District 9 is everything Steven Spielberg is incapable of doing with modern science fiction, and that is perhaps the greatest compliment I can bestow upon this film. No cuddly aliens here, no heavy-handed moralising that would make Walt Disney blush.

The premise supposes an alien aircraft landing sometime in the late 20th century, but subverts the usual Hollywood clichés by having the aliens land in Johannesburg – not the well trodden NY or LA. This provides an exciting and new environment for such a story, and being less familiar as a celluloid setting for the viewer, a more believable one. This is a clever tool, preventing the viewer from anticipating the usual landmarks being destroyed or saved. What follows is a film that ticks all the boxes that any science fiction fan could hope for. It’s gritty, realistic, packed with action and lashings and lashings of blood and guts. But where this film excels is in its ability to bring to the piece a new take on an old theme: how would we react if the little green men really did disembark on Earth?  The aliens, pejoratively described as “prawns” by the locals, have been quarantined into a slum, the District 9, and after 20 years, are to be moved by MNU, a shadowy multinational organisation set up to “assist” – exploit? – the aliens. We follow, in a hand-held style documentary style the rather grey, civil servant type, Wikus de Merwe in his day serving eviction notices to the “prawns”. Just as the prawns are physically abhorrent initially, Wikus is an emotionally unpleasant and weak character, but as the film progresses, we see both in a changing light. It is a credit to the production team that this is done with a light touch, and none of the usual heavy-handed Hollywood signposting “now you like all the aliens”.

The apartheid reference, along with the look of the slum itself, and the presence of a Nigerian mafia – supplying quite a lot of gunpower – keep South Africa itself as a key character in the story. That said, no viewer would leave feeling that any other country would have handled the situation in any other way.

The director, Neil Blongkamp clearly knows his sci-fi with nods to Robocop (Ed209 anyone?) and The Fly. But while these similarities are apparent, Blongkamp is not simply serving up a re-hash of old favourites, but utilises these as a vehicle to craft and enhance the story.

Anyone who enjoys sci-fi should get to their nearest multiplex asap, but this is also a film which, given the questions it asks of us, can be appreciated on a deeper level.

Peter Jackson – time to give your prodigy Blongkamp a gold star, top of the class!

PS: this is based on Blongkamp’s lovingly crafted 6min short, “Alive in Joburg”, which can be seen on YouTube…

Pete chimes in with a OneWordReview for this Nic Cage film.

Over to you Pete:

“Shit”

There you go ladies and gents!

No need to read any more.

This review is dedicated to those readers of a certain vintage who grew up under the influence of Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. If you happened to spend your formative years with Tarantino movie posters on your bedroom wall and jungle boogie ringing out your speakers, then I have three words which you’ll be overjoyed to hear… Tarantino is back.

 Yes, Tarantino has been active since Pulp Fiction, and with momentary highlights such as Jackie Brown, but I think we’ve all been waiting for him to pull something special together. Something really special. He’s managed to do just that with the fabulous war movie Inglorious Basterds.

 To quickly summarise the plot, a young jewish girl sees her family murdered by the infamous Nazi ”jew hunter” Col. Hans Landa – played in a wonderfully subtle camp (but terrifying) manner by Christoph Waltz. Said girl flees to Paris and assumes a new identity. Fate dictates that an entire Nazi dream team spend an evening in her place of work, thus dealing her a chance to exact revenge.

 That’s enough about the plot, the fun parts of the movie are – I’m delighted to report – wonderfully executed violence, and rip-roaring fast-paced dialogue. In recent Tarantino outings such as  DeathProof,  his  particular style of bullet-fast dialogue had become grating – he returns to form in Basterds relying more on humour and execution of dialogue rather than speed of delivery. 

 Brad Pitt is excellent as Aldo Raine, the leader of a gang of head scalping ”basterds” on a special mission – ”killin’ nazis”. His southern drawl and wonderful lines are a joy, and look out for his effort at going undercover as an Italian stuntman!

 As with all good Tarantino movies, there are standout scenes. One such scene in Basterds involves a wonderfully uncomfortable drinking session in the cellar of a French bar with a group of pissed up nazi soldiers, an undercover British agent, two Basterds and a German actress in cahoots with the alliance. Predictably, a bloodbath unfolds, but not before the viewer has been taken on a very Tarantino ride…

 Although a solid cast is in place, they are always playing foil to the standout characters of Pitt’s Lt Raine, and Waltz’s Hans Landa – and rightly so. With these two characters Tarantino has created two thoroughly memorable movie legends. You spend the movie waiting for these two characters to cross swords, and swords do indeed make a cross – in the final frame of the movie.

 Tough to categorise this movie in a genre, but I’d opt for black comedy. Black comedy in the manner that only an on-form Tarantino can deliver. Welcome back Quentin, we’ve missed you!

Ron Howard takes a second stab at a Dan Brown book.

Like the Da Vinci Code, Angels and Demons is a page turning popcorn novel with the usual preposterous ending and the film is much the same. Sticking rigidly to the plot and pacing of the book, Howard has created another paint by numbers movie that leaves little to remember once the credits role.

Tom Hanks returns as Robert Langdon, the code cracking professor, drawn into the secretive world of the Vatican. The last Pope has died and the four hots shots expected to replace him are kidnapped by the shadowy Illluminati. Will he be able to follow the centuries old clues and track down the missing Fathers before the time runs out? Does anyone care?

There’s really little to say about this film. If you’ve read the book, then you know exactly what’s going to happen. If you’ve not read it then there’s enough to keep you occupied for the duration of the film.

Again, the best thing about the books hasn’t transferred well to the screen. By that I mean playing along trying to guess the clues before you turn the next page. Here it’s all done for you. Spoon fed to you along with shot after shot of Rome at night time, and there’s no doubt about it, it’s a beautiful city. Wonderfully shot, with glorious sweeping pans from roof tops to the bowels of the Vatican itself.

Tom Hanks phones in another performance. Always dependable and enjoyable to watch, he’s hardly stretched by the script. Ewan McGregor lends support as the previous Popes right hand man. It’s a work man like performance but his ill advised “Oirish” accent really jars and at times become comical as he slips in and out of Scottish.

If you’re a fan of the first one, you’ll like this. If you thought it fell short of the mark, then this will do nothing to change your mind.

There is fun to be had here but it’s fleating and frivoulos with a side order of eye candy. Works well as an advert for a weekend in Rome though.

Every so often we get a film into the office that really surprises us. Underground is certainly one of them. A UK low budget martial arts flick that really pushes the definition of what you can expect from a limited budget.

12 fighters compete in a series of bare-knuckle brawls for a £500,000 cash prize. Backed by 6 dubious characters, the film dispenses with the formalities and cuts right to the heart of the story, the fights!

The writing’s tight, the acting is more than adequate and the hand-to-hand fights are easily the best we’ve seen since The Bourne Supremacy. In fact, we guarantee you you’ll be wincing with every punch and smiling with the sheer inventiveness of each fight.

Not being familiar with the fight scene in general, the names of the actors meant nothing to me. Mark Strange, Nathan Lewis etc, I didn’t have a clue who they were (sorry chaps!). But that actually added to the enjoyment of guessing which characters were going to make it to the final. You’ll have loads of fun playing along with the crowd, wondering who is going to get knocked out.

A few well known faces turn up round the board room table, Cat from Red Dwarf, that guy from the second series of Minder and even Dr Legg from Eastenders! If there is a failing in the film, it’s these sections; they feel slightly stilted yet still manage to link the ever-engaging fights together quite well. You get the feeling the director, Chee Keong Cheung, knows this and wisely keeps the wordy talking bits to a minimum. But fear not, we’re never too far away from another round of fisty cuffs!

In tone and content it’s not a million miles away from the great French film 13 Tzameti, which is certainly no bad thing as far as we’re concerned.

Special mention must go to Mark Strange for bringing an unexpected emotional depth to his part as The Homeless. A down on his luck father, who takes part in the contest to provide a better life for his daughter. The emotion he brings to the role cements the film with an air of reality, that would otherwise be lacking. Surely a name to watch out for in the future.

So to some up, Underground does exactly what it says on the tin! A great looking film that’s perfect for those with an interest in the sport, or those who just like a good old fashioned and inventive fight film. Looking for brutal and bloody film for a boy’s night in? You could do a lot worse that checking this out.

“The Hangover – Never has feeling so bad felt so good”.

Let’s be honest, the plot alone is a surefire winner – four men. A bachalor party (stag-do to us Brits). In Vegas. What could possibly go wrong?

Well, if Jon Lucas and Scott Moore (co-writers) are to be believed, pretty much everything.

Todd Philips has found fine form once again here. Much like with Road Trip and Old School (he snaffles a brief cameo in each), this film essentially boils down to a close group of guys finding themselves in ever increasing wild and weird situations for the entire duration of the film. The clichés are all here. You’ve got the obligatory nerd Stu (Ed Helms), the slightly creepy simpleton loner Alan (comedian Zach Galifianakis), the outgoing pack leader Phil (Bradley Cooper) and the ‘middle of the road’ sufferer dragged into the whole maelstrom – husband to be Doug (Justin Bartha). All are great but this film belongs to Alan, the brother-in-law to be who proves time and again that you should “Ignore the beard, he’s just a child”.

After an arrestingly menacing opener things quickly reduce into a farcical, near non-stop whodunnit? – or more accurately whodunwhat? After waking from the promised night to remember, nobody can remember a thing. And with one of the gang having disappeared the remaining three have no time to dwell on their mysterious injuries (fear the dentist? then prepare to squirm), lost belongings and newly acquired exotic pet as they are forced to drive, fight and run up and down the strip in an attempt to locate their missing groom to be. All the while the wedding is drawing ever closer – check out the utterly believable desperation come creeping on as the inevitable “everything’s fine!” calls that are made back home (we’ve all made them, just think of your worst example and x it by 50) to the anxious bride and Stu’s truly awful girlfriend – you will know someone like her.

All in all, The Hangover, simply put, is a great comedy. With an appropriate running time (95 mins), more gags then any one film rightfully deserves (keep an eye out for the sequel) and a genuine, liberal dose of that often missing ‘feel-good’ factor it accomplishes precisely what a comedy should – it makes you laugh. A lot.

Because of the huge heart at its centre you cannot help but laugh out-loud in good conscience at the films (many) grimier gags – keep an eye out for the baby and the numerous cameos. As in Knocked Up and Role Models Ken Jeong pops up later to provide another larger then life passive / aggressive turn (you just know they have a riot coming up with this stuff). Not quite so successful is the much publicised “Iron” Mike Tyson appearance. He himself is rubbish. He doesn’t spoil anything, it works that he’s rubbish. Trust me, you’ll see.

“You probably get this a lot but this isn’t the real Caesar’s Palace is it?”

In short, The Hangover is easily Todd’s best so far. It effortlessly manages to take you through the A-Z of gross, inappropriate group male behaviour but all the while keeps things feeling, well, “nice and fuzzy”. Ignore the negative reviews (and there have been many). They’ve missed the point and somehow the countless funny jokes – just listen closely for the hysterical one-liners that are almost tossed away.

There’s no malice here, no cheap tricks or lazy cynicism. It’s just a very funny film.

If you’re a guy (and I suspect the same applies for the girls) and you’re under fifty, chances are you will just “get” this film. You’ll find yourself wandering out of the cinema with a big grin on your face and your mind racing as to how/who/when you can rope into a boy’s holiday as if your life depends on it. You’ll be quoting it with the guys for years to come.

Oh, and you’ll never have been so happy to sit through the end credits either.

Live Long and Prosper? – it’s off to a good start.

You’ve heard of Star Trek. Whether you’re a die-hard Trekkie/er, a casual fan or even if you hate sci-fi, you know what Star Trek is.

And J.J Abrams knows that you know. And its from this starting point that he has successfully managed to breathe new life yet again into the seemingly deathproof franchise that started out as a low-budget, big ideas TV show over 40 years ago.

Let’s start again – at the beginning.

Much like the spin-off series Enterprise, (2001 – 2005) Star Trek is set during the early days of the Federation. To be more precise, at the very beginning (actually, even earlier still) of Captain Jim Tiberius Kirk’s life. After a very effective big bang introduction to the Trek universe things take on a slower approach, lovingly (re)introducing characters through their respective starts as cadets of the Federation. Abrams has openly admitted to not being a hugh fan of the series but he has clearly fallen for it at some point during the production process because it quickly becomes obvious that he cares a great deal for these characters.

From the sumptuous effects and set design down to the casting itself – Star Trek manages to bring things very much up to date whilst being entirely respectful to what has gone before.
Everything you want and a little bit more.

From the uniforms to the phasers, from the ‘beam me ups’ to the captain’s chair – it’s all here. Just a little bit different. Almost without exception everything has been given an overhaul to some degree but nothing has been radicalised to the point that fans will have any genuine reason to grumble. Of course, you’ll never please all the people all the time. But fans should take heart, given the glut of truly awful remakes, re-imaginings and reduxes of late, it could have all gone so wrong.

But it hasn’t. The story itself is decent enough, revolving around the vengeful Romulan Nero (Eric Banna) seeking revenge for the losses he has endured at the hands of the Federation (in his mind at least). And inevitably, it falls to the young Enterprise crew (with a few helping hands) to save the day. To be honest, not too much more can be elaborated on plot-wise without spoiling things too much. However, I will say this: It is a bit of shame that once again the plot includes (the now seemingly obligatory) time travel twists. Surely, with a universe as rich as Trek’s, it would be possible to write a decent storyline where time travel of any fashion is not required?

Suffice it to say, this minor niggle aside it’s still an enjoyable tale with the right blend of old and new. And for the fans, there are enough references to names, places and events to keep you happily smug. For complete newcomers it’s an entertaining romp with great action scenes and a decent enough story. although you may feel slightly lost during the 3rd (and weakest) act.

The only real mis-step is, I’m sorry to say, Simon Pegg as Scotty. Here (as was the case in MI3) his sole purpose is to provide the comic relief. He fails. His character feels forced and unnecessary and actually jars with the rest of the film. Thankfully, his scenes are limited in number and so cause no real lasting damage to the overall film but it is a surprising error in judgement on the part of both the writers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman as well as Adrams himself. As for the remainder of the cast Chris Pine is well suited to the role of young Kirk. He brings the right blend of machismo and street smarts without appearing obnoxious. As for Spock – Zachary Quinto is pretty much perfect. He certainly looks the part and finds the perfect tone – you’ll have no problem believing he’s the young Leonard Nimoy (you’ll see). Given that the original series relied so heavily on the chemistry between Kirk and Spock and their ying yang-like kinship, it’s very pleasing to see this relationship blossom and both actors, to their credit, pull it off completely. Rounding out the cast are Karl Urban as the always gruff Dr. ‘Bones (good), Zoe Saldana as Uhura (both pretty and suitably fiesty), John Cho bringing ‘cool’ to Sulu and Anton Yelchin as the very young Chekov. Bana makes a workmanlike baddie but in his defence, there’s not actually a great deal of depth to bring to his role as Nero other than to snarl and look broody.

All in all, this is a very solid starting point for a whole new series of Star Trek. It proves that ‘re-boots’ can, given the right amount of care and attention work.

Grittier, darker but still very much true Trek, this really is the Next Generation. Long may it live. And prosper.

Oh my God! Where do I start?

This is one of the worst films I’ve seen in a long time. A spectaular load of bollocks on every single level.

First the good stuff. Some of the robots / terminators are cool. There are some big explosions. Arnie’s in it, for about 3 seconds. Ummm, that’s about it. 

Right now onto the bad.
 
The plot is rubbish. The acting is wooden. There’s a cute kid, that for some unexplained reason, can’t speak. Christian Bale growls his way through the entire movie . Bryce Dallas Howard has practically nothing to do. There’s hardly an original idea in the entire film. Just about every single action scene has been stolen from somewhere else; step forward Transformers, The Matrix and War of the Worlds. But none of that can over shadow the massive steaming turd that is the script. 

I find it unbelievable that Christian Bale read a full finished script before he signed on. It’s brain numbling, laugh out loud bad. No wonder he was so pissed off on the set.  

Check this – Sam Worthington is on death row, about to get the lethal injection. Helena Bonham Carter comes to see him in hs cell, to try and get him to donate his body to Cyberdyne Systems. Only, she’s dying of cancer. You can tell this because she has a bald head. Sam is relunctant, only finally caving in in exchange for a kiss. Now, if that doesn’t sound  lame enough, GET THIS!

After the kiss he says, and I shit you not here, “Now I know what death tastes like”. WTF!?! What does that even mean?

That’s not all, there’s loads of this rubbish, line after line of it. It starts to get depressing, then it starts to get so bad it’s funny. 

If you do go see this, and I can’t recommend strongly enough that you don’t,  keep an ear out for the fireside chat between Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington) & Blair Williams (Moon Bloodgood). It’s toe curling, excruciatingly  awful. To the point where you’re almost gnawing your fist off before getting up and walking out.

Remember being scared shitless of the Terminator in the first one? Remember seeing the T-1000 go all melty in the second one and going, “WOW, that’s cool!”. Even the 3rd one wasn’t great but the ending was kinda groovy. There is nothing great in this film. There are no cool moments. Nothing has any weight to it. None of the action scenes are anything that you’ve not seen 100 times before and done 100 times better. 

This is beyond a shadow of doubt the worst installment of Terminator yet. Plus, the movie is left open ended; part of a planned new triliogy. I really, really hope that McG isn’t attached to direct either of them, because he’s made a total cock up of this one.

Oh, and apparently Terminators have USB ports, handy if you want to plug in a printer, or charge your iPod. 

[rating:1]

Director: Edward Zwick

Starring Daniel Craig, Liev Schreiber and Jamie Bell, Defiance is the true story of three Jewish brothers (Tuvia, Zus and Asael Bielski) trying to survive the Nazis in occupied Eastern Europe.

Fleeing their destroyed farmland, the Bielski brothers escape to the surrounding forests. As word spreads, they are soon joined by other Jews and, finally a community of over 1000 people are sheltering from the Nazi threat.

This is a story of incredible heroism and courage. The sheer act of living in such an inhospitable place is in itself  amazing, but add in the always-present threat from the enemy forces and the story becomes truly inspirational.

Daniel Craig once again brings his ‘hard as nails’ image to the screen as the leader of the community. Ably supported by Jamie Bell, who has one of the more emotional speeches of the film. A rallying cry to the dispossessed near the end, when it looks like all hope is lost. It’s a powerful moment and resonates with the viewer long after the credits roll.

But, it’s Liev Schreiber’s portrayal of Zus Bielski where the real acting chops lie. This is the brother that feels that just surviving isn’t enough and joins with the Russian soldiers to fight the Germans. A thankless task as these fighting Jews are not seen as fellow combatants by their Russian counterparts, only at best expendable and at worst cannon fodder. Liev performance treads a careful line between simmering revenge and his sense of duty to his fellow brothers. Worth watching the film for on it’s own. The dynamic between the three is powerful enough to drive the film along but there is a problem.

There’s a Ray Mears episode that talks of this story. He digs into the background of the survival aspects and even talks to some of the original surviving escapees. It’s an amazing story, well told and rooted firmly in the here and now. If only the Edward Zwick had imbued this film with the same grounding, you can’t help but feel he’d have been onto a winner.

This leads us to the main problem. With Defiance there’s just too much artistic license going on, too many “Hollywood” moments and the sheer size of the forest is never adequately conveyed to the audience . For a place that eventually hides over 1000 people, you feel like the surrounding villages are never more than a few hundred meters away. This feeling of scale is crucial to the story and its absence really undermines the credibility of the film.

It’s a pity as there are some standout scenes and some beautiful camera work. But the high points only further serve to underline the lows,  and overall it makes for  an uneven film.

A gritty  true story that isn’t quite done justice by the movie makeover.

[rating:3]

Is the new Bond film any good?
Yes, is the answer.

Is it as good as Casino Royal?
Not quite but not far off.

Does it feel like a Bond film?
Not really.

And this is probably the only real stumbling block.

It’s not a Bourne film, although it does more than tip its hat in that direction.
In fact you could argue that the entire roof top chase / fight was lifted straight from Bourne 3, but it doesn’t really feel like a Bourne film either.

That’s not to say it’s not a top film. You’ll certainly get your moneys worth. Fast cars, great action, hot girls: Check, Check, Check.

It’s just that there are no gadgets, hardly any witty come backs (ok apart from the line in the hotel) or indeed, a memorable bad guy.

In fact, just what was so bad about this bad guy anyway? Sure he over throws governments and puts in puppet dictators, then holds the country to ransom. But it’s hardly world domination / wipe everyone out and start again from your headquarters in space or under the sea!

So where does that leave us then?
Well I’ll tell you, the reinvention of Bond continues, it’s great and hard and gritty but they are in danger of losing what made Bond likeable in the first place.

Think of this one as part two of a trilogy and it makes more sense. Fingers crossed, when Bond returns next time, he brings a couple of jokes and some laser watches with him!

4 out of 5
(Take a point off if you miss the white cat patting baddies)