's the way one chooses to interpret it well... as always, how you view a film is up to you.

I've digressed again so I'll finish off... Antichrist is a film that you can read a lot in to, or nothing in to and everything in between. It's interesting like that.

8.5/10

Moon (2009)

Moon is a sci-fi film conceived and directed by Duncan Jones. It stars Sam Rockwell as the sole inhabitant of a moon base that serves as the operational centre for a team of helium-3 harvesters.

I started this review in this conventional manner as, in many ways, this is a very conventional film. I hadn't heard much about this film except that it's been widely hailed as a return to classic '70s hard sci-fi. I suppose it is classic sci-fi, but personally I don't think hard sci-fi has gone anywhere... last I checked it was alive and well in films like WALL·E, Sunshine and Children of Men. But that's not a criticism of the film, more a criticism of the publicity... and the publicity is relevant, it colours your view of a film just as much as mood or the company you see it in... I try not the let these things affect how I see a film but the fact is, it's impossible.

There was nothing particularly wrong with this film. I enjoyed it really, as I enjoy most of the films I see, especially sci-fi. But then again I didn't feel there was anything in this film that I hadn't seen before. Themes of isolation and abandonment are abound in fiction and this film reminded of quite a few other films I've seen... and I should point out that I haven't seen 2001: a space odyssey or Solaris, the two which a lot of people are referencing in the context of this film.

It was a nice, self-contained, interesting piece of sci-fi story-telling but I can't help wishing that it was a little bit more. It could have been a longer film, or it could have been a good book; I don't know, it was too removed, too tidy, I just didn't feel involved, there was no sense of introspection - which is what I would expect from classic science fiction. I expect to read or watch classic hard sci-fi and think "What would I do?" or "Could we , actually get to that situtation?", this film didn't leave me with any of that. Sure, technically you could ask yourself those questions about Moon, but it didn't bring me to that point and that's what I was looking for.

I tend to criticise then try to find some nice things to say in my reviews, so why break a tradition? This was a good film and Sam Rockwell puts on a great performance. It's an engaging enough story and it's worth seeing if you like classic sci-fi - along the lines of Issac Asimov and Philip K. Dick I mean, as opposed to say, The Terminator or Star Wars.

7/10

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)

It's been said before but I'll say it again, Harry Potter is a phenomenon, both literary and cinematic. In terms of Irish box office, all of the films so far have been in the top 5 of their year... and this is a country where The Hangover is currently #1 for the year.

I actually don't know if I've seen all the films but I do know that I read 5.5 of the books. I only got about half way through this particular book. I had enjoyed them but after the behemoth that was Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix I just couldn't face another one. I really just thought that HPATOOTP was crying out for a good editor and I couldn't read another one thinking the same thing. That said, I did know what happens in the end of Half-Blood Prince, a wikipedia vandal spoiled that one for me!

Personally, while I do think it's a brillant story, I haven't been that pushed on going to the films. They have been so close to the books that you don't really need to see them, they are pretty much exactly as you imagine them so what's the point. I'll probably go along and see the next two though, just because I never got around to reading the last book. So it was with a certain lack of anticipation that I went along to the Savoy to see it at the Irish première...

... and about 3 hours later (there was a delay) I walked out thinking ok, that was how I imagined it. Which is not to say that I didn't enjoy it but it seem a bit like... ok.

I really did enjoy it though, I thought it looked brillant and I really like how it was that bit darker. It was well balanced but if I had to criticise I'd say that it almost swept over things too quick... I'm not sure how, since it was 2 and a half hours long... but it did.

My word of warning would be that it is not a stand alone film. Harry Potter is absolutely a series and if you haven't read the books or seen all the other films, then there really is no point in going. It will not make sense. I think that's fair enough but I do wonder now if film really was the way to go... given how rushed some part of this one felt, and how they are splitting the last book into two films, perhaps they should have just made it a TV series spanning a few seasons?

Anyway I don't have that much to say by way of critque to be honest! It was exactly what it said on the tin, the actors were the same as they've always been (ok, not amazing), as were the effects (excellent), and the score (suitably dramatic) so as it was a good story well told, I gave it an 8/10 on twitter. On further reflection I'm going to downgrade that to a 7.5, I'm taking that half a point off as it felt a bit like a placeholder film really...

7.5/10

Star Trek (2009)

I saw this about a week an half before it came out... What would have been useful for people would have been if I reviewed it then. Unfortunately I'm pretty lazy... but at least you're getting it eventually, right?? On with the show.

This Star Trek is actually the 11th film in the franchise, this is of course in addition to the 5 TV series and various video games associated with it. In case you never realised, Star Trek is kind of a big deal.

Marketing types would have you believe that J.J. Abrams is kind of a big deal too. Personally I could take or leave... well, mostly leave, all of his TV ventures and I had pretty much written him off. Then I saw Cloverfield. To my surprise, I really liked Cloverfield. Even now I still think about it - no mean feat for a popcorn movie. Mind you, sometimes what I think about it is how it made me feel so terribly ill... but sure, at least I'm thinking about it. So when I heard that J.J. was doing the new Star Trek film I was... curious. I'd have watched a lot of Star Trek on TV over the years but the only ST film I really liked was Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. They just never looked that interesting... but a J.J. Abrams one? Well ok.

So it was with these things in mind that I went along to the blue carpet premiere in Dublin. I mention this because one of the things I've noticed is that a movie always seems better when it's free. Also, when you see it with 700 or so other people who are also seeing it for free, that makes it better too. So anyway, sat down in the theatre, Rick O'Shea said hi and had a chat with a dressed up Trekker, they gave out some prizes. Stage set. But was this going to turn out like Indiana Jones? I mean I liked Indiana Jones but I know a lot of people were annoyed about it.

Opening scene. Awesome. And I don't use that word often. Though I will say, I did think the Romulan ship looked a bit like the Shadow ships in Babylon 5. Not that it matters, I'm just saying in case anyone else thought the same - did you? Anyway, a great start to a great film. Star Trek (11) is a success in many different ways; it has an interesting plot, it makes good use of the main characters, it's appropriately funny, there are some great action scenes, my favourite Star Trek character is well represented (and that is important - to me as it will be to many people, albeit they may have different favourites - like I said, Star Trek is kind of a big deal.), the effects are great... what more do you want?

I've heard some people saying the plot is a bit confusing, I didn't think it was but to be honest, it hardly matters at all. This film is just a great ride. Now's probably a good time to mention Chris Pine. That man is going to be all over the place soon. Right now, I would watch him in anything and I'd say I'm not the only one. Leaving Mr. Pine aside, everyone else is strong as well. I had been worried about how Simon Pegg was going to fit into a Hollywood blockbuster. It turns out he fitted in just fine. I could go on but tbh just take it that I recommend this film to anyone who's interested in eating a load of popcorn and seeing an excellent summer(ish) blockbuster film. It's great.

If you don't want to eat a load of popcorn, or even see an excellent summer(ish) blockbuster film, then don't go to Star Trek. I'm a great believer in people watching films that work for them. Just because I say it's a great film doesn't mean everyone should watch. Just like not everyone should watch the fantastic film, Crank. Watch films that you feel you will appreciate. If you absolutely hate sci-fi or you want a film that you can think about, don't go see Star Trek and moan about how everyone was saying it was great but you didn't like it. It wasn't made for you. If you don't mind sci-fi and you just want to be entertain then definitely, go and see it. Go and see it now.

I'm starting to realise that this is a very long review but I still feel the need to ramble a little while longer... I just wanted to make something utterly clear. While I think this was a highly entertaining film, it'll never be a cult classic for me. It's great fun, it'll make stars out of some of the cast and undoubtedly it will rejuvenate the Star Trek franchise... but at the heart of it, it's candy. There's no meat to it, there's no real emotion, there's nothing beyond the sparkle it'll put in your eye for those couple of hours. I had a great time at the premiere but after, I went home to the real world. The old Star Trek had its roots there.

9/10

The Damned United (2009)

Ok... So I actually wrote most of this review last week but somehow it's all been deleted, very upsetting. Oh well, better just get on with it.

I like watching football, but I don't know all that much about some of the history of it. All I knew about Brian Clough was that he once punched a couple of fans who were invading the pitch. Later they apologised... So obviously he was a legend.

The Damned United is based on a controversial novel by David Peace. Well it's controversial in football circles anyway. It seems to be generally accepted that the events it described didn't exactly happen the way they do in the book. In fact David Peace was sued by former Leed Utd. and Irish international player Johnny Giles. Johnny won. I have to believe however, that the film-makers left any of the controversial bits out... the screen play was written by Peter Morgan, a writer who has already proved himself with a number of historial figures with both The Queen and Frost/Nixon. I liked both those films but I wasn't blown away by either of them. Still, I was looking forward to The Damned United, Cloughie sounded like an interesting subject.

Anyway I should probably start the review.

I thought there was a great balance in this film. It was an interesting portrait of a man who seemed both charming and arrogant. There's a good bit of football in it but it wasn't excessive, it didn't become boring at any point. I think that even if you're not into football at all there is still plenty to enjoy in the film.

Strong performances by all the cast, in particular Micheal Sheen, but Colm Meaney and Timothy Spall ably supported him. I still can't believe he's the same guy who was in Underworld all those years ago. Actually he was in Underworld this year as well. Some people like variety I guess.

Plotwise, it's a biography so it's pretty straight up. I found it interesting just because it was great to learn more about a person whose name I'd heard a lot about but never really knew anything about. Obviously it was a very small slice of his life and it's an unauthorised look at it at that. Still I thought it really managed to capture his character very well, or at least a character, and I'm just going to assume that it was the right one.

So on the whole I'm giving this film a good rating - 8/10 - but to be honest it's not that I would particularly recommended it in the sense that... It's a good solid film, interesting story, great performances, but maybe it's just not the kind of film that grabs my attention. There's nothing to ponder on, it's not... meaty, if you will. I'm glad I watched it though and if you're a fan of biopics then by all means go and see it, it's a good film.

8/10

Watchmen (2009)

I've been disgracefully lax of late. I've actually seen quite a few new films in the weeks since I reviewed My Bloody Valentine 3D. Well, new to me anyway. In case you're interested they were... The Wrestler, Frost/Nixon, Confessions of a Shopaholic, The Notebook, The Devil Wears Prada, Bolt 3D, Anvil! The Story of Anvil and Friday the 13th (the latest one). I haven't written reviews for any of them yet. I do intend to write reviews of some of them at some point... I'm just not sure when. In case you are wondering... The Notebook was the best of them (what can I say, I am a sap!) and Friday the 13th was the worst.

Anyway, this isn't a review of any of those films... the film I saw last night was Watchmen. For those of you who may not have heard, Watchmen is based on the Alan Moore comic book series of the same name. That series has been much lauded by critics... and indeed by everyone I know who's read it. Apparently it is quite the seminal work in comic books.

Sounds great but I haven't read it. I've nothing against comic books, I just haven't read it. When I heard the film was coming out I thought about picking it up, not least because it was staring prettily at me in every book shop I've been to in the last few months. In the end I didn't; I've heard that phrase "It's not as good as the book" said far too many times about films to risk ruining a film that looked like I could really enjoy it.

It would seem that I was right to avoid the book first. Quite a few reviews I have skimmed through mentioned that it's so caught up in looking like the comic that it misses what the comic was actually saying. Phew! Glad I didn't have to experience that disappointment. I really liked this film. Thought it was great. I suppose by not reading the comic I can take the themes and the story at face value. This makes for an interesting film, particularly compared to some of the crap I've seen recently (see list above. they weren't all crap though).

So we've established that I'm in the pro-Watchmen-the-film camp. That's not to say that I thought it was a brilliant film. I thought it looked great, that it was interesting story and in parts it was stunning... but it's a long film and I'd be lying if I said that every one of the 163 minutes was used to its full. It's patchy in parts, especially around the middle. In fact not many films that long avoid patchiness and sagging. It's also not to say that I think it should have been shorter. One of the things I hate is adaptations that insist on updating and abridging their source material, artifically transplanting in some modern day setting to make it "relevent". What a load of bollocks. If a story is relevent you don't to change its setting. Your audience should be able to draw their own parallels. Bah, sick of films that try to spoon feed you. Sorry, I got off the point there. I admire that Watchmen stayed true to its source material, even if it was to its alleged detriment. I'd rather watch a long somewhat flawed adaptation than a half assed cutdown version that bears scant resemblance to the original it's trying to update. Though... I'm not saying all adaptations are bad... I'm just saying that if you're out there saying that you're telling a certain story, you should tell the story.

I got well off track there. Right. Patchy, yes. Watchmen starts out great, the opening montage was really excellent, we're quickly brought up to speed with how this alternate timeline has progressed so far. To be honest this really is the best bit of the film.

As the film goes on it gets a little muddled in places. It's as those the scenes don't entirely flow together. This is probably the problem that those who've read the comics are talking about. I didn't find it that troubling but it did serve to... I suppose hold up the story telling. It's not that I thought it was disjointed or hard to follow. That's not the case. It was just kind of like things were being left unsaid but you couldn't tell what they were. I guess in a comic or a book you tend to fill in the blanks with your own emotions and interpretations, you read at your own pace according to what you're reading. With a film you're in a more receptive state. A film tells you its story on its terms and you process it afterwards. The best films stay with you, thinking about what you've experienced. Or maybe I'm just talking a load of shite but it seems to explain the gaps in this film to me. Or maybe Gilliam was right and it really should have been a mini-series. Perhaps 163 mins wasn't long enough to engage us with the situations and characters in Watchmen and that's why it felt patchy, they didn't have enough time to make us invest in the full story. Actually I'm sure Gilliam was right but I don't think it means that this was a bad film. Just not a brilliant film.

I want to quickly highlight a couple of the more jarring things. That great montage I mentioned does ominously forbode one of the things that Snyder should have stayed away from. While I enjoyed the songs, they were very obvious. A director shouldn't really get the soundtrack to tell us what's going on... that's that screen is for. It was annoying. Also there was a few scenes that could have been dealt with better, less could have been more. I gather they were fairly faithful recreations of scenes in the comic however what probably works as a series of panels in a comic don't necessarily work when you actually film the whole scene with those reference points.

I haven't really dwelt on what I liked in particular about the film because I liked in general really. Oh, I particularly liked the nod to Dr. Strangelove, I always like it when people reference Dr. Strangelove. And how can you not when you're telling this kind of story? Aside from that... the characters, the look, the story, all good... and all from the comic. I guess I'll like the comic when I read it.

Anyway this was a particularly long ramble so I'll finish up by saying it's well worth a look if you haven't read the comic. If you have I can't really tell you if it is or not though I would lean to saying you should. If only so that you get to see some beautiful images on screen. Oh, also I heard the end was completely different from the comic so I went and looked it up. Personally I don't think this new ending is any better or worse than the comic. Just different. I think it worked in the context of the film and I have to say that it is eminently more acceptable to the average cinemagoer. I wouldn't have minded myself but I think that a lot of people who'll never read it would have had a problem with the comic book end.

All's left to say is, that I still would have loved to see Terry Gilliam's mini-series version. Here's hoping.

8/10

NB: Now that I've written my own review I'm reading a few of other reviews out there. I've noticed a lot of critics referring to The Dark Knight and how The Dark Knight is vastly superior. Then I went back and noticed that I never wrote a review of it myself. If I had I would have said that it was ok, not great. Actually it would have been a lot like my review of Quantum of Solace. Though I would have given it a 8/10. I really don't understand the raving about it, I mean it was an entertaining couple of hours and Heath Ledger was outstanding but it doesn't make you think for more than about 5 minutes after it. It was tiring, obsessively realistic and it languished in bleak, gritty darkness, much like Batman himself. Watchmen didn't flow as well The Dark Knight and the acting wasn't of the same caliber but I enjoyed just as much if not more!

Slumdog Millionaire (2008)

The standees in Movies@Dundrum describe Slumdog Millionaire as the "The feel-good film of the decade"... so from the get go I'm worried; I'm not usually into "feel-good" films. Add to that the buzz about this film from the US... There's nothing wrong with good buzz... but about a "feel-good" film with no associated buzz about the script or the acting... what are the critics buzzing about exactly? Is this just some great PR machine at work? On the other hand this is a Danny Boyle film and imho Danny Boyle is on of the most interesting directors out there at the moment. So I cast aside my trepidation and decided to bask in the buzz. One ticket for the opening night please.

For those who don't know, Slumdog Millionaire is based on a novel called Q and A by Vikas Swarup. It's about a boy from the slums of Mumbai, Jamal (played by Dev Patel), who goes on the Indian version of Who Want To Be A Millionaire but is suspected of cheating when he reaches the last question; nobody believes that a kid from the slums could possibly do so well without help.

Is it a good film though? For the most part, yes. It is a good film... but it's not really a great film... That said, I really enjoyed it, it's practically impossible not to get caught up in the drama of the story. There's a reason Who Wants To Be A Millionaire is the most internationally popular TV franchise of all time.. the lights, the music, suspense of it all just draws you in. Danny Boyle is very successful in bring that suspense into the film, you need to know what happened to Jamal, how did he get to this point?

It's also a great looking film. The cinematography is brilliant, the slight over-saturation really works and there's some wonderful framing - excellent set pieces in the land and cityscapes. There's a vibrancy to the film that really sets off the story... It really reminds me of City of God. I'm sure I'm not the first nor will I be the last to say that...

Mentioning City of God brings us to the most important question though... City of God was one of the greatest films I've ever seen and it didn't win an Oscar. So is Slumdog Millionaire worthy of the hype? I'm not sure... I'm loath to say that it isn't because I think it's great that a film like this is being brought to a mass audience. I also think it's great for Danny Boyle and his co-director Loveleen Tandan that they are getting recognition for a great film. Danny Boyle should have been nominated for an Oscar for Trainspotting and 28 Days Later...!. Personally I can't say if this film is worthy of the Oscar, I haven't seen the competition so I can't really comment... but I can say that it's not without flaws.

I think the most glaring of them is that, in all the excitment, it's easy to miss that we don't actually know that much about the characters. There are glimpses at what drives them... but we don't actually know them outside what is relevant to the story. We don't know who they are, we just know what they've done. I would have liked to have seen more characterisation. Another is that I felt toward the end that we got a bit mixed in what matters... there's two threads in the story and as they both climax it doesn't quite manage to keep the momentum for both stories but it doesn't quite manage to merge them either... It might just be me but there wasn't the satisfaction in the end that I expected.

The last thing that bothered me about Slumdog Millionaire isn't really a flaw but I do think it stops it from being a really great film. I thought it was forgettable... and maybe that's the problem of the feel-good film. There was nothing there for me to think about afterwards. I like to walk out of a theatre thinking about what I've just experienced - I might be thinking "What would I have done?" or "How could that have happen?" or I might just be thinking "Wow, the effects in that film were incredible", it doesn't matter. What matters is that I'm thinking of it and in this case I wasn't.

So... how to rate it? I would have loved for this film to be a new classic... which is what the marketeers would have us believe... but I really don't think it is. I think it's a good story told well and that might be enough for it to win an Oscar but it's not enough for me.

8.5/10

The Spirit (2008)

I'd never really heard of The Spirit (the film or the comics) until I started seeing the tv ads about a week before it came out... I like the visual style and I'm interested in films of comic book stories but mostly what swung it was that it had Samuel L. Jackson in it. I'll watch anything with Samuel L. Jackson in it. So I booked the tickets.

I decided to go look it up a little before I saw it... it's very unusual for me to hear nothing about a film before it comes out particularly one that's an adaptation. I never read reviews before seeing a film but I'll cast my eye over IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes to get some idea of what I'm in for. The early signs weren't good (5.4 on IMDb and 15% on RT) but nothing will stop me seeing a film if I want to see it... I like to make up my own mind.

To be perfectly honest the critics aren't really wrong... there are lots of things to dislike about The Spirit. I mean seriously, it is terrible... in a way. The dialogue is awful and I don't where they found Gabriel Macht but they should put him back.

It's actually hard to describe what's bad about it because what's bad is what makes it great. My criticism of it is that some of the dialogue is repetitive, that always annoys me, and it stutters to start. It's completely outlandish but it takes a while to get to that point. It's as though Frank Miller started off thinking he'd make serious film noir then realised that there was no hope of that so chose to go careening off the rails.

Sure, it's annoying but I can't agree with what Rotten Tomatoes surmised from the critics - that it doesn't make sense and the characters are unmemorable. It has a very simple plot and the characters are all great fun. Ok, they're not characters in the sense they have no particular substance, they're more like interesting props. And they're all just so odd, it's great. Samuel L. Jackson is brilliant and for once I didn't find Scarlett Johansson annoying at all. To be honest herself and Eva Mendes weren't in it enough I would have liked to laugh at them a little longer. The one character we could have done without was Lorelei Rox (played by Jaime King) I don't know what was going on there. I can only assume it something from the comics that they felt they had to put in...

I can only thank Frank Miller for going off the rails on this, it is a great film. It is however, doomed to be a cult classic. There just aren't that many people out there are who are going to stick with all the madness and there are even less out there who'll appreciate it. Personally I've never seen so many people leave a theatre (that said, I rarely notice people leaving the cinema - I usually watch the film) and it's a pity because the film does deserve to be seen. At the very least it looks class.

Anyway I, for one, am glad I saw it.

8/10.

PS - I just had a look at the Roger Ebert review of this and he gave it one star. Which is fair enough, his accusations aren't unfounded, but... he's got the plot wrong. I don't know how someone can get the plot wrong - it's really very simple, you'd have to stop watching the film to get confused... so I gotta say, a little down in my estimation there...

Body of Lies (2008)

I was pleasantly surprised by Body of Lies. I really didn't expect to like it, it's just not my kind of film. I think I've mentioned before in the blog (actually just had a look and it was in the No Country For Old Men) - I like films that have to be a film. I want a film to be a story that I have to be shown rather than told. Body of Lies is not that kind of visual film. It's a story... and it's a war story, another genre I'm not particularly interested in... they always seem a little too worthy for me. Also I'm not a Russell Crowe fan at all... actually I'm fairly indifferent on Leonardo DiCaprio too. However, despite all this, I liked it.

Body of Lies is about a CIA operative in the Middle East and his boss back in the US. A major terrorism campaign is being carried out Europe and the operative (DiCaprio) is on a mission to find the man who's ordered it. That's pretty much the gist of it really. Various things happen along the way and now that I come to write about it there's little that stands out, not that I would - don't want to spoil it or anything.

One of the things I liked about this film was the ease in watching it. There were quite a few strands running through it, not in a Crash kind of way - just that there are a few different parties involved in Ferris's (DiCaprio) search, but it wasn't difficult to follow. Now it's not often I'd praise the fact that a film wasn't too taxing on the brain but too often I watch films similar to this and I get the feeling that director or whoever has removed scenes to make it a bit more mysterious. It's as though they sit down, watch a film through and think, "Oh no, if the audience isn't constantly confused they're not gonna think it's a smart film. Let's take some bits out and make it more of a puzzle!". What ends up happening is that you get a film where some scenes are missing their context. It's very annoying. Or maybe that's just a pet hate of mine. Anyway, Body of Lies is not like this, it all makes sense. Well... story-wise, I'm not gonna start making political statements here.

I also liked the look of the film, it had an interesting colour palette, good lighting. But it wasn't over-done, there's weren't too many arty shots (as I call them) that can sometimes get in the way of a story. And! and this is a big and now. AND, I didn't find Russell Crowe particularly irritating at all... while Leonardo DiCaprio was very good...

Overall I'd have to say that what I liked about this film what that there was a certain balance to it. Now I'm sure someone else might watch it and think that it's another wishy washy liberal anti-American rant. I didn't see it like that at all. I just watched it as a film and not a political commentary - you can read whatever you want into Body of Lies but I think that's more a reflection of oneself than the film. As far as I'm concerned, there were good performances, an interesting plot, it looked good and it was all wrapped up in a nice big bow in the end. It's an easy film but I enjoyed it anyway.

I should possibly mention though that on the negative side, some fairly unlikely things do happen and a lot of it does seem slightly exaggerated. Only slightly though and that's what I mean about the balance. Everyone's a bit exaggerated for effect but it doesn't really cause any harm. Also I wanted to mention that Mark Strong and his character were very good, the bit of levity was nice. Course I wonder if my saying that says more about me than the film...

7/10

Hunger (2008)

I didn't grow up in Ireland during "the troubles", I grew up in Asia but I am Irish... so I don't what you'll make of that but it's just to put the review in a bit of context.

I thought Hunger was an interesting film. I know very little about Bobby Sands, I know very little about Ireland in the '80s in general except that it wasn't a great time and that my family left here for a reason.

I have read all sorts of views on this film though, that's it's romanticising Sands, that it isn't, that it doesn't tell you anything about what was going on, that it's anti-British.... etc. At the end of the day Hunger is a film like any other. A film-maker makes a film then every Tom, Dick and Harry reviewer tries to tell you what the guy meant to say.... this being a review, I'm gonna tell you what I took from the film about what he was trying to say.

I don't think Steve McQueen was trying to say anything about the IRA or the British or the views of the hunger strikers. He was just trying to make what he felt was an accurate film about what happened when Bobby Sands starved himself to death. He showed us all sides of what went on - a prison guard just doing his job, a young member of the armed police force who couldn't face up to stress of what he had to do, a new prisoner who falls in line with what everyone else is doing, an assassin taking revenge for what he felt were good reason and yes... a young man called Bobby Sands who starves himself to death.

What he didn't show us is why any of these people are doing what they are doing or what they think of Bobby Sands. We don't know why the prison guard goes to work every day. We don't why that young police officer has been sent out to the prison to help with the cavity searches. We don't know why that assassin decides to take revenge, was he ordered to? Did he just do because he thought it was right? And we aren't told why Bobby Sands decided to starve himself. He discusses his choice with the priest but the priest is there to provide the alternative view to what Bobby is claiming and we don't know that the priest isn't right.

The title of the film is Hunger and that's what we see. It's not called Bobby Sands or The Hunger Strikers or The Troubles and it's not trying to tell us what to think of Maggie Thatcher or Bobby Sands or the IRA or Unionists. It just telling us that this is what happened. Make of it what you will.

8/10

Saw V (2008)

Another year, another Saw film. It's all good. Saw IV was in my top 5 for last year so I was really looking forward to this next installment in the franchise.

Saw V is the um... fifth film in the Saw series and I, for one, am glad that they didn't bother with all that messing around naming all the films in the series - there's no :Cruise Control here - that kind of thing has a tendency to turn your series into a joke. Of course, making terrible sequels also tends to turn your series into a joke. Fortunately the people behind the Saw franchise have also avoided that.

Saw V picks up approximately where Saw IV ends and in common with all the Saw films, we have a person waking up, trapped. I was intrigued to see which way they were going to go with this film since Jigsaw died in the third one. What I'm realising now is that these films aren't about Jigsaw, and no - they're not about the gore either. They're about the story and that's what sets them apart from all those other dodgy horror films out there.

Tobin Bell has stated that he is signed up for five sequels so looks like next year's Saw VI will be the last... which, to be honest, was the problem with the Saw V.

The thing about this film is that it felt like a place holder. Ok, we did learn a bit more about what's going on, however there were also a lot of flashbacks that were explaining about some of the victims from the other films. I don't care about those victims. They're dead and gone and unless finding more about them moves the story along I just don't see the point. Needless to say, I didn't see the point. My hope is that they have so much to put in Saw VI that they needed this film to tell us a few things before it, and what happened with this film is that they just didn't quite have enough to make a whole film, so they fleshed it out a bit.

For Saw fans who are wondering if it's worth seeing the film. Sure, why not? You'll have to see this film anyway because chances are the next one won't make sense if you don't. Also it has some interesting traps, blood all over the place and that great visceral look that you expect of a Saw film. If you're a horror fan but not a Saw fan then this film really won't change your mind. If anything it'll make you hate Saw even more, it's really not that good. If you don't like horror films and you can't bear the thought of blood everywhere and seeing horrible things happening to people then.... I don't know why you're reading this review. Read this one instead.

Overall it was still a reasonable addition to the franchise however it really is the weakest out of all of them. It's the first time I've been properly disappointed by Saw and I really hope that it's just a blip on the way to the ending this story deserves.

5/10

Quantum of Solace (2008)

In case you were wondering about the... odd title. Quantum of Solace takes it's name from the title of a short story from a collection of James Bond stories called For Your Eyes Only written by Ian Fleming. So now you know.

We'll start at the start. It was great to see the familiar style of opening titles, the posing sillhouttes and trademark gunshaft and the swell of the great new Bond theme tune. Hmm... not a great start. Actually, I like the music in the song, it's quite grandiose - just like you want from a Bond theme tune - however Jack White and Alicia Keys... vocally it just doesn't work. You really start to notice how long the opening titles are, that's just not what you want at the outset...

The film itself starts promisingly though, great opening sequence, more action than you can shake a stick at. From then on it gets a little disappointing though... It's not that I didn't enjoy it. It was an enjoyable film; there were some great action scenes and Daniel Craig looks great in those white pants but let's put it this way... if I wanted to see Bourne 4 I'd have waited to go see Bourne 4.

I also feel I should mention the plot, there isn't really one. Other people I know have complained about this but to be honest that's not what bothered me about the film. Does anyone ever remember the plot of a Bond film? The main thing you remember are the locations, and there are some great locations in this... Though I have to ask anyone who's reading this - Mathis's house looks a lot like a house that's in one of the Transporter films... does anyone know if it's the same house??

Anyway, what I didn't like about it is that Quantum of Solace just doesn't seem like a Bond film. And I know that everyone goes on about how this Bond is "closer to the books" (which I haven't read). And that it's grittier, more realistic, there are less "accoutrements" - like the crazy gadgets and invisible car, and the villians are just on the other side. But you know what? I like the gadgets, I want to see super villans, James Bond should fight his way though a mob and emerge without a hair out of place. It's that stuff that makes a Bond film a Bond film... without that it's just another action film with an amazing budget.

I'm just not sold on the new Daniel Craig Bond at all. I'm not a mad James Bond fan but I've seen a lot of Bond films and I like the old James Bond. Bring back the old James Bond!

6/10

But I will admit, I thought the invisible car was a step too far...

WALL·E (2008)

I would class myself as a fan of Pixar however to be honest that's all because of Toy Story and Toy Story 2. I love those films... so since 1999 I've been waiting for Pixar to make a film as good as those two. It's 2008 now and while I wouldn't say I've been disappointed by their other films... I just don't think they've been as good as they could have been. The Incredibles was a good film and all but it just wasn't... magical to me.

Anyway, WALL·E is the latest effort from Pixar and since it had a very cute looking robot I had high hopes. In fact I even got up on a Saturday morning to go see it. The good news is that I loved it, actually there is no real bad news... It's a great film and stars an incredibly cute robot. It looks amazing and even though there's very little dialogue and the main characters are robots, it's touching and warm and in a strange way, believable.

Unfortunately I just couldn't feel like I could give it a 10. There are 18 films I've awarded a 10 to on my IMDb vote history and, even though I thought WALL·E was brilliant, it just didn't make the grade. If you didn't click on the link above then just to give you an idea of its direct competitors - Toy Story, Toy Story 2, The Nightmare Before Christmas, The Dark Crystal and I'd have to say, top of the pile - Hotoru No Haka (Grave of the Fireflies) a 1988 film from Studio Ghibli.

I'm giving it a 9/10, it wasn't perfect and I'll tell you why! I'll have to admit, part of it was because of the message behind the film. Believe me, I think it's an important message and actually I think they dealt with it really well - it was subtle and it wasn't what the film was about in any way. My problem was that it made me feel guilty, it was ever-present and I just felt like it was too much, especially at the end. The other reason was because I did think there were elements they could have done more with, for example the other robots or the people, I just thought it could have been funnier, just a touch more comic relief would have been welcome.

On the whole though, it was wonderful, it did have that bit of Pixar magic they had back in Toy Story. It just wasn't perfect though, when I walked out of the theatre it didn't stay with me all day and by the time Monday came round I hadn't thought of it at all. To me to be a 10 it has to have that resonance to it... WALL·E and EVE and their compatriots were so sweet at the time but will I remember them in 10 years time? Maybe not...

9/10

Wristcutters: A Love Story (2006)

Don't know where I'd heard of this film... I think it was probably when I was browsing through Leslie Bibb's filmography while doing the Iron Man review... Anyway wherever I heard of it, I thought it sounded interesting but I put it down as a film I'd never see - didn't seem like the type that would turn up in the local video store. I was wrong, so here's the review!

Wristcutters: A Love Story is set in an afterlife for people who've committed suicide. It's a different kind of afterlife from the traditional winged one (be it above or below)... instead it is, in the words of our main character, "... basically the real world, just crappier".

Zia (Patrick Fugit, best known from Almost Famous, just in case you're wondering where you might have seen him before.) is a young man who's committed suicide because his girlfriend Desiree (Bibb), has left him... their relationship isn't particularly important though. Whatever happened before, he has ended up in this afterlife, working in a pizza parlour, living in a crappy apartment and just existing. So far, so dull - well no actually, the film is interesting so far... A chance encounter in the local supermarket leads Zia to discover that his former girlfriend took her own life a little while after he did. Given that he still has little else to "live" for he decides to take off with his interesting Russian rocker friend Eugene (played by Shea Whigham). While on the road they meet an outwardly interesting young lady called Mikal (played by Shannyn Sossamon) who's on a mission to find the "People In Charge" and explain why she shouldn't be there So far, so interesting - well no actually, this is where the film starts to fall down...

I wanted to like this film... it has lots of interesting ideas, most of which are hinted at early on. Its problems start when they get on the road... from there on in it loses steam... it seems to flounder, the director takes a while to pick the idea he wanted to centre on and in my opinion he picked the wrong one. Then again maybe my expectations were to blame, I thought I was going to see an indie film exploring, I don't know, ideas and concepts - stuff about suicide, naivety of youth, friendship, life after death - the kind of stuff you expect and indie film to cover. I expected it to be smart, funny and quirky... you know, a good indie film... and for a while it looked like it was going that way. Then all of a sudden, to my horror Goran Dukic got lazy and just decided to turn it into a love story. Now I shouldn't have been surprised - the clue was in the title... but I don't know, I just hadn't expected it to be nothing more than a love story in the end. I try so hard to not expect anything of the films I watch, it just sets you up for disappointment... but sometimes... you just can't help it.

Wristcutters: A Love Story just wasn't what I wanted it to be at all and while all the little ideas and side characters made it an enjoyable watch; overall it just didn't live up to the awards and nominations it garnered. I really should have learned after that abominable The Aryan Couple that film festival awards count for nothing and that the only ratings that are worth any consideration and IMDb ratings (after DVD releases) and rottentomatoes.com!

Quickly, to address the other stuff... the acting was commendable, the cinematography and art direction were great. Special mention as well to Will Arnett, I always find him entertaining and his appearence was a well needed laugh, even though the idea behind it did have a feel of an after thought... Overall I'm actually going to give it a decent enough rating because actually it wasn't a bad film at all. For all my complaints about it, the main thing I didn't like was the love story - I wasn't expecting it when I really have no excuse - it was in the title!!

6.5/10