Prometheus - Review

It's been nearly a week since I saw Ridley Scott's Prometheus at the cinema, and since then the film has occupied that vague part of my mind, somewhere between 'enjoyment' and 'disappointment.' It's taken me a while to find myself in a position to write a fair review, and that's primarily because the film did not meet my expectations, for positive and negative reasons. Infact, I imagine many viewers will find themselves surprised by the product of Scott's much publicised return to science-fiction, and without a doubt, the film will divide audiences quite decisively. It's the type of movie that ignites interesting debates across the board, but sadly for Prometheus, I can't imagine all of those debates will positively reflect the film.

Outpost: Black Sun - Review

Straight to DVD releases are an odd sort of film. You can rarely recommend them due to their low production values and unoriginality - they're quite often just inferior ripoffs of whatever popular cinema trend happens to be making big money at the box office at any particular time. They're always the films on the bottom shelf at your local supermarket with the overly photoshopped cover artwork and ridiculously cliched titles. One would think they might have become obsolete by now due to the competition of blockbuster Blurays and the incredibly cheap prices of mainstream film on DVD, but the direct to shelf releases just keep on coming, whether we want them to or not.

The first Outpost movie had lots of this...

But once in a while, a director with a good idea doesn't get the funding he deserves to make his intended debut masterpiece or alternative horror flick, so his film ends up on these shelves too.
2008's Outpost was one such film. With a budget so small it could barely afford to expand beyond one primary filming location (the producer mortgaged his home to raise £200,000 to fund the movie), and featuring a cast of straight to DVD regulars including Ray Stevenson and consistently typecast psychopath Richard Brake, it wasn't looking as though it would deliver much. But instead, Outpost was a low budget gem steeped in eerie atmosphere, depicting a team of mercenaries hired by a scientist\businessman named Hunt with a top secret agenda to investigate the ruin of a German WW2 bunker in Eastern Europe. There, they discover a machine constructed by the Nazi occult, designed to develop and sustain an army of supersoldiers capable of crushing the Third Reich's opposition. But the Nazi soldiers who were used as experimental candidates for the machine back in the 1940s are still being kept alive by the machine's electro-magnetic field, and like apparitions - not quite alive but not quite dead - they materialise out of the shadows and brutally exterminate each of the protagonists one by one.

...and this...

It may be derivative of the typical 'haunted house' formula so popular in Hollywood, and it certainly gives a nod or two to the famous Wolfenstein video game series, but there's nothing quite so creepy as seeing the shadowy figure of a Nazi soldier in jack boots and trench coat lunging out of the dark with bloodied rifle bayonet in hand. The film is also tightly shot - almost claustrophobic in it's use of enclosed spaces, exaggerated light and shadow - and maintains a suspenseful, serious tone throughout despite its potential to slip into the ridiculous. The antagonists are genuinely quite threatening, and what's more, there's a subplot of corporate/financial betrayal beneath it all (a la Alien) to give the film some unexpected depth. Drawing strength from the fact that the Third Reich did indeed conduct bizarre scientific experiments during World War 2, the film uses this popular conspiracy theory to help root itself in some sort of reality.
For a film with a budget so minuscule, it's remarkably impressive.

...and this

Outpost was bought up and distributed by Sony, and was quite a broad success in terms of straight to DVD film making. It even managed to gain a limited European cinema run after Sony recognised the film's potential, and Director Steve Barker was encouraged to make a sequel once the market for supernatural Nazi horror films was realised. Before long, Barker had written a sequel and a prequel alongside original co-writer Rae Brunton, and production of the sequel - Outpost: Black Sun - began.

With Black Sun being written and directed by the same individuals as the original Outpost movie, you might expect it to be a film of equal quality. I wouldn't be too quick to get your hopes up. I will admit that Black Sun certainly looks like a sequel to Outpost - the same eerie use of exaggerated light and dark dominates the movie. It's certainly shot very well and can't be faulted as far as its visual aesthetic is concerned, but that's where the similarities end.

Outpost Black Sun has some of this...

The tag line of Black Sun is 'War in Hell,' and with a budget quite dramatically increased from the first outing (but still significantly low enough to call this a budget feature), Black Sun literally tries to stage a war against the Nazi supersoldiers within the expanding range of the electro magnetic field. Allied British and American soldiers (the presumable peacekeeping force) battle it out against the undead stormtroopers in woodlands and suburban areas, while our protagonists - a female 'Nazi hunter' and male investigator - try to make it through the 'warzone' alive in order to reach the source of the electro magnetic field - the Nazi machine from the first movie - and shut it down. Ofcourse, everyone else is trying to reach the machine too for their own personal or financial gain, including Klausener, the elderly Nazi scientist who built the machine in the 1940s and wants it back. Apparently, or so we are told, Klausener hired Hunt in the first movie, who was ofcourse attempting to retrieve the machine from the bunker for his employer. And despite us believing that Hunt died at the end of Outpost, Black Sun tells us that he is infact still alive and being used by the undead Nazi force to keep the machine working.

...and some of this...

This is the first and possibly most major problem with Black Sun. There is simply too much going on. The first movie was a simple, tense and elemental horror movie. Black Sun tries to strike up a tale of dramatic action on an epic scale, with obligatory cutaways to military commanders giving orders from field HQs and shady background conspirators. There are too many non-essential characters throughout, and too few developed characters with any real weight. For a film on this budget especially, its own ambition weighs it down.
Another issue is that by bringing the undead Nazi force out of it's bunker, the filmmakers have simply 'bypassed' one of the most crucial devices from the first movie. The stormtroopers no longer materialise from the shadows and disappear at a whim (the previous film describes this as the effect of 'unified field theory.') They now run and sometimes shamble about in broad daylight, waiting to be shot at by nameless, faceless soldier patrols. This departure from the first film's concept is never explained, and therefore the Nazi undead in this movie do not come across as mysterious, supernatural apparitions with the potential to lunge at you from any dark corner. Now they are generic 'Nazi zombies,' and the suspense and horror from the first movie is almost entirely absent. With the atmospheric formula so well balanced in the first entry, I'm genuinely surprised they didn't make a more concerted effort to stick closer to that idea.

..and this

Also disappointing are the two primary cast members. In Outpost, Ray Stevenson hardly delivered an award winning turn, but atleast he had some balls and bravado. In Black Sun, we get Catherine Steadman as Lena the female Nazi hunter, and while she certainly looks the part, her questionable acting/overacting really grated with me. I'm sure she's a capable actress in the right role, but here she feels drastically mis-cast.
Then there's Richard Coyle as Wallace, who is much more convincing in his role but lacks any of the heroism or personality that we expect from a leading male. He is a weak lead, and considering the first film was all about tough men with big guns taking on invincible Nazis, I certainly expected a more dominant male character.
And the group of swearing, grimacing soldiers they encounter midway through the film are lacking much in the way of character development - most of them are there just to act as fodder for the killer Nazis later on, and serve little other purpose. Atleast the mercenaries in Outpost were fleshed out a little bit more and instantly identifiable.
Taking the questionable conclusion to the movie into consideration aswell, which features a climactic scene that I can only describe as Castle Wolfenstein Lite and a plot twist that felt included for the sake of having a plot twist, and I have to say I can't heartily recommend this movie. It just felt like the filmmakers tried to cram too much into one film, and strayed too far from the original formula. It's a sequel to Outpost, but it's almost in a different sub-genre entirely.

This time they're in your Nan's living room

I must admit, I did enjoy seeing the new characters enter the familiar bunker complex from the first film, but that's purely because it was a reminder of how great the original Outpost was. In the latter half of Black Sun, the bunker complex suddenly opens up into a conveniently undiscovered underground stronghold via a hidden elevator. The creators might say this was an expansion of their original vision, now unrestricted by a much larger budget, but the underground stronghold is cliched and full of oddities that begin to stretch the limits of credibility. And the return of Johnny Meres' sinister SS Brigadier General was also welcomed, but the undead Nazi leader is used in barely two scenes, which is a shame since he was one of the more potent elements of the first film.
The film just isn't exciting enough either. When you think about its limited locations and scope, not much happened in the original Outpost film, but the consistent suspense and atmosphere kept it gripping and it maintained a steady pace. Not much happens in Black Sun either, but there's just no tension to fill in the void left by an overstretched narrative. Outpost felt like a substantial blockbuster movie mistakenly released straight to DVD, but Black Sun feels like the direct to DVD shelf is exactly where it belongs. I don't dislike the film, but it just isn't exciting enough to recommend either.

Outpost: Black Sun is an admirable effort from a low budget, independent production team, but ultimately it will be forgotten much more quickly than its predecessor. Unless you absolutely must watch every Nazi themed horror film in existence, you can probably afford to give it a miss. There is a planned prequel on the way titled 'Outpost: Rise of the Spetsnaz,' which will apparently show the origins of the Nazi supersoldier programme and pit the undead troops against Russian special forces. But considering the nature of Outpost and its surprise success, I don't anticipate the prequel will be of the same standard either.
But I encourage you to watch 2008's Outpost at the first available opportunity. It's a creepily atmospheric Nazi themed horror topped off with a quality finish that belies its painfully low budget status, and it's also an incredible lesson in how to make a good movie without Hollywood production values.

Avengers Assemble - Review

I've never been an avid follower of Marvel's comics, having missed the opportunity to become a regular reader at some point during my youth. While I'm more than aware and respectful of their contribution to popular culture, my knowledge of comic book lore isn't exactly all that impressive.
My experience of the famous names of DC and Marvel is largely limited to their depiction in TV and film, and unfortunately for me, those adaptations have scarcely been any good.

In my opinion, comic book movies don't usually offer much of merit. They are quite often poor films, designed to keep film studios afloat with eye candy that is proven to sell to pre-established audiences. There are obviously a number of exceptions - most notably The Dark Knight - but these are the exceptions to the rule.
Perhaps expecting every comic book adaptation to display the intelligence of Nolan's Batman series would be foolish though, as many of these characters deserve a more lighthearted and colourful approach. But regardless, it is true that many adaptations struggle to strike up an even balance between character development and action. Adapting from comic to film presents the challenge of trying to translate decades worth of comic lore onto the screen - which is no doubt a daunting task - and the difficulty of trying to determine the right tone for the film and grounding its protagonist in any sort of reality. Few directors are successful in overcoming these challenges.

Whedon demonstrates a scene

It's true that my interest in The Avengers (or Avengers Assemble if you're in the UK) piqued once I learnt that screenwriter/director Joss Whedon was co-writing and directing. Whedon is a skilled creative individual who has made quite a name for himself with pulp entertainment fans, and you've likely seen some of his work whether you know it or not. To learn that he was taking up the reigns of a major studio production was good news indeed. My first and only concern was, will his creative streak shine through despite the financial pressure of such a big budget production, or will he fall foul at the hands of the studio system?
For those unfamiliar, Whedon has had many ups and downs throughout his career. Being a younger director, he first saw success in the 1990s with cult TV shows Buffy and Angel, and was then screenwriter for 1995's wildly successful Toy Story. He then had his screenplay for Alien Resurrection (which is actually quite good in literary form) turned into a visual catastrophe, before moving into the world of animation where he wrote Titan A.E and Disney's Atlantis: The Lost Empire. He then had his sci-fi TV series Firefly cancelled before he could complete a single season, but later managed to conclude the story by bringing the show to the big screen in the movie Serenity. This is the first (and only) time a cancelled TV show has subsequently been adapted for cinema. He was also responsible for writing current horror/thriller Cabin In The Woods.
Whedon - being a skilled writer/director and a huge comic book fan - was the logical choice to make The Avengers the success Marvel studios wanted it to be, especially since many of his previous works dealt with ensemble casts and the simultaneous development of various characters.

With the Marvel movies Iron Man, Captain America: The First Avenger and Thor all directly leading into Avengers via their post-credits teasers, it's obvious that Marvel has been gearing itself up for this event movie for some time. Avengers is a convergence of plot lines from all three of those films, and in that sense it has an awful lot to live up to, delivering a satisfactory continuation to each individual series but also being an exciting introduction to the famous collaboration of fictional heroes. For viewers who haven't seen any of those three comic book adaptations (or read the comic books), the opening portion of Avengers may seem a little confusing due to many of the characters' origin stories being featured in each of the preceding films, but once it picks up speed, you can rest assured that it's all self contained from there.

Tom Hiddleston as Loki

Having said that though, the premise of the film is fairly simple. Villainous Loki - the antagonist in Marvel's Thor - has come to Earth and stolen the Tesseract - the blue cube of immense power featured in both the Captain America and Thor movies. Loki's threat is to use the Tesseract to open another portal to Earth and bring through it an extra-terrestrial army called the Chitauri. To counter this threat, Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) of fictional espionage agency S.H.I.E.L.D is tasked with assembling a response team consisting of recently defrosted Captain America (Chris Evans), Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner), and Black Widow (Scarlett Johanssen).

It's important to consider that on paper, this film sounds like the recipe for certain cinematic disaster. You've got atleast 8 major characters all needing precious screentime and fleshed out story arcs, a concept which is incredibly hard to sell with any degree of realism and credibility, loose narrative threads to tie up from the previous films, a crisis to introduce and circumvent, an army of critical fans waiting to jump on the bandwagon at the first sign of disloyalty to the comics, and within the Marvel studio itself, a massive budget on the line and the potential for one incredibly expensive box office failure. But somehow, the film is not only successful in avoiding these potential failings, it's also one of the most enjoyable cinema experiences I've had.

Mark Ruffalo (Banner/Hulk) and Robert Downey Jr. (Stark/Iron Man)

For those who are familiar with Whedon's work, his trademark is (fortunately) all over the film. From the witty banter between the lead characters, to the humour that gives the characters a streak of vulnerability and humanity. The overall package is well balanced, with an equal measure of superhero action and equally important character dialogue and development. None of the characters are short changed in favour of another. Each member of the Avengers team is treated equally in terms of their role in the film.
This isn't Shakespeare, it's a Marvel movie and Whedon is aware of that as the film parodies its own seriousness at points for a pleasantly more lighthearted approach. But for what it is, it's incredibly well written. At one point, Captain America is warned not to engage in a fight with Thor and Loki as they are 'basically Gods' and their power is far beyond what the Captain may be able to handle. Leaping into the fray regardless, he replies 'There's only one God miss, and I'm pretty sure he doesn't dress like that.' That single line of dialogue sums up the Captain's attitude in a dangerous situation, his old-fashioned view of the world and religion and it delivers a few laughs along the way. It's not Shakespeare, but considering the genre, it sure is clever.
The pacing of the film, while not perfect, was consistent enough to maintain my unwavering attention throughout. Again, considering the multitude of elements the film had to address in its opening stages, it's incredible that pacing was consistent at all. To those reviewers who claim that Avengers is a 'slow movie' with 'too many dialogue scenes' and 'poor pacing,' you are idiots. Take away those 'slow dialogue scenes' and this would be just another comic book movie without any narrative purpose and with poorly established, unidentifiable characters. It's these character developing scenes that enhance the action later on, and it's these scenes that make Avengers stand out as the most accomplished Marvel film yet.

Samuel L. Jackson (Nick Fury)

While it does borrow a story beat or two from The Dark Knight (you'll know it when you see it), Avengers makes the smart decision of preventing its heroes from actually 'assembling' until the final act. The film is constantly building up towards the final confrontation, and this escalating tension is crucial in making the conclusion as exciting as it is. This doesn't prevent plenty of conflict from emerging during the earlier parts of the film though, with plenty of friction between the protagonists as they work out their personal differences and reveal their issues and concerns.

Some of the characters are actually portrayed better here than they were in their own origin movies. Captain America and Thor seem to be particularly more exciting and effective in a fight (the Captain actually throws his shield and Thor demonstrates plenty of hammer slinging and lightning bolt action) and the combat is visceral and dominated by large scale stunts rather than poorly composited high speed footage a la The First Avenger. With a twinkle of humour, Whedon's script repeatedly references the Captain's disappearance and subsequent lack of knowledge of the last 50 years. He emphasises the character's flaws, and reminds us of the humanity behind the hero, which is crucially important if you want an audience to invest emotionally in your film.
Hulk, who has recently been featured in two poorly received modern adaptations with two different lead actors, finally gets an appearance worthy of his character, and it's frankly quite amazing that a film with such broad ambitions manages to depict the character so well. Mark Ruffalo is fantastic as Hulk alter ego Bruce Banner, playing the role of the socially awkward scientist in the midst of a crisis situation. Making another smart choice, Whedon's screenplay prevents Banner from unleashing 'the other guy' until the latter half of the film, leaving the audience to wonder how long he can truly contain his anger and when he does lose control, where he will direct his rage. It's quite a potent buildup, and does more for the anti-heroic status of the character than the two Hulk movies combined.
Loki himself, who is often recognised as the weakest element of Marvel's Thor, is a much better villain this time around. He isn't written particularly intelligently, but his self obsessed ranting and self indulged moments of scheming make you quite happy to see him get the beating he deserves.
Newer characters Clint Barton/Hawkeye and Natasha Romanov/Black Widow, who were featured briefly in Thor and Iron Man 2 respectively, are given their own subplot this time around to integrate them fully into the story - testament to Whedon's caring treatment of even the lesser characters.
Robert Downey Jr.'s Tony Stark is a show stealer as always, getting most of the witty lines and some incredible set pieces, most notably at the end of the film. His conclusion does border on the realm of cheesiness, but it's quickly rescued by sharp, humorous dialogue.
Joss Whedon seems to write with the philosophy of, 'if it doesn't quite seem credible, make it funny instead,' and for the most part it works. The final act itself - with its epic scale urban destruction - might have seemed reminiscent of Michael Bay's Transformers if it wasn't for the snappy dialogue, humour and well developed team character dynamic. This a blockbuster action picture that's been lovingly crafted by a writer/director who knows the importance of grounding a film in some kind of reality - albeit a heightened on - before launching the characters into larger than life situations.
Quite simply, all the characters here do what you would expect them to do, they look good doing it, and for many Marvel fans I'm sure that's a huge relief.

Avengers succeeds greatly despite the odds being stacked so heavily against it. Despite its protagonists being an odd squad of superheroes with bright latex costumes, Whedon gives them a dash of humanity and they almost become fully formed, believable characters. The action is slick and well conceived, and when the film reaches its final act, the climactic battle is mesmerising to watch. I found myself amazed not only by the stunning visuals and well conceived set pieces, but by the fact that I was engrossed in an adventure of such absurdly epic proportions and loving every minute of it. Joss Whedon deserves an enormous amount of praise for pulling off a feat as extraordinary as any depicted in the film. I sincerely hope he gets the credit he deserves for making the unbelievable so believable. It's bizarre to think of it this way, but essentially, it took the creator of Buffy The Vampire Slayer to show Hollywood how to make a decent Marvel film.

Solomon Kane - Review

To give a fair judgement of Solomon Kane, it's important to first put the film into context.
I - as many others surely did - watched the TV spots and trailers prior to the film's release in 2009 and judged it to be nothing more than a horrible B-movie fantasy, fit only for direct to DVD release. Made on a low budget and helmed by a relatively unknown director with not much to his name but the 2002 WW1 thriller Deathwatch, it wasn't looking all that enticing. Due to a poor marketing campaign, it reeked of video game style movie making, and trying to cash in on the works of Robert E. Howard; the famous writer behind Conan The Barbarian. I dismissed the film almost immediately.

Fast forward to 2011, and along came the reboot of Conan itself. Although I have the greatest respect for John Milius' original camel-punching Conan adventure of 1982, I was incredibly excited to see Conan back on the big screen, and curious to see where they took the character with modern effects and ofcourse, without Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Conan - This picture says it all really

So 2011's Conan was directed by Marcus Nispel, the guy behind the trashy remake of Friday the 13th. Taking up the mantle of Conan himself was Game of Thrones' Jason Momoa, possibly the only current actor who could play the character with any degree of credibility.
But let's be honest here - the film was awful. So bad that it barely had any redeeming features. The characters were bland, the origin story of Conan was rushed into a 15 minute opening sequence and the villain was laughably weak, spouting inane dialogue and facing off against Conan in one of the the most poorly conceived showdowns ever seen in cinema. The music by regular Zach Snyder collaborator Tyler Bates was a generic buzz of audio with a barely recognisable main theme, which is even more insulting when considering the epic score Basil Poledouris cooked up for the 1982 film. 2011's Conan felt like it was churned out of the cold Hollywood machine, marketed for a mindless teen audience whose main priority was to see a few heads roll in 3D. There were impressive visual effects and the characters certainly looked the part, but jaw dropping CGI and commendable costume design hardly made up for poor direction and the lack of a recognisable narrative. Gone was the epic fantasy tale of revenge depicted in the Milius film. Instead we get a bland, generic, hack and slash B-Movie with a high budget polish that's supposed to convince us that any genuine feeling went into the production. And with a budget of nearly 80 million dollars, one could surely have expected something more?

With Conan behind me and hopefully forgotten, I decided to give Solomon Kane a viewing. My expectations at this point were tremendously low - 'it can't be any worse than Conan, can it?' Add to that the knowledge that Kane's budget was half of that for Conan, and I was letting myself in for a laugh a minute attempt at the fantasy adventure genre that was likely to have more in common with Monty Python's Holy Grail.
Except that wasn't the case. While Solomon Kane is far from being a genre masterpiece, when compared to its competition, it tick's all the boxes that a pulp fantasy adventure should.
James Purefoy is charismatic and convincing in the lead role, and his character gets a substantial 30-40 minutes of screentime to establish himself as the brooding anti-hero. The supporting cast includes the late Pete Postlethwaite, Alice Krige, Jason Flemyng and Max von Sydow, and they all deliver acting turns worthy of a film with a much more established name, giving credit to a director who was obviously determined to get the best from his cast.
The primary antagonist is a voiceless, masked rider who aptly demonstrates his lust for violence at numerous points in the movie. While he isn't nearly as intimidating as the greatest of cinema's villains, he certainly carries enough heft to make you root for Solomon Kane. What's more, the villain gets a sliver of backstory, which is indeed rare for a film of this type.

The masked antagonist

Fighting is well choreographed and suitably violent at points, and the dialogue is sharper and more refined than I was honestly expecting. What's most important is that the viewer fully understands the characters' motivations before the violence ensues, which increases the dramatic impact of everything to follow. Not rocket science, but often so overlooked in other similar films.
There is plenty of religious reference throughout - as you would expect when the titular character owes his soul to the devil and turns to God for sanctuary - but none of it is overwhelmingly forced upon the viewer. It actually works quite nicely within the context of the film.
But most impressive here is the atmosphere that accompanies the narrative, depicting a rainy England filled with poverty and violence. To the director's credit, soundstages and sets are scarcely used, and instead we get real locations mildly adjusted with computer imagery. It really makes a huge difference when you know Kane is fighting enemies in a patch of real forest rather than on a small set surrounded by blue screen. It gives the film a sense of perceptible scale as Kane travels across the land in search of his objective.
Klaus Badelt's music score is suitably epic, romantic and memorable. It lends itself incredibly well to the film, and gives it a sense of grandeur that belies its low budget origins. For me, the score was the 'icing on the cake,' as no adventure movie can be complete without a memorable theme for it's titular character, and no fantasy film can be complete without sweeping orchestral overture. Kane has both in great quantity, and it's worth noting that this is something that Tyler Bate's Conan score is sorely missing.
I could mention more - the imaginative and varied cinematography that puts Conan to shame, the unexpected narrative twist, the costume design by Patrick Tatopolous (Stargate). But I'm sure you get the point.

Solomon Kane is an independent production that managed to muster a budget of $40 million, and 2011's Conan is a tentpole studio film with a budget of nearly $80 million. But in almost every way, Solomon Kane is superior. Granted, my low expectations could have affected my opinion of it to a degree, and there are a few cringe worthy and cliched moments in the film, but overall it's an enjoyable experience. If you expect something with the depth and scope of Lord of the Rings or Game of Thrones, you will certainly be disappointed. But within its own niche, Solomon Kane is a highlight of the genre, and is certainly the better Robert E. Howard adaptation of recent years.

Klaus Badelt's score from Solomon Kane

War Horse - Review

For those who saw the trailer to War Horse and immediately wanted to gouge their eyes out at the thought of watching a family-friendly horsey film set to the sweeping backdrop of World War One - this film isn't going to win you over. For those with a slightly more open mind, who understand that the range of 'family-friendly' Spielberg films include such well recognised works as E.T and Hook - War Horse isn't half bad at all, and the film itself definitely isn't as sentimental as the sickening trailer.
Yes, this is just another film making the point that 'war is bad, and people get hurt,' and this topic isn't at all foreign to Spielberg. His past works include Saving Private Ryan, Schindler's List, Empire of the Sun, and two factually based HBO miniseries - Band of Brothers and The Pacific. It's safe to say the subject of war is of particular interest and is very personal to him, as references to war and the holocaust also inhabit many of his non-war movies.
But War Horse is different in that it delivers this anti-war message within a film that's suitable for the younger viewers among us, and quite importantly it's a film that young people will actually want to see. Your 12 year old son/daughter isn't likely to be in a hurry to watch a documentary about the horrors of war, and quite possibly the message as delivered in that medium might not even make sense to them. But show them a sad story about a horse, which represents the tragedy of war from a lovable four-legged creature's point of view, and suddenly it will all make sense. It's that perspective from which the success of this film can be best appreciated.
The battle scenes in the movie are quite a spectacle (if rather tame in regards to realistic violence), and mark the most epic depiction of World War One on the big screen for many years. In popular movies, it's a war that's generally overlooked, so it's nice to see Spielberg give it the grand treatment.
Acting is top rate on all counts, and the horse is represented well if not a little disconnected from the audience at times. The original tale by Michael Morpurgo was written from the perspective of the horse, so this is probably just a result of the necessary changes made to adapt the story from page to screen. Just think of it this way - if Disney had made this, the horse would probably have talked. That's enough to make anyone appreciate Spielberg's take on the material a whole lot more.
There were only two real gripes I had with the movie. The first was the use of English dialogue by German and French characters, which really bugged me from start to finish. But then I suppose you could again argue that they're trying to make a film that's accessible to children, and children are lazy and don't like to read? Still, having hammy German accents throughout many scenes ruined the illusion for me, especially when the German soldier claimed to speak 'very good English,' despite every other German character on the battlefield speaking fluent English aswell. Hmmm.
The other gripe (while minor) was lead character Albert sounding a bit too 'Samwise Gamgee' for my liking. I half expected him to shout out 'Mr. Frodo!' at just about any second and go bounding off to the Shire.
Overall though, it's not a bad movie, but it's very set on being a family film and therefore it might not be to everyone's tastes. It is a bit cheesy and predictable in parts, but when you think back to E.T for example, and how we put it on a pedestal because many of us grew up with it. Well surprise, E.T is incredibly cheesy too. War Horse is that same kind of cheesy - the kind that this generation of children will grow up with fond memories of.

How To Train Your Dragon - Review

My film viewing habits sometimes follow a somewhat curious pattern, and this is one such example. Over the past few weeks, I've watched The Thing (prequel) and The Human Centipede 2 (Uncut), followed by Happy Feet and How To Train Your Dragon. That's quite an extreme contrast in viewing material.
Human Centipede was graphically shocking as you might expect, but I don't really get my kicks out of watching body torture or rape scenes, so I have to say my Winter might have been better off without it. The Thing prequel was a poor attempt at milking the success of the 1982 John Carpenter horror/thriller, which was a remake itself. The new 2011 film can't decide if it's a remake or new chapter in the series, and it's better off ignored. Anybody who says it's as good as (or better) than the Carpenter version is quite clearly an imbecile.
Happy Feet, on the other hand, surprised me by being a thoroughly enjoyable family-friendly animated feature about a penguin colony in dire need of fish. The voice acting was good, particularly Robin Williams, and I can safely say Australian director George Miller's talent spans beyond making Mad Max movies. Yes, I must be reaching old age prematurely, for I'm openly admitting that I enjoyed a family animation more than seeing several people stitched together end to end. Who would have thought it? (sarcasm)

The real highlight though was How To Train Your Dragon. I didn't really expect too much from it, as it was just something to watch with the missus on a bank holiday weekend. But it turned out to be the best film I've seen recently, and almost definitely the best animated feature I've seen in a very long time. For someone like me, it's no issue to admit that Toy Story brings back fond memories of family cinema trips and the early days of Pixar's CG films, and the sequels were eagerly anticipated as the long awaited conclusion to a series I'd grown up with. But for me to say How To Train Your Dragon is probably better than any of the Toy Story movies (surely not!) - now that's serious talk. And in terms of Dreamworks animated movies, yes it's also better than anything Shrek related. Let's face it, I might aswell just say this movie has become my favourite 3D animated film, with Pixar's UP being close competition.
There are a few cheesy moments for the sake of the children (the main character is called Hiccup for example), and there's the whole 'cute creature' element that sells the package to its feel-good family audience, but these are things that should be expected from this type of family animated adventure. And apart from these minor gripes it's all positive. Good voice acting, superb animation, a stunning music score, a song by Jonsi from Sigur Ros, a story that's far from original but holds up well within the film's concept. And there are dragons ofcourse, and Vikings. You can't go wrong with that combination, and when all those elements come together in perfect measure, you get a number of spectacular scenes that really leave the competition for dead. There's no formula for scenes like that in a movie. Occasionally, all the right creative influences are at work and it just happens.
Despite it being a film suitable for children, with no violence, profanity or gore in sight, once you get that cinematic buzz from those perfectly crafted screen moments, it's a film that's impossible to dislike. It's definitely in that 'feel good film' category, and it seems to bear a few similarities to Avatar regarding a scene or two, but in every way How To Train Your Dragon beats Avatar at it's own game, and it does it at about half the running time and half the budget. Amazing.

Drive - Review

As I left the cinema following the closing credits of Drive, I realised I'd just experienced an incredible piece of filmmaking - the likes of which only comes around very, very rarely - and I couldn't stop talking about it. Remarkably, within 10 minutes of the film's opening sequence, I'd already decided it was my favourite film of the year, but by the time the credits rolled, I knew without a doubt that it was a potent anti-blockbuster that would develop a cult following within no time. The movie unfolds with a tense and realistic getaway chase that places the viewer in the passenger seat of an escaping vehicle, followed by a pop-noir styled main title sequence edited to a pulsing 80's style soundtrack. It was clear to see why Drive had left with the best-director prize at this year's Cannes film festival.

I had high hopes for Drive from the outset. Not only was it under the control of Danish Director Nicholas Winding Refn, who managed to launch Tom Hardy to ultimate stardom in the unlikely role of Bronson in 2009, but it was also the action vehicle that was tipped to launch actor/musician Ryan Gosling into the public eye. Originally pitched as a blockbuster action title with Hugh Jackman attached to star (which seems an impossibility once you see Gosling in the role), the script eventually changed hands and was redefined as a lower budget film that could appeal to both fans of mainstream genre films, and those who enjoy a more alternative, art-house approach to their cinema experience.

Drive tells the story of an un-named 'Driver,' who uses his expert skill behind the wheel to take work as a stunt man and race driver during the day, and getaway driver-for-hire by night. He has a set of rules which define his operation - no guns, no helping the criminals run it down - he just drives. After becoming involved with the plight of his neighbour Irene and her son, the Driver develops feelings for her that change his situation entirely, and he gets inevitably drawn into her conflict.

Drive doesn't really spend any time exploring character origins or specific details, and certainly doesn't feel the need to explain anything we don't really need to know. Dialogue is also fairly sparse, and the conversations that do take place do so with a natural flow. There are many telling smiles and awkward glances that tell as much story as the words themselves do.

The overall plot isn't exactly revolutionary, and revisits ideas seen in many similar genre pieces, but with artistic and unique directing choices, it manages to feel fresh and inventive regardless of it's well worn formula. To those complaining that Drive is weak on plot, narrative detail wasn't the focus here anyway. The subject of Drive is the un-named protagonist and his character arc, and a fascinating character he is. At the beginning of the movie, he is almost shy and reserved, and we know very little about him. He comes across as gentle and caring, and hardly the violent type. His refusal to carry a weapon reinforces our belief that the driver is of a more peaceful disposition. Then as the film escalates into violence and Irene is endangered, the Driver suddenly becomes more and more brutal as he dispatches one would be assailant after another in an attempt to protect her from harm. The brutality of his actions reaches a peak during the latter part of the film that culminates in the elevator scene, and the violence reaches a shocking climax. As we look on the Driver through Irene's eyes, we wonder how a character who was so gentle at the beginning of the movie could be transformed so dramatically into a remorseless killer, and in that moment we realise it's because of his feelings for her, and the scene immediately tells a whole story within itself. The collision of violence, romance and suspense in this pivotal sequence is quite staggering, and the entirety of it is told without a single line of dialogue, clearly displaying Refn's unique and powerful directional ability. In Drive, actions do indeed speak louder than words.

Credit must go to the casting department, for there isn't a single bad casting choice here, and it seems that everyone knew they were involved in something particularly special. Brian Cranston of AMC's Breaking Bad is well cast as the Driver's partner and mentor, Carey Mulligan is appropriately vulnerable as Irene, and Albert Brooks is far more than a two-dimensional villain stereotype. Even Ron Perlman - who has garnered a reputation over the last few years of signing onto one terrible film after another - turns in a brilliant and unexpected role and gets some fantastic dialogue.
Director Refn seems to present these potent characters so effortlessly, that all other details feel inconsequential, and I was thoroughly absorbed in their world. I'll be greatly anticipating his next film, Only God Forgives, and it's interesting to see Gosling attached to star here too.

Drive is in equal parts thrilling, romantic, violent and nostalgic. But essentially it's a tragic love story, described by Gosling himself as a Romeo and Juliet for the modern era. The nameless hero of the story is so selfless in his defence of Irene that he sacrifices all personal desires to ensure that she is safe. The song by College fills in on the soundtrack where the dialogue is void, describing the Driver as a 'real hero, and a real human being.' It's the Driver's selfless acts that subconsciously resonate with audience members, and perhaps this is the real human being that so many of us wish we could be. Thankfully, Drive is an incredibly well balanced movie, and the love story doesn't force itself upon us, instead letting the emotional themes simmer beneath the stunning visuals, the sound of squealing tires, and a crackling 80's electro soundtrack.

Super 8 - Review

I'd waited so long for this film to come out in the UK, I'd almost forgotten about it until tonight. I've avoided just about every bit of spoilerish material on this one in an attempt to go into a film for once with very little idea of what I'm about to see. And man, was it worth it.

Super 8 is such an amazing mashup of ideas and themes from 80s sci-fi adventure movies and youth oriented films like Stand By Me, E.T and Close Encounters. But never once is it overtly plaguristic. There is definitely an original vision here - albeit a very nostalgic one. I've glimpsed other reviews stating that the film was disappointing when compared to the films of Spielberg in his prime, but honestly, I couldn't really say much negative about this film at all. I also think it's unfair to compare this so lazily to Spielberg movies, as this is definitely something new, but clearly delivered by a filmmaker who is as fond of those 80s movies as I am.

The story wasn't exactly ingenius, but it was driven by a bunch of genuine characters that took the focus away from technicalities and let us enjoy a truly character driven film. The banter and sweary dialogue between them was very realistic, as was the humour. I don't think i've seen a buddy movie this well written for a very long time. It makes me wonder if it's movies of the 80s we've been missing from our screens so badly, or purely movies of this quality that have been absent from our cinemas for so long.

Effects were almost flawless, but were hardly the centrepiece of this one. There were a few real eye opening moments in there, and a good balance of CG and practical effects that kept the visuals from being distracting, which is how it should be.

The music was another success from Giacchino, writing a score that complimented but didn't overwhelm the film. It was memorable music for certain, but not overtly in your face. Sure, this is no John Williams score, but as i've pointed out, anyone going in expecting that should go and rent a Spielberg movie.

I could really write so much here. Super 8 pushed all the right buttons for me. This will be a definite Bluray purchase, and I'm adding it to my list of top movies (see the blog navigation bar) as we speak. I know this film won't please everyone, but when the credits rolled, I knew immediately I'd found the movie i'd been looking for since...well, the 80s, and it'll take something genuinely impressive to beat it this year.

Captain America: The First Avenger - Review

I've always thought Captain America could make a pretty awesome movie. Something about a comic book character who fights for justice, but does it by bashing Nazis over the head with a big shield that doubles as a massive frisbee. Cool concept, and like I'd hoped, the Nazi bashing in this film was thoroughly enjoyable to watch and brought back that 'raiders' feeling I got so many years ago watching Harrison Ford plug evil nazis in the face. This aspect of the film was great fun, as was the casting of Chris Evans as the Cap' and Tommy Lee Jones in a role perfectly tailored for him. Hugo Weaving as Red Skull was pretty cool, even if his accent was a bit dodgy most of the time.

The computer effects on this one were a mixed bag. The effects used to join Chris Evans' face onto a scrawny body were achieved seamlessly, yet the action sequences looked too 'cut and paste' for my liking, where it was too obvious when digital characters had been added to scenes.

There were far too many hammy moments in this for me to genuinely say I thought it was a great film. Too much family-friendly romancing with the predictable and convenient love interest played by Hayley Atwell.
Maybe it wasn't awkward, but just implausible. One minute Steve Rogers meets military agent lady, next minute he's carrying round a picture of her into battle. He's supposed to be 'ard, he's Captain America, yet he comes across as falling for the first woman he sees. Just didn't feel right, especially crammed into the tight timeframe.

When I think about it, I put this down to the generally shallow characterisation throughout the film. None of the characters were particularly well developed, so when they went about dramatic actions in the story, you couldn't really empathise with them or understand their motivations. The script itself may be to blame, or the uninspired direction of Joe 'Jurassic Park 3' Johnston, but all in all I had a hard time feeling anything much for any of the characters, and when the action kicked off, my excitement levels dipped before they reached anything substantial - primarily because the characters were too 'cardboard cutout' to care much about.
But hey, this is a Marvel film, and perhaps Batman Begins and the Dark Knight have spoiled me too much by causing me to expect some real character development in a comic book movie.

But to be fair, if someone said to me name the best aspect of the film, I'd say the ending was nicely set up and moved the character into modern times in a natural and fitting way. I know i said I disliked the love interest sidestory, and it was cringeworthy, but it did set up the ending nicely. The film didn't have the cheesy gung-ho ending I was expecting it to have, but instead a rather down-beat ending that put a refreshing spin on the whole thing, and that was a nice surprise. It heightened my opinion of the film right at the end.

Captain America wasn't as awesome as the movie I was hoping to see, but it was still enjoyable as a non-too-serious adventure flick, and the ending did leave me looking forward to Joss Whedon's 'The Avengers,' so it served its purpose well.

Transformers: Dark of the Moon - Review

Transformers: Dark of the Moon was better than I expected it to be, but it could easily win the award for most drawn out, overbloated narrative in all of modern cinema. Despite all of the explosions, the remarkable special effects, the John Malkovich cameo and the government agent in a wheelchair, Michael Bay has a serious issue with pacing. Ever since that godawful mess Pearl Harbour, he seems to have some obsession with really long movies - and not justifiably long. Long as in building up to a battle for half the movie, and when it finally arrives, dragging out the battle for a further hour of plotless antics. I mean, the effects were REALLY great, but utilised by a different director this could have been incredible. Which is a shame, because Transformers 1 was thoroughly enjoyable. Having said that, Revenge of the Fallen was an undeniable mess, and this third installment is a definite improvement.
And what is it with Michael Bay anyway? The man has a serious fetish for destruction. I don't think I've seen quite so many explosions in one movie (except perhaps Pearl Harbour). I can't see how this guy's career can progress any further beyond this volume of explosions, unless his next film is about the big bang and the creation of the universe. Or maybe they'll hire him for the 'When World's Collide' remake, and it'll be 2 hours of buildup before the 2 planets inevitably smash into each other for 20 minutes and everything goes bang.
Generally though, my complaints didn't start until the day after, when I realised how dumb this movie really was. But during the viewing experience, I was thorougly entertained by the eye candy, and thought the price of admission was well worth it. Just another Hollywood film then.