Movie Review: The Day the Earth Stood Still

THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL
Main Players: Keanu Reeves, Jennifer Connelly, Kathy Bates, et al.
Calling the shots: Scott Derrickson
Running time: 103mins
What's it about? An alien in the form of Keanu Reeves arrives on Earth with a robot named G.O.R.T. Is this an invasion or a warning of some kind? It becomes apparent that he is here to exterminate us for the way we treat the Earth. Enter scientist Jennifer Connelly to try and convince him that “we can change”. Blah!

What did I think? Okay, okay, so even the plot sounds terrible. But the trailer looked good, alright? Oh how terribly misguiding it was as; ladies and gentlemen! Here lies quite possible the worst movie you are ever likely to see.

Where to start; asides from the flimsy plot, the flow of the film is completely non-existent. Usually films will have its ups and downs. A big action scene might bring the excitement. Then it might tail off and be lifted again when the emotions run high with a dramatic scene. This has none of that! It’s the most monotone film you will see. It’s like a car that’s never able to get out of first gear. It feels like the film ends with out anything REALLY happening. Sure there are things on the screen, but there’s no emotion.

The performances are just as bland. Keanu Reeves does his usual expressionless schtick (which the roll probably calls for) but his face literally doesn’t change until he is forced to squint because wind blows in his face. Jaden Smith, who was so adorable and cute in ‘Pursuit of Happyness’ is just completely annoying and Jennifer Connelly phones it in like she’d rather be somewhere else (and who’d blame her?).

The only thing that was mildly amusing was the special effects. Watching a truck and a stadium disintergrate is about all the excitement there is. The rest is essentially dumb characters and worse dialogue; with splatters of unnecessary product placement, pointless biblical references and a “go green” message.

Two things happened that rarely happens to me: a). I almost fell asleep (and it was from fatigue) and b). I was ready to walk out about twenty minutes into the film. If that’s not saying something, I don’t know what is. Seriously, the only things I enjoyed were: my Raspberry choc top (mmmmmm) and when the lights came on. Avoid this like the plague! (And THAT is not a biblical reference!)

5% (it gets credit for even making it to the big screen)

Movie Review: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON
Main Players: Brad Pitt, Cate Blanchett, Taraji P. Henson, et al.
Calling the shots: David Fincher
Running time: 159mins
What's it about? Born as an 80 year-old baby, Benjamin is abandoned on the doorsteps of a nursing home in the heart of New Orleans. However, to everyone’s surprise, as he ages, he in fact grows more youthful. We follow his most unusual and extraordinary journey of life, love and loss, and learn that’s it’s “the moments” that count.

What did I think? So much buzz and so much hype about this movie as the award season officially rolls in. Nominated for 5 Golden Globe awards (including best picture, director and actor), Benjamin Button is a flawed but overall amazing film.

This movie is just simply put, brilliantly made. David Fincher needs to be commended. The tone is already set even before the title comes up. The effects in this film are incredible. Making days gone by seem natural but at the same time bringing that nostalgic feel to it. The imagery is incredible. As is the make up used to age (or de-age) the characters are almost flawless (though Brad Pitt does a little “plastic” at one stage).

The performances are also impressive. Led by an always underrated Pitt (working with Fincher for the third time) and the super reliable Blanchett, they seem to share great chemistry which elevate their performances that much further. Didn’t think Pitt deserved a nomination, but if he deserved one, so did Blanchett. The supporting cast is just as impressive as they bring the required emotion to each and every scene.

In comparison its flaws will seem like an after thought. The film does at times feel overly long and draggy. Benjamin’s “curious case” is never REALLY explained (asides from a connection to a clock that ticks backwards) and seems to just be “accepted” by everyone he meets. As in what’s happening to him IS INCREDIBLE! But nobody cares.

Going into this movie, I was worried about how they end it. I am happy to report that it does reach a very worthy, heartfelt and somewhat sad ending that wraps the film up very well. It’s not something that will blow your mind, but it is filmmaking at its best and one to keep an eye out for come Oscar time.

70%

Movie Review: Slumdog Millionaire

SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE
Main Players: Dev Patel, Freida Pinto, Anil Kapoor, et al.
Calling the shots: Danny Boyle (with co-director: India) Loveleen Tandan
Running time: 120mins
What's it about? Jamal is on the brink of a fairytale. He is on the last question of India’s version of “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire”. When the show wraps for the night, he is kidnapped and interrogated on suspicion of cheating. As the questioning begins it slowly becomes apparent that this boy from the slums might be destined to win it all.

What did I think? Such a pity that films like this will never get the recognition that it requires. Well, maybe except during award season but it won’t make much at the box office. But it’s not all about the money…right?

The film is masterfully crafted (feels like I use that phrase a lot). The look of the movie is fantastic and it flows well. In lesser hands, the jumping timeline could have become a confusing and muddled mess, but under the guidance of Danny Boyle there’s no such issue. It is quite different from his other works (‘28 Days Later…’, ‘Trainspotting’) in theme but definitely the same style.

The relative unknown cast (correct me if I’m wrong, they are unknowns to me), do a marvelous job. They make complex characters seem everyday and somewhat relatable. You want him to win in the end because, gosh darn it, he deserves it.

It’s not completely without its flaws. The movie lacks a real “wow” moment. Even in its climatic moments, it lacks a certain “snap” and it’s almost rather confusing and pointless. The soundtrack also as good as it is, at times feels inappropriate and rather random. They also completely overplay the “fate/destiny” hand, so if that type of things doesn’t tickle your fancy, it might rub you the wrong way (that whole sentence sounded wrong).

It’s an enjoyable arthouse film. One of those movies you are unlikely to see again but it’s definitely worth your time. It’s thought provoking and makes you want to believe in destiny and fate. A hidden gem; in amongst the rubbish that gets released these days.

70%

Movie Review: Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa

MADAGASCAR: ESCAPE 2 AFRICA
Main Players: Ben Stiller, Chris Rock, Jada Pinkett Smith, et al.
Calling the shots: Eric Darnell & Tom McGrath
Running time: 89mins
What's it about? Picking up pretty much right off from the original, our favourite castaways are about to make their way home; by sling-shot plane. As the title suggests they don’t quite make it back to their home, by they do crash land in their “home”...if you catch my drift. Let the laughter and discovery of their roots and friendships begin.

What did I think? I love my animations. Call me a big kid, but I always look forward to them. I am therefore vindicated when they turn out to be as good as this and it’s rare for a film these days, but I think it out does its predecessor.

Two major things work for this film. The entire original cast is back. Ben Stiller, Chris Rock, Jada Pinkett Smith and David Schwimmer all reprise their roles and that kind of thing is always a blessing for a sequel. With the addition of some other strong voice talents (Alec Baldwin and the late Bernie Mac) it brings a certain fun to the film.

The second is the fact that not all the jokes are lame or rely completely on slap-stick as most “family” films tend to do. A lot of the jokes are actually quite mature/smart and it gets just as much airtime as the, afore mentioned, slap-stick humour. So it satisfies both adults and kids alike and it’s probably fair to say, my friends and I laughed the loudest in the cinema.

There is literally so much to enjoy in this film. The penguins, the monkeys, the shark, Mort and King Julian constantly provide the laughs. It sounds like I’m running of a list of animals but they are much funnier than the main characters. The annoying characters are actually the humans in the film, particular the old-lady who kind of out stays her welcome.

As enjoyable as the original was, this one improves on it by leaps and bounds. Better animation, better characters, better everything! So take your kids, cousins, nieces, nephews, friends or whoever you need to take. It’ll definitely be worth it.

70%

Movie Review: Four Holidays

FOUR CHRISTMASES (FOUR HOLIDAYS)
Main Players: Vince Vaughan, Reese Witherspoon, Robert Duvall, et al.
Calling the shots: Seth Gordon
Running time: 88mins
What's it about? A very dysfunctional couple, who've been avoiding seeing their families on Christmas get caught on camera, stranded at the airport. In comes the phone calls and before you know it, they agree to spend Christmas with their families. ALL FOUR OF THEM. Cue the laughs and the discovery of the strength of their relationship. And blah, blah, blah...

What did I think? As you can probably tell already by my tone (or not) this movie is very very average. Nothing about it is all that new and because of that, it fails to really leave an impression. One thing that really makes you wonder is why they even bothered to change the title for the Australian release...

Another problem is that it is absolutely predictable. The visits to the individual families are funny in parts but with each visit, it becomes less and less funny and by the end of it, it's almost like the filmmakers had lost interest as well; with the last visit not even raising a laugh. Along the way it gets distracted by a stock-standard plot turn about: what do they really know about each other? Is there a future? etc. etc. The usual stuff.

Thankfully, because of it running out of gas it has a mercifully short running time. The other impressive aspect is it's incredible supporting cast. The parents are literally played by who's who of veteran actors. Robert Duvall, Mary Steenburgen, Sissy Spacek and Jon Voight; all take turns in trying to make us laugh. Though like I said, by the time Jon Voight shows up it's not very funny.

Vince Vaughan tries to do his usual schtick, and for a while it works. But then it seems like he just talks and talks and becomes quite annoying. Reese is quite enjoyable because she's done so many of these but together, they seem to lack a certain chemistry.

This movie does have a very "holiday" feel to it and it's no wonder it's out-done Twilight, Quantum, Australia and HSM3 in the states. With the stars involved it has wide appeal. It's a pity it doesn't have much else.

30%

Movie Review: Australia

AUSTRALIA
Main Players: Nicole Kidman, Hugh Jackman, David Wenham, et al.
Calling the shots: Baz Luhrmann
Running time: 165mins
What's it about? In the Northern Territory just as WW2 had begun, Lady Ashley arrives from England to take over her husband’s cattle property. With the help of the Drover and a half-caste boy, she soon falls for the way of the Australian life and brings the property back to prosperity. Drama and tragedy promises to follow.

What did I think? Can I just say that my arse is fine and I didn’t even take a toilet break. That’s for those naysayers who say the movie is too long etc, etc. It is a long movie, but it is made so well you can overlook it.

It is better though if you can appreciate the “over-the-top”-ness and the melodrama involved rather than laugh or mock it. The acting is often borderline corny and a lot of the lines delivered with exaggerated accents (Aussie or otherwise). The lavish background looks majestic but definitely computerized and the set pieces are often dramatized for full effect (see the Kangaroo and Stampede scenes). The result is a fantastic combination of drama, comedy, love, tragedy and emotion.

There is a certain grandness to proceedings. And as I mentioned early the story will grab your attention and the time will pass quicker than you think. Luhrmann also handles every aspect of it with respect and shows love for his home country.

It literally stars a who’s who of Aussie male actors. They are all cast pretty well. Hugh Jackman earns his sexiest men alive tag in this film and it is quite possibly Nicole Kidman’s best role. Brandon Walters who plays Nullah, the half-caste boy, is wonderful and his is quite adorable as well. David Wenham plays against type and does it well.

This movie has completely bombed in the states and it’s not hard to see why. It hasn’t got the wide spreading appeal that will attract audiences. Instead it’s more like a beautiful and wonderfully crafted tribute to the country will all call home. Australia.

70%

Movie Review: Quarantine

QUARANTINE

Main Players: Jennifer Carpenter, Steve Harris, Jay Hernandez, et al.

Calling the shots: John Erick Dowdle

Running time: 89mins

What's it about? A TV crew following the night shift of a couple of Fire Fighters get when they bargained for when they follow the duo to a call. Without warning they are trapped within the building from the outside by government officials and are confronted with a building full of residents on edge and a mysterious symptom that begins to spread.

What did I think? The format of the film; first person, shaky camera, home-video style, that we've already seen this year in 'Cloverfield' works much better for a horror movie like this and it shows why. You feel the panic, the helpless-ness and it's bloody full on.

The plot is nothing new, a virus that spreads making people into aggressive zombie-like creatures. But it's still one of the better horror movies out there. I guess that's not much of a consolation with the junk out there nowadays. Still it is very watchable and it's intense. The start drags a little, the happening at the fire station is rather boring and you with they'd just get on with it. It does build the characters well though and the fact that they've no idea about the night they are about to have.

The relative unknown cast work for this. If you see a Zac Ehron or a Jessica Alba on screen you'd almost groan. They beautiful people to look at, maybe, but it would take the effect out from the whole movie. But digress. Following 'Hostel', I guess Jay Hernandez has a taste for horrors. He does his usual shtick. Everyone else is good because they don't stand out in anyway, they just play their roles. Jennifer Carpenter though, gets on your nerves. You almost hope a character slaps some sense into her. Though given the situation the hysteria is justified.

I heard the chatter during the film and people were complaining about the movie being in-and-out of focus and the shaky-ness. Dude, I guess you guys just missed the point of the movie. The climactic "night-vision" scene is very tense, harks back to 'The Silence of the Lambs'.

Incidentally, this is apparently a carbon-copy remake of the Spanish horror movie '[REC]'. Haven't seen it yet but I'm curious to find out why they bothered.

So, check it out if you're a horror fan but if you're not and you hated the likes of 'Cloverfield' or 'Blair Witch...' or anything zombie related, stay away.

60%

Movie Review: Sex Drive

SEX DRIVE
Main Players: Josh Zuckerman, Amanda Crew, Clark Duke, et al.
Calling the shots: Sean Anders
Running time: 109mins
What's it about? A teenager meets a chick online. He is promised his wildest desires if he can drive cross country and reach her in time. So, with his two best friends in tow, he steals his jerk of a brother's car and sets out on his journey to lose his virginity, once and for all. Que the hilarious escapades of a horny teenager.

What did I think? It's a big welcome back to the days of 'American Pie'. What was once a dead genre, replaced nowadays by more smarter, mature comedies (such as 'Superbad', etc.), is back in full force with this one.

If you're anything like me or aged anywhere close to me you'll be groaning through out this film. It literally makes you feel "too old for this shit". That's not to say, it's a total lost cause. There are moments of hilarity but it seems a lot less mature and you're almost embarassed for laughing along with it. The more subtle scenes are absolutely funny (see the Armish folk, led by Seth Green).

The mostly unknown cast do a decent job with the material but then again, it wouldn't have been that hard. James Marsden plays against type as the jerk/jock brother and he is actually pretty funny. Seth Green as I mentioned before is great with his sarcasm/non-sarcasm act, you can never really tell with what his saying. There are some other veteran actors lending a hand and probably making it more watchable.

It's a completely dumb movie. But that's what it's meant to be. It does pretty well on the laughter factor, but it is clearly targeted at a particular age group and it shows it.

40%

Movie Review: Quantum of Solace

QUANTUM OF SOLACE
Main Players: Daniel Craig, Olga Kurylenko, Mathieu Amalric, et al.
Calling the shots: Marc Forster
Running time: 106mins
What's it about? James Bond is back! Picking up right where it left off in ‘Casino Royale’, a grief-stricken and vengeful Bond is on the hunt for the organization behind the death of his love. The man to catch Bond’s attention is Dominic Greene, an environmentalist with sinister plans to take control of a country’s water supply.

What did I think? Before anything happens in this movie, the hype (and how much you care) will determine how much you enjoy this movie. Having said that; my first reaction coming out was one of disappointment. But then you let it sink in and you can really appreciate the movie for what it is.

Gone are the days of previous Bond films when it seemed to take the piss and it was more or less a fun vanity movie. Ever since Daniel Craig has taken over in ‘Casino Royale’, it has become more serious and “real”, so to speak. This one is no different. It might not be quite as action-packed as the first, but it is definitely more brutal and intense. It reminded me of “Bourne Ultimatum” in terms of its feel and action.

There are some dramatic scenes that are handled well and therefore doesn’t at all feel out of place. The credit has to go the director, who’s most recent movie before this was ‘The Kite Runner’.

After being voted the best Bond ever, Daniel Craig plays Bond like the gritty action hero that he should be. Olga Kurylenko, not your typical Bond girl, brings a strong fiery presence to the screen. What’s better is that both are hot! Mathieu Amalric, plays the villain as best he can with what he is given (which is not much, possibly the most unremarkable villain ever).

It has points taken off for not including the famous “Bond, James Bond” line and the gun shot to the screen sequence which is relegated to the end. For Bond fans it’s a must, but for those that aren’t it’s still a very good action movie.

80%

Movie Review: Mirrors

MIRRORS
Main Players: Kiefer Sutherland, Paula Patton, Amy Smart, et al.
Calling the shots: Alexandre Aja
Running time: 110mins
What's it about? A cop forced into retirement after a mishap, takes a job as a night watchman at an abandoned and burned down department store. He soon realizes that the mirrors in the department store aren’t what they seem and his predecessors have all died because of them. Can he reveal the true behind the mirrors before it’s too late for him and his family?

What did I think? Hollywood has a habit of churning out Asian horror remakes and often not very good ones. Having said that, this remake of a Korean horror movie is not bad, if not particularly good either.

I suppose that’s not saying much because personally, I haven’t seen the original so I have nothing to base my opinions. But with Alexandre Aja (‘The Hills Have Eyes’, ‘High Tension’) behind the lens you are at least guaranteed some horror violence, and in that regard he won’t disappoint. It’s not as violent as his previous films, but the violence is definitely there. Turn away if you’re squeamish in the opening scene and Amy Smart’s bathroom scene (sounds like a contradiction but trust me).

The other surprising aspect of this is that the reason behind the happening is not like your usual Asian horror (a bit vague, but don’t want to give it away). It also has some decent chills and might make you think twice before staring too long into a mirror again. It does become a bit of an action movie in the final act, but it is handled fairly well.

It’s hard to see Kiefer Sutherland out of his “Jack Bauer” character but he does just what he needs to, as does the rest of the cast, and the child actors proving to be the creepiest as always.

The ending you’ll see coming but it isn’t any less creepy and it is well executed that you’ll probably appreciate it. Not the best horror but for a remake it’s passable.

50%

Movie Review: Lemon Tree

ETZ LIMON (LEMON TREE)
Main players: Hiam Abbass, Ali Suliman, Rona Lipaz-Michael, et al.
Calling the shots: Eran Riklis
Running time: 106mins
What's it about? When the defence minister moves in next door and is advised that the lemon grove owed by a widow is a security risk, she must do what ever it takes to protect the lemon grove, that has been in her family for generations, from being chopped down. With the help of a local lawyer she goes up against the government to stand up for her rights and her lemon grove.

What did I think? Based on a true story, this has more of a political agenda then I would have liked, but it still is a well made drama. The emotion of the situation is present through out the film and it also touches on other issues, such as the forbidden love-relationship between the widow and her lawyer, and the overall pointless-ness of it all.

There is also an unspoken bond between the two female leads. The widow and the defence minister's wife (who sympathises with her). They never have a conversation in the movie, but the connection is as strong as anything else and the credit there has to go to the actors. They all seem to invest emotionally into their roles and it shows with each performance as great as the next.

Story wise, it moves along quite smoothly. No particular peaks or troughs. Some of the subplots are well handled (the love-relationship) but at certain points poorly handled. The light that shines on them as they share a forbidden kiss is all too tacky. The message would have been loud and clear with out it.

It's not a great film but it is good. The ending is rather sad and finishes with a lingering image that speaks volumes about the real life situation in that area.

60%

Movie Review: The Grocer's Son

LE FILS DE L'ÉPICIER (THE GROCER'S SON)

Main Players: Nicolas Cazalé, Clotilde Hesme, Daniel Duval, et al

Calling the shots: Eric Guirado

Running time: 96mins

What's it about? A thirty-something son of a grocer, struggling with life and stuck in a dead-end job, reluctantly returns to his home-country town to help run his parents' Grocery store after his father has a heart attack. With his friend (and potential love-interest) in tow, the town he left becomes his oasis and he rediscovers what life should be about.

What did I think? Trust the French. A lot of French made films have a certain charm, a certain magic to it that is undeniable. This one is no different and it has a very calming effect. You watch and you let it just take you away, it really is pure magic.

The cast of characters that appear in the film are all wonderful, if somewhat cliched, but you don't really care. Think about all the eldery people you can think that might live in a sleepy little country town and they will appear. The grumpy, the deaf, the senial. It's done so beautifully you are enchanted by everyone. The lead characters do a good job as well. The character of Claire is central to the whole change that is brought upon the movie and Antoine goes from an arse to a likeable young man.

The other major star of this film is the picture-esque scenery. It is always present but never overshot. Combined with the soundtrack it has that soothing/calming effect I was referring to earlier. And because the film doesn't rely too heavily on it, it works well each time their is a long take.

As with any film though, something needs to happen and the issues that lay beneath the characters are very real and well handled. The broken family, unacquainted love, a marriage falling apart. It detracts from the charm of the film, but all play a vital role in making the movie what it is.

It's a wonderful movie to just watch and relax. If anything else, it will make you think about life and what you should be doing with it. And for a movie to do that, it take something special.

70%

Movie Review: Traitor

TRAITOR
Main Players: Don Cheadle, Guy Pearce, Saïd Taghmaoui, et al.
Calling the shots: Jeffrey Nachmanoff
Running time: 114mins
What's it about? Samir Horn (Cheadle) is a Sudan-raised American. He’s just been imprisoned for selling illegal weapons to suspected terrorists. The FBI is curious about him, but when he and a group of terrorists escape and start to plot their next attack, they go into overdrive. But nothing is what it seems…which side is he really on?

What did I think? So soon after ‘Body of Lies’ comes another “anti-terrorism” movie. This one is different, in that we see the set up from both sides of the field, FBI and the terrorists, as we struggle to figure out which side Horn really is on. This absolutely works for the film. From the trailers it is indicated that he is on the FBI side, but as the story unfolds you question that at certain junctures and the intrigue rolls on.

It is masterfully handled by the director, but unfortunate as it is, the pace of the film has been sacrificed for good story telling as the film tends to feel overly long and fairly slow at certain points.

In comes Don Cheadle to save the day really. He’s performance is terrific and everything the film promises to deliver is essentially conveyed through him. Indeed “the truth is complicated” and it’s his performance that keeps us guessing. Guy Pearce is back from oblivion and as good as he is; he is completely overshadowed by Cheadle and to that extent, seemed very much underutilized. Jeff Daniels, more known for his comedic roles, has an important but short lived role that doesn’t even get a chance to flourish.

It’s definitely not the best in it’s genre but it is solid. The intrigue is there and it will keep you interested through out. But it’s slow pace can potentially undo all the hard work. The ending is well handled and staged, and would have had a “wow” effect to it, had it not been for the unintentional laughter it raised in the theatre.

60%

Movie Review: RocknRolla

ROCKNROLLA
Main Players: Gerard Butler, Mark Strong, Tom Wilkinson, et al.
Calling the shots: Guy Ritchie
Running time: 114mins
What's it about? Theirs are a few storylines here, but all you need to know is there’s a loan shark, his most loyal henchman, bunch of “touch guys”, an always drugged up rocker, some badass Russian and a “lucky painting”. Oh and an accountant. Yep it’s your regular Guy Ritchie British comedy/crime romp.

What did I think? Fans of Guy Ritchie rejoice! After blowing you away with ‘Lock Stock…’ and ‘Snatch’ and stinking up the cinemas with ‘Swept Away’ (starring his, now, ex-wife Madonna) and ‘Revolver’ (unreleased in Australia), his back to form with RocknRolla.

It definitely has his personal touch to it, especially in terms of the story and how it is constructed. There are so many characters and side-plots introduced that it almost becomes overload. But in true Guy Ritchie style, it all somehow comes together and makes sense, giving us an enjoyable ride in the process. It’s a double-edged sword because they could have made separate movies involving each character.

There’s a cool visual style to it as well. The grainy feel to it and the camera work during the chase scene between One-Two (the name of one of the characters) and the Russians are unique and all together exciting (and funny).

The actors in this are fantastic as well. Every character is well cast in their roles and do terrific jobs bring them to life. Mark Strong as Archie is awesome and so it Toby Kebbell as Johnny Quid. Even the token Americans (Jeremy Piven and Ludacris) play a vital part in it all.

It’s somewhere between both his two first movies; the feel and crime aspect of ‘Lock Stock…’ and the funny, mass character involvement of ‘Snatch’. It’s not as high paced as I’d hoped but still definitely a fun ride to be had. It stalled slightly towards the end but not enough for you to care because of what’s come before.

70%

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.