The Artist

Academy Award Nominations: 10

• Best Picture
• Best Director (Michel Hazanavicius)
• Best Actor (Jean Dujardin)
• Best Supporting Actress (Berenice Bejo)
• Best Original Screenplay (Michel Hazanavicius)
• Best Art Direction (Production Design: Laurence Bennett, Set Decoration: Robert Gould)
• Best Cinematography (Guillaume Schiffman)
• Best Original Score (Ludovic Bource)
• Best Costume Design (Mark Bridges)
• Best Film Editing (Anne-Sophie Bion and Michel Hazanavicius)

Business is booming in Hollywood in the 1920’s. People are flocking to the cinemas to see the silent pictures, and the man at the forefront of all this is George Valentin, Kinograph Studio’s major star and leading man. But, there’s change coming, as the advent of sound is coming sooner rather than later, and George can’t seem to abide by these major developments. On top of that, his star is beginning to fade in favour of a female star he helped to make famous; a woman by the name of Peppy Miller, who’s fast becoming the face of the ‘talkies’...

The Artist is unique amongst this year’s best picture nominees. Hell, it’s unique amongst all films this year, this decade, this millennium. In case you didn’t already know, The Artist is a black and white silent film, a replica of (or rather an ode to) the black and white silent films of the 1920’s the plot revolves around. I would say it’s refreshing to see something so different, but this was the standard 90 years ago, so technically it’s not new, it’s actually tremendously old school. The problem is black and white silent films were destroyed by the advent of colour and sound. Surely, then, a film like The Artist can only act as an homage to the era, rather than use its tropes and themes to create a 21st century film that can attract and entertain a wide audience. This assumption would be dead wrong. The Artist is an absolute treat.

The Artist is not going to be a film for everyone, obviously. Recent reports of cinema goers in Liverpool demanding refunds because they didn’t realise the film was silent and in black and white exemplify this. However, if people were willing to give this a go, people would see that this isn’t just one of those films exclusively for critics and film buffs. The Artist is compelling viewing throughout its short 90 minute runtime, something that most films with dialogue and action sequences nowadays fail to achieve. It’s romantic and funny and dramatic and tragic and celebratory, all rolled into one. The man behind this? Michel Hazanavicius: Writer, director and editor. Clearly, he knew what he’d have to do to advance the plot without the use of dialogue, and does so brilliantly with sparingly-used intertitles and fast paced editing using 1920’s techniques such as wipes and fades. However, Hazanavicius is not alone in his endeavours.

The acting is one of the key elements here, as more has to be said through expression and attitude, which leaves a lot resting on leading stars Jean Dujardin and Berenice Bejo. They carry it superbly well though, managing to create associable characters through nothing more than over-exaggerated facial expressions and actions. Dujardin in particular is fantastic, because he seems to not just play the part of George Valentin, rather he becomes the role. I realise this is a terrible acting cliché, but I’ve honestly never seen a truer example of it. Dujardin lives out Valentin’s downfall on screen and does so in a heartbreaking way. Considering the man is an alcoholic failure, the attachment and sympathy you hold for him is entirely down to Dujardin’s performance. Bejo also deserves credit as her performance as the rising starlet makes her the antithesis of Valentin, and yet her performance makes her and Dujardin a brilliant pairing. The expressiveness in her face and her actions, no matter how slight they are, portrays her emotions on screen without the need for dialogue and accentuate her character. Even the dog, Uggie, is great in this! He acts as well as the human actors and, due to the lack of sound, becomes an equal performer, adding comedy elements and creating tension and drama. For a dog, that is incredibly impressive. There is also a great supporting cast here, including John Goodman perfectly playing a fat cat, cigar chomping studio head. It’s good to see a film where there are many recognisable faces, but the most recognisable name is Goodman, and the lead actors are total unknowns before now. There is, however, a key character in the film that is more important than any other: The soundtrack.

I call the soundtrack a character, because Hazanavicius makes the soundtrack become integral to the film’s plot and pacing, not only with his use of music (which is pretty spot-on throughout), but through his clever use of sound effects in certain scenes to add emphasis or create tension. The score is perfect throughout, a mix of period and contemporary compositions played with an orchestra in the style befitting the film’s medium. He doesn’t use sound much, but when he does, it’s great. Moments when the music stops, and the emphasis is placed squarely on the action on screen become tense, and when you add sound effects, breaking the silence, it’s a mix of delight and bewilderment how something so simple can have such an effect both on the characters on screen and to the viewing audience.

Overall, The Artist is undeniably fantastic, one of those films I can’t wait to watch again even though I’ve literally just seen it. If people are willing to give it a go, they’ll find it has something for everyone, as appealing to a teenage market as it will be to an elderly market. The performances are first class, as well they should be, or else it would fall on its own sword. The use of music and sound are measured and pretty much spot-on, and the visual style and editing are a fitting tribute to the silent pictures of the era it attempts to replicate. Michel Hazanavicius has great reason to be proud of this film, and The Artist is most certainly worthy of all the plaudits it’s currently receiving. The Artist hasn’t left me speechless, but my god it’s breathtaking.

Rating: *****

The Artist was released on 30th December 2011 and is still currently in cinemas.

Hugo

Academy Award Nominations: 11

• Best Picture
• Best Director (Martin Scorsese)
• Best Adapted Screenplay (John Logan)
• Best Cinematography (Robert Richardson)
• Best Original Score (Howard Shore)
• Best Art Direction (Production Design: Dante Ferretti, Set Decoration: Francseca Lo Schiavo)
• Best Costume Design (Sandy Powell)
• Best Visual Effects (Robert Legato, Joss Williams, Ben Grossman and Alex Henning)
• Best Editing (Thelma Schoonmaker)
• Best Sound Editing (Philip Stockton and Eugene Gearty)
• Best Sound Mixing (Tom Fleischman and John Midgley)

Hugo Cabret is an young boy who lives inside the walls of a busy Parisian train station, maintaining the station's many clocks in the absence of his alcoholic uncle, the man who took him in after his father dies in an accident. Hanging on to the last remnant of his father's memory, he becomes obsessed with fixing an automaton clockwork robot in the hopes it may contain a message from his father. However, to fix it, he needs gears and springs, things which can be found at only one of the train station's many shops; A small, unassuming shop selling toys, run by an unassuming old man. There's also the matter of the lock with the heart-shaped key...

The Invention of Hugo Cabret, or 'Hugo' (in 3D!), is a whimsical tale about a young boy's extraordinary adventures in a romanticised 1930's Paris, with homelessness, thievery and the history of cinema all running themes in the background. You see, if you look at this story through certain aspects of its plot, you can see why the director of films like Mean Streets, Taxi Driver and Goodfellas chose to bring this to the big screen himself. However, to be blunt, it seems an extraordinary adventure of Scorsese's own making to create his first ever family-friendly film at this point in his career, especially given his recent tremendous successes with The Departed and Shutter Island, two films with dark themes more suited to his earlier work. But then maybe such a shift in tactics from such a legendary director can surely only mean that he's confident he can do it justice, no? Well, as strange as it is, he does. Kind of.

Hugo is troubling me even as I write this, because although it is a great film, and there are some really great moments of dialogue or cinematography or a combination of the two, that's just it. There are some great MOMENTS. Though there are flashes of brilliance, it is overall a rather generic children's adventure film with no real artistic flourishes other than those enforced by the 3D medium in which it was shot, and that's a real crime. Over the years, Scorsese has established his own visual style with certain shots and themes becoming his trademarks, and they just aren't on display here. That's not to say he's not completely absent from proceedings, there is one moment which is Scorsese through and through: In the pre-title scene, the action follows the young Hugo as he weaves his way through the narrow walls of the train station, and we as the audience follow him all the way through in a single, smooth tracking shot which is reminiscent of the 'Copacabana Shot' from Goodfellas. Other than that, the film is generic, it could have been done by anyone. Not to naysay a directing legend, and a personal hero of mine, but the film left me feeling pretty gutted and somewhat disappointed that there wasn't more Scorsese on display.

That's not to say that is not entertaining because it certainly is. It's two hours of good, clean, family fun with enough adventure and drama running through it to keep an audience entertained, which is down to the performances of the two young actors. Asa Butterfield is great as Hugo, playing his role of the young boy forced to grown up too soon well, bringing a maturity and sadness to his performance. Also, Chloe Moretz is good as Isabelle, Hugo's young companion, believably another young girl with adult sensibilities. You may not that both kids play the roles with maturity, another sign that Scorsese is going outside his comfort zone in this film and is directing a cast of children for the first time, treating them like adults and producing a performance akin to this. Other than that, it's great to see Sir Ben Kingsley in a non-comical, leading role and performing well in it as the master Georges Melies. Note to Hollywood: Sir Ben Kingsley can still act, don't merely reduce him to a cameo where he does nothing but mugs and speaks in an accent. Sacha Baron Cohen, also, does well as the bumbling train station inspector, delivering a near-Clouseau like performance which entertains and delivers heart and warmth to his cold character.

Looking at the film by itself, it's really well done. The Paris train station set was a grand construction demanded by Scorsese, and looking at it on screen, you can see why. Had this film been shot in a standard studio with different sets on a smaller scale, the grandiose feeling of the set would not have been translated to screen. Thankfully, the scale of the train station comes across, and it's actually enhanced by the inclusion of the 3D technology, creating a depth and scale that only 3D could possibly create. The attention to detail in the props and sets is well worth noting as well, as nothing seems out of place or seems to have been an after thought, it seems clear that everything on screen has been carefully selected and placed to add to the on-screen illusion. The plot never drags its feet either, another case of each line being carefully selected and placed into the script to further the story, and thus the story continues at a steady pace throughout, never feeling like the two hours you'll spend watching it. In truth, the film feels as if it could twice the length and you still wouldn't notice, and you probably wouldn't care, given how beautifully the film's been shot, it's a real treat to watch, especially on a big screen.

Overall, there are good and bad things about this film, and by no means is this a bad film, but it just feels so disappointingly generic. It's good that Scorsese has explored other territory at this point in his film making career after achieving so much greatness previously, but the genre, plot and themes are so distinctly unsuited to the director that it neutralises any flourishes he might have been able to add. You can certainly see why he took on this film though; in amongst the story of the lost child finding answers, the film is the story of a long held love affair with cinema, an ode to the magic and legacy of Georges Melies, it's an ode to the birth and artform of cinema, and this at least is done wonderfully. The story is told well, the film doesn't drag, and surprisingly makes good use of the 3D technology, but then, if a master like Martin is using 3D cameras, he's not going to let anything slide. He does get some great performances out of his cast, and the cinematography is fantastic, as are the sets and details amongst the mise-en-scene. I really don't have a problem with Hugo as a film. I just have a problem with it being a Scorsese film.

Rating: ***1/2

Hugo was released on the 2nd December 2011 and is no longer being shown in cinemas.

Real Steel

In the year 2020, as crowds looked for bigger thrills, humans were replaced by specialist robots in the sport of boxing. A once great fighter, Charlie Kenton now buys scrap robots and puts them in illegal street fights to try and win money and pay off his debtors. One day, Charlie finds out his ex-girlfriend has died, and thus his son Max is placed in his custody for the summer. Together they fight robots and go searching for in junkyards for spare parts. One night, whilst junk hunting, Max falls over a ledge, but is saved by an overhanging robot arm. Max uncovers Atom, an obsolete sparring robot, and becomes determined that he can take him home and make him a prize fighter, despite Charlie’s objections...

Real Steel is somewhat of an oddity in today’s film market, in that it’s not a remake or a reboot or a sequel to anything. Instead, this is a 2 hour family-orientated film based upon both a short story from 1956, as well as the subsequent episode of The Twilight Zone written by the same author. Add to that it’s been brought to life by the director of Night at the Museum 1&2 and Cheaper by the Dozen, as well as starring one of world’s most recognisable actors and Real Steel is certainly an intriguing proposition. So does it hit its mark? Sometimes, but it’s extremely hit and miss.

There are as many positives as there are negatives about this film. On one hand, Real Steel is a well made Hollywood film with plenty of drama and action to keep the momentum going for its 2 hour duration, and there’s a classic Hollywood father and son plotline running through the middle of a story about fighting robots. But then, it’s the classic father and son plotline which adds to much schmaltz to the proceedings and somewhat burdens the film and overcomplicates what is a very simple premise, not helped by the fact that the robot plotline is something we’ve seen in countless sports movies for decades now. I was fairly surprised by this film, I didn’t think it would impress me as much as it did, but just as much as I’m willing to praise Real Steel, I need to balance things and say that at times, it was uninteresting, predictable, clichéd and almost boring.

Hugh Jackman plays Charlie Kenton, the former boxer turned robot controller out to make a quick buck. His character is a composite of various underdog sports films protagonists, combined with a composite of various unlikely fathers who suddenly find themselves with child, there’s nothing new in this character, but the development is done well and the transformation of Jackman’s character is something which really shines for the film and becomes a key piece of what works in this. Dakota Goyo plays his son Max, and does so with gusto and bravado, putting in a real adult performance whilst retaining the naivety of youth and inexperience in the big, adult world of robot boxing. Evangeline Lilly is nothing more than background and is extremely replaceable as the female lead and Jackman’s love interest. A good solid supporting cast back up the lead performances well.

In my mind, there’s some similarities here between this and Super 8, and thus all those Spielberg family film, as the sci-fi inspired outside event becomes the catalyst for bringing together an estranged father and son. There are certainly touches of Spielberg about it, but it isn’t done in Real Steel with the same kind of humanity and smart, realistic dialogue that is seen in Spielberg’s work. Whether it’s because of the ludicrous premise of fighting robots I’m not sure. Speaking of which, seeing a larger than life, CGI-created 21st century version of Rock’ Em Sock ‘Em Robots on a big screen is fascinating, and the robots do look very well done, the fighting realistic due to a combination of animatronics and mo-cap, and as is standard, the computer animation holds up well and does its part.

Having said all that though, Real Steel was as impressive as it is disappointing. It’s a great family film, and considering I went into this with low expectations, I was certainly pleasantly surprised. Having said all of that, I personally could not look past all the clichés and plot and character rehashes. I felt like I’d seen this film many times before in many different guises. The plot is predictable, more so than most films I’ve said that about in the last few months, and although the characters are strong, it’s because they’re old characters from old films. Frankly, Real Steel is Rocky with robots, with the upcoming fighter story and the change in attitude in the protagonist and the development of a relationship (only this time between a father and son rather than a husband and wife). Real Steel is, for lack of a better word... Robotcky. But is that a problem? Well, yes, because Real Steel does everything that Rocky does, but Rocky did it first, and Rocky did it better.

Rating: **1/2

Johnny English Reborn

After a failed mission in Mozambique, Special Agent Sir Johnny English has fled to Tibet to learn martial arts as penance. However, when MI7 come calling for him for a new mission, he answers the call and returns to London to a vastly changed MI7, with all new personnel running the show. English is informed of a plot to kill the Chinese prime minister, and it’s down to him to find out who the willing assassin is and to stop them. What he uncovers is a plot of deception, lies and former enemies. But how does his failed mission in Mozambique 5 years ago link in with everything?

Johnny English surfaced in 2003 and become one of those cult British comedy films with plenty of silly action and funny one-liners, all held together by a great performance by Rowan Atkinson. I liked it, and I wasn’t the only one, as it grossed over 160 million dollars worldwide. It seemed to be ripe material for the beginnings of a new British comedy franchise, and yet nothing ever came afterwards, it disappeared into the ether. Finally, though, 8 years later, Johnny English has been reborn in... Johnny English Reborn. It’s been 8 years since the original, so can this pick up where the original started, can the tale of an idiot spy still be funny after 8 years. Surprisingly, yes!

After a short pre-titles sequence in Tibet explaining what’s happened in between films, the action picks up and becomes its own film without hanging on to the past. Everything’s rather nicely explained and everything ties together by the end, there isn’t a single loose end left by the explanation of the 8 year gap. Reborn contains the same kind of humour we saw in the first, only with less excrement humour, and it hasn’t aged a bit. Seeing Atkinson back in form is great, and seeing him share screen time with Tim McInnnerny making silly jokes takes you back to the days of Blackadder and those great, classic British sitcoms which this film clearly takes it cues from (again).

Speaking of Atkinson, he’s great again in this playing an idiot, something he’s perfected over the last 30 years, and so delivers the lines with the pretence of seriousness, all the while knowing how ridiculous and silly his dialogue is. His comic timing is still spot on, and he carries the film on his shoulders. Gillian Anderson is solid as Pegasus, the leader of MI7, but nothing more than that, as she misses the stiff British attitude that her accent can only allude to. Rosamund Pike plays the love interest, and does that well, but isn’t really given enough dialogue or screen time to develop, certainly nowhere near as much time as Natalie Imbruglia was given in the first film. Dominic West plays Simon Ambrose, the suave Agent 1, and does so with flourishes of panache and he really takes glee in his role. Daniel Kaluuya also does OK as the young agent assigned to be English’s sidekick, but is no more impressive than that.

The one thing that’s missing from Reborn is Johnny’s original sidekick Bough, played by Ben Miller. Atkinson and Miller had some great chemistry in the original and it’s seriously lacking between Atkinson and Kaluuya, and Kaluuya isn’t given as big a role as Miller was, so he doesn’t get the sharp one-liners either which is a real shame. Also, the plot of the film itself is kind of a rehash of a number of spy/James Bond films, but then if Johnny English is a parody of those films, shouldn’t the plot be a parody as well, full of clichés? The plot takes a number of twists which you should be able to see a mile off, and the film is full of Chekhov’s pistols (one for the film students there) throughout which set up various action points. There’s nothing surprising about this film, but a film like Johnny English isn’t truly about plot, it’s about dialogue and how funny that dialogue is. Thankfully, it surpasses the 5 laugh minimum a comedy needs, and although it isn’t a laugh riot from start to finish, there are a couple of laugh out loud moments, moments which are seriously lacking on most modern comedy films.

Overall, this is a thoroughly enjoyable film, retaining that trademark British humour that the first one was based around. Obviously some of the jokes won’t travel well outside the UK, but then what does that matter when this is so clearly a British film made for a British audience. The obviously increased production budget allows for more stunts and special effects, and when you add those to the funny script, it creates a really nicely done parody of the James Bond/espionage film genre. All that said, this isn’t a great film, and to be honest, I’d rather not see a sequel to this. I think now that Johnny English has been reborn, he should fade away again before he dies a slow, painful death.

Rating: ***

Red State

The Five Points Trinity Church is an independent Christian church known for their extreme views on homosexuality and regularly protest at funerals, while they all reside in their own fenced-off sanctuary known as Cooper’s Dell. Meanwhile, three high school kids are all looking to get laid. Jared finds a woman on the internet who says she’ll sleep with him, Travis and Billy Ray all at the same time. They go to meet her in a trailer in the woods, but as they prepare for their sexual awakening, they all pass out, and wake up to find themselves deep in the heart of Cooper’s Dell...

I am, unashamedly, a MASSIVE Kevin Smith fan. I’ve seen all of his films and own all but a couple of them on DVD. I follow him on Twitter. I’m an avid listener to the Smodcast Podcast Network of podcasts. I even find the time to listen to Smodcast Internet Radio every day to listen to him and his wife do his live daily breakfast show... at 4pm. So, naturally, I’ve followed the creation and conception of this film, his most radically different to date, from the faux-auction publicity stunt at Sundance to the Westboro Baptist Church protests to the self-distribution release to the Red State Q&A tour. This month, the film was released on VOD in America and finally received a proper cinematic release both here and the US. Well thank the lord I’ve finally seen it, because it is epic.

I won’t lie; I’ve been looking forward to this film the most this year. This was the 2011 film I wanted to see, more than Green Lantern or The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (which I am still eagerly awaiting), and my God has this lived up to the hype. This film is, for lack of a better word, insane. It is the most un-Kevin Smith ‘Kevin Smith’ film yet. It starts off like a proper Kevin Smith film, mind, with teenagers looking for sex, but then the film turns into a real drama focusing on the Five Points Trinity Church, a church with scarily similar views to those of the Phelps family from the Westboro Baptist Church. Then, it turns again into a gun-wielding, bullet spraying action film for the final third before rounding things up neatly. I’ll try not to spoil this as much as I can, because the less you know about the plot going into this, the more surprised you will be by this. As soon as you think you know where it’s going, it flips your expectations on their head and takes you somewhere completely different.

At the core of this are two scarily phenomenal performances from the two leads: Michael Parks and Melissa Leo. Leo filmed this before she won her Oscar, so that wasn’t in her head, allowing her to focus on giving a fantastic performance as the creepy and devoted Sarah Cooper. However, the stand out is Parks as Abin Cooper, head of the church. He delivers every line with conviction and realism that you believe in the character and you believe he truly believes in the religious dogma he constantly spouts. In particular, at one point, Parks delivers a near 10 minute monologue which is just incredible to watch. John Goodman turns up as ATF agent Keenan and does well in a well-written, realistic role. Kerry Bishé also does well in her role as a member of the Cooper clan, as does a mute Ralph Garman and an intimidating James Parks. The kids all do well but aren’t anything truly special, and besides, it’s the Cooper’s Dell clan who all steal the show.

At the centre of this film is a sharply written script by Smith, something which was lacking from his last outing Cop Out, the first and only film where Smith was a director for hire. It’s a satire that clearly takes its cues from the Phelps’, but it’s also a horror as Smith takes it in a far more extreme direction whilst still retaining utterances of classic Smith dialogue and jokes about pussy and sex. There are an ungodly number of fucks used in the film, as every character seems intent on repeating it over and over again as if to overstate the importance of each scene, whether it’s through fright or frustration or liberation of self. Don’t let that fool you though; listen past the profanities and you’ll hear some smart dialogue delivered by master technicians. It’s clever, it’s funny, it’s pointed, and at times it’s downright scary. Most of all, it’s engrossing and engaging. I couldn’t tear my eyes away from it for a second, you end up not wanting to in fear you’ll miss something because Smith throws everything but the kitchen sink at you for the short 88 minutes it takes him to tell the story.

Don’t get me wrong, there are a few faults with is. The editing is all over the place, with the faster rapid cuts seeming unnecessary and don’t fit in the film, but the slower edits with longer shots between cuts add to the tension and suspense and work well. It does seem to rush through its events quickly given the running time, there could have been a lot more time spent on certain scenes throughout the film. Also, while some of the characters are fully developed, most aren’t, and a lot of them aren’t given any dialogue, and just go through the film mute, which is an odd choice, given Smith’s particular way with words. In most other cases, I’d let little hang ups like this spoil my enjoyment of a movie, and yet I thoroughly enjoyed Red State despite all of this, which shows just how good a film this truly is.

Overall, I realise I say this as a completely biased Kevin Smith fan, but my god is this good. It is so unexpected, and that’s what makes this so good. Considering his back catalogue, this film has comes out of absolutely nowhere and surprised even the most hardened fans of his like myself. Considering I’ve been keeping up to date with the production of this film, I probably knew what to expect more than others, but it still surprised me as to where it went and how it went about it. I’ll also say that it’ll be a crime if Michael Parks at the very least isn’t considered for top awards for his performance here; it’s truly an outstanding piece of work from both him and Smith. Smith has well and truly pulled it out the bag, and given that this is due to be his second to last film, I can only hope that the kind of quality he’s produced here carries forward onto Hit Somebody, his planned last movie. There are faults with the film, it doesn’t explore the issues raised but rather exploits them for its own means, but it earns a stellar review by subverting my expectations constantly and by being his best film in years, possibly even ever. I urge you to watch this for yourselves and be converted.

Rating: *****

The Change-Up

Dave and Mitch have been friends since childhood, but their lives have gone in different directions; Dave is a family man, married with kids, and working hard as a lawyer, whereas Mitch is living a hedonistic lifestyle, sleeping with various women and only occasionally working with any kind if responsibility. One night, while peeing into a fountain after a drunken night out, they both wish they had each others' lives. They wake up the next morning to find their wishes have come true, and the hilarity ensues from there...

The age/body swap is a staple of the comedy genre. Seriously, do you realise how many times it's been done in various formats? Freaky Friday (3 times), Big, 17 Again, 18 Again!, Vice Versa, 13 Going On 30, even Being John Malkovich... The list goes on and on. My point is it's been done multiple times, so for a film like this to come out and work, it's going to have to be original. The Change-Up promises something original: The American Pie route. We've been promised the most disgusting, extreme, gross-out age/body swap comedy of all time! So, is it a gross-out film? At times, yes, yes it is, they've gotten that right. So has that made this an original piece of work within the genre? Absolutely not.

The Change-Up is so formulaic that you know exactly where it's going right from the start. There are no surprises or shocks in this, and adding lots of poo and urine jokes does not make it original, it just shows how lazy the writers were, looking to grab some of that Hangover revenue that's become so lucrative over the last few years (which is hardly surprising, given this was actually written by the writers of The Hangover). In the first two minutes, poor Jason Bateman gets covered in baby crap. That's the level we're at, people. This film is pretty uninventive and has 'pay day' written all over it. It's a real shame for Bateman, who's really let himself down by getting involved with a film like this after appearing in the fairly decent Horrible Bosses earlier in the year; it seemed as if he'd left films like this and The Switch behind, but alas not, and he deserves a lot better than this.

Speaking of Bateman, he does well in a complicated role. He spends most of the films playing Ryan Reynolds playing Reynolds' character, much as Reynolds spends the film playing Bateman playing Bateman's character. It all gets complicated when you try and explain/think about it, but once the characters are established at the start of the film as polar opposites, it becomes an easier task to follow just who exactly is playing who and when. All this means Bateman gets to play against type for the film, playing the wildcard rather than the straight guy, and he does OK with it but it doesn't feel like a natural performance, it feels as forced as it looks and shows why he's better playing the straight guy. Reynolds, however, does well in both roles, playing the wildcard well initially and then playing the straight guy very well, picking up on Bateman's usual mannerisms and portraying them on screen near-perfectly.

No-one said this was a clever film, but we were promised laughs. It does raise a few to be fair, but they are few and far between, which is mildly disappointing but not entirely surprising. Honestly, an alarmingly large percentage of the film only serves to make the viewer uncomfortable in watching it because of how unfunny it is. There's no real inventiveness either, the film covers a lot of old ground and doesn't do anything with it, doesn't put a funny or inventive twist on it and just disappoints. I feel kind of dirty having laughed at some of the jokes the film offers up - I'm disappointed in myself for stooping so low. It's real low-rent humour, but it could have been so much worse. It's certainly not on par with, say, The Hangover Part II, but it's still nowhere near the levels Bridesmaids or even Horrible Bosses reached earlier this year.

Overall, it is a disappointment, but an entirely unsurprising disappointment. This never looked like a great film, not even a good film, and it's not, so you only have yourself to blame when you leave the cinema feeling dirty, ashamed and disappointed. There's a couple of laughs, and on paper it's an interesting notion to see Reynolds and Bateman play against type, but put into practice and it really doesn't work. The film never really gets off the ground; it stays at one level and adamantly refuses to reach for anything higher or more intelligent. It's puerile, gross, disgusting, unintelligent, uninventive... The list goes on and on. Much like the list of age/body swap comedies this unfortunately joins. If you've chosen to watch this over any of the far superior films out this month, nay this week, then shame on you, you deserve exactly what you get with this.

Rating: **

Fright Night

Charley Brewster is an ordinary kid growing up in Las Vegas with a girlfriend and hanging out with the cool kids. Then, a mysterious stranger called Jerry moves in next door. Charley’s former friend, Ed, tells Charley he believes Jerry is a vampire responsible for the disappearance of a number of fellow students, but Charley doesn’t believe him. However, the next day, Ed himself disappears, and Charley begins to believe. After a close encounter with Jerry, Charley searches out the one man who he thinks will be able to help him defeat Jerry: Vegas magician and self-styled ‘vampire expert’ Peter Vincent...

It’s only September. Surely a vampire movie like this is being released a month too early. Nevertheless, Fright Night is a 3D remake of the 1985 original of the same name. As to why exactly this was remade is unclear, but the original was certainly well received at the time and it seems as if today’s movie market is giving licence to any filmmaker who wants to resurrect any successful 1980’s horror franchise, whether it be with a reboot or remake or belated sequel (A Nightmare on Elm Street, anyone?) and so, here we are. So can it justify its resurrection after more than 20 years of lying dormant? Can it hold a place in today’s busy film industry? Surprisingly, yes, yes it can.

Fright Night is predicated on the notion that the concept of the horror/vampire film should be self-knowing and aware of its absurdity, and Fright Night has its tongue firmly in its cheek. That’s probably what makes this film work; it knows it’s a silly concept and never truly takes itself seriously. The acting is over the top from all involved (seriously, there’s more ham on display here than on the deli counter at Tesco’s) and it manages to engage its audience well from start to finish, providing a nice entertaining 100 minute motion picture that never drags its feet and says everything it wants and needs to say within its time limit. There’s even a clever, self-knowing nod to the original when Chris Sarandon pops up in a cameo appearance. It’s all in good fun, honest!

As far as the acting goes, it’s all pretty good, again surprisingly so. Colin Farrell plays the 400 year old vampire Jerry and does so with plenty of sickening charm and brooding seriousness. It’s a ridiculous performance, but fits well within the film, so it’s hard to tell if Farrell has adapted his style to suit the film or whether he played his role with lashings of ham and cheese completely by accident. Same goes for David Tennant playing Peter Vincent. He plays Vincent with aplomb, recalling The Doctor in sheer ludicrousness with the over the top character, delivering a performance which matches the character perfectly and really brings him to life. Anton Yelchin plays the protagonist Charley, and does OK with what is a disappointingly uninteresting character. Imogen Poots has the best anme I’ve heard in a while, but is insignificant and flat. Christopher Mintz-Plasse does well playing the same character he’s played in several film now, and certainly produces a surprise.

What makes this film watchable is the sharp script, which is self-knowing and referential to the vampire film canon, making references to Twilight and proving/dispelling various vampire myths in order to fit around the plot. It plays with its concept nicely and never slips into anything too serious, aside from the mild peril the protagonists are placed in while fighting Jerry. The most disappointing thing about this film? It was shot in 3D. At least it was actually shot in 3D and not converted in post-production, but the 3D is so unnecessary. I saw it in 2D and it was dark enough as it was, which is understandable given that this is a vampire film, therefore most of the action has to take place at night and in the dark. Even watching it in 2D, you can see which parts were designed to use the 3D technology, and it’s all cheap and nasty effects which add absolutely nothing to the plot. If you can watch this in 2D, do it, stay away from the glasses.

Overall, it’s not too bad and certainly justifies its resurrection. As long as there aren’t any sequels, this will be a fine addition to the franchise; I just can’t see how they could make a good, justifiable sequel given the events of this film. It’s entertaining, full of funny performances and is certainly worth paying to see on a Friday night as long as it’s the 2D version. Unfortunately, this is another case of 3D spoiling what could have been a great film. As it is, 3D viewers will walk away feeling cheated and that’s the real shame. There is a good film behind the gimmick, and the sooner this particular gimmick disappears the better, as it will give films like this a better chance of succeeding.

Rating: ***1/2