nEoFILM Reviews

Star Trek: Picard (2020–2023)

To all those claiming that this isn't Star Trek...

[8/10 · 28 February 2020]

It is! It's Trek for the 21st century. Star Trek has always been produced for the time it was airing and this is coming off the back the likes if Game of Thrones, The Walking Dead and even West World.

But more importantly, it is post rebooted Battlestar Galactica which came just as Enterprise was on its last legs.

The soap opera days of TNG and Voyager are over, and Deep Space Nine was ahead if its time, and introducing THIS very universe which people are complaining about.

The main difference was that instead of visiting gangster planets such as Freecloud, the gangsters, rogues and flawed humans visited the station each week.

Picard is opening the darker aspects the universe up in ways that Trek has rarely done before, though certainty not never.

Its different, it's modern and whilst yes, it runs at a slower pace that previous Trek, I feel that it proceeds at a pace with allows characters to breath and hopefully grow.

And just to clarify, this is not a new account set up by a corporation to spin Picard. I am a man in 40's who has watched every Trek show since I was 3 years old.

Whilst I love Star Trek I am well aware of its flaws but Picard, whilst not perfect is far from the worst and not deserving of the abuse which it is receiving from so called fans.

The Queen's Corgi (2019)

A rabid attempt at humour...

[1/10 · 24 February 2020]

The Queen's Corgi is not only poorly conceived, terribly executed and cynical in its attempts to make itself relevant, it is also a nasty peice of work.

Following the youngest of the eponymous Canines, as he is betrayed and cast out by a jealous rival, we are tricked into thinking that this is just another Disneyesk journey home.

But this journey is both contrived and hideous in equal measure. Unnecessarily mean characters making gangster style threats the lives of the cliched heroes, nasty dialogue and an overall tone which is in complete contrast to the warm and fuzzy posters which sell this movie to young children.

Then there is the overt political 'satire' if you want to call it that, which has Donald Trump arrive and Buckingham palace for a state visit, only to have his dog try to rape our naive, heroic corgi, Rex.

Trump is made to look stupid, but not in an intelligent or satirical way, just mocking his appearance and voice, whilst the Queen is handled so lightly that any notion that she is a competent head of state left to float away.

She is portrayed as nothing more than a dog obsessed old lady with her long suffering husband whose only job seems to be to humour her.

In the end, all is well. One villainous dog has been left with his teeth smashed out and the other is given away as a slave to the Trumps dog!

Oh, and Rex's girlfriend seems to become the top dog for simply turning up, which does seem to be a little "me too" but this is the time we are living in, certainly where the entertainment industry is concerned.

Violence and a strong dose of, though poorly executed, political satire. All crudely packaged together in a kids cartoon. Am I the only person to find this to be little odd?

"For dog's sake" indeed...

Robin Hood (2018)

Batman & Robin Begins...

[8/10 · 19 February 2020]

This movie is bonkers. History, costume and set design are just thrown to the wolves when it comes to any form if accuracy.

But the film was well paced, action packed and great fun. Like any Robin Hood folk tale should be. Granted, it would have been much better and probably better received if they had taken more care to stick to the time and place which it was set, but as it was, it was a work of pure fantasy.

As long you suspend your disbelief at the door and let this wash over you then you are in for great time. Simply enjoy.

Cobra (2020–2023)

Robert Carlyle turns the lights on...

[6/10 · 7 February 2020]

...as he promised but in the end, he is the best thing in an otherwise moderate show. It wears its socialism on its sleave, taking every opportunity to attact white privilege whilst having us follow these very people with a sympathetic eye.

People with soap opera love lives and a ludicrous number of personall problems taking the focus away from the show's main plot.

It's called Cobra and is supposedly about a national crisis and yet we spend as much time delving into drug deaths, Eastern block drug dealers and assassins as well as pantomime political wranglings which unashamably mirror real life events following the Brexit vote.

Having said that, it does keep you interested and at times a little gripped but the resolution is left almost completely open for season 2.

Wreck-It Ralph (2012)

Wish it had been made by Pixar...

[7/10 · 5 March 2013]

At first glance this would appear, as some reviews have sighted, the new Toy Story (1995). Maybe it is, but I just didn't feel it. I'm old enough to remember these 8-bit games and even though Fix It Felix, Hero's Duty and Sugar Rush are all fictitious, they're all rooted in the reality of the industry, with their real life counterparts being Donkey Kong, Call Of Duty and Super Mario Cart.

The plot is basically that of any Disney film and this is kind of where it fails a little. This isn't Pixar and I'm spending most of the time wishing that it was. Tangled (2010) had the same problem, with it being good, in fact better on the second viewing but not as good the masters of digi-mation would have made it. But Wreck-It Ralph would seem to cry out for the Pixar treatment. Its similarity in tone to Toy Story, with computer game characters coming to life when the kids leave, rather than toys, as well as the fact that this is the perfect subject for a Computer Generated movie!

The comedy was decent, with more of the successful jokes revolving around candy, Mentos and cola, rather than the arcade worlds themselves, but still, plenty of references for the game heads, which my wife is but I'm not, really. It was fun and the final reel was exiting, with the running time pushing two hours, it wasn't overly long but still felt wanting.

I think that it would have been better if there was more that just one line cameos from the established arcade characters, but I'll say it again, that for me, this wanted to be a Pixar classic but just couldn't match the standards.

We Own the Night (2007)

Crime movie for crime movie fans

[6/10 · 5 March 2013]

This is a crime film for crime movie fans. It has it all, from sex, violence, wires and gritty hits. But at its heart is family, here driven by the two leads, Mark Wahlberg and Jequium Phoenix, reunited in yet another of James Grey's films. The tone is dark, with a realistic look as we are taken on trip back to 1988 and a fictional cop family, led by the Deputy Chief Of Police (NYPD) Robert Duvall, who is the father to Wahlberg's up and coming cop, with Phoenix's nightclub manager, who is not a criminal as such, but is a disappointment to his family.

As the trio become embroiled in an organised crime syndicate, they find themselves under a very personal attack and must take down the mob boss to save their lives. The problem with this film is that it plods its way through, lacking enough tension or high key performances to carry, what to me, should have been a taunt screenplay. Instead, it's a bit flat, with Phoenix's trademark sleepy performance. On the other hand, it's quite good, driven by real motivations and characters, is what saves this from 5/10 rating is a fantastically low-key car chase which looked and felt phenomenal, ending with tragedy which would drive the story in a more dubious direction.

Phoenix will end up being granted special dispensation to become a cop in order to track down the mobster, a plot point that I found to be a little far-fetched, though maybe this sort of thing has happened, I don't know but it just tipped the film over the edge of plausibility. I feel that We Own The Night, the motto of the now disbanded NYPD Street Crime Unit, which is headed up here by the fictional Captain Joseph Grusinsky (Wahlberg) thinks very highly of itself as a top quality crime drama, up there with the likes of The Godfather (1972) and Heat (1995), but it is not. It's good and better if you like the genre, but this is a film set in the late 80′s, made in the style of The Godfather light, which was a quintessential 1970′s movie. It needed to pack more of a punch or have some of the style which films such as those of Michael Mann or Martin Scorsese.

A decent story, good cinematography and noble effort but failed to blow me away.

The Birds (1963)

Hitchcock at his best

[10/10 · 12 March 2012]

1960 saw the release of Psycho, Hitchcock's signature work, but Psycho is not the only film that people think of when talking about his work. The Birds, made three years later, has a warm place in film fans hearts and a much larger fan base than people seem to think.

I know more people who dislike Psycho compared to those who like The Birds and I feel that this is most defiantly Alfred Hitchcock at his best. Rear Window and Vertigo are also up there but this film offers the right blend of shocks and a disturbing sense of dread, that makes it accessible by many, whilst still being fun to watch.

The birds have turned. Nature is taking her wrath upon man for a brief moment, but the sheer scale of the idea that nature could turn on us is a primally frightening concept. I do feel that this was the vain in which M. Night Shyamalan's dismal The Happening was attempting to tap into decades later, but Hitchcock got this right first time, for all time.

The effects are dated but their impact is still strong, as the ideas are so pronounced that there's little need to show anything. The acting is decent and the direction, though not as perfect as many would argue for Hitch, still doing the job well. This is a timeless and more accessible Hitchcock classic than Psycho, yet often dismissed and I wonder why?

Both films are clear genre pieces and are still being drawn from today. This is a textbook thriller with a natural twist and a dire tone. But the image of the crow massing on telegraph poles is a simple as it it frighting, just because it happens every day

Bad Boys II (2003)

What ya gonna do this time?

[6/10 · 11 March 2012]

Whilst the first outing of the Bad Boys shocked me by how good it actually was, this one left me a little disappointed. I was hardly expecting an Oscar winning deal here, as this was always going to be a Michael Bay adrenalin rush, but for a film with a two and a half hour running time, the adrenalin came in too short a bursts.

Bad Boys was Bay's first film and was but a taster of his over the top film making, which first arrives in The Rock a year afterwards, but this made eight years later was obviously going to take this to the next level, if not several levels further than that. But to me, it didn't. Granted, the action was thrilling, outrageous and very enjoyable, but the character development was barely visible. They bicker, Lawrence moaned a lot and Smith was cool and likable but there was just a shell of what there should have been. The entire story, including what's left of their character dynamics are only present to set up the next great action sequence.

Then, the was the taste issue. The crux of the plot as it developed was that the drug dealing villains where using corpses to smuggle drugs, and this was used to "Comic Effect" in two major set-pieces. Though in the first, a car chase, it was black comedy as bodies came thick and fast from the back of a van to be run over by the pursuing cars, the second was pushing the boundaries in a to a more disturbing area.

A criticism levied at Michael Bay by British critic Mark Kermode has been that he is a filmmaker with "pornographic sensibilities". Not just in the literal sense, but in the way that he views everything from cars, women and explosions for example. But this was no more clearly re- enforced than in a scene about 90 minutes in, when our two 'bad boys' are searching a morgue and after pulling back the sheets on fat white guys, they reveal a large breasted young woman, who is refer to as "The Bimbo" if my memory serves. It's worrying because I don't know whether this was being played for laughs or was supposed to be a titillating shot of a well endowed woman? Is it right to show a dead woman, who looks to have been strangled to death and referred to a bimbo in a mainstream 15 certificated movie?

I don't want to sound like a prude but the tone of this and pretty much every scene with the bodies being used, seemed to be in plain Bad, BAD taste and though this humour can play well in the right genre of movie, this just simply wasn't the film to do it in, in my opinion. But, that criticism aside, my main issues are the pacing. It was just too hollow to sustain its running time and my mind was beginning to wander from time to time between the spectacular action and the few moments of decent comedy.

It just didn't have the magic of the 90′s actioner, a genre which had faded considerably by the early 2000′s, and without offering anything new besides improved action, which was worth the ticket or DVD price in its own right, or even retaining the original character of the original, this was a sequel failed to hold its own.

Bad Boys (1995)

What ya gonna do

[8/10 · 11 March 2012]

What a surprise, a pleasant one mind, this film was. Michael Bay's first feature and collaboration with the late Don Simpson and the very much alive Jerry Bruckheimer, I've never really been interested in this franchise. But in the effort to complete the Bay cannon, Bad Boys and Bad Boys II are hot on my watch list.

This was funny, sharp and reasonably action packed, a real 90′s blockbuster. This was, by today's standards, 'Michael Bay light', or toned down, with much less action than today, but what was there, was classic, with ridiculous explosions, slow motion and magic hour all day!

Very enjoyable, with good performances all round, even from Martin Lawrence who I'm not fan of. Looking forward to Bay Boys II and have yet to find a Michael Bay film which I actively dislike.

The Happening (2008)

What's Happening?

[3/10 · 3 March 2012]

Back in 2009, when I first saw this, I wrote a review on Flixter which read "Simple question: What the hell was Happening???? More to the point… What was the point???? This movie was so diabolically pointless, self-serving and self-indulgent that words could never do it justice. Such a fall from grace from the man who brought us The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable…"

In many ways, that sums this film up perfectly. On a second viewing, an almost three years later, I feel that I have just a little more to say, but none of which is particularly good, except for the fact that I have increased my original one star/candle review to three out the maximum of ten! Shyamalan was a rising talent and now he has fallen far from grace, especially after the flop that was The Last Airbender. In this film he managed, whether by some misguided design or just by poor direction, to get some of the most amateurish performances out his cast imaginable.

I mean, I know that I'm hardly Mark Wahlberg's greatest advocate but he's still miles better than this, as is his counterpart, Zooey Deschanel, who both put in embarrassingly poor performances, but not just bad, but something that I would expect to see in a church hall! This was amateur all the way, with the only saving grace being the otherwise precise Shyamalan direction. But that's not to say that it wasn't boring or that he was directing a pointless narrative. The concept was slightly interesting but handled in such a ridiculously cack-handed and misjudged manner that I doubt anyone would dare suggest this idea again, let alone finance of film it.

I won't give away the "Twist", if you would call it that, but it is original, I grant you that, but interesting enough to support a movie? No way. Nor was anything else about this film.

Angela's Ashes (1999)

The horror's of ancient Ireland... 1935...

[31 October 2011]

Clocking in at two hours and twenty minutes, Angela's Ashes charts the early life of the real life lead character, Frank McCourt, based on his autobiography. Set in the not so distant past of mid 1930′s Ireland, it looks like a Dickensian tome, with muddy streets, abject poverty and sewage being thrown down the street.

It's hard to believe that this was life in the mid 20th Century in a western country, where religion and anti-British propaganda ruled the masses of a country that was more than a little down on its luck. Dingy, realistic and difficult to enjoy, this was a very real take on this dismal period in history.

The cast was admirable, with big hitters such as Robert Carlisle and Emily Watson as the titular Angela, but there were no weak links in this department at all. Overall, it was a very well made film but the drama was too loosely constructed and episodic as it simply followed the eldest son and writer of the source novel, Frank, as he grows up and attempts to realise his dream of leaving Ireland and building a new life in America.

If you like real life drama set in the dismal surroundings where escapism is nowhere to be seen, then this is a masterpiece, but for everyone else, it's an interesting look into a way of life that should have died out with Queen Victoria. Ultimately, this film failed to make its money back and some would argue, failed to live up to the book and it certainly lacked enough humour to carry the story through what in many cases were traumatic events in such a dire environment.

And I must have the missed the point of the title, as what the hell were Angela's Ashes?

The Incredible Shrinking Man (1957)

Size matters...

[31 October 2011]

Famous, a classic from the 1950′s Sci Fi stable, The Incredible Shrinking Man has stood as one of the top films from the shrinking sub- genre, but until now, I had never seen it. But what a treat this was. Adapted for the screen by Richard Matheson from his own novel, this charts the story of Robert Scott Carey, Grant Williams, a married man who whilst on holiday with his wife, encountered a mysterious radiation cloud which begins the shrinking process.

The interesting thing about this film is right from the get go it takes itself seriously at a time when Science Fiction was struggling to be taken seriously. The shrinking, though leading to obvious set pieces, is almost secondary to the emotional and social consequences of such a transformation, certainly in the 1950′s, as his wife, played excellently by Randy Stuart, begins to tower over him and as a result he, now standing at about three feet tall, begins to exert an enormous amount of power and domination as his size leads to an ever-growing insecurity complex.

This is a kin to a man being wheelchair bound and feeling inadequate for example. But these themes are very well portrayed in a Sci Fi film of its time, but proof that there are a few films pushing and even breaking the mold of the day. But when all is said and done, this is a film with the title The Incredible Shrinking Man which actually takes a mature, philosophical and metaphysical route rather than just cheap thrills and spills.

But as for the action, you couldn't really ask for more, as once he ends up a few inches tall and trapped in his own basement, he must battle mouse traps, flowing water, great chasms and the infamous spider, all in a struggle to claim a small piece of stale cake left there by his wife

But considering its age and special effect limitations of the day, this looks spectacular, thrilling, exciting, gripping and scary and with real motivations and a believable ethos, Carey is striving for dominance in his new macro world. Overall, I really liked this, which took an abnormal situation, grounded it with real character studies and a plausible analysis of the situations at hand, make this a valuable entry into Science Fiction cannon.

Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954)

2D all the way...

[31 October 2011]

Creature From The Black Lagoon is one of the more famous and many would argue, notable entries into the 50′s Universal Horror library, but I would disagree with the 'notable'. On a technical front, this major release in the 1950′s 3D revival era, is clearly worthy technically, as its 3D cinematography, though seen here in 2D, is clearly good, with arms and spears popping out of the screen and a well defined depth of field.

This was originally released in Polarised 3D, not too dis-similar to the methods employed today, but as this format was expensive and difficult to project, it was rarely seen like this much after its initial release. Later it would be re-released in the 70′s in anaglyph 3D, but this film's life has been seen 2D in most respects.

Anaglyph 3D image from the 1970's Re-Issue Does it work though? Well, if you like a straight forwards 50′s monsters flicks then yes, absolutely. It ticks all the boxes and delivers everything it promises, with macho men saving the girl and the day, second fiddle players dying steadily throughout and the leading lady stripping down to a swimming costume at every opportunity and taking a swim in the eponymous lagoon.

But I'm not a fan of this type of Horror Sci-Fi from this era, so its charms don't really work on me. I found it to be dull, plodding and all too predictable but that is not a problem if you like the genre, its just that I don't, really. But it was watchable and its lean running time of 79 minutes meant that it didn't really out stay its welcome.

Though, being a fan of cinema's technical processes and 3D being one of the most fascinating, I would like to see this in 3D at some point, just to see if the effect holds water as much as seems too in 2D.

127 Hours (2010)

Probably the best that it could have been...

[6/10 · 31 October 2011]

Danny Boyle is a director with an eye for the modern. visceral styles, sharp editing and the belief that the combination of both will draw the audience into the action, emotion and mood of the situation at hand. There's no doubt that the stunning true story of adventurer Aron Ralston's accident resulting in his right arm becoming trapped under a rock in the middle of nowhere, required a special director and a style as described above.

Did he pull it off? It's a though sell, 90 minutes of a man and rock but I think it was done about as well as it could have been. The story is interesting and told with a sense of humour and a philosophical attitude appropriate for the subject matter, but it all boils down to the moment when he performs his DIY surgery, a plot point that may well sell the film to most people, as it sold news papers back in 2003.

Overall, well told, very well acted by James Franco as Ralston and along with Boyle's signature direction and jukebox soundtrack, whilst not blowing my skirt up, it made my wife cry, myself cringe and was as well conveyed as this story of a man trapped quite literally between as rock and hard place, ever could have been.

Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (1968)

Rose tinted glasses...

[7/10 · 31 October 2011]

This was the first time that I've seen this children's classic since I was a child, and I suppose that I'd hoped that it would live up to its reputation. In all fairness though, I din't like it that much when I was a child, if I'm honest and my children, though some DO like it, others seemed to have mixed feelings. At best, it's likable but never lovable and at worst, it just isn't liked at all.

So, as an adult I watched this loose adaptation of James Bond's, Ian Flemming's novel, with every good intention, but in the end was left disappointed. Firstly, at 2 hours and 20 minutes long, it feels like an epic, and a completely unnecessary one at that. Its intermission is turned into a Batfink or Adam West's Batman styled cliffhanger rather than a thematic or narrative break that it traditionally should have been, even going so far as to recap the action in the second act!

The songs weren't great either, generally bordering on tedium rather than holding my interest. The story seems to be a little off kilter too, with a seemingly fatal crash destroying the eponymous car before its eventual restoration by Dick van Dyke. This was the culmination of a five-minute title sequence showcasing the early Grand Prix's of 1907 and '08 which for a family film seemed to drag somewhat.

But after an hour of songs and character development, we finally take off in the flying car to the fantasy land of Vulgaria, only for the whole experience to be a fantastical story told by Van Dyke's, Caractacus Potts! All in all, this was a strange film, but not in an entertaining way like Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory, the connection being Roald Dahl's involvement with the screenplay, but in a rather boring way, with events just seeing to happen without any really cause or need. One hour of story, then another one of fantasy. How many other films can boast this kind narrative twist and get away with it. It just seemed to be indulgent and plodding.

It would defiantly have been improved if the car was actually magical and did actually take them on this adventure rather than suggesting that it is perfectly okay to sing and dance around the real world but it's a stretch too far to have a flying car! It should have been a fantasy through and through rather than six of one and half a dozen of the other.

Ultimately, Overrated in my opinion and since the view of FOUR children, boys and girls ranging from 7 – 15, is that it's watchable rather than fully enjoyable, I suspect that this film is being viewed through rose tinted glasses.

The Hangover (2009)

Better than expected

[6/10 · 31 October 2011]

Well, first off, this was a lot funnier than I was expecting. It's a simple story of four friends, well sort off, who go to Las Vegas for one of their stag nights, but after being slipped something, they lose their memories of the night, as well as the groom and find a trail of destruction left in their wake! Including a baby, a tiger and stolen police car!

This "Who Done it" scenario is played to comic effect quite well but there's nothing to justify the film's reputation. It's funny in parts and the performances are quite believable as the bazaar situations play out but in the end, the final is pay off doesn't work for me, being somewhat of an any climax. But having said that, it does try to deliver a message or two about relationships and has its moments but overall I wanted more comedy and less moralising whilst trying to be as gross as possible.

Not half bad though

Team America: World Police (2004)

Comedy of the decade?

[10/10 · 31 October 2011]

America! F**K YEAH! The theme's lyrics sum up this movie as well as any could have. Made in the midst of the War On Terror in 2004, a satire was needed and who better to provide one than the satirical genius' Trey Parker and Matt Stone, best known for South Park. On the surface, this looks like a straight forward bawdy adult puppet parody, taking the mickey out of Bruckheimer's blockbusters, Thunderbirds and the reputation being acquired by the U.S. over the past 30 years but reaching boiling point over the last decade, certainly in a post 9/11 world.

But that's just the tip of the iceberg. This is looking into every major aspect of the above, such as chauvinism, the political interference and undue, and sometimes dangerous influence of celebrities, summed up here with the Film Actor's Guild (or F.A.G.) with a host of major film stars ripped off, notably upsetting Sean Penn. The infamous puppet sex scene, which is nothing more than a poke, pardon the pun, at the puppetry employed in the film.

But there's so much more such as the excellent selection of bespoke songs, such as "Only A Woman" for the sex scene, "End Of An Act" as our hero leaves the group to wallow in self-pity to the song with features verse after verse nothing more than slagging off Michael Bay's, Pearl Harbor and Ben Afleck! But for a film with criticises these blockbusters, it understands them too well to be truly nasty about them.

The entire film IS a well made Bruckheimer film, even recruiting one of his regular composers, Harry Gregson-Williams, to be in at the last- minute, to compose a great score, but why do this if they hated it so much? They don't; they love these films and the affection for the genre is clear, making their digs enjoyable and not hurtful… There's even a contradiction with the political tract as one hand this would seem to be an anti-American tome where Team America blow up every city and landmark imaginable in order to protect the world from the destruction of the Terrorists… Get it?

On the other, the song entitled "Freedom Isn't Free" would seem to suggest that we should all do our part, even though this number ends with the line, "Freedom cost a buck o'five…" But then after all the political and social satire, and the spoofing of Hollywood's gung-ho films, it's just a fun film.

When the terrorist's come from Derka Derkastan, the tone is clear. This is like a pair of boys playing "War On Terror" with a collection of action figures. They're clearly laughing hysterically as they write, produce and direct this film like two teenagers, as they create the highly insensitive language of the terrorists, use elements from films such as Star Wars and James Bond, certainly as for Kim Jong-il, is nobody safe, well not after offending the North Korean leader, but in all fairness, this is really just Eric Cartman from South Park.

But in the end, this is the perfect satire, with a blend of real world political and social commentary, great spoofing but when all's said and done, this has a great sense if humour, though at times, somewhat bawdy. This is brilliant and one of, if not the best comedy of the past decade, and one of the greatest satires of all time. And, no, I don't believe that I'm over stating that

Salt (2010)

Disappointing 80's retread...

[5/10 · 31 October 2011]

Salt. The trailer looked rubbish, dated and starring Angelina Jolie, was never going to tickle my fancy. Reminding me of Rodger Donaldson's, Kevin Costner starrer, No Way Out, I felt that the attempt may be to bring that 80′s thriller to a new audience but instead we got a very confused tome. Firstly, I will cover the good points, which start with the script.

Though heavily flawed and mired by poor dialogue, pacing and a schizophrenic narrative, it was clearly intelligently conceived and several neat twists, though generally predictable, had survived. And besides the music, that's about it. In the end, this is a film with little identity, seeking to confuse the audience and bring them into the complex world of double agents and apocalyptic doomsday scenarios.

The story begins with Evelyn Salt, who after being released from a Korean prison and being brutally integrated as a spy, married her "Cover" husband who we believe she actually loves, in spite of the fact that he is being used as the aforementioned "cover". Then, 2 years later, she is brought into interrogate a Russian defector who tells her that she is a sleeper agent whose mission it to kill the Russian Premier, which she vehemently denies and goes on the run to prove her innocence and protect her husband

Sounds pretty straight forward so far But after about half an hour, everything shifts as she assassinates the Russian President, dons a Russian hat, meets up with the defector and watches her husband drown before her eyes to prove her loyalty to her brethren of sleeper agents. Then, she murders ALL of them! She meets up with another sleeper, breaks into the White House, blows part of it up and ends up in a room with a "master agent", a key player from earlier in the film and completely predictable twist, with a dead U.S. President and a nuclear countdown ticking

The main problem with this isn't the outlandish plotting but the fact that we never really know who Salt is. She starts out as a normal CIA agent, who is then placed under suspicion of being a Russian sleeper, then she 's on the run and until this point were satisfied that she's being set up, but then she is not only guilty, thereby destroying all the character development of the first act, she's a VERY guilty and clearly a bad guy.

Then she is forced to watch her husband die to prove her loyalty, only to promptly kill those who murdered him, so really, what was then point? This was a man whom she was wanting to save at all costs in the opening 30 minutes but when she finds him he's left to die.

Then she commits an outlandish assassination of the Russian Premier, or does she? But by the time she's making her way into the preposterously defended nuclear bunker, I simply don't like her, or really understand what the hell she's playing at? And without the empathy for the titular character, there's little going for the film.

This is an ambitious project but fails to engage with me, as Jolie is a truly terrible leading lady in my opinion, and casting her in such a duplicitous role was a mistake. Even if a character changes allegiances, we still know who they are but this is not the case here as Salt seems to have a split personality with little explanation.

And the final point must be that if Russia had trained a band of sleeper agents this skilled, this lethal that they could not only infiltrate the U.S., but fight their way into the heart of the White House's Nuclear Bunker, I believe that the Cold War would have heated up a long time ago and that we'd all be speaking Russian too!

A real shame that what could have been a pretty effective Cold War thriller was allowed to descend into an unpleasant and non-empathetic watch.

Miss Congeniality (2000)

Surprise...

[31 October 2011]

This was a surprisingly good comedy drama following tomboy FBI Agent, Gracie Hart, Sandra Bullock, as she goes undercover in the Miss United States Pageant to catch a killer. This is what it is. It is not a tightly crafted crime thriller which will keep you guessing as it is obvious from the get go, who the killer is and the film itself, in a well judged move, reveals the murderer about half way through, understanding that this isn't the point.

The point is that it is a straight forward character comedy, with "fish out of water", Bullock, stomping her way through the bitchy world of pageants and learning along the way that abject femininity is not dumb, and that she will become a fuller person by embracing her feminine side. Blar, blar blar…

But I feel that it was a simple and great performance by Michael Caine, who can't really let us down. He plays the slightly camp Beauty Queen groomer who is tasked with turning Gracie into not just a potential winner but a woman full stop. It's this plot point that harks back most to My Fair Lady, a clear influence of this narrative.

Despite its many clichés, I found this to be a well conceived film that sold itself on its title and delivered just that.

West Side Story (1961)

Before Baz Lurhman...

[31 October 2011]

Vibrant, colourful, dark and violent. West Side Story is as an important adaptation of Shakespeare's Romeo And Juliet as Baz Luhrmann's 1996 version, which is as far as I'm concerned, one of the most accessible and coolest versions to date. But upon seeing this, the competition is now well and truly open.

Though West Side Story is not strictly a Romeo And Juliet adaptation, it's a thinly veiled one, but with one significant difference. I won't say what it is, as even though this is now celebrating its 50th Anniversary, some may still not have seen this, as I hadn't until yesterday. As an adaptation, this is first rate, close in tone and structure but with a sharp, witty direction; new, colourful and very 60′s.

But it's as a musical that this film demonstrates it true weight, with some of cinema's greatest numbers, executed with the same innovative direction, large wide-screen staging and cinematography on a scale that made what I believe, to be true golden era of screen musicals, what it was. It looks staged, but what a stage!

The story is as important as the songs and the songs represent the characters more than some of the 1940′s so-called Golden Era ever did. At the heart of this was Rodgers and Hammerstein but this off to one side, being co-directed by the man who ten years earlier, pushed a completely different genre, Science Fiction, into the more intellectual direction with The Day The Earth Stood Still, and would later bring us the Sound Of Music, and the love it or hate it, Star Trek: The Motion Picture.

But its innovations begin with the film's opening. The Overture builds to the opening of the film, seamlessly, with the multicoloured animation sequence culminating with the building the streets of New York, and landing in the middle of the slums where the gang action begins.

Greese owes a huge debt to this film, with its adult casting of teenagers and balletic dance numbers as a way of interpreting gangs. But this is not Greese. This is darker, harder and more violent, as were Greese is more sexual in nature. But both are enjoyable to watch with large-scale choreography and a real sense of the nature of dance and the physical skills and stamina required to perform it.

Winner of 10 Academy Awards, this was the most well received musical in film history by the A.M.P.A.S., and certainly not without good reason. But is this the greatest musical of all time as many would argue? Not in my opinion but it is certainly one of the best but it's all very subjective. This had some of the best songs and dance performances that I have ever seen, with memorable tune after tune.

Highly recommended.

World Trade Center (2006)

NOT Flight 93

[31 October 2011]

Oliver Stone tackling 9/11 seemed to be a dream come true. The anti- establishmentarian looking at one of America's and indeed the worlds darkest, rawest and most politically charged events would on the surface appear to be one of the most anticipated movies of the decade. Was it? No.

The very English and down to earth Paul Greengrass tackled the same subject with his film released earlier that same year, United 93 with a very clinical take, and one that I believe will stand the test of time, in ways that this very certainly will not. World Trade Center follows the experiences of two Port Authority Police Officers who went into the towers and were caught in the collapse.

The film covers these events in detail and only touches on the rest of the story as experienced by the two leads, so my first major gripe with this film is its title. This is NOT about the World Trade Center, it is simply set within its death throes. What's there is fine, though nothing more than a well-directed "Lifetime Movie Of The Week", but it doesn't feel like a major motion picture dealing with one of histories darkest days.

United 93 covers the ground promised by this title, and though that film follows American Airlines Flight 93, it places the flight in the overriding context of the day as a whole. This film simply has two cops arrive at what would become known as Ground Zero, flatten them under the rubble, play out all the cliché's of trapped people under the rubble and places the passé story into the grander context of the day.

I was very disappointed with this one, as I chose this over United 93, which was my film of the year for 2006, but World Trade Center implied something so much but clearly, we're still along way from being ready to tell this story theatrically, as it needs to be. The wounds are still too raw and it's not yet time for the three-hour epic melodrama that this film could have been.

Paul Greengrass's approach of a clinical documentary style was as far a we were prepared to go for a chilly film, but Oliver Stone, the angry genius behind JFK, Nixon and Platoon, has clearly gone soft and made as safe a film as was humanly possible, maybe in an attempt to regain some creditably after the undue failure that was Alexander.

For the time being we will have to watch the endless docudrama on the horror of New York that day, but as for theatrical features, you will not go wrong with United 93.

Godzilla (1954)

The beginning was inspired...

[10/10 · 31 October 2011]

I was first introduced to Godzilla in cartoon form in the 1980′s as a child, but it wasn't until 1998, with Roland Emmerich's blockbuster reboot that I had seen the infamous beast on the pearl screen. I had also seem bits and bobs of the many original sequels as a child and they had made absolutely no impact on me what so ever! But I became aware of the significance of this, the original, only recently and it was due to this discovery that I hunted down the best copy available.

I ended up with the 2005 Region 1 release, which also includes the U.S. reworking from 1956, Godzilla: King Of The Monsters!. I could not have imagined that a the 1954 version of Godzilla, or more literally, Gojira, could have been so mature, so sombre, or so tempered with its sledgehammer philosophising. Produced just nine years after the devastating nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which effectively ended the Second World War, Gojira takes up the mantle on doing what Science Fiction does best, and created the cypher in the form of Godzilla, to represent the devastation left over from the nuking of these cities.

Godzilla is a nuclear beast, affected by U.S. nuclear tests and is now toxically radioactive and upon landfall on Tokyo, rains down, literally, nuclear destruction up on the city, in a manner not dissimilar too that levied upon either of the cities, Hiroshima or Nagasaki. But its not just about that. It about the creation of the next WMD which would ultimately be used against Godzilla but poses and moral dilemma that Robert Oppenheimer himself would appreciate, as to whether such a creation should be allowed to be developed. It also looks quite seriously into establishing the potential evolution of a creature such as Godzilla and uses plausible palaeontological arguments to justify his existence.

The pacing was good and though Godzilla strikes from almost the opening frame, there is a sense of an ongoing crisis rather than an impending apocalypse, with news outlets reporting throughout as plans, both military and civilian are sited.

All in all, this is not just the birth of the massive and largely corny and cheap Godzilla series, it is a striking, intelligent, moving and incredibly well judged masterpiece of 50′s cinema. But I should have known. Most rubbish franchises began with an inspired first movie, something to break the mould and this does the job perfectly.

But it isn't without its flaws. The special effects, though not all bad, are below par even for the time, but effective as for telling the story, some were very good with ALL being well conceived and ambitious. Some were very poor though, such as the model ships, which were unnecessarily below the standards and look like bath toys. But the cinematography was wonderful, with Honda shooting this in a classically manner. Tension was built brilliantly and the action rose to several crescendos and the excellent score by Akira Ifukube was not overused but brought to perfect effect when needed.

The acting was first-rate as well, proving Japanese cinemas reputation. But this was my first real foray into Japanese cinema, and what a treat it was. Many would look at this and see a cheap old film and others will see a film that whist let down by some less that brilliant visual effects and the fact that a lot of people, certainly in the U.K. find subtitles difficult, as a masterpiece not only of Eastern cinema but of cinema full stop. Truly realising its narrative and spirit, its cause and message. This was about a county in mourning not only for the hundreds of thousands lost by Fat Man and Little Boy, but for the war full stop. The 1950′s were a time of great political fear and reconstruction after WW2, and this is a film which taps into the brewing Cold War and fear of annihilation from human behemoths which once released can never be returned.

HIGHLY recommended but not for children as they will bore, miss the point, get put off by the subtitles, black and white and quite frankly its a mature and bleak film and not the 1998 remake. And thank God or Godzilla for that!

Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011)

Underrated

[7/10 · 7 July 2011]

This is the third and final installment of the iconoclastic Transformers franchise. By the law of diminishing returns, this should have fallen well below the par from the excellent first outing; well, has it? The answer is a definite no. First off, it's not as good as good as Transformers, lacking much of the comedy and puerile action, but it would be on par with the Revenge Of The Fallen, which is not up to much in many critic's opinions, which was overly smashy, confused and missed some of the pacing of the first.

Dark Of the Moon carries on the tradition of complex back stories, tying in to U.S. Space Race history, this time, right back to 1962 and the inception of the Apollo programme. Here, they postulate that NASA's moon race was purely conceived to get to the Moon first to recover a massive Cybertron based space craft, which had crashed in the Moon after the final battle on the doomed Transformer planet.

At the crash site, Sentinel Prime is discovered and years later, Optimus Prime recovers him, as he was the true leader of the Autobots in their war with the Decepticons. Also, there are a collection of what are referred to as Pillars, very 3D friendly, yet still plausibly so, floating metallic rod styled devices which would play a pivotal role later. Meanwhile, Sam, Shia LaBeouf, has moved on from his Megan Fox girlfriend and has now, somewhat inexplicably, moved in with Victoria Secrets model, though in the film, she's supposed to be some form a P.A., played by the inept Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, which is simply ridiculous. This point is also brought up in the script as his own mother warns him that he would not get so lucky a third time!

The world is has now been invaded by Decepticons and Sam, along with his collection of mis-matched allies and seven remaining Autobots are all that stands between them and total destruction. Sounds like a good setup but with a typical running time 157 minutes, the plot was simply too thin to sustain itself, leading to patchy pacing and moments that begin to plod. I didn't find this to be all that bad but others felt that the word boring would more than a little apt.

You see for me, the pay off of robots beating the hell out of each other and taking the world down with them is worth the wait and the flaws in the narrative, but for others, this will not be the case. Leonard Nimoy's voice portrayal of Sentinel Prime was fine, but the constant need to remind us that it was Mr. Spock wasn't. This culminated in a completely unnecessary piece of dialogue where Sentinel reprises Spock's line from Star Trek II, "...The needs of the many, out way the needs of the few". This was a quote to far in my opinion, certainly when justifying some questionable and immoral acts...

Then there was the 3D, and what 3D it was! This finally proved that a blockbuster can be produced in 3D without sacrificing the cinematography for cynical dimensional gestures. The film looked as I would expect any 2D blockbustering actioner to look, with sweeping aerial action and objects flying towards the audience but the 3D effect only amplified this, and didn't make it. This was well conceived and I take my hats of to them. This is what 3D should look like and it was visually arresting.

Overall, the film provided all the thrills and spills that you would expect from Transformers, with acceptable acting for a film of this genre, with the gross exception of Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, who should stick to modeling and as acting or even speaking would seem to be light years beyond her. John Malkovich and Frances McDormand, deliver great cameos and bring some of the only really decent acting to the film, with the further exceptions of the returning John Turturro and the addition of Alan Tudyk, who both deliver most of the belly laughs in this outing.

It was fun but not as much fun as the previous films. DOTM was clearly trying to shift the tone and in doing so it succeeded at moving the film into a slightly darker, more action film place. This felt more like a straight forward 12 rated actioner such as Bay's other efforts, The Rock and Armageddon and a little less of the lighter more child friendly overtones of the previous two. Still, I enjoyed this and feel very strongly that the naysayers who would rate this film so lowly that you'd have to look for it in the gutter, have allowed themselves to take this way too seriously.

Is this the end of for Transformers? I hope so, but the door is still open and with the vast profits that it's already made, Transformers 4 could be just around the next corner. If that's the case, it is not what i would prefer, feeling that they've gone as far as they came but I would certainly run out to watch it!

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011)

Return to form

[8/10 · 26 May 2011]

Based, believe it or not, loosely, on the Tim Powers novel, On Stranger Tides, Pirates 4 seemed about as appealing as hole in the head after the diabolical sequels to the excellent first outing. Then it was to be in 3D, scrap several key characters and shed the direction of Gore Verbinski, in favour of Chicago's, Rob Marshall. A recipe for disaster? It seemed that way.

Though saying that, Gore had certainly sealed his fate with me, turning what was a well conceived, action adventure romp with some very memorable characters into an unnecessary epic saga which seriously missed the point and derailed itself. One dubious decision taken in the production of Dead Man's Chest, was to keep Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightly's characters, let alone giving them so much prominence.

Knightly was fine, for the first film,. in fact, she was spot on, but she couldn't carry the role any further and began to look ridiculous as the series progressed. This should have been the adventures of Jack Sparrow, so excellently portrayed by Johnny Depp, and Geoffrey Rush's, Barbossa was the perfect pirate. So I was more than pleased to see the continuing adventures of these two characters, with Depp, returning to form after I felt that he had lost it in the sequels.

Penélope Cruz was another pleasant surprise, as never being a fan of her's, I was dubious but this was casting done properly. She was more than convincing as a pirate and put Knightly's efforts to shame. But what of Ian McShane's Blackbeard? Well, another great showing from him, but the inexplicable magic displayed as he waves in his 3D sword around and points it at the camera to remind us that 3D is here, not so much.

But the 3D was pretty naff. You could watch most of the film without the glasses, with the effect being limited to several sequences. It looked good, it was inoffensive and unobtrusive but what was the point again? I don't think that this film will do 3D any real harm but that's because nobody really noticed it in the first place.

The sense of adventure from the The Curse Of The Black Pearl was evident here and long over due. I find it puzzling as to why so many reviews have been so harsh, branding it boring, overly complicated and not pulled together properly, but I would disagree. Granted, it is a bit scrappy, it's not going to be used as case study in tight scripting, or deep character development and it is somewhat derivative, but it was fun, flashy and flamboyant.

Isn't this what these films are all about? Depp created a classic character with Sparrow back in 2003, and tough I felt that he was a one trick pony, Sparrow that is, not Depp, this was a partial return to form, under new direction from Marshall. But I am left feeling that no matter how much I enjoyed this for what it was, the first Pirates Of The Caribbean was a film which successfully transferred a theme park ride into a career defining blockbuster, but I feel that it should have remained one film, a single triumph and not a franchise that has been saved in my eyes, by the fourth installment.

Dracula (1931)

Where it all began...

[6/10 · 5 May 2011]

The year was 1931: Two years after the success of The Jazz Singer and the final introduction of sound movies into the mainstream, sound was still revolutionising the industry. But in 1931, a bit like 3D now, there was still much confusion over to how make films, with directors, producers and actors alike, were still moving over from the suddenly dated silent era, with varying success.

Tod Browning was a man who would unfortunately find little success in the sound era, but not necessarily because he couldn't move with the times, but because his career was derailed a couple of years later by his disturbing horror pic, Freaks.

Dracula was shot THREE times. One, this one, was the conventional sound version that we all know. An other was shot at night and in Spanish for the benefit of that audience, which the studio supposedly preferred. This was quite common at this time, but little known nowadays. And the third was a straight forward silent version for the many theatres still un-equipped to handle sound.

But the styles of the silent era are all over this film. From the long silent reactions shots and the over acting, especially by Bela Lagosi in the titular role. This was also the adaptation of the stage adaptation of Bram Stoker's chiller, and was faithfully adapted from that source, hence the lack of more complex special effects, with bats on strings and fog machines, over more cinematic effects.

The transformation scenes for example, where the Count morphs from a bat to the undead human occur off-screen, rather than some form of cross fade etc. Is this a choice driven by lack of money? Lack of cinematic ambition of a choice to stick to the stage material? To be honest, I have too little knowledge or experience of Tod Browning's work to suggest a reason, but when all's said and done, it did work.

Let's be honest, this is 80 years old and is not the least bit scary and it is hard not to laugh, but in context, I'm sure it worked well at the time and the story is well conveyed. Lagosi's undead performance is hammy by today's standards but he was somewhat likable. He was very deliberate, slow and the silent era has certainly left its scars, as the subtly of sound performing was yet to take hold.

But this is the sort of film were silent melodramatic acting still worked. This is of course a piece Gothic Horror, the home of melodrama if ever there was one. This is surly a product of its time, both as the industry went through one of it's most dramatic changes, which ended so many careers as well a created so many new ones, but it's also, let's not forget, the first direct adaptation of Bram Stoker's book, besides the 1922 German version, Nosferatu, which changes a fair few details to try to get around the copyright, failing to do so mind, resulting in failed bid to have every copy of the film destroyed.

This is the film that ingrained the image of the Dracula that we know today into popular culture. This was were the Universal horror franchise began. For whatever faults it has by today's standards, it did something right.