Terminator Genisys

Reboots To Asses

SPOILERS: No wheatfields star in this film

Let me pitch you a situation...

Through a lack of original ideas or just lust for money, you truly desire to revitalise a long-dead movie franchise.

But you can't carry on where it has already left off, as some hack director or writer before you has backed you into a corner.

They've either concluded the story adequately or just made too many choices that weren't really popular with fans.

If audiences see trailers showing THAT version coming back, they won't pre-book tickets, will they?

So what can you do?

Easy: Time-Travel.

The X-Men films.  The Star Trek films.  The Men In Black films.

Go back to the beginning, utilise The Butterfly Effect and BOOM! You've got your brand new timeline!

Thankfully time-travel has been a staple of The Terminator films since it's inception but here comes the first instalment in a brand new planned trilogy:

Terminator Genesis... Genisis... Gynysys?... whatever...

PLOT

When John Connor (Jason Clarke), the leader of the human resistance against the genocidal computer system Skynet, sends Kyle Reese (Jai Courtney) back to 1984 to protect his mother, Sarah (Emilia Clarke), from a Terminator assassin, an unexpected turn of events creates an altered timeline (told you!)

Instead of a scared waitress, Sarah is a bad-ass fighter, trained for years to survive by her own Terminator guardian (the returning Arnold Schwarzenegger).  Faced with unlikely allies and dangerous new enemies, Reese sets out to destroy Skynet and reset the future.

If I'm being honest, I don't want to write too much about the plot as it does contain some twists and turns.  However if you've seen the trailer for Terminator Jenisysys, then I'm sure you already know the major twist that the marketing department thought you'd like to have spoiled for you...

She really wants to know where her dragons are now...

OPINIONS

I'm pretty sure I wasn't the only person to go into Terminator Genuflect with some hesitation. Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines and Terminator: Salvation were both massive disappointments, and early reviews weren't positive.  Earlier in the week, I watched the re-release of James Cameron's The Terminator from 1984 in preparation for Terminator Genisister, and I really shouldn't have.

Even though through watching the original I am now able to see how the writers and director of Terminator Gentlekiss are obvious fans of the franchise and especially James Cameron's original, it just reminded me of how far the films have fallen.

The first Terminator became a cult classic due to it being more akin to a horror movie than a sci-fi/action flick.  Arnie as the cold and calculating, unkillable monster, stalking Sarah Connor until his mission was complete.  Sarah embodying the innocent every-woman, confused by the situation and scared for her life.  And Kyle Reese was a scrawny, beady-eyed lunatic, half the time evading policemen, but always desperate to keep the Mother Of The Future safe.  It was such a simple concept in relation to what these sequels have become.

No one knew Arnie was Luke Skywalker's stunt double...

ON A SIDE NOTE

I don't mean to go off on a tangent here, but it's kind of obvious from the first twenty minutes that the writers attempt to recreate and reboot the Terminator series with Genifish, right?  So I understand the casting of Emilia Clarke (best known as Daenerys on Game of Thrones) as she looks similar to Linda Hamilton and does an acceptable job in the lead role.  But Jai Courtney is just downright wrong casting as the male lead, Kyle Reese.

Apparently actors such as Boyd Holbrook, Garrett Hedlund and even Nicholas Hoult were considered to play Kyle Reese and I would rather any of them ten times before Courtney.  He has the presence of a wet sponge, zero chemistry with the woman he'd supposedly 'die for' and is just the wrong overall build for a replacement for Michael Biehn.  The point may be small but I just couldn't take him seriously throughout the film.

Back to the film...

Terminator Dentistry starts production soon... 

Honestly, I was truly entertained by the first twenty minutes of Terminator Dentistry, which are essentially a retelling of the first film.  My expectations were raised as I thought we were going to be having an interesting retcon with loads of different Terminators duking it out over 1984 Los Angeles. But then the plot goes crrrraaaazzzzyyyy, over-saturating with more time-travel machines, creating more confusion and just never recovers.

It simply devolves from an interesting fight for survival into an all-out explosion-fest, spiced with the odd satirical jab at the greedy and overreaching technology industry.  The director Alan Taylor (Thor: The Dark World) manages to keep a grasp on things for some parts, but I must admit I did get a bit bored in some of the countless chase scenes...

I'll admit it; it is a welcome change to have Arnie back in the franchise with a similar character to Terminator 2: Judgement Day.  The comic relief provided by his failed attempts to blend in with society have always helped the Terminator franchise not take itself too seriously.

But when most of the explanation for some of the damn-confusing plotline come from Arnie's mouth, something gets lost in translation.  It should have been left to J.K. Simmons, who's cynical and paranoid cop character is the only positive I can take away from this newest instalment.

As J.K. Simmons speaks his lines, his mind drifts to the Oscar at home...

VERDICT

The first twenty minutes and the obvious homages to The Terminator were enough to get me on board for Terminator Gentleman, but I slowly slipped into steady disappointment throughout the running time.

It's undoubtedly going to hit big at the box office, spawn two more sequels and lots of people will tout how improved it is compared to Rise of the Machines or Salvation.  However on a similar theme, just because Revenge of the Sith is thought to be the best of the Star Wars prequels, it doesn't make it a worthy film.

Rating: 4/10

Until next time folks, thanks for reading!

If you enjoyed what you read, 

'Like' me on Facebook at www.facebook.com/pages/Mike-Dunn-Reviews 

or 'Follow' me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/MikeDunnReviews

Big Game

SMALL IMPACT

What do you get if you combine Air Force One, Snakes On A Plane and The Troll Hunter?  Actually that sounds like a fantastic film.  Unfortunately that's what writer/director Jalmari Helander has tried to do with Big Game, and it doesn't quite match expectations.

Samuel L. Jackson stars as William Alan Moore, President of the United States, on his way to a G8 summit in Helsinki, Finland.  However a psychotic Middle-Eastern terrorist with a passion for 'big-game hunting' pays off some of the President's staff, blows up his plane Air Force One and decides to hunt him for sport.  But the terrorists haven't planned on Moore finding help in the form of Oskari, a young Finnish boy on a solo hunting trip through a non-specific Nordic forest, trying to prove his masculinity to his father.

I'll be honest; with the adverts, trailers and billboards all focussed on SLJ holding a machine gun, quoting one liners and explosions going off left, right and centre, I feel like my expectations were slightly higher than usual going into Big Game.  It screamed 80s/90s throwback, high-concept nonsense, but I was looking forward to it.  However I didn't really expect this amount of nonsense.

Villain Mehmet Kurtuluş does not come in peace...

I believe this concept could have been utilised to its fullest by having a cat-and-mouse game through the Finnish woodland, President and young lad being hounded by crazed madmen, killing for sport.
But instead it gets bogged down with silly conspiracies, sub-plots that don't get fully developed and makes the villains seem downright stupid and weak.

In trying to appeal to all audiences, Big Game intentionally falls between the 12A and 15 certificate territory and suffers because of it.  It's a bit too cheesy and young for the mature audiences, but a bit too violent and political for the young 'uns.

Whilst I did love the authentic Finnish background to Oscari's masculinity trial and his relationship with his father, it was eventually overcrowded by the American bravado and silliness.  The writer/director was quoted as intending to combine an action film with that of a coming-of-age drama, and therefore I don't think he knows which one he wants it to be.

SLJ enjoyed hearing he was heading to
Blackpool after the interview

As the most expensive film to come out of Finland and for it's honest attempts at trying to enter the worldwide blockbuster market, I'm tempted to recommend seeing Big Game.  However as more and more ludicrous things began to happen, my frustration and lack of patience grew.  It's a true shame but I would perhaps wait until it comes onto Netflix,

Rating - 4/10

Until next time folks, thanks for reading!

If you enjoyed what you read and you'd like to be kept more up to date with my posts, I can be found on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/pages/Mike-Dunn-Reviews and on Twitter at https://twitter.com/MikeDunnReviews - if you want to help the site grow, give them a 'Like' or a 'Share'!

Sin City: A Dame To Kill For

A Dame For Which To Kill

The wind moans and howls around me. 

It's a restless and rainy night. 

My throat is croaky, like I've swallowed a shotglass of rusty razors. 

I'm standing in front of my local picture house. 

The last one left in this god-forsaken town. 

So many memories. 

So many friends lost. 

So many heartaches. 

Why did I return here? 

Some Yank flick by Robert Rodriguez, I reckon. 

Yeah, might as well spend my night watching it. 

It's either that or drink the pain away. 

Wasting my night watching cat videos on YouTube. 

So cute...but life isn't. 

It's dark, cruel and full of gritty, sullen voice-overs.

Or so Frank Miller would have you believe!

The original Sin City was released back in 2005, with the promise of ground-breaking graphic style, reminiscent of Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow and 300, both released earlier in the year. I spoke in a previous article about how I skipped college to go and see Sin City the day it was released, and my tiny brain was blown apart by the visual style. It became one of my favourite films of that year, despite the clichéd writing style of Frank Miller, the blatant hypocritical, overblown characterisation of the main protagonists as well as his obsession with destroying people's genitals. It just was an awesome film noir, filled with cheesy one-liners and unrealistic laws of physics.

I mean, just look at the yellow bastard...

Flash-forward a few years later, and rumours started emerging from Hollywood about the possibility of a Sin City sequel, potentially starring Angelina Jolie and Johnny Depp at the height of their popularity!  My attention was grabbed and my expectations were raised, but the project went nowhere for years, stuck in Hollywood limbo.  I was craving another hard-boiled detective story set in Basin City, but none was being given. Rodriguez continued making his Spy Kids films and Frank Miller tried his hand at adapting another gritty detective comic into another gritty detective film The Spirit, which came and went without making much of an impression. But there was a light at the end of the tunnel of 2013. A teaser trailer was released announcing Sin City: A Dame To Kill For being released in summer of 2014. Despite Depp and Jolie no longer being involved, instead Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Eva Green were cast instead! Two of my personal favourite actors! I was overjoyed! What could possibly go wrong?

My obsession with this man continues to this day...

Similar to the original Sin City, A Dame To Kill For follows three separate, yet intertwining story-lines. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is the cocky, arrogant gambler Johnny, with a broad on each arm and a point to prove. Josh Brolin is the returning damsel-defending Dwight (before his surgery to look like Clive Owen) who gets contacted by former lover Eva Green desperate for his help. And finally Jessica Alba reprises her role as Nancy, the stripper with a heart of gold, who has fallen upon hard times since the death of her one true love and saviour, Bruce Willis. Oh and Mickey Rourke's iconic behemoth Marv manages to make an appearance in all three story-lines, sometimes just visually, other times directly involved.

Rourke never looked better

So since some story-lines of this film occur before the original Sin City, and some after, I was quite confused about when certain parts of A Dame To Kill For were taking place. I'm sure this was so that certain characters who died in the previous film could reappear, but instead, baffled me and make me mentally reassess the film's timeline instead of focus on the action on screen. And I pride myself on usually keeping up to speed with film continuity. It makes watching a Marvel film with me a sodding chore. I'm usually leaning over to my film-watching partner and whispering, “That just happened because...” Don't I sound like a hoot?  

But still, this film's continuity confused me, and I still don't quite understand when some events happened in the grand scale of things.

Whilst the visuals remain mind-blowing and pleasing to the eye, the film just seemed like it was trying too hard to be as cool and suave as it's predecessor. It felt like the cult status of the original Sin City inflated Rodriguez and Miller's ideas of what made their film great. Most fans of the first, such as myself, didn't appreciate the film for it's glorification of misogyny, the repetitive inner-narration or the complicated intertwining story-lines; they just enjoyed some gritty, monochrome silliness that took itself too seriously. The film's unapologetic attitude of 'This is what I am' was the reason it gained so many fans, but after so many years of delayed production, the fans deserve a film that was much better and more cohesive than this.

Complicated, bloated and overreaching, A Dame To Kill For makes something once so effortless appear like a chore, and one that I will not be revisiting again. Who knows, maybe I've just grown up and childish, immature films like Sin City no longer stimulate my brain. 

Ha, ha, 'stimulate'. No, I'm still childish. This just needed to be better.

Rating - 4/10

Yes, that jacket potato is wearing glasses...

Until next time folks, thanks for reading!

If you enjoyed what you read and you'd like to be kept more up to date with my posts, I can be found on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/pages/Mike-Dunn-Reviews and on Twitter at https://twitter.com/MikeDunnReviews - if you want to help the site grow, give them a 'Like' or a 'Share'!

Chinese Whispers - The Monuments Men

The Mediocre Men

Earlier this year, I was able to visit the Etihad Stadium to watch my beloved Manchester City take on Crystal Palace to hopefully gain three points to help fight for the Premier League title. They had strung an impressive record of home victories before them so confidence was high when facing Palace who were at the bottom of the table.  All these famous stars and power players in the City squad, forming such an impressive arsenal, but that day, they could only muster a measly 1-0 victory. It was disappointing to say the least.

The Monuments Men tells the story of a group of American art experts and appreciators who travelled to war-torn Europe during WWII to salvage priceless works of art that were being destroyed in the bombings of several European cities.  George Clooney directs and stars in this story based on real events, along with Matt Damon, Bill Murray, John Goodman, Jean Dujardin and Cate Blanchett.

(Firstly, before I speak about the film, may I just describe the cinema in which I watched it?

As you may or may not know, I am currently travelling around Southeast Asia and I managed to see The Monuments Men with my girlfriend in a shopping mall's cinema in Patong, Thailand.  The two tickets I bought, along with a bottle of water and a HUGE cup of Coca-Cola cost me the equivalent of just under £5; an unexpected but very welcome total.

As we were ushered to our screen, we took our seats in the centre of a beautiful auditorium.  The standard confectionary adverts and schlocky horror-movie trailers were played for approximately ten minutes, before a presentation of adoration for the King of Thailand started. It was completely surreal. 

The opening music and placard was subtitled with the caption 'Please stand to honour our King'. We looked around, and all other cinemagoers, Thai and foreign, were standing, so we did similar too. A minute or so later, the tribute finished, we sat down and the film started. Surreal experience over.)

Back to the film.  There is no doubt that when you organise this amount of talent in a film, you're going to see some amazing acting, but the talent is wasted if it isn't arranged into an ensemble. Here is where we find The Monuments Men.  Individual performances are impressive, such as Hugh Bonneville (Downton Abbey) and Jean Dujardin (The Artist) holding their own alongside veteran Hollywood performers, but the story is separated into several strands.

Bill Murray flies off to Belgium, John Goodman is sent to Northern France and Matt Damon tries to free the potentially helpful Cate Blanchett, arrested as part of the French Resistance in Paris. With the narrative so wide instead of being kept together, unfortunately the attention to each thread is not spread evenly.  The film is sold as a bit of a wartime comedy-caper or WWII Ocean's Eleven, but this is hardly the case.  Romantic subplots are hardly given basis, antagonism turns to friendship in the blink of an eye and most characters hardly experience any kind of character arc.

The film tries to show how we are all affected by war, even if your intention is to protect, rather than destroy.  Clooney tries to demonstrate this by highlighting certain deaths that occurred over the salvation of art pieces, but they end up not being that devastating, as the audience haven't got to know the characters that well to care.

Of course since the film is based on real events, poetic licence can only go so far and Clooney couldn't have changed the script to fit conventional film plot stereotypes but the resulting storyline fails to gather any momentum. The only exciting section comes towards the end, after the main mission finishes and nothing apart from a few minor altercations raise pulses throughout the film.

The Monuments Men is a 'nice' film and I hate using that word, but it is the only word I can think to describe it.  It's not awful, not by a long shot, but with such a cast and story, it fails to live up to the potential that lied before it.  In terms of George Clooney-directed films, it falls way behind Syriana or Good Night, and Good Luck.  

The Monuments Men fails to push any buttons or take any chances, in storyline or direction, but still manages to get the job done.  A tepid 1-0 victory, despite the odds being greatly in their favour.

Rating - 4/10

Until next time folks, thanks for reading!

If you enjoyed what you read and you'd like to be kept more up to date with my posts, I can be found on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/pages/Mike-Dunn-Reviews and on Twitter at https://twitter.com/MikeDunnReviews - if you want to help the site grow, give them a 'Like' or a 'Share'!

Two For Tuesday: Mandela: A Long Walk To Freedom / The Butler

FREEDOM WRITERS

The world has been in a state of mourning recently at the tragic, yet ultimately predicted, death of Nelson Mandela, a key inspirational and controversial figure in the apartheid struggles of 20th century South Africa.  Coincidentally, a recent biopic of the famous freedom-fighter was made just before his death, and it's release has since been rescheduled and previewed early, most likely to cash in and take advantage of grieving cinema audiences.

I was in one of those early-previewed audiences, filled with people wearing rose-tinted glasses about the man they thought only as a 'kindly grandpa' figure, sporting tufts of white hair, often wearing pyjamas and meeting Prince Charles and the Spice Girls back in the late 1990's.  I was treated to gasps of shock and horror as the people around me learnt what violent acts that sweet old man had endured and carried out during his rise to power.  A lesson was certainly learnt in the auditorium that night, if only the art of the timely cinematic release date.

Mandela: A Long Walk To Freedom recounts the major events in the life of Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela, a man born within the Xhosa tribe of South Africa.  As he begins his adult life as a lawyer defending the abused and mistreated black citizens of South Africa, Mandela joins a freedom-fighting 'terrorist' movement, leading to his eventual incarceration and *SPOILER ALERT* election to become the country's first black President.  

Idris Elba delivers an incredibly powerful performance as Mandela and this is entirely his film.  His power and pathos draws the audience's attention and won't let it go no matter what.  Elba's South African accent may waiver at some times but you forgive it as you entirely lost in the other facets of his performance.  Naomie Harris also performs admirably as the tortured soul of Winnie Mandela, but it will be Elba that is remembered for this film.

In attempting to recreate most of Mandela's major life events, and twinning the events with the background of racial segregation and apartheid, Long Walk To Freedom draws some parallels with Lee Daniels' recent pseudo-biopic The Butler.  The Butler is a curious film as it depicts events during the race riots and freedom demonstrations of 1960s America, yet shows how it affects a fictional character, the titular butler Cecil Gaines

Gaines is based upon Eugene Allen, the real-life butler who served inside The White House under several different American Presidents, such as Carter, Reagan and Nixon.  What I, as a viewer, did not understand was why did you create this character of Cecil Gaines' instead of using the real life inspiration for him, Eugene Allen?  

During the anti-segregation demonstrations, Gaines' son meets the infamous freedom-fighters Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. and stages rallies with them and risks his own life for his beliefs.  Yet we know this man we have become accustomed never really met these people and didn't exist.  Therefore are the situations we see him endure fictionalised too?  Did Malcolm X really torture his own followers to prepare them for the hardships ahead?  Were The Black Panthers that violent in their behaviour?  Did Oprah Winfrey really sleep around?

Both films attempt to feature many key points in the history of black oppression, but Mandela handles it in a much more understandable way.  Whilst the film tries to fit in as many milestones in Mandela's life as physically possible, they are properly explained with context and are allowed to breathe.  This can't be said about The Butler, which just throws scene after scene at you, with various famous actors portraying famous politicians (Cusack as Nixon, Rickman as Reagan etc.) and none of it is allowed to sink in to the audience's understanding.  Mandela also treats their shared subject matter of the history racial tension with a certain brutality and frankness that was refreshing after watching The Butler's sporadic protest montages.  These montages of the first Black American students taking a stand against the segregation do leave an impact, as they do depict horrible torturous scenes, but they are only a fleeting backstory instead of being at the forefront, like Mandela's.

Don't get me wrong, you will get a history lesson from both of these films, and rightfully so, as the message is one that needs to be remembered.  However, I would rather my lesson be taught by such a powerful and determined individual that my attention is stuck on the screen, than someone who makes me question their own research.

Does that metaphor work?  Perhaps not.  Screw it; go see Mandela, leave The Butler on the shelf.

FLAWLESS VICTORY

Until next time folks, thanks for reading!

If you enjoyed what you read and you'd like to be kept more up to date with my posts, I can be found on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/pages/Mike-Dunn-Reviews and on Twitter at https://twitter.com/MikeDunnReviews - if you want to help the site grow, give them a 'Like' or a 'Share'!

Succinct Sunday - I Give It A Year

To Be... Or Not Meant To Be

Meet newly-weds Nat (Rose Byrne) and Josh (Rafe Spall).  They've only been together a few months and decide to get hitched.  No one thinks they'll make it, estimating it will end in divorce in less than a year. Defiantly, Josh and Nat struggle through a first year of marriage fraught with arguments, mistrust and temptation on both sides. Nat's new boss (Simon Baker) and Josh's ex-girlfriend (Anna Faris) seem more compatible for them then their other halves. Can they cope with all these attractive alternatives in their way?

Romantic-comedies are one of the most beloved film genres out there.  They make us laugh, they make us weep and they are perfect material for that awkward first date.  However rom-coms need to deliver in balancing the romance and comedy. The classics like When Harry Met Sally, Bridget Jones' Diary and Four Weddings... do this expertly, but it is easy to mess this up.  And here is where we find I Give It A Year (or in honour of Succinct Sunday, IGIAY).

Whilst there is comedy in doses, mainly found in Jake's best man Stephen Merchant and their unhappily-married marriage counsellor Olivia Colman, the romance is sorely lacking.  I was incredibly confused with who the audience is supposed to be rooting for; are we supporting Nat and Josh trying to make it work despite their disagreements and chastise them for looking elsewhere, or are we hoping they pack in this loveless marriage and be with their other suitor?  

It flits between these two narratives at rapid speed and becomes a jumbled mess.  The mere fact that I was sat in a pool of my own confusion, asking myself if we were supposed to hate the killjoy Nat and relate to the care-free Josh, or if Josh was supposed to come off as immature rather than the professional Nat, shows that the film-makers might have made a mistake in their storytelling. 

It is admirable that they are wanting to create an anti-rom-com in the same vein as (500) Days of Summer, but whilst Summer successfully showed an audience that sometimes it doesn't end happily ever after, IGIAY is very conflicted and confused within itself.

I give it a 4/10.

Man of Steel

Zack and Chrissie Make A Snorno

I never have had a great affinity for Superman as a comic-book hero, being more interested in human and damaged heroes such as Bruce Wayne's Batman or Tony Stark's Iron Man. Their stories contained flawed men trying to better themselves, as well as their world. 

However, Superman being an alien from Krypton, I never really related to the character.  He was always “Mister Goody Super Two-Shoes”, never breaking his high moral code to bring the bad guys down.  I didn't mind Batman using fear and intimidation to find out The Joker's location, it was for The Greater Good.  Try and get Superman to use his heat vision to go all Jack Bauer on a bad guy's kneecaps.  Not going to happen.

Broody, no?

So skip to 2013, and we have the newest Superman film, Man of Steel. The franchise has been rebooted under the helm of Zack Snyder, with Christopher Nolan producing. I'm a fan of Snyder's early directorial work, such as the rebooted Dawn of the Dead, 300 and Watchmen, but he's been slipping in recent years. Christopher Nolan on the other hand has just gone from strength to strength in his career. Starting with innovative films such as Memento, then creating the incredible dream-thieving of Inception and perfectly capturing a gritty and realistic Gotham in the Dark Knight trilogy, he can just do no wrong in my eyes.

Christopher Nolan and Zack Snyder
(Producer and Director...)
(...I wish their roles were reversed)

Focussing on the realistic portrayal that Nolan gave Batman Begins, that is what the trailer for this film seemed to suggest Man of Steel would focus on.  The man that is Clark Kent/Kal-El and not the Superman he chooses to be.  The trailer showed a young child running through washing lines with a cape on his back, pretending to be the ideal than mankind could strive towards.  That was the film I wanted.  More Man than of Steel.  I wanted Clark to have the life we have seen before (reporter for the Daily Planet, budding relationship with Lois) but to have the realistic inner struggle of whether to reveal himself as Superman. And to be fair to Man of Steel, we do get that for about half the film.  It's just simply not enough.

General Zod
(Michael Shannon)

Clark struggles between keeping a low profile and not using his powers, therefore obeying his Earth father, played with a terrific subtlety by Kevin Costner, and utilising them to benefit those around him. This is so not to alert people that Clark is actually an alien, and proof that we are not alone in the Universe. It is an interesting way of taking the Superman idea, as no one has thought about how a realistic Earth would react to a man like Kal-El. Previous films simply show everyone instantly loving and supporting him, but the film's correct; people would freak the hell out knowing that there's a planet called Krypton that has not only intelligent life, but life that is way more advanced than us. That is why I enjoyed the style of intimidation that the villain, Krypton's General Zod, uses to announce his arrival to Earth, a broadcast around the world telling us that “We Are Not Alone” and that one of his people has been living amongst us.

However, when Clark goes on the road to try and find his true identity, that idea of a secret identity seems to begin to fade away. He starts using powers like super-strength and heat vision without hesitation, seemingly throwing away all the inner conflict he endured and the advice Costner gave him. This culminates in Clark blindly listening to his second father figure/Robin Hood of the film, Russell Crowe, and becoming the eponymous 'Man of Steel'. Just like that.  In the blink of an eye.

Then the film quickly degrades to becoming a 45 minute 'epic dual' between the two warring alien factions, which slowly becomes tedious and boring, despite the amount of collateral damage they mindlessly cause. For a guy fighting on behalf of Metropolis and it's people, Superman surely causes several hundred deaths in the final fight scene with General Zod. I imagine because Snyder and Nolan got a bit greedy with the effects and wanted another skyscraper to spectacularly tumble to the ground, rather than think “Would Superman be so brash as to collapse 20-odd buildings without hesitation?”.  

Most importantly, I felt no real desire to see Superman come out on top during the final fight due to my lack of connection with the guy.  Either that or the simple fact that I just knew that he'd be fine and finish the job, unscathed as usual, since he is freaking invunerable!  Kal-El literally gets pummelled into sides of buildings, gets blown up in explosions and flies through giant alien spaceships, but not a single hair is touched when he comes out the other side. There's no potential peril at all and therefore no tension in my mind or my heart.  At least Bruce Wayne had broken bones that need healing and Tony Stark required a Hulk roar to revitalise him in The Avengers. Supes needs none of that and therefore I really wasn't worried about him during any part of the film.

Even Hulk was momentarily subdued during
the Avengers' Final Fight, and LOOK at the guy!

It's not all bad, as I mentioned earlier. The first half of the film starts the character off well and tries to take it in a new and fresh direction, but ultimately falls down in the conclusion. Cavill does a good job as the conflicted Man of Steel, but the plaudits lie with Michael Shannon as General Zod, the film's antagonist. As usual Shannon played the role with a lethal intensity which fit the Kryptonian purist, who simply wanted to carry on the future of his planet, albeit on Earth.  Along with Costner, Shannon made the film bearable, but again, his talents were wasted in the second half of the film where he is hung from wires against a green screen and re-enacts the final fight from The Matrix Revolutions.

"Misterrrr....... Kent" doesn't have the same ring...

I feel like I was promised something much better than this reboot of a franchise, mainly from the trailer but the appointment of Nolan as producer led me to believe that another “comic book art film” such as Batman Begins would be projected onto the silver screen, but alas I was mistaken.  Since release, it has earned millions worldwide and received positive opinions from most of those who see it, so I implore you to watch and see for yourself, it's probably just me. But don't blame me when you're questioning Lois Lane's entire role in this storyline, as well as the origin of Superman's suit. In a film like this, you're not supposed to question the small details, but be brought along for the ride, forgiving such indiscretions. But as I was left with a laundry list of complaints after the credits rolled, I don't think it had the desired effect.  I simply had a lack of zeal.

Rating - 4/10

The Green Lantern

A Certain Shade of Green

Remember The Green Lantern? Sure you do! He's the guy with a.... magic ring... or something? Part of a space police squad? Anyway, he's green. And so are a lot of other people. Aliens, in fact. And they can fly, breathe in outer space and create whatever they want just by thinking it. Cool, right? I mean, why not?

Yeah, I hadn't really heard of him before the trailer was released. But I wasn't the only one, as I had quite a few conversations of people confusing him with The Green Arrow, The Green Hornet and The Jolly Green Giant, so at least I knew a bit about him.

Since Lantern isn't as famous as his DC brothers Superman and Batman, a quick Wikipedia research session provided me with the background. Hal Jordan (Ryan Reynolds) is a cocky and arrogant fighter pilot who is chosen to become a Green Lantern. The Green Lanterns are fearless universal peace-keepers who use the power of might and will to protect justice in the Universe. They use Power Rings to manifest their imagination and can create anything if their ring is charged by their Lantern. However, they don't take kindly to Jordan, the first human Green Lantern. His first task puts him against the world-devouring 'fear entity', Parallax.

That mouthful should give you the hint of how much this film tries to pack into itself, quickly skipping over important plot points to the integral back-story. The entire film seems to be based around the graphics, trying to create an spectacular world of the countless Green Lanterns throughout the Universe, however coming across as a less-impressive Mos Eisley cantina. A classic case of style over substance.

The film's storyline merely feels flimsy due to the lack of depth to Hal Jordan. Unlike the impressive Thor, the cocky and arrogant titular hero doesn't learn the error of his ways and become humbled by his status. He starts off a dick, and ends up a dick with unlimited power. A potential storyline exploring Hal's relationship with his deceased father and surviving family begins the film but is quickly overtaken by the more explosive storyline of the Lanterns and their fight with Parallax.

Despite Reynolds failing to impress, both supporting actors Blake Lively and Peter Sarsgaard do their best with incredibly camp and outrageous situations as well as body modifications. Actors who have starred in fantastic films such as The Town and Jarhead deserve better than this though, and the hints of trilogy depress me even more. They do need a paycheck I suppose.

With lots of blockbuster films coming out this summer, I am disappointed by DC's attempt at adapting a lesser-known comic-book superhero, as if they were attempting to match Marvel's success with Thor. It definitely could have learnt a few lessons from the Norse God of Thunder. With a character not as famous as others, more information must be given, for us to become acquainted and to understand his values and beliefs, rather than shoving Joe Nobody onto an alien home-world and expecting the audience to care about his adventures.

Must try harder DC.

Rating - 4/10

The Lincoln Lawyer

In Need Of A Service

Usually, it only takes one word to put me off watching a film: McConaughy. My dislike for this man borders on Nicolas Cage territory, but his association with the film Frailty won some points with this reviewer, but only because he was barely in it. I mean look at his smug face. Don't you just want to punch it?

Sigh. Anyway, weirdly enough, he suits the role he plays in this film and I was surprised by how settled he seemed in the role of professional defence lawyer, showing the pieces of talent lying underneath the stoner/surfer/idiot surface. Please understand how hard that is for me to say.

The Lincoln Lawyer tells the story of Mickey Haller, a Defence Lawyer who operates out of his Lincoln Continental car. He inherits a high-profile case, defending the privileged son of a wealthy family accused of rape, played by Ryan Philippe. As Haller begins investigating the case with the help of his friend played by William H. Macy, he finds that his client might not be as innocent as he once thought.

Sounds intriguing right? The only problem is that the interesting storyline only kicks in halfway through the film. Sixty minutes in, the film becomes exciting. The first half is simply there to set up McConaughy's character and his history with his father, which is only necessary for a single part of the second half. The instant the catalyst hits, the film kick-starts into an intriguing crime thriller which includes some interesting plot points, fantastic performances and a nice game of cat and mouse between McConaughy and Philippe. However, the case gets resolved and the film reaches a point where it would naturally end, but the film continues. For another twenty minutes or so. I was fidgeting in my seat, wanting the film to finish, but they insisted on wrapping up the countless pointless story-lines that ran parallel to the interesting one. It's a shame that an interesting thirty minutes is surrounded by an hour and a half of dross.

Ryan Philippe returns from the mist to deliver a solid performance, at first whiny and innocent, and then delivering quite a powerful character further into the film. However, both William H. Macy and Marisa Tomei are underused and deserve better from just fleeting interactions with McConaughy. To give credit where it's due, McConaughy gives a performance I haven't seen him give before and I came out thinking he was one of the best parts of the film, which has never happened.

The Lincoln Lawyer deserves plaudits for having a good cast deliver convincing performances and it is an solid attempt at being inventive, but it's a shame that it's inconsistency lets it down. Hope to see more serious roles for McConaughy in the future too, if this is how he reacts to them.

Rating - 4/10

Paul

E.T.: The Exceptionally Tedious

You cannot find a bigger fan of Simon Pegg and Nick Frost than I.

I currently have a signed poster of Hot Fuzz on my bedroom wall, signed by the two men themselves, as well as the film's director, Edgar Wright.

I know virtually every line of their Channel 4 sitcom Spaced, their big-screen debut Shaun of the Dead and the aforementioned Hot Fuzz.  Shaun of the Dead actually sat in my Top Ten Film list for quite some time too.

All of which add to the disappointing fact that I really didn't find Paul funny. Like, at all.

Pegg and Frost play a pair of sci-fi nerds on a tour of America's best-known nerdy and alien hotspots, starting at nerd-travaganza Comic-Con, before travelling through Roswell, New Mexico and past Area 51. Whilst passing Area 51, they encounter the laid-back alien Paul (voiced by Seth Rogen) who has escaped from 51 and is in need of a lift to a rendezvous with his spaceship. However, special agents (Jason Bateman, Bill Hader and Joe Lo Truglio) are hot on their tales to retrieve Paul.

Hear all that comedic talent? Not only Pegg and Frost, but Rogen, Bateman, Hader, as well as Kristen Wiig, Jeffrey Tambor, David Koechner and Sigourney Weaver (of all people) making an appearance too! This is pretty much my ideal combining of comedic talent from both sides of the pond, as well as all being under the helm of Superbad's director Greg Mottola! What could go wrong?

19 minutes. That's how long into the film it was before I laughed.

I was so amazed by the first laugh-less 18 minutes that when a joke did make me chuckle, I had to check my watch to note it.

Sigh, I truly need to stop expecting so much from films involving actors I admire. It only results in disappointment. It happened with The Invention of Lying, Couples Retreat, Dinner For Schmucks, and now Paul.

The problem with all of these films is that the jokes were a bit too 'safe' (for lack of a better word) and Paul is no exception. An often-repeated line in the film is that 'sometimes, you have to roll the dice'. Pegg and Frost should listen to their own advice. Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz were incredibly funny because they immersed themselves in the genre they were parodying. The amount of zombie/cop film references in both Shaun and Fuzz are staggering but they add to the feel of the world they are in, which is something Paul misses.

Is the film a comedy? A science fiction? Action? Thriller? It doesn't really know, and therefore spreads itself far too thin. It makes sense to try and appeal to the larger audiences since this is Pegg and Frost's first big American-funded film together, but I felt like most of the funniest bits of humour might have been left on the cutting room floor for fear of alienating too much of the American public (no pun intended).

And speaking of alienating the audience, can I have a quick word with liberal comedy writers everywhere?

Hey guys! Can I just say? Please be careful when concerning religion. It's fine when you mock those who take themselves and their religion too seriously, like Chris Morris' Four Lions or Bill Maher's Religulous.  When you start enforcing your beliefs on others, then you're rife for parody. 

But when the message of a large part of your film moves from “Ha, aren't these fundamentalists silly people?” to “No, you are wrong in believing in God, and I, the writer, am right!” it stops being funny and moves to slightly offensive and alienating. Gervais fell into this trap with The Invention of Lying and now Pegg and Frost have done the same. The main diatribe from Lying was that Gervais' character created the first lie, and he ended up inventing the Christian religion: “Har-har! Everyone who believes in religion is believing in a lie!” And that's all the theists in the audience offended and mocked in one fell swoop, bravo! You are perfectly allowed to have your view on the state of religion in the world, but then so are the rest of the world.

Anyway, back to the review! Paul wasn't completely devoid of comedy. Like I said, it might have been 19 minutes into the film, but I did end up laughing and again several times during the film. Bill Hader was the main reason for this, as his delivery and timing had me chuckling for most of the time he was on screen. I was simply hoping for more of them, and therefore, I was left wanting.

I should say that I seem to be in the minority when it comes to this film. Many of my friends have said it's an early candidate for their Film of the Year, so maybe there's just something wrong with me, but all I can give you is my honest tendentious opinion.

Disagree entirely? Agree in parts but not overall? Let me know your thoughts and we can have a nice little discussion.

Rating - 4/10

The Next Three Days

Law-Breaking Gladiator

I'm steadily becoming less interested in Russell Crowe. He seems to be bringing less to the acting table every time I watch him. He started off very well, appropriately playing the Australian tough-man Hando in Romper Stomper, earned a place within my Favourite Actors with his role of 'Budd' White in L.A. Confidential, and was on top of the acting world when he won the Best Actor Oscar for his role of Maximus in Gladiator, which he fully deserved.

However, nowadays, with his partnership with Ridley Scott bordering on Burton/Depp, his roles seem to be becoming blander and blander, with a possible exception being his role in American Gangster. They even decided to re-release Gladiator under the title "Robin Hood" to remind us of how well he could act. Unfortunately the role was undercut with a dreadful accent, resulting in me and other people not being able to take him seriously.

His latest role in The Next Three Days has him playing husband to a wrongly-imprisoned wife, father to a motherless son, and he will break her out of prison. In the next three days, or the next after that!

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Crowe plays John Brennan, a high-school teacher who's wife (Elizabeth Mitchell) is imprisoned for the murder of her boss, although she implores her innocence. She gets sentenced to life imprisonment so the level-headed teacher decides the only logical reaction is to break her out of prison in a very intricate and difficult method.

Along the way, he gathers help from a three-minute cameo of Liam Neeson, Olivia Wilde in a fine twin example of pointless casting and misused talent, as well as his father (Brian Dehenny). The fact that the most screen-time any of these fantastic actors gets is about five minutes lets you know this film is incredibly Crowe-heavy. Unfortunately it's these moments of interaction where the most interesting dynamics appear, and then Crowe retreats into his 'single-father/genius-escapologist/loner' mode to bore us once more. Again, this might just be my personal feelings towards Crowe, but I would have much rather seen Neeson in the title role, as I felt he could have brought some of the personal revenge performance that made Taken such a underrated thrill.

The entire film is built up to the titular “Next Three Days”, however they aren't given enough screen-time and don't deliver much pay-off. More attention is given to “The Last Three Years” and then “The Last Three Months” to focus on how Crowe's character carefully plans his scheme. When discussing this film with a friend, they brought up the similarities the film has with another 'broken-man-turned-intricate-genius' film; Law-Abiding Citizen.

Citizen features another determined father using three years to his advantage to plot an incredibly over-the-top revenge scheme, with fantastic and entertaining results. Whilst the plot-lines don't exactly follow suit, there is a feeling throughout The Next Three Days that we are watching the bits that Citizen felt were too boring. Whilst it is interesting to see how Crowe discovered some of the methods he tried and failed with, we were shown a poster of Crowe and Mitchell running, with the promise of it being a 'thriller'. Crowe breaks out Mitchell in the last quarter of the film, run a bit, then it's over. Hardly as thrilling as Gerald “It's gonna be biblical” Butler's shenanigans.

In short: looking for a thriller where a father gets revenge on a travesty of justice, and the results are heart-pounding and impressive, if a little unrealistic? Watch Law Abiding Citizen.

Looking for a drama where a father plots an escape for a long three years for it to unravel in quick three minutes? All for a woman who may be guilty and deserving? Watch The Next Three Days.

Rating – 4/10

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