It must be hard adapting a book into a film. I mean, is the film meant to put everything that’s on the page up there on the big screen? If so, what’s the point in doing it then? Mind you, if a film takes too many liberties with the source material, you’ll have the rabid fanboys and girls tearing down your door, ready to point out all the inaccuracies. My opinion is that you have to strike a balance between what made the book good in the first place and add some cinematic magic. Anyway, reading back my Half-Blood Prince review, I realised I kept banging on about the book, so I decided I would judge Yes Man purely on its own merit, rather than comparing it to the source material.

Carl Allen (Jim Carrey) is getting nowhere in life. He ignores his friends’ calls and is spending night after night slumped in front of his T.V. However, that all changes when Carl visits a self-help seminar headed by Terrence Bundley (Terence Stamp), where he discovers the power of “Yes” and vows to answer yes to everything, no matter how ludicrous. As plots go, it’s a neat twist on the tired rom-com formula (yes, it’s one of those). Whilst Jim Carrey and Zooey Deschanel are fine, I do think that the decision to cast Carrey was a mistake. One, because the premise is way too similar to 1997 Carrey film Liar Liar and two, because Carrey only has two main modes these days: zany and serious. Trouble is, he’s getting a bit old for zany and his serious mode wouldn’t suit the film. What we’re left with is like someone doing a bad, half-hearted Ace Ventura impression for their gran and her friends, all of who have no idea who the character is, but all been assured that it’s “a real hoot”.

The film can be painfully unfunny at times with most of it being the fault of the usually brilliant Rhys “Flight of the Conchords” Darby playing a nerdy boss. I was fucking tempted to fashion the DVD case into a shiv and jam it into my jugular when he answer the door in full Leonidas (from 300) gear, shouting “We are Sparta!”. If I may go off on a rant for a bit- and there’s not much you can do if you do mind, what is it with this lazy movie referencing culture recently? It seems that all you have to do is say the name of a film and the dopey public will guffaw and slap their fins together for more of the same. It’s pathetic and mostly the fault of Family Guy, which has become as funny as finding half a kitten on your porch in the morning. Go and watch early episodes of The Simpsons, certain episodes of South Park and all of Spaced, you pop culture obsessed fuckwagons…

Now I’ve vented my spleen, I can soberly tell you that Yes Man isn’t a bad film by any stretch of the imagination. It’s alright, but the concept deserves much more attention. There are very few things Carl doesn’t want to do, which surely is the better opportunity for comedic moments? Anyway, the film has enough charming moments to not make you feel like you’ve wasted your time watching it. It’s just that I wanted it to be so much more. I knew it was only taking the concept from the book and I was fine with that. I like Jim Carrey and wanted him to put in a Truman Show-like performance, but it was not to be.

Yes Man is an odd film. It’s fun, charming and occasionally funny, but doesn’t do anything new. Still, there are worse ways to kill 2 or so hours…

Now, I don’t usually do this, but check out the trailer for the film here and then gaze at the poster above. Unless you have shrapnel lodged in your frontal lobe, I’m pretty sure you can hazard a guess what Marley & Me is all about. It’s your standard rom-com affair featuring the misadventures of a ickle puppy-wuppy, right? Wrong. It’s actually a film based on the memoirs of John Grogan, a columnist who wrote regularly about “the World’s worst dog”, which was often moving and true to life. Basically, the poster and trailer are lying to us and we should be very, very annoyed.

Newlywed journalists John and Jenny Grogan (Owen Wilson and Jennifer Aniston) plan to have babies. To delay that day, John gives Jenny a puppy instead. Cue canine capers and “fun”. What annoyed me about the film was that it really had no heart. It’s as shallow as a swimming pool in a special school. When the two leads weren’t trying to out-blonde each other, the film expected me to go all mushy at the puppy chewing things. Handled correctly this could have been a genuinely moving tale, a place I thought it was going to after it transpired that Grogan only got the dog to delay his wife’s want for children. Acting-wise, Aniston is pretty much on autopilot throughout, leaving Wilson to pick up the pieces. Thankfully, he is good and I think that Marley & Me contains his best straight performance to date (although that isn’t saying much). Some of his “chats” with Marley are genuinely touching and believable.

We are a nation of animal lovers, and dear God doesn’t Marley & Me know it. It tries to substitute expansion of plot with scenes of a dog misbehaving. The tone is all over the place. It almost felt that the semi-serious film I was watching, which was dealing with family issues and miscarriages, was being interrupted every now and then by a cheap knock-off (if you can get any cheaper) of The Planet’s Funniest Animals. What irritates me more than anything is I know people will eat all this mawkish shit up and ignore this bizarre mix with simpering grins on their stupid faces.

Ah- the ending (Invisotexted). Now, obviously the dog dies. It wasn’t really going to have a happy ending now, was it? Whilst I did get a bit choked up when Marley was lying on the vet’s table, all of that emotion was taken away with Owen Wilson saying the most mawkish crap you could imagine. When will people realise that less is more? If he had said a few words and spent the rest of the time hugging the animal and sobbing, I probably would have cried too. However, Wilson goes on a grandiose spiel about how great Marley was, which sucks what little emotion there was to be found out of the moment completely.

I really didn’t enjoy Marley & Me. I could have enjoyed it if it made up its mind on what it wanted to be (serious film with realistic, comedic elements or sugar sweet rom-com featuring a dog) but it tries to have its cake and eat it too. Which is never a good idea.

Ice Age was a nice surprise when it came out. It had no expectations to meet,no toys to sell and did everything its own way. It became a sleeper hit and grossed $328 million worldwide. With a box office take of about 6 times its budget, there was inevitably going to be a sequel. Sure enough in 2006- Ice Age: The Meltdown was released and grossed $651 million worldwide. Not content with nearly every child on the planet seeing the film, studio execs wanted more and so Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs was hastily put into production- in 3D no less, just to squeeze that extra bit of cash out of the long-suffering parents of little Johnny C. McFucksquit.

Sid the sloth (John Leguizamo) finds three eggs and adopts them as his own. All is well until their mother comes back to claim them. Oh, and the mother is a gigantic T-Rex. Mummy T-Rex abducts Sid and it’s up to the regular Ice Age gang to rescue him. It’s nothing that hasn’t been seen a thousand times before. My main problem was the inclusion of dinosaurs. Why oh why did they have to include dinosaurs?! Historically, it makes no sense. I realise discussing sense in a film which centres around talking animals is a bit rich, but I can only suspend my disbelief for so much. My guess is that some twat studio exec suggested they put dinosaurs in it so they could have an excuse for chase sequences and so on. Since no-one wanted to lose their job, they didn’t question the exec and bent over like the good little bitches they are.

Ice Age has always been about the kids. It’s a childrens’ film and all that should be expected from it is some cartoon characters falling down and some bum jokes. Both are very present here. However, Dawn of the Dinosaurs decided it wanted to appeal to the dragged along parents and so the film is packed with innuendo. Some of the best animated films appeal to adult and children alike and many films have done the same thing (remember the “laser envy” gag in Toy Story?) but all the no-so-subtle smuttiness in this film takes off the appealing innocence and charm the series had when it started.

Nearly every joke in Dawn of the Dinosaurs has been done before and better. My eyes nearly rolled out of their sockets and onto the sticky cinema floor when Sid made a remark about being handsome and gazing at his reflection in the ice before it predictably cracks. Many could argue that to a child’s inexperienced eyes, this may be a fresh gag, but I don’t know a child who hasn’t seen Shrek, which does exactly the same bit in the opening credits. Even the Scrat non-sequiturs have lost their humour and we’re left with unfunny bits not good enough to be in the first two.

Dawn of the Dinosaurs is just a shameless cash-in. It only exists because of the embarrassing amounts of cash the first two gleaned. It’s bereft of any ideas and retreads the same ground, hoping that you won’t figure out it’s nothing more than a wallet-raping. My advice? Shove the kids into the cinema to see it, spare yourself the boredom and go and spend some quality “you time” in your own company. Picking them up again afterwards is optional.

I’m not entirely sure what Nicolas Cage’s game is. I’m guessing he picks his projects by scrawling the film title on a Post-It, sticking it to a wall with about 50 others, closing his eyes, spinning around and throwing a dart in the general vacinity of said wall. I mean, how else can one explain his decision to do films like Bangkok Dangerous and Knowing? Due to this random dart technique, said projectile can sometimes land on good films. Films like Lord of War.

Yuri Orlov (Nicolas Cage) is a weapons dealer who lives by the mantra “where there’s a will, there’s a weapon”. Orlov tells us his story including his rise from penniless pistol salesman to international arms dealer. During the narrative we are introduced to Yuri’s brother, Vitaly (Jared Leto) and wife (Bridget Moynahan). The film is written and directed by Andrew Niccol, the writer of Gattaca and The Truman Show. Much like those films, Lord of War seems to have a warning of things to come hidden under proceedings. It’s no wonder I get the Manic Street Preachers’ song If You Tolerate This Your Children Will Be Next stuck in my head everytime I watch The Truman Show… The story itself is a strong one, with enough character development and twists to keep you entertained. Nic Cage is very good as Orlov, somehow making a despicable character likeable. I really liked Jared Leto’s turn as Vitaly too, with Leto surprising me with his ability to act. Although, to be fair, the only thing I’ve really seen him in is Fight Club where all his has to do is face (literally) the fury of Ed Norton. I liked Ian Holm too, although I could have done with seeing more of him.

Lord of War is a film packed with ideas. It’s just a shame that it sometimes gets bogged down in delivering The Very Serious Message to let some of them breathe. The opening is genuinely jaw-dropping as we follow the path of a bullet from a factory production line into a young African boy’s head. It’s an incredibly powerful opening and sets the tone for the rest of the film perfectly.

As an audience we’ve become desensitised to guns. It’s a cold, hard fact. We are so used to seeing characters whip out a pistol at the slightest provocation that it just doesn’t faze us. Because of this, films have to work hard to get us to be scared of guns again and thankfully Lord of War does that. It even outlines the this whole issue with one soldier asking for the “gun of Rambo” and laughing as he randomly shoots it out of the window of a moving vehicle.

Lord of War is a good film, but I get the feeling it could have been brilliant if it wasn’t so heavy-handed with its message. Whilst I agree with the message, I couldn’t help but feel the film was lecturing me, rather than entertaining me.

I normally use this paragraph to profess what a big fan I am of a well-established franchise- it happens a lot, I’m a fan of lots of things. However, the Star Wars films (at least the original trilogy) were an integral part of my childhood. I would watch them over and over again until I knew pretty much every line. The prequels were another matter, but we’ll save that argument for another time.

Jabba the Hutt’s son (!) has been kidnapped and the Jedi Council send Anakin Skywalker (Matt Lanter) to find him. Along the way, Anakin reluctantly picks up a Padawan learner by the name of Ahsoka (Ashley Eckstein). The plot is utterly retarded. It reads more like bad fan-fiction than the official 7th Star Wars film. The period of time during the Clone Wars seems rich and full of good story opportunities, so I’m not sure why they went for the uber-hackneyed plot of a kidnapping. The film started off badly by fucking with the classic Star Wars hallmarks. We get a bastardised version of the famous John Williams score and instead of the iconic opening scrawl, we have some cheesy narration. It was horrible. On the other hand, all the voice actors are fine, but I have a really problem with the characters. A new paragraph kinda problem…

I’m sick of defending Michael Bay. I know he’s not exactly the best director in the world, I just admire his enthusiasm for blowing shit up. It’s way too easy to bash his directorial style and write page after page of scathing criticism decrying Bay for crimes against cinema. Personally, I think these people are snobs with nothing better to do than to take the piss out of less arty directors with haughty laughs and vitriolic derision. However, Revenge of the Fallen makes it very difficult to argue the case that Bay’s films aren’t all loud noises and shots of sunsets.

Following on from the first Transformers film, the good robots- the Autobots are here on Earth and have joined forces with the military to form NEST- a team created to find and destroy all the hidden baddies- the Decepticons. However, one of the Decepticons they catch warns about “The Fallen” returning before he buys the robo-farm. Meanwhile, Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBoeuf) is off to college and struggling to keep his relationship going with Mikaela (Megan Fox). I liked the idea that the Autobots were working with the army an’ all that and I didn’t have a problem with Sam going off to college- it seems like a natural progression. I did have a problem with all the mythical bullshit surrounding The Fallen, however. I don’t know why it was so hard to accept, especially given the fact I had no problem with the fact that ALIEN ROBOTS have visited Earth, but I did. I got the feeling that the film was taking itself too seriously which is a fatal mistake when you have aforementioned extraterrestrial automatons arsing about on screen.

For some reason, Michael Bay decided that Transformers wasn’t annoying enough, so he beefed up the irritant factor for the sequel. In nearly every review you read you’ll come across a mention of “The Twins” – an incredibly irksome pair of metallic twats who do nothing but talk very fast, peppering the speech with liberal swearing. Oh, and they’re black stereotypes too. so they’re not only annoying but racist to boot. The annoyance doesn’t stop there as we have a considerably smaller Decepticon who also brought my blood to a boil. His name is Wheelie and for some reason, he talks like a stereotypical 1930’s gangster. He basically comes off as a cross between a robot Chihuahua and a bad Al Capone impersonator.

The action is good, don’t misunderstand me, but the sequel has even more “what the fuck is going on?” moments in the kinetic fight sequences due to the addition of more Transformers to pretty much the entire robotic cast of the first film. The only sequences I really enjoyed was Optimus Prime taking on some Decepticons in the forest and Bumblebee’s fight with… a bad robot. That’s the thing- I can’t remember who was fighting who and why, and I normally can recall a considerable amount about a film way after I’ve seen it.

The effects are still extremely impressive, but some of the novelty has worn off since the first one. Having said that, watching Devastator- a Decepticon formed out of about seven other Decepticons is eye-wateringly good. My mind can’t comprehend how they worked that one out. As I said before, there are way too many Transformers in this film (my sources tell me there’s around 40 of them) and it’s pretty difficult to remember all their names.

Revenge of the Fallen is not as good as the original Transformers. Some of the charm has worn off and we have way too many robots dicking about on screen to actually get any sense of what’s going on. It’s also overlong, so you will be looking at your watch during the final 40 mins. Approach with expectations lowered and your brain disengaged and you may enjoy yourself. Just don’t come crying to me when you’ve ground your teeth into a fine powder out of sheer annoyance.

Kevin Smith has always been one of my favourite directors/actors/writers. The guy’s genuinely funny, a great storyteller (if you haven’t seen his An Evening With… DVDs you really should seek them out) and you can tell he loves films in general. When I heard the title of his new project, I found it to be very fitting. He’s always done comedies with gross-out elements far funnier than 10 American Pies. Plus, comedy hot property Seth Rogen was in it- I hoped this would get Smith the mainstream recognition he deserves. It’s just a pity that this is his weakest film.

With the debts mounting and the water cut off , plutonic flatmates Zack (Seth Rogen) and Miri (Elizabeth Banks) resort to a lewd money spinner – recruit their friends and shoot a homegrown porn movie. So long as the sex doesn’t get personal, it’ll be just fine, right? The plot itself is a good one. Both Seth Rogen and Elizabeth Banks are fine, if not really stretching themselves. There are some funny supporting characters too, with Smith’s “hetero life partner” Jason Mewes being especially good. The cameo from Brandon “Superman” Routh was hilarious and gave me a new found respect for the man.

My main problem with the film is that whilst trying to be risqué, Zack and Miri… lacks any real edge. Part of this is due to Smith having his mucky-mouthed comedy crown (undeservedly) stolen by the inexplicably popular Apatow steamroller. Smith’s solution? Cast Seth Rogen and most of the regular supporting cast in his film. As a result, the opening scene in the coffee shop feels like a sequel to The 40 Year Old Virgin. As the film progresses, Jeff “Randall in Clerks” Anderson shows up and we’re back to Smithian ideals. What irritated me about this film was the fact that Kevin Smith seemed to be trying to be mainstream and Apatow-like, whilst trying to maintain his own identity. I honestly believe that if he had forgotten about all the Apatow nonsense and concentrated on being Kevin Smith with this film, people would have responded to it more favourably than they did. I also wish Jay and Silent Bob were in it, there was no reason for them to be omitted and I think there could have been some fantastic gags if they were included.

Zack and Miri… isn’t a bad film. It’s damn funny in places and features some great performances. I loved the way the relationship between Zack and Miri was portrayed. The Smith snappy lines of dialogue were there too, just not enough of them. See it if you want a few dirty chuckles and a good story, just don’t expect another Dogma.

I’ll admit to not being the biggest Joy Division fan in the world. It’s not as if I don’t rate them or anything, it’s just that I’ve never thought “Ooh, I know- I’ll put on some Joy Division whilst I’m tidying my room” or anything like that. In terms of Ian Curtis, I probably know as much as the next guy, but nothing in-depth, which is why I approached Control with an open mind and a willingness to learn.

Control is the biopic of Joy Division’s frontman Ian Curtis (Sam Riley), following his rise to fame all the way until his tragic suicide at the age of 23. I’ll say this now, biopics are often the hardest things to do well. Why? Well, you usually have someone such as the surviving partner and/or relative funding the film and as such, the perspective is skewed somewhat and makes the portrayal of the subject of the biopic either a baby-eating Satanist or the embodiment of Christ. Most recently, the Biggie Smalls biopic Notorious suffered these problems as Biggie’s mum was heavily involved in the making of. This may seem off-topic, but shut up and be patient, I’m getting there. My point is, Control doesn’t succumb to that, even though Deborah- Curtis’ widow was involved. Although the portrayal of him is closer to Jesus H. Curtis than SatIan, I believe this is because Curtis was genuinely a nice guy rather than artistic license.

Sam Riley is perfect as Curtis. He’s got everything from the dance moves to the subtle Curtis nuances down. I’d like to congratulate the decision to get him to sing the songs, rather than to dub over the original recording in post-production. This means there is no barrier between the actor playing him and the stage persona and adds to the overall immersion. I couldn’t believe how short and tragic Curtis’ life was and how serious his epilepsy problem became. I was really drawn into the magical world of fantastic acting and slick black and white visuals. I liked Samatha Morton’s turn as Deborah too- she does brilliantly in a role which must have been difficult to do when you have the actual person breathing down your neck.

Curtis’ affair with journalist Annik Honoré (Alexandra Maria Lara) was very well handled. I believed that Curtis truly loved both women and struggled to give either one up. I found the scene where Deborah confronts him about Annik to be incredibly realistic and moving, especially when Curtis breaks down into tears after a prolonged bout of silence. It’s also very rare to see clinical depression presented so authentically.

Despite all the glowing, shiny words of praise written above, I did have one problem with Control– and that was the fact that I didn’t get a sense of how big Joy Division became. Nearly all the songs performed looked like they were sung in some pub on an open mic night. I would have liked to have seen a more accurate representation of the huge fame Joy Division achieved so the audience could better understand the pressures that Curtis was facing.

Still, Control is a brilliant film. It definitely educated me in all things Curtis and was unexpectedly moving to boot. See it.