The Social Network

Mike Dunn likes this.

The Social Network is by far one of the best films of the year. It is incredibly well-crafted and meticulously put together. David Fincher's dedication can be seen and felt throughout the film, from the quick-fire dialogue to the atmospheric and pounding soundtrack. It focuses on one of the most influential and socially-important creations in the past few years, and handles it with great dignity.

The Social Network tells the apparent origin and development of the social networking Internet site 'Facebook', and it's forthcoming rise to becoming the most used social network on the Internet from the point of view of one of the co-creators, Eduardo Saverin (played by "Future-Spiderman" Andrew Garfield). It is told mainly in flashbacks, from the testimonies of Saverin and the 'mind behind Facebook', Mark Zuckerberg (played by Jesse Eisenberg), during their court case over Saverin's treatment towards the end of working with Zuckerberg.

Like I said, the film is very well put-together, if a little hard-to-follow sometimes. The opening scene depicts Zuckerberg in a conversation with his then-girlfriend (Rooney Mara), which results in the Facebook-ball rolling. Despite it being an effective catalyst for the rest of the film, the pace of their conversation is very quick and the vocabulary is quite extravagant, serving as a perfect introduction to the film and presenting the message loud and clear: You had better keep up, as we are not slowing down.

The montages of the meticulous and complicated creation of websites are intentionally skimmed through, with Eisenberg barely taking breaths between voice-overs as if you have heard this all before. This gives it the essence of superiority and intelligence which I felt the subject matter needed, however the best one-liners and verbal altercations of the script aren't given chance to sink in with the audience, and whilst you laugh or think about what has just been said, you miss something even better following up. It's pace is it's advantage and downfall.

Whilst the screenwriter Aaron Sorkin continues his trend of writing entertaining and smart scripts, the only problem is the level of authenticity. Since no Facebook staff, or even Zuckerberg, helped Sorkin with the history of the company, the only inspiration was Eduardo Saverin's recollection, which I feel may assisted in Sorkin portraying Zuckerberg and others in a bad light. Therefore are the portrayals of Zuckerberg, or Sean Parker (played by Justin Timberlake) how they really acted? Or did Eduardo want them shown like that to get the audience on his side?

Regardless, the main cast definitely do justice to the screenplay, with the partnership of the best friends Eisenberg and Garfield being the core. Since they both are virtual unknowns to Hollywood, it shows great faith in David Fincher to cast them, but I feel that they reward that faith handsomely.

Another big plus is the film's soundtrack. As a fan of Trent Reznor, I found his and Atticus Ross' score very well-suited to the film, and incredibly interactive... so much so that I am listening to some of the songs whilst writing this review.

Again, I appreciate the level of intelligence Fincher uses in approaching the film's subject matter and I believe it makes the potentially boring story of Facebook's origins very intriguing and watchable.
However, The Social Network isn't for everyone. The typical Facebook user will probably find the storyline lacking in high concept ideas, the pacing too fast to keep up with, and the special effects of the Winklevoss Twins wasted when they could have been used on explosions and prat falls. All with 'lolz' here and 'gr8's there.

Sigh. It is what Zuckerberg would have wanted after all.

Rating - 9/10

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part One

Death-Eaters Strike Back

Now I must say that before I saw Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part One, I really didn't think the franchise had any artistic merit and that they were just quickly made adaptations of the books just to score money off the movie-going public. And whilst the second half may still be the case, I think I'm changing my mind on the 'artistic merit' side of things.

For those few people who haven't been caught up in the phenomenon that is Harry Potter, Deathly Hallows: Part One is the penultimate installment of the franchise, where the titular Potter along with his friends Ron and Hermione, drop out of Hogwarts school and set out across the country trying to find 'Horcruxes' (mementos storing parts of the Big Bad Voldemort's soul) and destroying them, and therefore the Big Bad himself. Since the sixth film, Voldemort has risen to be in control of The Ministry of Magic, and is starting to turn the country into a sort-of Nazi state, indoctrinating children about the dangers of 'cross-breeding'.

I know, I know, it sounds like your ordinary kids' film, but I think the dark way that the books and films have gone have only given more weight to the story. It's given the director (David Yates) and the three main stars (Radcliffe, Grint and Watson) something to finally work with and sink their teeth into. Speaking of the three leads, this film rests on them more than ever before. Thankfully, I feel that this film is their best example of how far they've progressed. They have constantly been criticised for the lack of range, but with most of the film's time being dedicated to the three being in a tent travelling the country, they are allowed to show how they can handle drama, horror, romance and comedy all in the second act of the film.

However, with the heroes deciding to leave Hogwarts and carry on without help, it also means that there is little screen-time for Potter regulars, such as Alan Rickman's wonderful portrayal of Snape, reducing their input to being first act cameos, surely to be enhanced in the second part of the finale. With the focus being shone on the three leads, the other storylines such as the fate of Mad-Eye Moody, are skipped over or briefly mentioned and never returned to, which made it seem rushed, although these could be touched on in the second installment.

Overall, I believe that this installment is the equivalent of The Empire Strikes Back in the Star Wars saga. The heroes are trying to outwit and outrun the all-powerful dark forces at work, and with help of friends as well as their own development and growth, they set up the pieces for a hopefully fantastic final chapter.

It is by far the best film of the franchise so far. It is dark, broody, emotional and filled with great action, special effects, and above all else: acting. It only annoys you that you have to wait until next Summer to find out how it will end.

Rating - 7/10

Skyline

Beam Me Up

I had quite high hopes for The Strause Brother's (I refuse to call them The Brothers Strause) film, Skyline. The marketing for the film was quite subtle and the trailers showed brief glimpses of big beefy aliens rampaging through Los Angeles and quite ostentatious spaceships sucking up Joe Publics all over the freakin' world! Despite friends and colleagues telling me my hopes were about to be crushed, I went and watched the film, and would have much rather watched the same trailer a few dozen times instead.

Skyline centres around a group of friends (including Eric Balfour and Donald "Turk from Scrubs" Faison) trapped in a Los Angeles penthouse whilst an alien invasion occurs outside their window. As the survivors get picked off one by one, the group become agitated and try to figure out a plan to escape. Meanwhile, the aliens survey the surrounding areas and meet the full force of the American Army.

Sounds like a fantastic premise, right? In that brief scenario, you have the opportunity to have heart-in-mouth moments of people desperately hiding from alien scavengers. There is potential for amazing set-pieces of alien spaceships invading the entire globe and learning of stories from all over the world of different people struggling with this tremendous event. At the very least you have the main characters go through a journey where they learn about the futility of holding grudges or wanting materialistic possessions when life is so short and precious to waste, and they develop as people despite the horrible background to the story, right?

Skyline offers none of that. You must be thinking of Monsters, which I hear handles all of those in a much better way. Unfortunately I watched 90-odd minutes of banality. The characters are painfully two-dimensional, you don't care for their safety by the end of the film, and begin cheering for the aliens to take them off and be done with them. The main part of the storyline is just based around these characters and their own personal escape and no other soul in Los Angeles is seen. This is mainly due to their budget, but it leaves you thinking they are the last people in the entire city, and I felt seeing at least a few other cities and how they were coping would have added to the alien's threat. The stupidity of the characters also seems unrealistic, and I believe that when the "Strausi" wrote the script, they were forced to put in the consierge character (played by the wonderful David Zayas) who's main point is to emphasise how "This is real! This is really happening!"

As the Strause Brothers are special effects artists themselves, it's obvious that the effects came first and the storyline second, and the effects are astounding. The first few minutes of the film where the aliens start their invasion and begin sucking people up for their crazy purpose are genuinely eerie and troubling, but it's just the rest of the film that lets it down. But even though they were the highlight of the film, they still seemed tainted as The Strausi seemed to have lifted ideas from several other Sci-Fi films as well. I stopped counting the amount of times I saw flashes of Independence Day, War of the Worlds and even The Matrix, as I lost spare fingers and toes.

Despite its potential and stunning visuals, Skyline leaves you feeling unfulfilled and angry at the obvious sequel it's hinted to. Please Strause Brothers, don't give us another Skyline. If you don't, I'll even call you by the name you prefer?

Rating - 2/10

Paranormal Activity 2

Stay Out Of The Basement

I'm currently writing this because I'm a bit frightened to shut my laptop down and turn my light off, as that would leave me in the dark. And in the dark is where the bad things get you.

I have just returned from a preview of Paranormal Activity 2, and I'm happy to say that the creators didn't see much that needed changing from the first film, and continued to give more frightening results.

Despite Paranormal Activity 2 being a sequel, it acts as a prequel to Paranormal Activty, showing the pesky demon causing havoc in the house/mansion of Katie's sister Kristi, with it's focus mainly on her ironicly-named baby, Hunter.

The events of the film take place 60 or so days before the events of Paranormal Activity and the film compliments the earlier installment well. Questions about the storyline and the characters are answered well, if a little convieniently. We see the origins of Micah's obsession with his video camera and learn more about Katie and Kristi's history with the demon. The characters are fleshed out more than the first Paranormal Activity plus the inclusion of younger potential victims in the teenage daughter and the baby, give an added threat that was missing in the first film.

A film like this is only as good as it's scary moments, and there are many in this film. Carrying on the tradition, anytime nighttime comes around, a wave of dread washes over you, knowing something bad's going to happen to these innocent people. However, action begins to take place in the daytime, leading you to expect ghostly goings-on all the way through the film. There is no safety in the daylight.

Whilst this does add to the tension, it also leads to different plotholes concerning the other film. If the demon is so used to possession and acting out in the daytime, why does it bother going through 20-odd nights of apparent experiments in Katie and Micah's house? Why doesn't it start by terrorising Katie in the daytime like in Kristi's home?

Despite these little plotholes and slight lack of sequel-development that is expected, Paranormal Activity 2 is an exceptional scary film this Hallowe'en. My hope still lies with Let Me In, as we all know a disappointing installment into the Saw franchise is as customary as "Trick or Treat?!" this time of year.

Wish me luck in sleeping.

Rating - 8/10

Scott Pilgrim vs. The World

Ok, I'm Getting Tingles...

I don't know where to start about this film. Seriously, words escape me. I watched Scott Pilgrim vs The World on the day of it's premiere and I was blown away. Even with the incredibly high expectations I had. It's made it's way into my Top Films Of All Time List, and I think it's position there is as safe as the breath-taking Amelie or the mind-boggling The Usual Suspects.

I feel I could leave the review there, with my feelings on the matter expressed and there being no need to continue, but I can't help myself but carry on. I truly apologise in advance for the amount of gushing I will do about this film.

The film depicts the 'perfect little life' of Scott Pilgrim (Michael Cera, oddly playing a geeky guy falling in love). He falls for quirky Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), but to date her, he must first defeat the League of Evil Ex's; seven of Ramona's evil past loves, hell-bent on destroying Scott's chances with the girl of his dreams.

Just from the opening production titles of Universal, which have been changed to be of computer-game quality, fully fitted with tinny computer-game music, I knew this film was going to be special. I don't think I stopped smiling throughout the first fourty minutes. Then I took a sip of drink. Then I continued to smile for the sixty.

It's funny,
it's charming,
it's snappy,
it's edgy,
it's clever,
it's witty,
it's well-written,
it's well-acted,
it's well-crafted.

It may be the most carefully constructed and edited film I've ever seen, and is obviously the brainchild of the man behind the TV series Spaced, Edgar Wright. The attention-to-detail is staggering and incredibly dedicative. The whole film can be watched again and again, with new references or background features noticed everytime.

Whilst I fawn over the film like a teenage Bieber-ite, the film does have it's faults. I can see many people's argument in that the film's high tempo and fast pacing can alienate most of the older audiences. It is a very youth-orientated film, and Wright's attempt to get as many references to the comic-book and pop culture can sometimes result in a confusing narrative, and make the characters slightly unrealistic or unlikeable.

However, whether you like it or not, you cannot argue against it being one of the most original and genre-breaking films of the past few years. It is heart-breaking to think that due to the poor box-office returns that it has received so far, the companies that finance such groundbreaking films will be more hesitant to back a film like this in the future. That is why I urge all you reading this to go out and pay money to watch it if you still can. You will not be disappointed and you will be contributing to the possible creation of more masterpieces like Scott Pilgrim vs. The World.

Rating - 10/10

Buried

Living In A Box

The idea of being buried alive is a fear shared by millions of us. For me personally, it's up at the top of the list, along with being eaten alive, burned alive and having to watch the Jonas Brothers' entire 2 hour set..... alive. But even if it wasn't, I believe Buried to be one of the best films of the year.

Buried centres around Iraq-based American contractor Paul Conroy (Ryan Reynolds) who finds himself trapped in a wooden coffin six feet under. All he has with him is a phone, a lighter and 90 minutes of air that is slowly depleting. His kidnappers demand $5 million or Paul is left to die in his coffin. What happens next is some of the most claustrophobic and edge-of-your-seat viewing I've experienced in a long time.

I may have a slight bias towards the film, as I am a massive fan of films of this nature: very few cast members and locations, and much more attention devoted to suspense and dialogue. A few examples could be the recent thrillers Right At Your Door, Hard Candy and Pontypool. The big explosions and car chases of the typical Hollywood blockbuster are replaced for heart-stopping plot twists, and you learn to know the characters inside and out, making their predicaments all the more worrying.

I have openly stated my hatred of Ryan Reynolds in the past, which came from different reasons; the main one being well summed up by a local newspaper, which described his past roles chiefly playing a 'cocky gobshite'. However, I believe Reynolds truly holds his own in this film, and you feel his emotion in every second of his trauma. He reacts like most of us would: ringing his family before the people who could actually help him; angrily shouting at unhelpful phone operators, or even laughing to himself when things can't get any worse. It's this human quality to Reynolds that I feel he's lacked in his previous work, and a reason why his performance in Buried can be considered his best to date.

For a film that spends all of it's time inside a coffin, you can't help feel the influence from the master of suspense, Alfred Hitchcock. I believe the director, Rodrigo Cortes, managed to balance the suspense with light-hearted moments perfectly, very similar to how Hitchcock made his thrillers, such as Rear Window. Whilst Reynolds spends most of his time spinning in his makeshift 'grave', Hitchcock can well and truly stay still.

Rating - 9/10

Devil

There Is A God!

For me, M. Night Shyamalan used to be associated with well-written storylines, clever plot twists and atmospheric films that could shock whilst intrigue the viewer. Then something went terribly wrong.

He started off so well with The Sixth Sense, and following up with Unbreakable and Signs, I thought there was no stopping him. Even when The Village was released, I defended him when friends of mine criticised the film and said he was losing his edge. Unfortunately I wasn't a fan of The Lady In The Water, and the less said about The Happening the better. And from what I hear, The Last Airbender is one of the worst films of the year, and I wasn't really attracted to it before it was panned in the reviews.

Then I saw the trailer for Devil, and I was intrigued again. It looked like an edgy claustrophobic thriller with a pinch of the supernatural, and I thought: "This could be quite good". Then I saw the words: "FROM THE MIND OF M. NIGHT SHYAMALAN" and I thought, "Oh well, from the way he's been working recently, it'll be rubbish."

However, the more I read up on the plot and how it will be the start of a series of films, all leading off from this, I thought I would give it (and M.) another chance.

I was pleasantly surprised.

The film centres on five people who get into an office building's elevator, only for it to stall 20 floors up. Oh, and one of these five people is the Devil. Silly premise right? But it works.

Despite it being 80 minutes long, Devil manages to flesh out the characters whilst constantly leaving a 'whodunnit?' feeling in the back of your mind. Knowing that one of the characters is the Devil, you begin to notice numerous red herrings that the director chose to include to throw people of the trail, or sly nods to the audience, such as the characters wearing red, apart from one; the number 6 being featured prominently; or the overtly touchy nature of some of the characters. Little touches like that make this film stand out from the usual horror films released these days that seem to care only about shocking the audience rather than building suspense.

Don't get me wrong, the film has it's bad points; such as a bit of cheesy acting from the relative unknown actors; a few obvious and unanswered plot points; as well as an unnecessary social commentary towards the Devil's motives. However, Devil is an original film, from the mind of Shyamalan I remind you, that didn't disappoint this viewer. A rare find in the current climate. I, for one, am looking forward to the continuation of the story (rumoured to be called Twelve Strangers) and I recommend you take a gamble as I did.

Rating - 8/10

Toy Story 3

How To Make A Grown Man Cry

Back in 1995, I was taken to the cinema to see a new type of film. An up-and-coming production company called Pixar had released a film called Toy Story. 3D animation had been used before for special effects in feature-length film as well as some short films, but a feature length computer animation had never been done before.

I instantly fell in love. I can recall that whilst watching that film, a switch went off in my head and I wanted to make this sort of magic myself in the future. The characters were funny and appealing, the animation was breathtaking, and the storyline and script were funny, sharp and entertaining (and are still to this day). It was the perfect film in my eyes, and it took a while for it to be beaten.

Four years later, a sequel was released, Toy Story 2, and I was quite nervous to see how it would fare. I had seen a few Disney sequels by then, such as The Lion King II: Simba's Pride, and The Return of Jafar, and was worried it wasn't going to live up to the example set by its predecessor. However, I had no reason to be worried, as the film exceeded the first film in my eyes. The characters had already been established, so Pixar could start straight away with the new adventure and introduce new characters along the way.

Along comes 2010, and I sit down with my 3D glasses on to watch Toy Story 3, and within minutes I return to being the 7-year old boy watching toys talk for the first time. This film is magnificent, I cannot express that enough. Maybe it hit a deeper connection with me due to it being the reason I wanted to get into film, or the fact that Andy was pretty much the same age as me in the film, but I was on-board for the entire 103 minutes.

The story revolves around the toys being accidentally donated to a daycare centre after Andy's Mum thinks he doesn't want to keep them as he's leaving for college. They then try to escape the centre and return home, after they find themselves kept prisoner by veteran toys unwilling to be used by the younger patrons at the centre.

I respected the fact that the film's storyline got darker, as the toys are held prisoner and their lives are put in peril more often than usual, as it showed Pixar gradually catering their films for both the obvious child audience, but also the adults accompanying them to the cinema (An impression I didn't get with Shrek Forever After). There were little nods to the older audience too, such as the inclusion of a plush doll of Totoro (for fans of the Japanese animation company, Studio Ghibli) and the description of the daycare's main punishment "The Box" being taken almost word-for-word from The Bridge on the River Kwai.

Whilst a lot of the previous films' characters are written out, I believe the cast of characters left do an impeccable job of carrying the film, even with Woody involved in his own storyline and Buzz's all-too-repeated old 'Space-Ranger' persona resurfacing.
The new toys introduced also add another level of comedy and malice to the mix, especially Barbie's style-obsessed soul-mate, Ken, voiced incredibly by Michael Keaton, and Big Baby, possibly the scariest creation in film for a good few years.

By the end of the film, Pixar had tied up all the loose ends and I thought the toys weren't just saying "Goodbye" to Andy, but also to me. My friends from the past 15 years were moving on and so was I. If I'm perfectly honest, a little tear came to my eye, thankfully hidden by 3D glasses, and the fact that a children's film can affect a 22-year old like me is a fantastic achievement in my opinion. (Either that or I'm more emotionally invested in this film franchise than Tim Allen's agent.)

Bravo Pixar, I salute you.

Just please, leave it to retire happily in our memories, and not make an unnecessary Toy Story 4 in 2020 because you can't think of any new ideas.

Top Five Friday: Movie Destinations

Films act as windows onto other worlds for us to observe. They provide us with awe-inspiring scenes and show us breathtaking locations that many of us will never see first-hand. A film's setting can give off an aura of sophistication and harmony or create fear and suspense in the heart of the viewer.

As a guide to some of my favourite locations, I have listed my Top Five locations and the films in which they are featured.

• MONTMARTRE QUARTER, PARIS

Known as “The City of Love”, many romantic films have featured Paris as it's location, such as the brilliantly unique and colourful Amélie. Set in the director's hometown of the Montmartre Quarter of Paris, it quietly exudes style, romance and finesse. From the film's opening shot of a bluebottle buzzing down the cobbled rue Saint Vincent to Amélie's puzzle of blue arrows around the Basilique du Sacré Cœur (pictured right), Montmartre is shown to be a charming, historical and romantic part of Paris that will make your heart flutter.

• NEW YORK CITY

Seen as one of America's most famous cities, the hustle and bustle of New York has become synonymous with typical American life. The city is full of iconic buildings and landmarks such as the Empire State Building and Central Park, and whilst they usually get destroyed in science fiction films, for example Cloverfield and Independence Day, many films use them as a tribute to the beauty of the city. Woody Allen's Manhattan and Martin Scorcese's Taxi Driver offer varied shots of New York at it's most beautiful and serene, such as the iconic shot of Woody Allen and Diane Keaton sitting in front of the Queensboro Bridge over the East River. New York City manages to merge both the business and pleasure ways of life into a world-famous metropolis.

• BRUGES

Quite an obscure north-western Belgian city is the location of Martin McDonagh's Oscar-nominated black comedy, In Bruges. Despite the city's tourists attractions being the reason for Colin Farrell's misery, the “most well-preserved Medieval town in the whole of Belgium” offers a lot of history and architecture. The most famous of these might be the 13^th-century belfry that overlooks the town square where Brendan Gleeson's character meets his end, or the Meestraat Bridge where Ray and Chloë enjoy a romantic stroll. Despite the film being quite dark in places, the location never stops from being filled with intrigue and history which would provide you with a very interesting vacation.

• CHINESE COUNTRYSIDE

In the recent work of Zhang Yimou, his films are set ancient China and his locations are always breathtakingly beautiful. His first international hit, Hero, features a fight between two assassins hovering over the Mirror Lake, an elegant and peaceful feature of Rize Valley in Jiuzhaigou (pictured right). The water casts beautiful reflections of the surrounding mountain area when the water is calm, giving the appearance of an actual mirror. This natural beauty is also seen in Ang Lee's Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, where a swordfight takes place among the bamboo forest of Anji. Walking through the forest allows you to hear the wind whispering through the leaves, and see the beauty hidden in the Chinese countryside.

• INDIA

The most recent film of contemporary director Wes Anderson, as well as the entire career of auteur Satyajit Ray, have shown how diverse and cultured India and it's history are. One of the most featured cities is Odaipur in Western India. It is home to the famous Lake Palace, where James Bond visits in Octopussy. Standing proud in the midst of Lake Pichola, the Lake Palace (pictured below) appears to float on the majestic bed of water and creates an air of magic in the atmosphere.

The mountains of Udaipur provided the mountainous terrain needed for Wes Anderson'sThe Darjeeling Limited when the protagonists travel to an abbey to meet their runaway mother. The spirituality of the scenes filmed there were only heightened by the high altitude and peaceful snow that surrounded the Odaipur mountain range. Both locations manage to capture the unique and calm duality of the Indian culture and leave you feeling there is more than meets the eye with this often over-looked part of the world.

Four Lions

Bear or Wookie?

Chris Morris' Four Lions was definitely one of my most anticipated films of the past few months and I was seriously disappointed when I found it wasn't being shown in the cinema at which I work. But determined little me decided it was worth visiting a rival to see it with a few friends, and I can safely say no one went home disappointed.

Four Lions tells the story of four young radicalised Muslim men from the north of England as they begin training to become suicide bombers. Quite a simple idea but it is brilliantly played out, as their targets change from a mosque, to the Internet and finally the London Marathon. All the while, they bicker and fail in their attempts to complete tasks on their road to potential martyrdom.

I have been a fan of Chris Morris for a long while now, mainly thanks to my college theatre teacher who introduced me to The Day Today and Brass-Eye. I loved how Morris was able to twin serious subject matter with ridiculous situations and manage to balance them into a coherent social commentary, and Four Lions is no different. Don't get me wrong, it can either be taken as a social commentary or a comedy, and as a comedy, it doesn't disappoint at all. Any film that has two snipers discussing the difference between Wookies and bears gets my approval.

The production of this film was delayed slightly as the BBC and Channel Four felt the storyline was too controversial, however Morris' three years of research into the radicalism is evident throughout. Despite the film being a comedy, time is taken to make the characters three-dimensional; there are moments of tenderness between radicalised families, and ironically, heartfelt sympathy when the terrorists begin to question their beliefs.
This is mainly due to the actors, who were very well cast and had great comic timing, especially the leader Omar (Riz Ahmed) and Waj (Kayvan Novak), the slow Islamic Jihadi terrorist who compares martyrdom to bypassing the long queues in Alton Towers. They brought real humanity to their characters, and their chemistry was the backbone to the film's storyline.

All in all, I felt Four Lions did what Chris Morris has been doing since The Day Today: showing the public that no subject should be untouchable. Whilst the subject of terrorism is one that carries an enormous history and should be treated respectfully, it shouldn't hold us in silence and fear. Films like Four Lions are needed to show us that we have nothing to fear, and that bumbling idiots are in all forms of life, even the ones dedicated to cause harm. I wish that the film gets a wider re-release soon, as I truly feel it should be seen by as many people as possible.

Rating - 9/10

Robin Hood:

Fighting 'Round The World

I won't lie, I had very low expectations before watching Robin Hood. I assumed, like a lot of my colleagues, that the film was simply going to be "Gladiator in the forest". And whilst this is the fifth collaboration between the director Ridley Scott and the main star Russell "Fightin' Round the World!" Crowe, I felt like this was a very different film and was plesantly surprised.

Robin Hood takes place in late 12th Century Britain, and Robin Longstride (Crowe) is a common archer in the Third Crusade, fighting for his King, Richard the Lionheart, against the French and their King, Philip II. After Richard's death, his younger brother John (Oscar Isaac) becomes King and imposes more taxation on his subjects. This leads to an-almost civil war until Robin can unite the sides to fight the common enemy of the invading French, led by English traitor Godfrey (Mark Strong).

Overall, the storyline of Robin Hood is focussed on the part of the Robin Hood legend that is largely overlooked in previous versions of the tale. Usually Robin returns from the crusades to fight oppression caused from the corrupt Sheriff of Nottingham or uncaring King John, and I thought it was very refreshing to see it focus more on localised areas of Northern England rather than it all take place in London.

Recently, Crowe has received some criticism from the press regarding his 'wandering accent' and I have to say I agree. It becomes very evident that Crowe's accent does not stay in one region, and it detracts from the film's quality. For a film based around one of England's oldest legends, you'd expect the title character to be a British actor or at least be able to carry off a decent accent. To be fair, it wasn't just Crowe's casting, there are a lot of non-English actors which I felt a little disappointed by, but it just goes to show the state of the film industry today.
The only two British lead roles are Mark Strong and Cate Blanchett, who do very well portraying the type of character they have recently become used to; the archetypal turncoat villain, and the strong, yet graceful female.

Despite my gripes of a lack of a British cast, Max von Sydow is incredibly entertaining as Sir Walter Locksley, as he embodies a youthful glee when taking Robin in as a replacement son, which is a joy to watch.

All in all, when the film finished, I was content with what I had watched. It was an entertaining two and a bit hours, that managed to introduce the characters of the story we all know and love whilst setting the scene for the sequel. It allowed Crowe and Scott to work together again but didn't turn into a Gladiator clone, which I always felt it was in danger of becoming.
Whilst there were some plot holes (such as why Godfrey turned against John and what was he getting out of Philip II invading?) and some wandering accents, I felt that the film was well directed and written, and would recommend to movie-goers anywhere.

Rating - 6/10

Iron Man 2

A Tale of Two Sons


(You are warned, this is pretty long review. If you have no patience, feel free to read my shortened review at http://dunnonfilm.blogspot.com/2010/05/review-of-jon-favreaus-iron-man-2.html

I've been putting off reviewing Iron Man 2 until I could finally make an overall summary of the film. The first time I saw it, it was straight after I had watched Iron Man 1 and I felt that even though the overall experience was enjoyable, I needed to rate the sequel on it's own. However, since being made to watch it several times as part of my job (horrible job right?) I feel that I now have a firm grip on my thoughts on this graphic-novel inspired sequel.

Iron Man 2 starts immediately where the first film ended; Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) delivering a press conference announcing to the world that he is Iron Man, then we skip six months in the future and Iron Man is beloved by everyone, citing himself to be the cause of global peace.

However the device in Stark's chest is slowly poisoning his bloodstream, the government wants his Iron Man suits for themselves to be used as weapons of warfare, and a rival businessman (Sam Rockwell) enlists a dangerous Russian physicist (Mickey Rourke) to help him knock Stark off the top spot.

I feel that all of the points I have to raise with this film could come across like an essay which may put off a few of you readers, so I think I will amend it to be in bullet-point form to make it easier on you.

1. STARK'S STORYLINE

• As is typical with the second film of a proposed trilogy, Iron Man 2 seems to 'get darker' than it's predecessor by Tony Stark succumbing to the chest device slowly poisoning his bloodstream. He reacts to this in 'very destructive' ways: driving in the Monaco Grand Prix and getting drunk on his birthday in his Iron Man suit. Hardly having suicidal tendancies. However, to me, Iron Man isn't really thought of as being as 'realistic' as other comic-book films, such as Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight. It's a light-hearted version, as Stark is an arrogant, self-centred playboy superhero, not the tortured soul like Bruce Wayne. So when Iron Man 2 tries to get serious, it doesn't feel right.

2. VILLAINS - IVAN VANKO

• A comic-book movie is only as good as it's villain. If you get an actor on the rise back to the top like Mickey Rourke, you give him some material fitting his talent. Vanko has an early fight scene with Stark in which he seems to be beating Stark, however he is easily apprehended and then never given any opportunity to be villainous until the finale. It made him seem an non-threat, something Stark could easily overcome.
• If you put an exciting fight scene some 30 minutes into your film, you make sure that isn't the only one until the end of the film. This is supposed to be an action film!
• Rourke has the overall look of a villain and had the potential to be a character that is the opposite of Tony Stark. It is mentioned that Vanko is the 'other side of the coin', and that is what could have made their rivalry interesting. In the film, Stark is the modern-day poster boy for America, coming from a background of money and opportunity. Vanko, on the other hand, was forced to grow up in poverty due to Stark's dad shipping Vanko Sr. off back to Russia. His motivation to attack Stark and destroy his legacy isn't really explored and given the chance to be fully developed.
• The incredibly short final battle has Whiplash vs. Iron Man and War Machine. How is this a disadvantage to Stark? Aren't we meant to feel that he can't overcome Whiplash, so we can cheer in victory when Iron Man does win in the end?
• Vanko's main attack seems to be wrapping his electric whips around his opponent's necks, but it doesn't affect the heroes at all. They just seem mildly inconvenienced, then they start chatting about how they are going to defeat him. Pretty weak for the Big Bad's main strategy of the final fight.

3. VILLAINS - JUSTIN HAMMER

• Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell) is the shining light of Iron Man 2. He is given all the best lines, and Rockwell just enjoys being the character, stealing the scene everytime he's on screen. However, by allowing him to share the film's comedy with Stark, as well as introducing him as incompetent, he nevers feels like a threat to Stark even with Vanko's help. Eventually when Vanko does take liberties with Hammer's good nature, Hammer does shout at Vanko and takes away his precious cockatoo. However, you don't believe the anger as Hammer isn't built up to be an angry guy.

4. THE SIDE CHARACTERS

• When you watch a slighty-ensemble film like The Dark Knight, you see how everyone has equal screen time and it felt like a balanced film; Bruce Wayne had his personal battle; The Joker was given adequate screen time to build up an imposing threat; and the side characters of Dawes, Dent and Gordon also had their chance to build a third dimension to their characters. Unfortunately this wasn't shared in Iron Man 2
• Pepper Potts (Gwenyth Paltrow) was hardly in the film and when she was, her role was of the buzzkill to Stark's party lifestyle. She was the shoulder of support in the first film, and her decreased role made the final scene where her and Tony finally kiss feel flat. There had been no build-up to it through the film, and if you hadn't had seen the first film, you wouldn't know there was any budding relationship at all.
• Natalie Rushman/Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) was used as eye-candy, which she did very well, but could have been used more than just that role. Her fight scene was another scene that worked very well, and I might have fallen a little bit in love with her there too.
• James Rhodes' (Don Cheadle) actions in the film weren't really explained. He was concerned for Tony's health and the safety of his suits, but at the first sign of trouble, he dons the Iron Man Mark II suit and has a fight with him. He then flies off with the suit, gives it to the government and alters it to become War Machine. I felt that as long as he became War Machine, then his storyline would be complete, and it didn't matter how it happened. Despite Stark taking a good amount of time testing the suit and working out how to fly it, Rhodes was able to use the suit from the get go, good enough to have a fight with Stark. It just didn't make sense. Plus after Stark and Rhodes' tussle, it ends with a poignant shot of two emotionless robot faces looking at each other, leaving us non-the-wiser as to what kind of emotion was meant to be conveyed.
• Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) was only in the film for a couple of scenes, but I felt that his character wasn't treated with the weight it should have done. His first appearance is in quite a light-hearted scene with Stark at a donut shop. The scene is quite light and humourous, but Fury sticks out like a sore thumb. His appearance is straight out of the graphic novel, and borders on the ridiculous as it is: black leather trenchcoat and an eyepatch. If he is not treated as a serious character, he just seems unrealistic in a film that's trying to be more serious.

Thanks for sticking with me through all that, I feel better now I've vented.

If I were to sum up Iron Man 2 in one word it would be "Rushed". Whilst watching it, I felt that Favreau and his team felt they had made a mistake announcing a release date so far in advance after the original Iron Man was such a success back in 2008. Having a deadline date couldn't allow Favreau to go back and reshoot some scenes, or allow more time to work on the script, which I felt it needed. The scenes with Hammer and Whiplash were quite abruptly cut short, I feel to make more time for Stark's descent into depression with his impending death. However instead of concentrating on the all-important storyline, they pushed it to the side and made them seem superfluous. The storylines weren't given the right amount of time to grow and be resolved.

Tony Stark begins his speech at the beginning of the Stark Expo saying that it's not about him, or us, it's about Legacy. I feel that unfortunately Iron Man 2 has affected the Iron Man legacy and Iron Man 3 will need to up it's game if it is to return to the form that Iron Man 1 set two years ago.

Rating - 5/10

Prince of Persia

Diamond In The Rough

I recently had the good fortune of being invited along for a special presentation from Disney in Manchester. Whilst there, my colleagues and I were given previews of their upcoming films such as Nick Cage vehicle "The Sorcerer's Apprentice", the first in a predicted trilogy "Tron: Legacy" and the video-game adaptation "Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time".

The first looked quite entertaining, which is a big thing for a Nick Cage-hater like me to say. The second looked fantastic, and the broad outlook that Disney had for this franchise was just staggering, if slightly overwhelming. The third on the list actually looked well-presented, enjoyable and fun to watch. And I wasn't wrong in my assumptions.

The overall film was quite a spectacle. Prince centres on the rags-to-riches Prince Dastan (Jake Gyllenhaal), an orphaned 'street-rat' who becomes adopted by a kind King and is treated as if his own son. Some years later, Dastan and his brothers lead a siege against a local Holy City due to the reports of them harbouring some weapon of mass destruction (veiled metaphor for something maybe?). In the rush to protect their sacred relic, a mystical dagger, it falls into Dastan's hands, as does the fate of the world. The dagger can control time by rewinding the past for a minute to right wrongs. But Dastan's evil uncle (Ben Kingsley) wants the dagger for himself, leading Dastan and the dagger's guardian (Gemma Arterton) to try and protect it from evil forces.

The director of Prince (Mike Newell) was at the presentation as well, where he spoke about how the film came to be, and the difficulties he faced when creating the film. He explained how one of the aims that he and the producers wanted to convey was their love for the Middle Eastern architecture and attention to detail that the researchers had found in buildings from that era. I cannot agree more with this statement. The level of detail in recreating the mansions, temples and royal buildings is staggering. Not only does it make you feel like you're watching events from that period, it makes you want to live there.

The set pieces of collapsing ruins under a grand city, castle sieges from opposing cities and even ostrich races are handled with a fine degree of respect and panache, as you can usually guarantee from a Jerry Bruckheimer picture. Newell made mention that Bruckheimer's strength lies in his ability to know what the cinema-going audience want, and I can't put him wrong there. Whilst Prince of Persia may not be the new Pirates of the Caribbean, I felt that Prince was a very well-crafted and well-balanced film.

The main relationship between Dastan and Princess Tamina (Arterton) was crafted very well, and it held true to the relationship between the two in the video-game. Usually the sequels to these video-games have tried to recreate the animosity between the two leads from the original, and this is the first time I've seen it work well. I felt that both Gyllenhaal and Arterton carried their performances well and were effective in their lead roles, especially as this genre is something relatively new to both of them. And well done to Jake for carrying the British accent as I thought it would put me off, as it usually does, but it suited him well.

The special effects weren't forced down our throats either. Whilst the action scenes require a fair bit of CGI to express the vastness of the sieges, the main special effects were saved for the time-travelling effects of the dagger. The dagger freezes time, and then quickly rewinds a minute, whilst the dagger's holder is left to watch as everything replays with a nice grain-of-sand and I felt this effect was used very conservatively to good effect, as it did not become stale and repetitive.

Despite the general competent performances from the actors, I felt like Ben Kingsley's villain wasn't given the opportunity to be as evil as he could be. He spends most of the film being the villain from the shadows, advising the acting king to do the wrong thing, but I felt if he was allowed to sink his teeth into the role, he could have been a more formidable villain. Plus his main weapon were the 'Hassansins', merchants of death, who I felt too closely resembled the Ringwraiths of the Lord of the Rings franchise to be original.

However these are mere annoyances that hardly affect the overall feeling of the film. Newell stated that they didn't set out to make a video-game adaptation, but use it as a basis for a whole new entertainment, and I feel it slightly covers both. There were enough high concept features to entertain the non-gamers, and yet in-jokes and appropriate parkour (free-running) action to keep the gamers pleased. I highly recommend this when the film is released in a month's time.

Rating - 7/10

Date Night

Performance Issues

You probably won't be able to find a bigger fan of Steve Carell and Tina Fey than I.  30 Rock and The Office (US) have become two of my favourite television shows of the past year and my love for Carell and Fey has only increased with time. So I was very excited to see that both of them were appearing in a film together, and had been looking forward to it for a while. And I can safely say that I was not disappointed.

The film follows the Fosters (Carell and Fey) who are stuck in a rut and decide to visit an up-scale restaurant to spice things up. Whilst there, they assume the identities of a non-showing couple who turn out to be in debt to a local gangster. This leads to a cat-and-mouse chase around New York City as the Fosters try and evade their corrupt cop captors with help from the ever-shirtless 'Markie' Mark Wahlberg.

Whilst I was expecting Michael Scott and Liz Lemon (Carell and Fey's respective sitcom characters) to be married in this film, I was glad to see both of them play new and believable roles. You end up truly wanting them to finish their date and have fun, a tribute to the acting as well as the writing, as Carell and Fey have an obvious chemistry. Although I felt that if the two were more involved in the writing or had chance to improvise, the comedy may have been a little edgier.

It was fun to see Wahlberg interact with the couple as well as cameos from Mila Kunis and James Franco, but I felt that they could have been given more screen time and opportunity to add to the comedy of the film.

Plus... Tina Fey pole-dancing in a saloon girl's outfit. Yes. A thousand times, yes.

Rating - 7/10

Pontypool

Shut Up Or Die

'Pontypool' really surprised me. I had heard the premise before watching it, but I was still amazed by the originality and slanted take on the zombie-genre.

The film takes place in a small Canadian town called Pontypool, where Grant Mazzy (Stephen McHattie) works as a radio DJ with his two producers Sydney Briar (Lisa Houle) and Laurel-Ann Drummond (Georgina Reilly). During the course of his radio show, Mazzy starts receiving reports from their roaming reporter of acts of violence being perpetrated by zombie-like rioters, all chanting random sentences.
As the radio show continues, Mazzy learns of an infection spreading throughout the town, but it isn't the regular zombie outbreak of people biting each other etc., the infection is in the words people are speaking and the names they call each other. This leaves Mazzy and his staff with the choice between warning the outside world, but risking infection, or do they stop speaking and live?

The premise alone allows 'Pontypool' to have the unique element of hardly showing anything happening, and yet still being incredibly threatening. The entire film is shot in one location; the basement of a church in the middle of Pontypool, and this only adds to the tension. The film gets increasingly claustrophobic as the infection slowly makes itself known and more reports are called in from their 'Eye in the Sky'. The calls describing the violence allows the viewer to make up their own scenes of violence, much worse than showing the viewer a bloody image.

I certainly favour films of this nature; limited actors and locations allow for the dialogue to take centre-stage instead of over-the-top action sequences, and that's what this film is all about. The three main actors are very believable as normal people in an abnormal situation.

The abnormal situation Mazzy finds himself in is a tad hard to understand at first, and I feel that if I wasn't aware of the case of the virus before I saw the film, I would have had a hard time understanding it. The solution as well is a little surreal but once you get your head around it, as the characters do, it's still as an enjoyable edge-of-your-seat thriller as before.

Fantastic acting, editing, storyline and especially the sound. Definitely recommend it to fans of the unconventional horror.

Rating - 9/10

The Ghost

Mr. Writer

I'm not an avid fan of Roman Polanski and his films. From his vast catalogue, I have only seen 'The Pianist' and I don't think it would be fair to compare it to 'The Ghost' as the subject matter is greatly contrasted. From seeing how Polanski could create a fantastic film such as 'The Pianist', I expected more of the same. However, I was disappointed with 'The Ghost'.

Ewan McGregor plays the title character, a ghost-writer for a former British Prime Minister, played by Pierce Brosnan. As the ghost-writer continues working for the ex-PM and learning about his past, secrets are uncovered about the ghost's predecessor and his suspicious death, as well as the PM's involvement in illegal foreign matters. What follows is quite a convoluted investigation involving the Prime Minister's wife, played by Olivia Williams, and an old acquaintance, played by Tom Wilkinson.

The basic premise has potential: a ghost-writer uncovers secrets whilst writing the memoirs for an ex-Prime Minister. However, the all-important MacGuffin: the secrets in the memoirs, are never really explained or even hinted at until right at the very end of the film, resulting in the viewer not caring whether they stay safe or fall into the 'wrong hands'. We are never really told who the ghost should be trusting, which is probably intentional but just comes off as confusing.

The Prime Minister is made out to be a bad-tempered, deceiving sex-pest and if he does get punished for his alleged crimes, the viewer is hard-pressed to find sympathy for him. Although, the opposition are made out to be just as deceiving and disloyal. This makes us wonder who can be trusted.
But again, by this point, the viewer is still left wondering why the ghost has gotten into this position in the first place, as he doesn't even know what he's protecting.

I apologise if that last part didn't make sense. This is my first attempt at an online film review and I'm finding it hard working the plot out in my head at such a late hour.

I felt as if the script-writers (Polanski and the book's author Robert Harris) tried to fit in as much of the original book as possible. This could explain why some scenes appeared lacking in depth, so to shorten the film's overall length. Quite a few scenes I felt were unnecessary and could have been cut, leaving crucial scenes with more screen-time so to explain more of the increasingly complicated storyline.

An example of this would be during an event, a note is passed from the back of a crowd to the front via several people. Instead of showing the note entering the crowd and then the recipient receiving it, Polanski shows each individual person receive and pass on the note. It begins with suspense, but as the note's journey lengthens, the importance gets overshadowed by how long the scene takes for such a simple payoff.

On a side note, I hate it when Americans, such as Kim Cattrall, are cast as Brits, and British actors, such as Tom Wilkinson, are cast as Americans. I know it's their job to be versatile, but in this case, their accents distracted from the dialogue and action.

Overall, I was left disappointed by 'The Ghost' and even though it had some hidden potential sneaking through the cracks in the plot, I probably wouldn't recommend to friends.

Rating - 4/10