Author: Ben Browne

It’s very easy to sneer at the Twilight phenomenon. I mean vampires that sparkle in the sunlight? What’s next- Frankenstein’s monster wearing pink Speedos? However, since the first Twilight was marginally better than a kick in the nuts, I figured I’d better check out New Moon, lest I loosen my grip on popular culture’s jugular.

New Moon is a direct sequel to 2008’s massively popular teen vamp flick Twilight. We again follow the life and romance of Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) as she continues her relationship with vampire Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson). However, when Edward suddenly leaves, Bella becomes depressed and is driven into the incredibly muscly arms of childhood friend Jacob Black (Taylor Lautner) who has a dark secret of his own- he’s a werewolf. The plot of New Moon is much, much better than Twilight‘s slice of banality. The characters are more interesting, the action actually moves outside of the dreary town of Forks and the general feel to it is a lot more enjoyable. Having said that, Kristen Stewart’s inability to actually act bugged the fuck out of me. Good ol’ R-Pattz wasn’t much better, always looking like he’s trying to scowl directly after having a gallon of Botox pumped into his face. Special mentions go to Ashley Greene and Michael Sheen, bringing incredible sexiness and brilliance to proceedings, respectively.

As I said in my review of the first film, I know I’m not exactly welcome at the Twilight party. However, I did find this film more accessible than the first. Whilst the arse-clenchingly embarrassing dialogue is still present- “Bella, you give me everything by just breathing.” it’s broken up with light humour and action beats, which keeps the whole thing running smoothly. I felt that New Moon was going to revert back to mopey form when Edward leaves and Bella drips around like a rain-soaked crumpet. However, it pulled it back with her interactions with Jacob, a considerably more likeable character than zero charisma Cullen.

Onto the business of the werewolves. I actually thought that they were well done, albiet some shonky CG slightly lessening the impact of seeing feckin’ huge wolves on screen. There is no doubt who the film is aimed at when you find that Jacob will take his shirt off at a moment’s notice. While it will inevitably cause giggles from anyone over 14, let’s just remember that girls are always flinging their tops off in teen movies, it’s nice to see some role reversal for a change. Plus, I’d be perpetually ripping my shirt off too if I didn’t have the physique of the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man…

The one thing that kept striking me about New Moon was how well it was shot and scored. Some of the camera work is truly impressive and the soundtrack is great. One of the best scenes is when the wolves are chasing series baddie Victoria through the woods, intercut with Bella diving off a cliff, set to Thom Yorke’s Hearing Damage. It’s a genuinely fantastic scene and is now in my top 10 film scenes of the year. Honestly.

New Moon is an enjoyable film. Whilst the two leads still have all the chemistry of their action figure counterparts, the relationship between Bella and her dad and later, Bella and Jacob are done well enough to keep you watching ’til the end. Yeah, I had problems with it (dialogue, smack-in-the-face obvious product placement) but they weren’t enough to spoil the film as a whole. It won’t be for everyone, but if your check your scepticism at the door, you may be in for a pleasant surprise.

I don’t know what it is, but I seem to be a glutton for cinematic punishment. If a film has some bad buzz about it, I’m immediately more intrigued by it and will try and seek it out. It’s probably because I like tearing into bad films with my claws of unnecessary indignation, but maybe it’s to do with the fact that I like seeing what makes a bad film bad in the first place and make a mental note not to make that mistake when my filmic magnum opus finally comes to fruition- Capt. Dick Thrust and the Exhibitionist, Nymphomaniacal Women of Boobalonia.

After some anti-matter created by the Large Hadron Collider is stolen and placed somewhere in Vatican City, it’s up to Prof. Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) to decipher a centuries old mystery and stop the Vatican from being turned into a holy dust cloud. The plot is utterly stupid, but I wasn’t expecting anything compelling. It’s there as a way of connecting the clue solving, and that’s fine by me. I still feel that Tom Hanks is miscast as Langdon, but at least he’s cut out a little niche for himself in the role, and his hair is less ridiculous. As for Ewan McGregor’s Oirish priest, he was alright but the bad accent kept distracting me from the tings dat were being said, begorrah!

Angels & Demons seems to have decided to cater exclusively for the residents of Duncetown. Gone are most of the “working out the clues” bits and the talky bits and we are left with Robert Langdon : Human Super-Computer, who can work out obscure clues in nanoseconds flat. Throughout the film there were exchanges like this:

As I’ve said before on this very blog, I’m not the biggest Gilliam fan out there. I can appreciate his brilliant visual style, I’ve always found very little actual substance underneath the surface gloss. It’s hard to explain, but I always feel that something is off-kilter whilst watching a Gilliam production- be it purposeful or not, it still irks me slightly.

Doctor Parnassus (Christopher Plummer) leads a travelling theatre troupe with a difference: they transport audiences into a realm of strange wonders. But he risks losing the soul of his daughter, Valentina (Lily Cole) in a bet with the Devil (Tom Waits) that newcomer Tony (Heath Ledger) might help or hinder. I liked the story and loved the Faustian element to it all (Doctor Faustus is probably my favourite of “the classics”). I know you shouldn’t speak ill of the dead (although- what the fuck are they going to do about it?) but Heath Ledger was pretty average as Tony. Maybe it’s because I was so blown away by his Joker portrayal but I expected fantastic things from Mr. Ledger rather than Sir Ulrich von Lichtenstein (from A Knight’s Tale) with the word “mate” thrown in on occasion. Lily Cole surprised me with her ability to actually act (although her unusual facial structure kept reminding me of that creepy Chris Cunningham PlayStation ad) However, Tom Waits stole every scene he was in, with his portrayal of the Devil. He was amazing.

The big thing people want to find out about the film is how the story was affected by Ledger’s death. Many know that Ledger’s friends- Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Colin Farrell stepped in to complete the late actor’s unfinished scenes. To be honest, if I hadn’t known that Ledger had died, I would have thought that the “changing faces” thing was completely organic. It works really well. However, I wasn’t really that impressed with Johnny Depp, Jude Law or Colin Farrell in their scenes. Jude Law was pretty bland, Colin Farrell was, well Colin Farrell with a funny wig and Johnny Depp managed to squeeze in a bit of Jack Sparrow in the 5 or so minutes he was on screen.

…Doctor Parnassus is an odd film, in the best sense of the word. What I really liked about it was the contrast between the fantastical and the banal. For instance, when the travelling Imaginarium pulled up in a Homebase car park, it brought a wide smile to my face. I was less impressed with the CGI-tastic imaginations, as I felt that while the ideas on display were brilliant (that multi-faced Parnassus balloon will haunt my every waking moment) the CGI was done on the cheap side and it looked a bit ropey at times. Having said that, the dance between Valentina and the Devil with the broken mirror shards was fantastically done.

I enjoyed …Doctor Parnassus quite a lot. It had a fun story, some truly astounding set design and ideas and Tom Waits as the motherhumpin’ Devil. I get the feeling I may have to watch it again to fully appreciate what was going on, but I was definitely entertained.

Sci-fi is a tricky thing. Do it right and you create a world so vivid and enrapturing fanboys will write fan fiction about it for decades to come. Do it wrong and you look like a complete tithead who wouldn’t know a Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster if it came up and kicked you right in the Tannhauser gate. Luckily, District 9 belongs to the former category.

“When dealing with aliens, try to be polite, but firm. And always remember that a smile is cheaper than a bullet.”

After a massive ship hovers over Johannesburg, the human race makes first contact with alien life. Finding them malnourished and leaderless, the aliens (derogatorily called “prawns”) are bundled in to a huge, sprawling camp called District 9, policed by a private military contractor called Multinational United (MNU). The story follows bureaucrat Wikus van der Merwe (Sharlto Copley) as he is assigned the immense task of moving 1.8 million aliens to a new camp, further away from society, called District 10. The plot itself is fantastic. The best sci-fi has always been able to find parallels with reality and District 9 is no exception by holding up a mirror to issues such as apartheid and xenophobia. Sharlto Copey was amazing as Wikus, giving us a flawed hero who is actually relatable, rather than a ripped badass who pisses pure awesomeness. Wikus starts out as a generally unlikable character, who at one point revels in the firey destruction of alien eggs- likening the sound to popcorn popping. What I loved about Wikus is that most of his actions are driven by panic and selfishness- something which I’m sure is the more realistic reaction, rather than taking it upon one’s self to save the World.

I knew I’d love District 9 as soon as the mockumentary voice-over noted that the alien ship wasn’t hovering over a well-known American city such as New York and Chicago for once. It was nice to see such a different approach to the standard “alien invasion” bullshit we are normally fed. In fact, some of the content has a bit of a Bad Taste anarchic feel to it, which can only be a good thing. The effects are very impressive and prove you don’t need an astronomical Michael Bay-type budget to create photo-real creatures to lumber about on screen.

My one problem with District 9 was the fact it was so heavy-handed with its messages. It was fine to allude to apartheid, racism and so forth, but I honestly got a bit depressed with the way that pretty much every human in the film was a shitbag. Yeah, Wikus was good- but as I said before, he’s only acting out of panic. It felt like the film was pausing every so often to remind us that we suck before moving on to the next scene. I also believe that the Nigerians got the shitty end of the stick when it came to being represented as they are portrayed as little more than violent, armed animals who feast upon alien flesh.

“[Points out Alien graffiti] This is basically a guy, and there’s 3 humans here, basically trying to make a warning, you know, saying “I kill 3 humans, watch out for me.”

However, these were very minor problems and were only included to slightly hide the fact that I’ve pretty much being sucking the film off for the majority of the review. It might be a little premature to name District 9 as the best film of the year, but it’s damn tempting. A film would have to be very special to nudge it off my top spot, but the comforting thought it that if District 9 is indeed displaced, we’re in for a massive treat.

Does anyone remember watching Roswell? I was quite a big fan, and have watched the three series a few times. In the third season there is an episode that centres around the search for an elusive New Years’ Eve party, by following very obscure clues. It was one of the worst episodes of the whole programme. This is relevant, because this ‘search for a party’ plotline is the driving force of Nick & Norah. Nick O’Leary (Michael Cera) and Norah Silverberg (Kat Dennings) do not know each other, but are both huge fans of a band called ‘Where’s Fluffy?’, a band who occasionally play incredibly elusive gigs, leaving clues for their fans to find (vaguely reminiscent of the days of Guerrilla Gigging of the early 2000s (see: The Libertines). Nick is recently dumped by Tris (Alexis Dziena), a girl who goes to the same private school as Norah. Nick and Norah meet by chance at a gig in which Nick’s band is playing, and momentarily pose as a couple. Nick’s bandmates decide that she is ‘the one’ for him, and set them off to find ‘Where’s Fluffy?’ together, whilst they look after Norah’s drunk friend. Even though Nick is pining for his ex. The film takes place over the course of an evening, with Nick and Norah’s search for the band sometimes crossing with their friends, and ex-partners.

A danger with this type of film is that the supporting characters are relegated to making occasional quips, rarely emerging from the background. In Nick & Norah, most of the friends (and exes) have quite a bit of screentime, and the film is better for it. The film has been praised for its portrayal of gay characters (both Nick’s bandmates are gay), as they don’t fit the generally accepted stereotype. Being as the film is set over one night, and does sometimes seem to move at quite a quick pace, it is an achievement that all the characters get something to do.

There are also quite a few side storylines, most of which are quite funny. The ‘chewing gum’ plot whilst generally disgusting (and in one instance, vomit-inducing), is quite funny, as is the awful yellow car that Nick drives. These do add more to the overall story, showing that it is not just about Nick and Norah and as previously mentioned, giving other characters screentime. However, I feel it really could have done without the ‘orgasm’ sideline, which seems rather pointless, and doesn’t add anything at all to the story. Equally, I’m not entirely sure why it is an ‘Infinite Playlist’. Aside from the elusive ‘Fluffy?’, there is not too much made of music.

This leads me to my biggest gripe with the whole movie. Michael Cera. Before watching this, I had no feelings on him either way, and I think sums up my problem. I really like Juno, and he suited the role in that. The same for Superbad, he acted well as the straight man to the comedy of Jonah Hill. In those films, he wasn’t the main character, and reacted to the comedic situation around him, like Martin Freeman in The Office, or Mathew Horne in Gavin and Stacey (which I love) and anything with Catherine Tate. Cera is a very similar character (wet and incredibly awkward) in Nick & Norah, and it isn’t enough to carry the whole film. His proclamations of love for his ex sound wimpy, and his claim to be the biggest fan of ‘Fluffy?’ are irritating, and sound like the ‘I liked this band first’ nerdy whingeing of a playground. Having said that, the other characters are well acted, and Dennings carries off the fact that the character is meant to be rich, and is used to it without being incredibly stuck up. Nick’s bandmates are also very good characters.

Nick & Norah is quite a nice film, although perhaps lacking in the emotional investment of other examples. The main plot is fairly generic, although I do like (most of) the side plotlines, which do make it a better film. The supporting characters are well written and well acted, yet the whole idea of ‘Where’s Fluffy?’ isn’t as well executed as the ‘chewing gum’ plot; there is never really much excitement evoked from the viewer for the elusive band. A nice, gentle film, yet perhaps not as hip and indie (hipindie?) as it maybe thinks it is.

RB

I have come to the conclusion that film versions of video games do not work. Whilst this statement may seem up there with revelations such as “water is wet” and “shutting your eyes makes it difficult to see”, you must understand something. I love video games. I’ve loved them since I was an ankle-biter and will probably keep loving them for a long time to come. As I’ve grown up, video games have too, with titles pushing the boundaries, not only from a technological point of view, but a narrative one too. I can honestly say that when the game Bioshock was released, I found its story to be better than 90% of films released that year. The Max Payne video game was first introduced to me back in 2002 by a friend and I was blown away by its gritty story, brilliant voice acting and (then) revolutionary bullet-time gameplay. It was basically every film noir there is boiled down into a pure playable form. Six years after that moment, Hollywood decides it wants in and the Max Payne film is born. Lucky us (!) Let me save you some reading- the film is pretty shitty. However, I decided to use Max Payne as an example of everything that’s wrong with video game adaptations, how I’d do it differently and why I’m so right.

“I don’t believe in Heaven. I believe in pain. I believe in fear. I believe in death”

After his wife and child are murdered, Det. Max Payne (Mark Wahlberg) becomes a man obsessed with finding the escaped killer from his job in the Cold Case department in the NYPD. After a lead, he explores the filthy underbelly of the city where a new drug called Valkyr is somehow involved. Along the way, Max meets Mona Sax (Mila Kunis), a Russian assassin who blames Max for the death of her sister. The plot is a bit hit-and-miss. Funnily enough, the bits that work are lifted directly from the game. All the other bits are just a bit saggy compared to the strong central narrative of Max wanting vengeance for his murdered family. Both Marky Mark and Jackie from That ’70s Show are fine, but completely miscast. Max Payne should be a brooding, gritty husk of a man driven by revenge. When I think of dark and brooding, I don’t think of Mark Wahlberg, let me tell you that for free. Not sure who I would have cast (who said Christian Bale?! Back of the class, you bell-end) although the more I think about it, the more I’m convinced Viggo Mortenson would have been awesome. Marky Mark is simply not a good fit. Same goes for Mila Kunis who was better than Marky Mark, but lacked the femme fatale quality needed for the role (I hate to say it, but Angelina Jolie would have been so much better). Also she is quite a small woman, so some of the massive guns she has to wield look ridiculous. It’s like when a toddler tries on its father’s shoes- cute, but highly impractical. If that last sentence sounded chauvanistic to you, then stop reading this and go and shave your armpits you lesbian femma-hippie…

So, my problems with it go like this. Firstly, without the knowing, so-dark it-hurts film noir feeling of the game, the name “Max Payne” sounds incredibly cheesy and vomit-inducing. I was half expecting a Det. Dick Thrust or a Ms. Lotta Areola to turn up. Secondly, although the film looks very nice in places (the Valkyrie hallucinations are beautiful and unsettling in equal measures) there’s no real need for it. Plus, it does get a bit too Constantine to garner any real credit for orignality. Thirdly, the fucking thing was a PG-13, so any darkness accidentally left in the script was scrubbed out by the director to make a shitload of extra cash. I actually watched the “Unrated” version of the film and it’s painfully obvious where they’ve CGI’d the blood back in, so no hope of a Die Hard 4.0-style redemption on disc.

My main problem with the whole thing was the feeling throughout that Hollywood knows better than the video game industry. They’ve taken a great story, shook it down to supposedly marketable ideas and chucked the rest away without a care in the damn world. You know what, you Hollywood pricks? That is the reason why Hollywood keeps turning out insipid shite year after year and why people will eventually become bored with your re-hashed action films and indeterminable rom-coms. Because you think you know better. Look at some films that have been well received that have been adapted from other media- Sin City, The Dark Knight, Spider-Man 2, The Lord of the Rings films- know what they have in common? They didn’t dick their fans about by pissing all over the well-loved and time-tested stories. Just think about it, you out-of-touch cocks.

“What have you done Max? What has Max Payne done, except for bring misery, to everyone who ever cared for him?”

Anyway- Max Payne. It’s not awful, just not that good either. It’s as bland as they come with annoying touches of visual flair that belong in a better film.

I remember seeing the trailer for Eagle Eye non-stop last Summer, partly because I practically lived in the cinema last Summer and the fact that it had the shit advertised out of it. I remember thinking it looked alright, but the main problem I had was the name. It sounds like a cheesy Action Man villain or something (no G.I. Joe here, we’re British). For the taut, action thriller it seemed to be selling itself as, the name just seemed to weigh it down like a ton of cheddar.

Following the death of his twin brother, Jerry Shaw (Shia LaBeouf) is framed as a terrorist. Arrested by the FBI, he is sprung by a female caller and coerced, along with a single mum (Michelle Monaghan), into going on a dangerous mission. The plot was basically that bit in The Matrix where Morpheus is guiding Neo through the office on the phone, stretched to feature length proportions. There’s some techno-terrorism bullshit in there too, but that just washed over me like white noise. The two leads are fine, as well they should be, but even their acting abilities fail to cover the staples holding this film together

And that’s what this film is, a mish-mash of other, more successful films. We have the aforementioned Matrix ripping, some Bourne style car chasing (although considering every damn film does this now, I suppose it can be excused) and even a bit of 2001: A Space Odyssey/ I, Robot (delete as applicable according to intelligence/age). Hell, there’s even (arguably) a bit of the Final Destination films about it at one point. It just seemed like a waste of time to me. Why buy an album of great songs covered by an average singer when you can listen to the originals? Doesn’t make any sense.

Conversely, the film does manage to keep you interested in what’s going on throughout. I honestly wanted to find out who the person was on the phone and tried to work it out as Mr. TheBeef and Watchamatits tear-arsed around the place. I suppose this is a good indicator that the film isn’t all bad as I was at least involved with the plot on some level.

Eagle Eye is a Frankenstein’s monster of a film. It’s big, loud creature made from other films’ corpses. However, it is marginally better than the sum of its parts. It’s worth checking out, but there are films out there worthier of your time and money.