Movie Review: Saw V

SAW V
Main Players: Tobin Bell, Costas Mandylor, Scott Patterson, et al.
Calling the shots: David Hackl
Running time: 92mins
What's it about? The fifth installment of the “Saw” franchise sees the handy works of Jigsaw continue, despite the fact that he’s been dead for the last two films. Nevertheless with only two agents left, who were connected to the original Jigsaw case, who is the next victim and who is continuing the legacy?

What did I think? Another year, another ‘Saw’ movie. It doesn’t feel all that long since two RMIT graduates introduced the world to ‘Saw’ but it has most definitely been five years now. And believe it or not, I'm a fan!

With the franchise having lost it’s “zang” since it’s first installment, the ‘Saw’ series has becomes more or less about seeing what kind of sadistic traps they’ll come up with this time and trying to pick the plot twists that always inevitably comes at the end. In that regard, the film doesn’t let you down.

It is a ‘Saw’ movie, and if you’ve seen the rest of them, you pretty much know what to expect. That’s also its problem. The formula has almost become like clockwork, so unless you’ve seen the rest of it or know about it, you’ll completely be lost in the plot. The movies doesn’t even try to win over new fans (okay, it sort of does with unnecessary flashbacks), but the plot leaves it up to the memories of the views to know what’s going on.

The series has also used pretty much no names since the first installment and that doesn’t change here. It’s full of those “oh-I-know-that-person-from-that-show” actors, but none that you’ll likely to remember. Which probably serves the movie well, given it’s pretty terrible script.

As with the others in the series, it’s not for the weak of heart. Well, in that case it’s not FOR anybody. But if you’re a fan of the series it is a must, because they are all connected and lets just say, it FINALLY feels like it’s going to end…though I’ve heard stories that they plan to make up to Saw VIII!

40%

Movie Review: How to Lose Friends & Alienate People

HOW TO LOSE FRIENDS & ALIENATE PEOPLE
Main Players: Simon Pegg, Kirsten Dunst, Jeff Bridges, et al.
Calling the shots: Robert B. Weide
Running time: 110mins
What's it about? A British journo gets an opportunity of a life time to cross the pond to New York City to work for a trendy magazine. He soon learns that in order to move up in this world he needs to break out of his carefree, tell it like is ways. But are the opportunities that lie ahead enough to go against his beliefs? Oh, there’s a rom-com element in there too…

What did I think? Based on the memoirs of a real life British Journo who made the trek back in the 1990s, at its best it is absolutely hilarious. But down to the very core, it’s a stock standard romantic comedy with a script that is not sharp enough and a plot that is too predictable to hold its ends up.

Sidney Young (Pegg) is a doofus or a twat (as the Brits would say). The things he does and continues to get away with is baffling; although it is pretty funny. He should be a character that is easily unlikeable but the fish out of water element and Pegg’s performance makes him hard to hate. He has a charismatic touch that is undeniable, which helps the movie.

The rest of the cast are cast fairly well. Kirsten Dunst is in cruise control as the love interest, never stepping out of her comfort zone. Jeff Bridges is an enigmatic figure, Gillian Anderson and Danny Huston are great as well. Megan Fox, last seen in ‘Transformers’, is smokin’ hot! Nuff Said there.

The story is laggy. You know what’s going to happen, so you almost want it to get there already. There are numerous funny moments but they are spaced out too much. While the romantic comedy side of things isn’t terrible, it almost feels like it takes away from what it wants to be.

This movie apparently bombed in the US and I don’t think it’s hard to see why. It has a lot of potential but doesn’t seem to deliever. Good for a few laughs and definitely a step up from Pegg’s last Hollywood(-ish) effort (‘Run Fatboy, Run’) but fans of his earlier stuff (‘Shaun of the Dead’, ‘Hot Fuzz’) will be disappointed.

2.5 out of 5.

Movie Review: Burn After Reading

BURN AFTER READING
Main Players: George Clooney, Frances McDormand, John Malkovich, et al.
Calling the shots: Ethan & Joel Coen
Running time: 96mins
What's it about? Recently discharged CIA man Osbourne Cox (Malkovich) begins to write his memoirs only to have it fall into the hands of two simple-minded gym employees (McDormand & Pitt) who starts a chain of events that ends up in one big mess. Welcome to our pointless world of infidelity, superficiality and stupidity.

What did I think? It’s vintage Coen’s. After (finally) winning an Oscar for “No Country For Old Men”, the Coens’ were on top of the world. It seemed they could do no wrong. And they simply haven’t put a foot wrong here giving us the same style of film, just a hell of a lot funnier.

There also lies its biggest weakness. If you don’t enjoy the Coens’ style of films then you’re probably not going to like this one. It is like an acquired taste after all. But if you do, this is a joy to watch. With precision directing and a very quirky, a very witty script which is performed by a fantastic cast of actors, it just makes this movie work. Deliberate in its pace, to allow for the story telling to take place, and laugh out loud funny, in certain memorable scenes. The CIA big heads and his “invention” come to mind.

The case I mentioned earlier is just terrific. Clooney, in his nth time working with the Coens, is great as always, as is McDormand, Jenkins and Swinton. But the standouts here are clearly: John Malkovich, who has his insane/angry face on and you just can’t help but laugh at his rage, and a scene stealing turn from Brad Pitt, who has never been funnier, more likeable than this.

The story is developed so well that you can’t help but sympathise with each of the characters (in one way or another) no matter how dumb they are in their actions.

You’ll really need to go into this movie with an open mind or at least an understanding of what the Coen Brothers’ films are like to appreciate this. Otherwise you might find yourself walking out of this film not knowing what the hell just hit you.

3.5 out of 5.

Movie Review: Max Payne

MAX PAYNE
Main Players: Mark Wahlberg, Mila Kunis, Beau Bridges, et al
Calling the shots: John Moore
Running time: 100mins
What's it about? Detective Max Payne (Wahlberg) is a shell of a man. Still unable to get closure on the seemingly random killings of his wife and child, he has buried himself deep within the Cold Case unit to uncover the truth and serve vengeance. When he gets wind of a possible connection between a current case and his, he will stop at nothing to find the truth.

What did I think? Here comes another one. Video game adaptations have been notoriously bad. This one had potential though. The trailers looked cool and it stars one of the most popular actors today. Get ready to be disappointed.

Visually, this movie is super-cool. Stylish and colour-faded to give it that unique look, it’s a work of art. Billed as “this year’s Sin City”, it’s not quite that, giving you more of a “300” or “30 Days of Nights” feel but like I said it looks cool. The action sequences aren’t too bad either. They’ve unnecessarily overloaded it with bullet-time scenes but apparently that’s what the game is known for.

That’s where the praises end.

The plot line is complete rubbish. It’s not developed very well either. A lot of shit seems to happen without much explanation, confusing you when you don’t need to be and moves along so slowly it’s sleep inducing. If that’s not enough it has the most predictable and obvious conclusion you will find. Trust me; you’ll see it coming a mile away.

As much as I like Mark Wahlberg, I’m not sure if he can carry a movie on his own. He seemed very monotone and almost as if he just phoned it in. Mila Kunis (known for her role in “That 70’s Show”) is seriously miss-cast as the assassin chick and as is Ludacris, as the IA cop. Look out though, for Olga Kurylenko (the new Bond Girl) and Chris O’Donnell, who have short but important and impressive roles.Only thing that can be praised here is how it looks. Even that isn’t enough to keep you interested the whole way. Only check it out if you’re a fan, curious or bored.

2 out of 5.

Movie Review: Body of Lies

BODY OF LIES
Main Players: Leonardo DiCaprio, Russell Crowe, et al.
Calling the shots: Ridley Scott
Running time: 128mins
What's it about? CIA operative Roger Ferris (DiCaprio) is the man on the ground. He is essentially undercover making friends and enemies a like while trying to take down terrorists in the Middle East. Ed Hoffman (Crowe) is the man back in Washington giving all the orders, without emotion or consideration, for the "greater good". When they get close to a big name they've been after they need to figure out a way to trust each other and others involved to take him down.

What did I think? There has been a lot of movies about terrorism in the Middle East. So much so that "in'shallah" and "halal ahkbah" (apologies for the spelling) are so commonly used. The thing that sets this movie apart is the actors and directors.

Say what you will about Ridley Scott. He is a masterful storyteller. The plot is fairly complex and in the wrong hands it could have been a muddled mess. Scott handles it very well making it rather easy to follow. He carries on the same style from 'American Gangster', almost having the same feel just VERY different subject matters. That would also contribute to how much you like this film; Cops and criminals or Terrorists in the Middle East.

Russell Crowe, who gained a lot of weight to play this role, is solid as always. He and Scott have worked together so many times, I'm sure it's almost like second nature. Leonardo DiCaprio, continues his trend of mature roles and is as reliable as ever. I did however feel as though Crowe was a little underutilised and DiCaprio has been better. Mark Strong, who plays Hani, played it by the numbers.

For you action seekers though, there aren't enough set pieces to keep you entertained. The action sequences that it does have is incredible. It's a very solid espionage thriller and so watch it like one.

It's an enjoyable movie but it never reaches a peak that you expect it to reach and is just consistent through out.

3.5 out of 5.

Movie Review: Choke

CHOKE
Main Players: Sam Rockwell, Anjelica Huston, Kelly Macdonald, et al.
Calling the shots: Clark Gregg
What's it about? Victor is a sex addict. And like most addicts, he's struggling to get over the said addiction. He's stuck on step 4. What ever step 4 is. To make things worse he's a tour guide (though he denies that) at a Colonial America themed park and he's mother is in the hospital with dementia. He also begins a bizarre relationship with his mothers doctor. All the while trying to come to terms with the terrible child life he had. He even "pretends" to choke at restaurants to be rescued and feel "loved". Yeah...weird.

What did I think? Well...much like my summery of the plot, I found it a little weird. It wasn't very well made is the problem. And though I haven't read the book, surely it's much better than this.

Given that the book which the film is based on is written by Chuck Palahniuk, the man behind 'Fight Club', I expected a whole lot more. But than again that's probably unfair to do. Like I mentioned before, the directing wasn't exactly great. It was competent enough but there wasn't anything significant about it. The movie felt like it was in first gear all the way through and just got stuck on the clutch. Perhaps having first time director and many times TV star Clark Gregg behind the lens didn't do the book justice. At times it did have a TV feel to the film.

The actors though did a fantastic job. Sam Rockwell is a totally underrated actor who always performs strongly and is no different here. He pulls off a very difficult role rather convincingly for what it is. Anjelica Huston, now well and truly a screen veteran, is also as solid as ever. The supporting actors do just enough as well.

It's a very hard movie to enjoy. It has a few funny moments but it's mostly snickers or the "OMG I can't believe they..." types. The story as you can tell is very weird and strange and is not delivered cohesively enough.

All in all disappointing for the potential it had and the performance delivered.

2 out of 5.

Movie Review: Babylon A.D.

BABYLON A.D.
Main Players: Vin Diesel, Michelle Yeoh, Mélanie Thierry, et al.
Calling the shots: Mathieu Kassovitz
What's it about? In the not too distant future, Toorop (Diesel) a Mercenary is hired to transport a "package" to New York. This "package" turns out to be a girl (Thierry), who is completely shurrounded in mystery and seems definite that is more than she seems. But what is her secret and what is in New York?

What do I think? I suppose a big "welcome back" is in order for the once all macho Vin Diesel. The last movie I can recall he was in is 'The Pacifier' and we all know how THAT turned out. lol.

Having said that though, this isn't exactly a triumph. Yes it's an action and yes it's Diesel at his best, but the movie is a little shoddy. The action set pieces are pretty good, but some of the camera work is so bad that it'll make you more dizzy than excited. It's not all together original either. The not-too-distant future here is a place you've seen before. Not all that different, a lot rundown, with some technological advances.

The storyline is pretty shocking as well. There doesn't seem to be much character development at all, leaving the the three leads fending for themselves and it ends as if they'd just gotten tired of making this film. I mean what the hell happened to the organisation that was led by Charlotte Rampling. Did they just give up?

Vin Diesel is in his element here. And he does just what he needs too. Michelle Yeoh though seemed like an odd choice and doesn't really bring anything of significance to the table. It stars some veterans of the screen. Charlotte Ramploing I mentioned before but also Gérard Depardieu. They must be wondering why the hell they got involved in this in the first place.

It's a stock standard sci-fi action that'll probably bore you, more than excite you. See it, if you must.

2 out of 5.

Movie Review: WALL-E

WALL-E
Main players: WALL-E, E.V.E, M.O.P, et al (lol. :P)
Calling the shots: Andrew Stanton
What's it about? It's the very distant future and Earth has become inhabitable. Left with heaps and heaps of trash, the WALL-E robot is designed to clean Earth up. Along comes E.V.E. a robot sent by human's to see if Earth is at all habitable again. Sparks literally fly when these two drones meet and it might just be up to these two to save the day.

What do I think? I love Wall-E! And so should all of you! It's another Pixar masterpiece, and it might just be the best one yet. It definitely replaces Monsters Inc. as my favourite pixar.

The animation is just stunning. From it's early days in Toy Story, it has always been the benchmark in CGI and animation technology but it's almost as though they've found another level here. Sure the human's look a little unrealistic here but it's no different then The Incredibles and it's also probably the point. How much we've evolved (devolved) in this future. It's also amazing how much emotion they can show on a robot. They never say more than one word at a time, yet we know how each is feeling.

The story is also simple yet somewhat relevant and relatable. The love between Wall-E and EVE, is well drawn and just like any other romance on screen. The fight to save Earth and humanity is relevant as ever. It does scream "Go Green!" and "Comsumerism" a little bit, but not enough, as other have suggested, to call it preachy.

If that isn't enough to entice you to see it, WALL-E is just so gosh darn cute. lol. :P Also the animation short that accompanies this is funny and highly enjoyable. All in all, you'll just have a blast watching it! So do it!

5 out of 5!

Movie Review: The Bank Job

The Bank Job

Main players: Jason Statham, Saffron Burrows, et al

Calling the shots: Roger Donaldson

What's it about? A gang of local "villains" are recruited to pull off a bank heist by an old friend. It seemed simple enough, get in, take what you can, get out. But in this based on a true story tale, nothing goes smoothly and anything and everything that can go wrong does...

What do I think? Can I just say, I love the "old school" feel of the poster I found for this (see right). It's great. ANYway...

There are so many of these British crime-capers and they all seem to star Jason Statham. :P That's not a bad thing though mind you, they are always loads of fun and this one is no different.

Humourous at times and necessarily violent and harsh when it needs to be, it has a great balance and is blessed with good direction and an enjoyable script. The cast is also believable and they have the right chemistry to make it work. The fact that this film is based on a true story makes this film all the more intriguing, just because of the "strange-but-true" circumstances that befall our protagonists.

Jason Statham (in need of a shave here) plays his usual charming lead man well and Saffron Burrows brings a femme fatalé-mysterious character to life. The supporting cast is typically British and they are wonderful.

If you've seen the likes of "Snatch" and "Lock Stock..." and similar British capers, you know what you're in for and as always, it's an enjoyable ride.

4 out of 5.