The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

60 years before the events of The Lord of the Rings trilogy, Bilbo Baggins had his own adventure to be played out across 3 films, long before Frodo had his day. The mountain city of Erebor, home to the most powerful dwarf kingdom led by Thror, is invaded and overtaken the Smaug the dragon, who revels in the riches amassed by the dwarves. Later, Gandalf the Grey coerces a young Bilbo into hosting a party for Thorin, Thror's grandson, and his band of dwarves, as they attempt to recruit Bilbo as their burglar in their party in their quest to reclaim Erebor's treasure. The quest takes them through various perils and dangers, encountering numerous foes, but Bilbo alone meets someone with a preoccupation for his "precious"...

It hardly seems like 11 years ago that The Lord of the Rings trilogy began with The Fellowship of the Ring, and ended 9 years ago with The Return of the King. 9 years between now and then, 9 years in which fond memories or hated thoughts have developed of the next generation's trilogy, 9 years in which fans have speculated about how The Hobbit would be brought to life on the big screen. Finally, we reach the second trilogy, however accidental and troublesome it may have been. Guillermo del Toro came and went, Peter Jackson came on board as producer, then writer, then finally director. As if he could ever bare to let his universe rest in the hands of others. Bare in mind, the LOTR trilogy is probably the highest rated trilogy of all time, winning more awards, making more box office dollar, and gaining a more consistent reaction from viewers than any other trilogy ever. Now we return to the same universe, with a different story and different characters... Or do we?

It's hard to tell, because The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey seems an awful lot like a glad-handing, self-aware LOTR reunion instead of a true recreation of The Hobbit as readers worldwide know and love. Now that's not to say that the film doesn't follow the book and introduce these characters as and when Tolkien did, but this film seems to take glee in bringing back all of the original actors in their roles, almost as if it's nudging you, point and giggling, saying "See what we did there? It's him! He's back! It's just like the first trilogy... Remember that? You liked that. You ought to like this to. Like it. Please. We bought them back for you!!!" OK, the film probably isn't trying that hard and saying that much, but I found the introductions of returning characters overwhelming, and by the time they were out of the way and we were finally focusing on the story, it seemed like they were rushing toward the conclusion. They've created enough material that the two films they'd planned became three, I don't understand why so much had to be crammed into part 1.

My point can be explained thusly: The scene with Bilbo and Gollum. It's critical, the chapter everyone remembers, the scene everyone wanted to see, and it felt distinctly rushed. It could have been a fantastic cinematic moment if they had only spent some more time building tension and drama and making it the moment that it had the potential to be. It's a shame, but two films became three late in the game, and in hindsight, maybe some things could have pushed into part 2 so that the conclusion of part 1 could have come sooner with more time given to and scenes added into the existing material. Alas, it is what it is. All of that being said, there's not much else wrong with The Hobbit 1, it stands up well as its own film with a self-contained story whilst leaving other storylines open for 2 and 3, as well it should. The film also looks beautiful... in 2D. I didn't see this in 3D, so I was able to get the full effect of the 48fps in terms of colour saturation and sharpness. There were one or two scenes which went against the grand cinematic feel of the rest of the film and felt more like an indie production which felt quite jarring, but those aside, the film looked fantastic and Jackson can give himself a pat on the back for his bold decision. I will say, a few of the blue screen effects looked exactly like blue screen effects. They did the whole "hobbits and dwarves are smaller than people" thing much better in the original trilogy and we've had boundless technological advances since then, so I don't know why it looked worse than it did 11 years ago. The CGI characters looked fantastic, Gollum was fantastic again, and the New Zealand natural scenery looked amazing... but it's stuff we were first amazed by 11 years ago. Sorry to be a buzzkill, but it's lost its wow factor now.

The acting is superb, especially Richard Armitage as Thorin, an excellent cinematic presence and grabs the attention of the viewer in every scene, even more so than Martin Freeman as Bilbo. It's lovely to see such a strong British presence in the cast, with Ken Stott, James Nesbitt, Ian Holm, Ian McKellen, Graham McTavish, Sylvester McCoy, and Christopher Lee all making appearances, recurring or not. As much as I previously moaned about the glad-handing returns, it is nice to see all the original actors return as their characters, especially seeing Christopher Lee return as Saruman, even though he's all but retired from film making, and Sylvester McCoy as Radagast the Brown, it's a nerdist dream to see a LOTR/Doctor Who crossover like that, so that was a great call.

Overall, though, as unfair as it is to compare this film to the LOTR trilogy given how well received the first three were and that this is an entirely new story which should be seperate from the first three, the fact is it will be and should be, and this, in my opinion doesn't stand up to the first three visits to Middle Earth. It's a three hour long film, and instead of spending that time available to them telling a full story, they spend far too long reintroducing characters from the original trilogy and not enough time on the story they ought to be telling. I liked the film, but I didn't love it, didn't think it was anything special. I wasn't let down, but I wasn't blown away by it. I'm hoping parts 2 and 3 pick up now the intros are out the way, but this was... Fine. That is the only way to describe this. Fine. Fine is what this film was.

Rating: ***

Skyfall

Bond is back. When a mission to retrieve a hard drive goes awry and Bond is shot, he's presumed dead. He, meanwhile, enjoys life as a ghost, until news emerges of a terrorist attack at MI6, an attack aimed directly towards M. Bond comes back from the dead to help M find and kill the man who possesses the hard drive and is seemingly posited towards making M's life a living hell until she is dead at his hands. However, upon finding Raoul Silva, he finds a cerebral man who is cleverer than he appears. And just who, what, or where is Skyfall, and why can't 007 face up to that word...

50 years ago, Dr. No was released with a Scotsman playing an English spy on a foreign mission to watch a woman in a white bikini emerge from the sea with a machete. Or something like that. 50 years and 22 films later, Daniel Craig is stepping out in his third appearance as the sixth Bond in Skyfall, directed by Academy award winner Sam Mendes and written by writers of the last five Bond movies (and Johnny English) Neal Purvis and Robert Wade, as well as three-time Academy award nominee John Logan. The elements are all there, the history speaks for itself, and the plot of a James Bond film writes itself. This could easily have been another "going through the motions with modern updates" Bond film like I found Quantum of Solace to be. Which is why I found Skyfall to be refreshingly different and yet the same, which makes Skyfall brilliant.

What I like about Skyfall is that it's an almost completely new approach to Bond whilst still looking over its shoulder at its history and making more than one less than obvious nod towards its past. James Bond has a mid-life crisis, and for a character that's been on screen for 50 years and played by 6 different actors, it's about time. But that's not the only difference here. There's twists abound and expectations that are played with and flipped constantly. Bond is not almighty. For once, Bond is vulnerable and is fighting a losing battle more so than ever before. Admittedly, he weakened in Casino Royale over Vesper Lynd, but this isn't an emotional, optional weakening in Skyfall, this is a man whose body is finally letting him down, whose mind is spent after years of ruthless killing. whose soul is finally carrying the weight of his actions. It makes for an interesting view, and gives Daniel Craig a fantastic storyline for the 2nd time out of his 3 Bond films, and as Meatloaf once said, 2 out of 3 ain't bad.

That's all fine and well, but it's the nods to Bond history which really grabbed me and got me going in Skyfall. To escape Raoul Silva, Bond and M use an Aston Martin DB5. The original Bond car, and the most recognisable. The silver paint job, the ejector seat button in the gear stick, even the original license plates; they're all here, and there's no subtlety to the nod towards Bonds of days gone by. Skyfall is an odd mix, however, of looking back and looking forwards. By the end of Skyfall, almost all of the traits of Bond films previous, even Daniel Craig's previous Bond films, have been erased and replaced with something or someone new, acting like a franchise relaunch whilst under the same actor, something which is unheard of within the Bond franchise. It seems they're either growing bored with what they had already, or they were unsure of what seemed to be a winning formula. Either way, Bond 24 promises to be a very different affair once again. A constantly evolving franchise seems to be evolving at a quicker pace now more than ever, and whether fans will keep on buying into it remains to be seen. And I still don't like the gun barrel shot being placed at the end of the film instead of at the start.

For all that can be said of how well Skyfall's written and how well it acts as a piece of Bond celebration, it still needs top quality actors to pull off the task at hand. Although Daniel Craig's performance as an unsteady Bond is good, it still doesn't seem as if he leaves second gear with it. There's a line between cool, cocky arrogance and unconvincing boredom and Craig contiually crosses that line with his dialogue delivery. As much as the moment where he jumps into a train as the rear is torn off and adjusts his cuff is undeniably cool, it's all pretty standard. There's nothing overly spectacular about the stunts or fight sequences, it is all now standard Bond, there's not much more you can do without making Bond a parkour expert... Oh wait, did Quantum of Solace touch on that? Forget that then, just enjoy for what he is and what he stands for, British triumph in the face of the rest of the world. Yay Britain! If Daniel Craig stays in second gear throughout this film, then Javier Bardem drives the perfect race, starting slow before shifting up into fifth, and then sixth gear by the conclusion. He excels in his role as the villain, with Heath Ledger's Joker coming to mind as having the same kind of on-screen presence and mentality. Clever and calculating yet absolutely batshit crazy. Perfect in my eyes. And what about Judi Dench? Incredible, as always. What's to say about Dame Judi that hasn't already been said?

Overall, Skyfall was hugely entertaining. It's a long film, sometimes unnecessarily so, and it drags from time to time, but it's most definitely a worthwhile watch. It definitely seemed as if they had one eye on what Casino Royale did right in order to recreate it and make Skyfall as enjoyable as it is, which makes Skyfall feel like it could have been the first in a new series of films, or at least the last in an old series which this almost certainly is given the amount of change that takes place in Skyfall, setting up Bond for an entirely new set of adventures in time to come. Even the song captures the right mood, Adele was the perfect choice, given she's the most popular artist on the planet right now (sorry, Psy) and can deliver that Bassey-esque Bond theme that is a signature of the series and something that's been severely lacking for years now. Skyfall isn't my favourite Bond film, but it's better than most, and a huge step beyond Quantum of Solace, which is what it needed to be first and foremost. The most impressive thing about Skyfall though? It doesn't only make, but keeps, Bond relevant. Bond is back in a big way, and it looks like he's here to stay for a while yet.

Rating: ****1/2

Dredd

In the future, the United States is an irradiated waste land. Lying on the east coast is Mega City One, an enclosed metropolis housing 800 million people. With 17,000 crimes reported daily, the law is enforced by Judges, who act as judge, jury, and often executioner as well. Veteran Judge Dredd is tasked with evaluating the rookie Judge Anderson, a psychic who's failed her judge tests. As they investigate the death of three men who were drugged, skinned alive and thrown from the top of a 200-storey slum tower, they encounter the Ma-Ma clan, who run the building and are creating and pushing a new drug, Slo-Mo, which slows the users perception of time to 1% of normal. They arrest a man responsible for the murders, but before they can leave Peach Trees tower, Ma-Ma herself seizes control of the tower security system and shits the blast doors, sealing everyone inside, and tasking her clan to kill the judges...

Judge Dredd is one of those tricky franchises where fans get very particular about how their hero gets interpreted. Not to say that every other comic/graphic novel adaptations doesn't have the same kind of fans, but Dredd fans get extremely vocal about their disdain for aspects of story lines and interpretations if they don't like it or they don't think it fits the canon. The first Judge Dredd adaptation (1995) was met poorly by critics and fans alike (he took his helmet off!) and news of another film version was initially met with scepticism. However, released images and test footage proved popular, and the promise of Dredd keeping his helmet on was more than enough to keep fans satisfied until they saw the final product... If I were a Judge Dredd fan, I know I'd be happy with this. In fact, I'd be delighted.

I've read enough comic books and graphic novels to know what I'm talking about with most things, but I've never read a single issue of 2000 AD, never read a single Dredd strip or book, never even seen the 1995 version, so I came into this with an open mind, only hearing good things about the character and quiet early buzz about how good this film was. Upon seeing it, I can safely say I enjoyed it greatly. The plot was simple and easily introduced non-fans into the Dredd universe, established the character of Judge Dredd quickly and efficiently, the pace was consistent and the film looked great as well. When I say it looked great, there were times where you could see the film was slightly lower budget than a mainstream blockbuster, but that didn't stop the sets looking fantastic and the visual effects looking stunning. In particular, the parts of the film showing users under the influence of Slo-Mo were beautiful, thank god for high-definition, high frame-rate cameras.

The acting was a bit hammy at times, but I think 70% of that can be put down to the (at times) terrible dialogue. Other than that, Karl Urban's chin did a fantastic job of staying in a fixed clench/snarl throughout the film and still gave more reactions than Kristen Stewart on a good day. Olivia Thirlby seemed a bit overwhelmed by her role at times and couldn't deliver a consistent performance which was a shame. However, major props need to go to Lena Headey as Ma-Ma, she is a total bad ass in this! Scars on her face, missing teeth, bad hair... The film takes away Headey's natural good looks and forces her to deliver a convincing performance as the ruthless gang leader and she more than does so, I dare say she's probably the best thing about this film, especially when she's been surrounded by a gang who deliver god-awful performances with over-acting and poor line delivery across the board. Woof. That's probably half the reason Headey stands out as being so good, she's a life raft amidst a sea of atrocious performances.

The violence in the film was impressively graphic too. I liked how they didn't shy away from showing someone being obliterated from a 200-storey fall or having half their face torn off by a Dredd special. It all looked great, and fit the aesthetic of the film perfectly. That said, it's kind of a shame that the film's in 3D (again, ruiner of all good things) because 95% of the film takes place in a sealed tower block with no natural light, which means everything's going to be dark, which means it gets darker still behind the 3D glasses. The Slo-Mo scenes looked epic in 3D, but that's because the colour in those scenes is super-saturated and is designed to look great despite the two black lenses covering the viewers eyes. Other than a couple of other select scenes (don't worry, no spoilers, at least no MORE spoilers), the 3D seems like a waste of time, just like it does in every other film I've ever seen in 3D.

Overall, this is an entertaining film that never gets complicated and never outstays its welcome, getting you out of the cinema after an entertaining hour and a half. It comes with a laundry list of faults, but Dredd is what it is, simply a good old fashioned violent action film with a good guy and a bad guy (or girl). It's not "so bad it's good", but it's not a phenomenal film either; it sits nicely in the middle, not promising anything and delivering nothing special but enough to warrant a viewing. The acting's all over the place, but Urban and Headey have enough to carry it through. The best thing about this film are the special effects though. If you're not seeing this in the cinema, please don't watch some crappy download copy. Wait until it's released on Bluray and watch it in HD on a big TV screen. Hear me now, thank me later.

Rating: ***1/2

The Dark Knight Rises

8 years after the events of The Dark Knight, Batman is but a distant memory and Bruce Wayne has become a recluse, injured by his years of fighting crime and cleaning up Gotham. The Dent Act has kept Gotham a law-abiding city, but all that may be about to change with the sudden arrival of Bane, a mysterious mask-wearing hulk who seems determined to see Gotham City, and Bruce Wayne, fall. However, it's not Bane who catches Bruce Wayne's attention, it's the sudden introduction of a cat burglar by the name of Selina Kyle who intrigues Bruce, as she ends up setting off a chain of events that draws the Dark Knight out of retirement to save Gotham one last time...

I am a self-confessed Bat-freak. My undergraduate dissertation was 10,000 words about the evolution of The Joker in the 3 Batman films in which he appears, and it's likely my 15,000 word masters dissertation will relate somehow to one or many of Gotham's most famous residents. The Dark Knight is one of, if not my all time, favourite films and Batman Begins was incredible as well. Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy has the potential to be one of the greatest trilogies in cinematic history as long as TDKR delivers, and if the trailers and posters and endless promotional material is anything to be believed, it will. The Godfather, Star Wars and Spider Man all weakened with its third installment. The Lord of the Rings and back to the Future trilogies were the benchmark, and with The Dark Knight Rises... This trilogy goes to the top of the list.

It wasn't just that Christopher Nolan made Batman cool again (which he did), he made the character relevant, placing him in a realistic universe and making his struggles and the struggles of Gotham relatable. I may at some point write a blog about the trilogy (and just gush endlessly over how much I love it) so for now, I will remain focused on TDKR. It's clear what Nolan was aiming for with this - Finality. Closure. A definite final chapter. After the cliffhanger The Dark Knight closed on, it was going to take a plot line of epic proportions to bring back the Bat and then send him off, all in a convincing manner, all in under 3 hours. Call me a fan boy or whatever, but in my opinion, he does it, and does it with panache. There isn't a single wasted minute in the two and a half hour run time, every minute you're watching Bruce or Batman or Selina or Alfred or Bane or Miranda Tate or John Blake or Commissioner Gordon and it's all important, it all moves the plot forward, it never slacks and the only time it ever drops pace is when Nolan is being deliberate and methodical and wants the pace slowed. It's the sign of a great director who can maintain control the pace of a film with so much going on as there is in TDKR.

It's also the sign of a great director that he's clearly done his homework, with this film pulling its inspirations from the Knightfall storyline which featured the debut of the Bane character and the Dark Knight Rises series which saw an ageing Batman come out of retirement. With the framework in place and story built around it, all that's left is the acting to pull it off and bring this to life. Christian Bale's Batman voice has always annoyed me, but it is what it is, a disguise, and it's part of the ethos now, so we just need to deal with it, because otherwise we'd focus on that and not Bale's great execution of a more troubled, more fragile Bruce Wayne. I say Wayne, not Batman, because for the majority of the film, the caped crusader is absent in favour of the supporting cast or Bruce Wayne rather than his alter-ego. Anne Hathaway is good as the mysterious Selina Kyle too, which was surprising, as I was unsure of her as an actress prior to this, but she seems to have been a good fit for the character. As for Bane, Tom Hardy is awesome. He bulked up for this more than he did for roles in Bronson and Warrior, and it shows, as he looks physically intimidating and steals focus in every scene he's in. The voice, as well, is intriguing, as he gives Bane the voice of an English gent, not what you expect from this behemoth, but in a weird way it works, because it makes the character more of an unsettling screen presence, more so than the lack of facial expressions we're offered by the face mask. The best performance though, by a mile, is that of Michael Caine as Alfred. In previous films, Alfred was no more than Bruce Wayne's servant and a support character, but in TDKR, Alfred is given more screen time and becomes integral to the story, even delivering a monologue which is heartbreaking. It's a phenomenal performance that deserves recognition if nothing else.

Saying that, there are more things that deserve recognition. I won't say this should be the next Best Picture winner, because this just isn't the kind of film the academy will ever go for. But the cinematography is beautiful once again, another product of the hard work of Wally Pfister and more than half the film being shot on IMAX cameras. Also, Hans Zimmer's score is dark and brooding, becoming triumphant and uplifiting at just the right moments and is just as great as his Dark Knight score. Back onto the film itself, and considering how many plot points are given away in all the trailers and TV spots and adverts and features, the film was still able to offer a host of surprises and geek-out moment, drawing from the rich history of the Bat franchise to bring in things like the Batwing, the Nolan version of Catwoman, seeing Bane break Batman's back over his knee as he does in Knightfall, the reappearance of Ra's al Ghul and Scarecrow, the shocking arrival of Talia al Ghul, the subtle use of "Robin"... Yet it's all done so nicely that it all fits together and doesn't feel like any of the elements are being forced in.

Overall, the word epic is thrown around a lot nowadays when describing films but I believe TDKR is as close as you will get to a modern day epic film. It has drama, suspense, action, comedy, twists, turns, surprises, everything you could want not just from a Batman film, but from the concluding chapter of a superb trilogy. Christopher Nolan, Jonathan Nolan and Emma Thomas should stand up and take a bow. The resisted the urge to recycle familiar villains like The Riddler and The Penguin and Poison Ivy, stuck to their vision of this trilogy, and only used the big names like The Joker and Catwoman where they wanted to, not where anyone else said they should. They've created a phenomenal trilogy with an epic final chapter, and after this it's hard to see where they'll go with the inevitable reboot in 20 years time without making it look like another Batman and Robin.

Rating: *****

God Bless America

Frank is an insurance salesman living in New York who hates what America has become: An endless stream of idiocy, selfishness and exploitation of the unfortunate and disabled. But he can cope with that being on his TV, and next door, and at work, until one day he's diagnosed with an inoperable, terminal brain tumour. Franks spirals into depression, and attempts suicide... Until he sees a spoiled brat on TV throwing a tantrum because her parents got her the wrong car for her 16th birthday. He decides that instead of killing himself, he's going to rid the world of this idiot. Unfortunately, he's caught in the act by Roxy, her high school classmate who happens to hate her. The two form an unlikely relationship and soon decide to rid the world of all the 'bad' people in the world, Bonnie and Clyde style...

Bobcat Goldthwait is a strange, strange man. After decades of doing stand-up under a larger than life persona, in recent years, he's become a writer/director of films which satirize the state of American society by visiting the extremes of human behaviour. In Sleeping Dogs Lie (2002), a woman finds her relationships with her fiancée, friends and family damaged when she admits to committing an act of bestiality with her dog in college. In World's Greatest Dad (2009), a man covers up the autoerotic asphyxiation death of his son by making it look like a real suicide and writing a heartfelt suicide note, which turns the dead son from social pariah into posthumous icon and revered writer. And now, in God Bless America, a man facing death decides to kill all the idiots he sees on TV and encounters in real life, along side his teenage accomplice Roxy. All dark, twisted, blackly funny films, and this is no different. Goldthwait has a very distinctive voice, and this has Bobcat written all over it.

Bobcat pulls no punches with God Bless America, he has all manner of annoying targets in his crosshairs, sometimes literally. Screaming babies? Throw them up in the air and blast them with a shotgun like a clay pigeon. Spoiled brats? Lock them in their car and set fire to their petrol tank. Vicious TV talent show judges? Well, I won't spoil the entire film but you get the idea. No-one is off limits here, and some would say rightly so. Given the amount of trash on TV right now, it was only a matter of time before someone wrote a film liked this. It just so happens that Bobcat was the first to do it in such an extreme way. Having said that, there are some semi-formulaic elements about God Bless America. Frank is given a sidekick in Roxy, an endlessly enthusiastic teenage runaway who revels in Frank's actions, someone who you assume is meant to represent the 'sane' members of society who refuse the Super Sweet 16's of the world. Their friendship is unlikely, but it's to be expected in an extraordinary film like this. They become like a modern day Bonnie and Clyde, even though their actions go unnoticed in the media at first. Roxy gets angered by this, but Frank finds a problem in that, becoming angry that Roxy is never happy. Goldthwait's characters are seemingly endlessly flawed, which is the sign of good writing. The rest of the film does not carry such hallmarks.

The plot is simple enough. but the pace is all over the place, though whether that was intentional or whether it was the fault of the editor is unknown. Either way, the pace is all over the place which has the danger of making the viewer more uncomfortable than the subject matter, which is somewhat surprising. The dialogue isn't great either, and there's nothing original either. It's all self-important monologues and constant conflict resolution. Don't be fooled by the way it's dressed up, the story and the dialogue is something we've all heard before. The direction is fine, if unspectacular, but then it's right that the direction isn't taking the headlines in a film like this. The film itself looks surprisingly good, getting the right mix of mainstream blockbuster and independent docu-drama in its visuals, and that stays constant throughout the film, which is pleasant to see. The acting is the main headline in God Bless America though, and rightly so.

Joel Murray is really, really good playing Frank, the depressed insurance salesman who finds a new reason to live despite his impending death. He plays the depressed, fantasy loving, angry loner well, and then as soon as things are ramped up, he clearly takes real delight in being the action hero and wielding various guns all over the place. He is ably assisted by Tara Lynne Barr, who plays the teenage Roxy with endless enthusiasm and is able to drop in the drama and seriousness at just the right times. Her role is written somewhat badly, given she is dealing with subject matter well above her station, and ideally the role would be filled by a 20-something actress/character, but Barr does very well, stepping up and maturing in a role which could have been difficult to fill. Other than those two, there aren't any particularly spectacular performances, people merely fill their roles aptly when needed, but thee focus needs to stay on the modern day Bonnie and Clyde. any other distractions and the film would have become cluttered and unfocused.

Overall, God Bless America is a film which above all else is symptomatic of an angry man at the helm. Bobcat Goldthwait has a lot to say, and though he isn't the most elegant of writers, he certainly gets his point across. It's not the best of films, not by a long way, but the conversation that could potentially be raised by a film like this is always welcomed. It's not often someone has the guts to do such a far-reaching satire, so to see it done here is a welcome sight, even if it does miss its mark at certain points. Also, some of the story feels forced and inevitable; despite the extreme content matter, you can see where the film's going from a long way off. The main shocks come in the first half of the film, and once those have passed, you feel comfortable and expectant of the shocks that do come. It's a shame that this loses its energy near the end, because if it had managed to maintain its focus and surprise element, this could have been a great film. Fact is, God Bless America is simply good, not that that's a bad thing,

Rating: ***

Piranha 3DD

One year after a devastating attack from prehistoric piranhas, Lake Victoria, a once bustling spring break vacation spot, is a ghost town, abandoned by everyone. Meanwhile, in a town which is somewhere far away but not too far away from Lake Victoria, Maddy has returned home for the summer to oversee the running of the water park she part owns with her step father, Chet. To her horror, he has transformed it into a garish, adult themed park with 'water-certified strippers' instead of lifeguards and an adult pool with built-in 'cootch cam'. Chet's biggest change though is the illegal water pump supplying water to the park from an underground lake, where the prehistoric piranhas are waiting... And evolving...

Remember when Piranha 3D came out in the summer of 2010? Everybody loved it. It became one of those 'must see' films amongst teens and casual film goers because of how much fun it was. Piranha never took itself too seriously, it was self-aware grindhouse at its finest with a host of celebrity cameos (including THAT scene with Kelly Brook) and more than a handful of blood, guts, and gore, all tied together with some cheesy, laughable dialogue. More importantly, it made a surprising amount of money for Bob and Harvey Weinstein, and plans for a sequel were immediately put in place. However, it retained none of the original writers, nor the director. Instead, the writers of Saw 3D wrote the film to be directed by the man who brought the Feast franchise to the screen. Can you not see this going horribly wrong already? Well, it did. Drastically.

Piranha 3DD had a lot to live up to, to be fair, but it falls down on pretty much every point where Piranha 3D excelled. It's far too self-aware and loses its charm, the nudity is gratuitous and not sparing in order to keep the audience wanting, the gore is disturbingly sparse, losing its humour, and there aren't any shocks, surprises or tension-building moments. I'll give it this, Piranha 3DD is funny, but unintentionally so. The dialogue isn't 'self-aware bad', it's just plain bad and, at times, ludicrous. When one of the lead characters comes out with the line "Josh cut off his penis because something came out of my vagina", it's funny for all the wrong reasons. It's lines like that that just seem to exemplify the attitude of the writers. There was so much potential for higher thrills, better and gorier deaths, and the chance to do something different in this, but they've just gone ahead and made a sloppier, lazier version of the original, and that's probably the most disappointing aspect of all.

Probably the best thing is about this film is the appearance of David Hasselhoff, and that speak volumes in itself. He (shockingly) plays a washed-up, self-obsessed, fictionalised version of himself well, and comes across as genuinely apathetic in the face of the chaos and terror happening all around him. Elsewhere, Danielle Panabaker as Maddy is cookie cutter in this, given a typical role of the heroine who tries to stop everything happening but fails, leaving her to try and save everyone, though she's not helped by some poor dialogue and lack of character development, something which blights everyone in this. Her two romantic interests are typical bad guy and good guy, nothing special at all. Katrina Bowden gets the worst of it though, having to play the scream queen when she's clearly not cut out for it. Her dialogue, in particular, is atrocious, including the aforementioned line about something coming out of her vagina. David Koechner makes the same kind of appearance he now makes in every film; playing a more evil, worse version of Champ Kind from Anchorman. Christopher Lloyd's cameo is just a reminder of how good he is at playing an eccentric scientist, and Paul Scheer and Ving Rhames make a welcome return, though it's never explained why exactly the two of them are now friends in this, and their appearances are fleeting at most.

The biggest problem with the writing of Piranha 3DD is that the writers seems to have acted like a bunch of frat boys. There are SO. MANY. BOOBS in this, I actually started to get bored. And I love boobs. They also included as many crude double entendres as possible, and substituted those in for actual dialogue. There was no tension built throughout, there was no inventiveness in either plot or story: Water-based scenario established, piranhas come back, major bloodbath at water-based scenario, piranhas defeated. No surprises. It also comes in at a shockingly short 71 minutes. That's not a film, that's an episode of a TV series. This film has direct-to-video written all over it and yet it managed to score a wider release and more publicity than the better original. Nice try, Weinsteins, but no-one's buying it. The box-office should tell you that.

Overall, this is just a bad film. The original had charm and got the balance of everything just right. This one is all over the place. It would have been bad enough if this was just a copy, but somehow they managed to make a real hash of recreating what was a winning formula. I was really looking forward to this after the first one, and this has disappointed me so badly. If you liked the first one, don't see this, save yourself. If you didn't like the first one, definitely don't watch this, you'll want to tear your eyes out. If you didn't even see the first one, still don't watch this, go back and watch Piranha 3D, it's s much better than this money-making exercise. Oh, and the piranhas look crap this time.

Rating: 1/2

Prometheus

In the late 21st century, a group of scientists led by Dr Elizabeth Shaw discover a star map, similar to those already found, all painted by different and unrelated civilisations. Their belief is these maps are an invitation to seek out mankind's creators, or "engineers". So, funded by an ageing Peter Weyland and his corporation, Shaw and a team of scientists have the trillion dollar vessel Prometheus bestowed upon them in which to travel two years through space to reach their destination: LV-223 and to try and find the answers to the creation of mankind. However, they very quickly realise that they may not find what they're looking for. God doesn't build in straight lines...

This is it. The film over 30 years in the making. The Alien franchise, one of the best known, best loved movie franchises of all time. The history of the franchise is impressive: Alien, the 1979 original directed by Sir Ridley Scott (with only his second feature film) is an instant classic. Everyone knows the story. Aliens, the 1986 sequel, is just as good and was helmed by James Cameron in only his third feature film. 1992's Alien 3, though looked on unfavourably, gave David Fincher his directorial debut and still stands up today. Finally, 1997's Alien Resurrection was written by the legendary Joss Whedon and was the only English language film by Jean-Pierre Jeunet. Finally, the series gets its prequel film, with Ridley Scott, the man who created it all, back at the helm, explaining everything Alien fans could ever want to know about facehuggers, chestbusters and space jockeys. Except it's not. And it doesn't. And it shouldn't. Prometheus is its own beast with "strands of Alien's DNA". Yes, it's a prequel, but it's not a direct prequel. This is a back story about the beginnings. And what a story it is.

Let me start by saying this: The sheer scale of Prometheus is incredible. The visuals are stunning, beautiful and grand. I guarantee this film would look epic on an IMAX screen. The sets are massive and give the film a grander, more event-like feel. The attention to detail and intricacies in the mise-en-scène make this film feel a little bit more special than it already does being associated with the Alien franchise. It shows just how much care and attention to detail has been paid by Sir Ridley, Damon Lindelof et al. Also, the 3D in this is totally justified. Scott's experimentation with the format has paid off, as his entire world becomes immersive. The 3D also achieves something which I believe it should be solely used for. Instead of making it feel welcoming, the 3D makes the audience feel uncomfortable, with things flying towards them and getting covered with goo and falling metal. It's like a cinematic ghost train, but in a good way. Also, the subtle references to Alien and the franchise made me happy, and by the sounds of things made a lot of other audience members happy as well.


From there though, things start to fall apart. Well, not fall apart, but become decidedly dodgy. There are a few scenes in the film which are completely unnecessary. They don't go anywhere, they don't explain anything and are surely only there to satisfy Ridley's appetite for filming erroneous footage. The main problem with this film though are the various sub plots. Some of them make no sense. Some of them are introduced and then forgotten about. Some of them reach a conclusion which is either unsatisfying or plays no part in the overall plot or both. The main crux of the story is good, and there's a lot of tension built up, but it's when we're diverted to a side story that things get confusing and illogical. Believe me, there's a huge amount of 'movie logic' at work in this, too many moments where you end going "What? No. That's not how science works. What?? Why are they doing that? Who would say that? Why go there?! Why are you trusting him?!" many, many times. In particular, the sub plot with Peter Weyland makes no sense in the context of the film, and the 'shocking twist' at the end of the 2nd act is illogical and is never revisited. Bad writing. As for the dialogue, 90% of it is natural and flowing, but there's a definite 10% margin for awkwardness, though I wonder whether or not that's the writing's fault.


I bring to your attention the performance of Logan Marshall-Green as Dr Charlie Holloway, love interest of Noomi Rapace's Elizabeth Shaw and surely the most athletic, good-looking and unlikely archaeologist of all time. Indiana Jones makes sense, this one doesn't. Marshall-Green is, for lack of a better word, terrible. He has no on-screen chemistry with Rapace even though they're supposed to be lovers, his choice of line delivery is questionable at best and even his movements are forced and unnatural. Having said that, he's the only bad actor in a crop of good ones. Charlize Theron has got the 'ice queen' thing down, and she delivers again here as Weyland's representative on board Prometheus. Idris Elba plays the cool, bad ass captain with his usual swagger and style. Michael Fassbender is creepy as hell as the humanoid android David, delivering a perfectly emotionless performance. This guy is money. However, the best piece of casting by a mile is Noomi Rapace. Sometimes her Scandinavian accent slips in, but aside from that, she's perfect. Her motions are natural, her reactions realistic, her delivery near-perfect, and as a side note, there's a scene which takes place in Vickers' cabin *cough cough* where the scenario she's placed in, her performance and her look (mainly her look AFTER the action in the scene) make her seem like a carbon copy of a young Sigourney Weaver from Alien. Seriously, it's uncanny, and it's a really nice touch.


Overall, does Prometheus answer every question the fans wanted answered? No, and it wasn't meant to: Prometheus was designed as the first of three prequels leading up to the events of Alien, so the plot and the conclusion of the film make sense when you look at the bigger picture. However, if you ask whether Prometheus answers every question it raises by itself, the answer is no. So many things are illogical, forgotten or left unresolved,, it's disappointing. I understand leaving some things open ended for future films, but you still need a satisfying conclusion and I don't feel like Prometheus ever achieves one. Having said that, the film is beautiful to look at and an uncomfortable joy to watch. Just don't judge against the Alien films: Prometheus is its own goo-dripping, face-hugging, chest-bursting creature just waiting to jump out at you.


Rating: ***1/2