From Paris With Love

An action film that didn't even meet the low expectations I had for it in the first place. At least you see the beauty of Paris right? No? Okay then.

Coming from the same director as Taken, I thought there might be a chance that this could be okay. However, after reading the recent reviews, it was clear that this was going to be a disaster - and it was.

As controversial as this sounds, I really enjoyed Taken. I'm slightly biased in that I love Liam Neeson and enjoyed the fast-paced, man-on-a-mission, revenge flick that it was. I also like John Travolta and even though his look in this is more YMCA Macho Man than Action Man, he actually does quite well. Though how he dodges bullets jumping around with that much weight was completely beyond me. Magic perhaps?

His co-star Jonathan Rhys Meyers is a pet hatred of mine. I can't stand the man. Luckily, he just does his bit and there's not much to him, he could potentially be anyone. Neither character has any depth and the hidden homosexuality (don't trust women, comparing guns in the final scene etc.) makes Travolta perfect for the job. But the acting is just second rate and the two have little or no chemistry together either. Massive fail as the kids say. But what about the story?

Well, firstly the backdrop of Paris might as well be anywhere, you got the Eiffel Tower but that's about it. It's pro-American stance almost slips over into mild racism, something which happens in Taken as well, but it toes the line enough for it to be argued. The story is simply taking down terrorists - a few twists along the way but nothing that will make you sit up. Unfortunately it's one of those films that just by watching the trailer means you might as well have just watched the film.

The script is dire, the action was good in places but not enough to justify what is an extremely flawed film. Watch it for a no-brainer action set piece that you can melt your mind to - otherwise leave it rot away until it appears on late night Channel 5.

Rating: 3/10

The Shield - Season 2

A season which for the first half was enjoyable, and then suddenly took a turn for the worse.

Vic is back and starts with a massive bang. Trying to get his family back and with the strike team's own drug deal getting screwed up - it doesn't fail to keep up the pace from the off. Once again, The Shield doesn't let up in terms of action and general enjoyable viewing. Good cops, bad cops and Vic in the middle swaying from side to side.

The first half of the season deals with a dealer called Armadillo (but with an accent, not like the animal) and his smarts and sheer fearlessness is something that Vic can't control, and it worries him. The guy even rapes a small child for informing on him - he's something that maybe Vic can't even deal with. Not only this but Vic Mackey's personal life seems to be falling apart and he's losing control of the streets. Oh dear.

But the series starts falling into complacency, there's the Vic storyline, the detective storyline (which sometimes is a hundred times more interesting) and the political storyline. But, though they might criss-cross with each other, you're left feeling like it's a bit of the same old thing, and that it's just Vic's story that's keeping the season moving, which in theory it is.

Saying this, there's a lot going on. A gay cop going to sexual reorientation classes, a prostitute trying to get herself clean and other stories that are well told and add to the season. So far, so good. But what's this thing half-way through it all?

Co-Pilot is, well, another pilot. What this is doing here I'll never know, but it goes back and completely changes everything you've based the characters on so far. Not only does it contradict itself, and the stories it's already told, but it's like they've lied to you. It reminds me of what Hitchcock said after he made Stage Fright, that his biggest regret was showing a false flashback, it mislead the audience and abused their trust. Which is exactly what The Shield is doing here. Imagine in any other series, if suddenly halfway through the second season, they completely changed the beginning. I can only imagine it's for those who never saw the start and jumped in - which might be fair enough had it been a better Pilot. But it's not. At all.

The Strike Team which you presume has been around for ages (the room feels lived in, they all know each other really well) instead is seemingly put together weeks before the first episode. The guy who gets killed in the Pilot is still in it, but then that means it relies on parts of the initial pilot - which is ridiculous. It really, really screws up the whole thing and I thoroughly recommend you skip it. You're not missing anything I promise and it will ruin the entire experience for you.

Anyway, moving on from that, the second half of the second season is mainly about the strike team making a huge bust on a money train. Not only that but they get a new member, who fits right in and I think will be a great character for the future. It's also very much centred on Wyms, which is fine but, to be honest, she just gets on my nerves. Dutch is a much better character in my opinion. It's also charting the rise and the impressive bravery of Aceveda who is starting to meet Mackey half way in the confusing depths of morality while trying to keep his political career afloat.

Overall, it's quite a sound season. The Armadillo stuff was probably the best and the money train is a good enough arc for the whole season, but not enough to keep me consistently hooked. It's just massively let down by the Co-Pilot episode which, under any other circumstance I would have given this a 6 or 7 out of 10, but because of that fatal mistake it gets a ...

Rating: 5/10

Conservatives

Precious

Being pipped to win many an Oscar this year, this film is a relentless attack on your emotions - but does it work? Or does it just take advantage of your softer side by relying too much on the book?

Firstly, don't get too excited by the list of names that are making their appearances in the film. Lenny Kravitz plays a minor, but well-acted, part but I think his character might have had more weight in the book as it's somewhat meaningless here. Mariah Carey is in it for about a total of 8 minutes, though most of that is quite pivotal and she does do surprisingly well. So if you're in for the cast, then you might be disappointed. However, Mo'Nique is quite literally amazing. Her role as the horribly selfish, manipulative mother feels so real you could touch it and if she wins an Oscar for this, it's well deserved.

Precious herself is hard to look at. Her face is so full, her eyes so squinted up that it displays almost no emotion which reflects her persona. She has been hurt so much by people who claim to love her that she is constantly being defensive. Yet behind her hard exterior, is a soft caring little girl who fantasises about being loved by a man, about being glamorous, sexy and even just to look like a skinny white girl. These fantasies usually come about when she refuses to face the reality of the situation, such as being raped by her father, being made to eat (and not just food) by her mother etc. which can make for some hard viewing. But throughout, you just want her to keep on holding on, that it might just end up okay even after tragedy after tragedy.

The poor girl gets some breaks, it's not all complete doom and gloom. Her new school introduces her to some new friends and a more caring, understanding teacher, her love for her second child is insurmountable and her will to survive keeps her strong. But yet it's an emotional rollercoaster that some people might not want to get on to, and it's understandable - this doesn't hold back and things get worse before they get better. A final confrontation with her mother reveals more than just the extent of years of abuse, but a deeper rooted problem of what it is to be loved and to love.

The acting is pretty much perfect and it's lucky the celeb cast can hold their own otherwise it could have been a factor to really ruin the whole film. Instead, it works. The directing however feels somewhat amateur, the dissolves from scene to scene jar horribly and the camerawork isn't exactly spectacular. Instead the cinematography makes up for it by creating her home as a dark, depressing place and the brightness of her classroom, and even the hospital, reflect Precious' changing mood.

Overall, this film will tug on your heartstrings in a completely passive way. Instead of some out-and-out slush, this girl is tough and rarely breaks down - she doesn't want to feel sorry for herself but sometimes she just can't help it, which gives it a lot more credibility. My main issue was the somewhat uninspiring directing and instead of being a movie, it feels like a well acted play of what must be an incredible book. Definitely go see it if you can, it's worth it and makes a difference from the usual over-the-top weepies flooding Hollywood.

Rating: 8/10

Gentlemen Broncos

Can Jared Hess live up to the excitement he created with Napoleon Dynamite? Or is it another disappointing Nacho Libre? Actually, it's somewhere in the middle - but whereabouts is up to you.

For me, Napoleon Dynamite was a gift from above. Everything about it was funny and it still has it's affect on today's culture (geek chic, "Vote For Pedro" etc.) but it was mainly because it was just, well, different. People criticised it for not really having a story, that they found it all a bit weird and didn't understand why it was funny. Everyone's got a right to an opinion, even a wrong one, and for sheer style, innovation and bollocks alone, Hess deserves some credit.

So with Gentlemen Broncos, not only does it have yet again another amazing title sequence, but it takes everything that was great about Dynamite and fuses it with everything that was great about Nacho Libre (mainly the colourful palette, the Mexican partner and the "Hero's Journey" narrative). Our protagonist, Benjamin, is a creative writer who sees his work get plagiarised and also turned into a crappy film, a statement against Hollywood for Hess perhaps, but the main jist is that he turns from a shy, nerdy recluse to an outspoken, brave young man. Which makes it essentially a coming of age story. Yawn.

Luckily, it is actually really funny but unfortunately after a while does start to wane slightly. Our main guy holds his own but his whole love fling with this selfish, shitty bitch is just a bit nonsensical, but it does feature perhaps the best kiss ever captured on film. You'll know what I mean when you see it. It starts to get a bit much after a while and you want him to be accepted sooner - the narrative starts to outweigh the comedy slightly, but just about keeps afloat with some proper hilarious gags.

Another main feature is "Flight of the Conchords" Jermaine, who is incredible and surely one of the funniest characters we've seen in cinema. Okay, that might be taking it a bit too far, but his sci-fi author must be seen to be believed - as are the other side characters. His 'guardian angel', mother and 'producer' are great but, for me, still fall short of the cast of Napoleon. The little inserts of the film with Sam Rockwell are also hilarious and give a welcome distraction to the sometimes woeful experiences teenage Benjamin goes through.

The focus on the strange science fiction culture underbelly proves to be a much more successful bet than Mexican wrestling and Hess has clearly made something a bit more personal than before. If you want to watch a good comedy with some great character actors then go see this. It's not as good as Napoleon Dynamite but better than Nacho Libre - and it's possible it might even top both for you. Also hang on until after the end credits for a little surprise....

Rating: 8/10

Legion

Angels. Guns. Monsters. A Godly treat? More like a horrible sin.

I really had high hopes for this, high enough to need wings myself but, like Bettany does in the opening few scenes, I feel like they were cut off. Leaving me scarred, bruised and slightly pissed off. Just like his character Michael who has left his fellow angels to stand up for the humans against his own kind.

Mixing different genres such as survival horror, action, war and more, you'd think it could potentially be something transcendent. But once the initial characters are set up (black guy listening to gangster rap carrying a gun, disinterested waitress, chiseled jock, slutty teen girl etc.) you feel like you just don't really care. The southern young jock played by the guy from Tokyo Drift, Friday Night Lights etc. (who cares what his name is) is pathetic and his character learns nothing but to be brave. Big whoop, wanna fight about it? Dennis Quaid is starting to fall too much into his macho bitter grunt persona that he seems to be occupying in his roles these days but it really is Bettany that holds the whole thing together. You actually feel a sadness about his fallen angel and he proves he can hold his own in an action film, but when given such awful dialogue he easily pulls it off that it could slip through untrained ears. All the other characters are shit really, they're just fodder to stretch the film out to the full hour and a half.
The effects etc. are good, yeah, the story is simple, but with a lot of plotholes and for some idiot young teen, it'll probably do the trick. So let's be honest, you'll walk into this film expecting a cool action film, but the monsters aren't into it as much as I would have liked, the survival aspect seems a bit unfounded (why can't God get through a blocked door?) and the whole 'save the baby, save the human race' that holds the story together doesn't really make sense. Also, this God of theirs seems a bit of a cock to be honest. The action isn't as exciting or regular enough to keep me interested but some bits are cool, the swarm of flies, the ice truck monster, the old lady at the start - but it just feels like they took something that had so much potential and really fucked it up, so that the cool bits from the comic (I would imagine) are the only saving qualities.

If there's nothing else on, there might be enough here to keep you going. But don't go out of your way to see it. The sequel might be better but give it to an actual director, not someone who works in visual effects. Just a tip there.

Review: 5/10

Uncharted 2

A game that is another example of the fact that if you aren't into gaming, you are seriously missing out.

Okay, so, this game might be a couple of months old now but I only just got it off my mate Si last week and had to complete it before Bioshock 2 came out so he could exchange it. True story. But my word, what a game!
I, like many others, was already hooked on the first Uncharted. There are only a handful of games that really make you stand up and go "Fuck me. This is brilliant. Actually fuck me!" This sequel takes everything about the first one and builds on it's successful formula. A bit of history, a bit of the supernatural, a beautiful landscape and an incredible story with engaging characters.
For those who aren't already in the know, the Uncharted series uses actual actors to act out the scenes and has developed facial recognition software (much like Cameron's "Avatar") in a way never seen before in games. Not since Uncharted had characters moved, looked, expressed themselves and acted so naturally. The graphics are incredible, luscious and amazing to look at. Perhaps the best seen on a console so far. It's voice acting is also incredible; in a way it is almost the future of acting itself. If you're a great actor but just don't have the face to be a leading man, then you can be made up to look just like one. Much like Drake is.
His character is what I LOVE about action films, he gets absolutely beaten about, he's charismatic, genuinely funny, truly wants to do the right thing and with impossible chances of surviving, he leaps in headfirst anyway. His character has a some kind of learning experience, in that he realises the true meaning of love and recognises that, despite his faults, he is a good person . But apart from that bit of slush, the action is relentless.
Without ruining a story full of twists and turns, your main goal is to stop the evil madman from getting to Shangri-La, but it's not until the end you find out why it's so important he must be stopped. From the very first moment you turn on the game where you're hanging off a train about to go over a cliff, to fighting helicopters, climbing mountains, running over crumbling bridges and more - you know you won't be in for an easy ride.
The entire franchise has bits out of Indiana Jones, Romancing The Stone etc. but in a way that is much, much better. Yes, I said it was BETTER than ANY Indiana Jones film. In fact, it's better than pretty much 99% of action films. It's hard to describe this to anyone who doesn't really like gaming. When I'm in work talking about it, people - like a certain Mrs Delbridge (I don't work in a school) - will laugh away with quite a chortle at how childish it all is. But I let them laugh. Because as all us 'gamers' know, we have the last laugh. As much as we try to get non-gamers to 'see the light' - we don't really want them to be part of it. We don't want to force them because you want it to be your thing, something that not everyone is part of. Like you have a secret. Even though, especially in the last 5 or so years with the certain next-gen console releases, people keep saying how successful 'video games' are (we don't actually call them video games here - it's a term we feel we have to use so that people who don't understand, will understand), the masses on their high horses just won't accept it. There's some kind of geeky stigma about it, well documented by people like Charlie Brooker.
When we put that controller in your hand and say 'have a go' - we're actually opening up quite a bit, letting you into some sort of mass 'Fight Club' and if you're not going to do it properly, then we'd rather you don't get into the club. In fact, it's like offering someone a doorway into another world of interactivity that they can never experience again. We're not talking MMO's and all that bollocks. Sure there's a time and a place for that, but you can actually get COOL games. But what the main point is, is that maybe we have been gaming since we were kids but the only reason we're any good at games and you might not be - is because we didn't quit. You're not a quitter right? You can't work out what millions of children can? Okay then. Hand me the controller back or fuck off because one thing is for sure - it's the future.
Okay, so Uncharted 2 isn't going to start a revolution, but it's definitely part of one. It combines the best thing about all these popular types of medium and puts YOU in the driving seat. I'm a big fan of films (as you can probably see) but games transcend films and will start to absorb the medium until in the end, people will rather play games than watch films. It is in essence a 12 hour film (average these days) that allows you enough breathing space to evolve characters, play different set pieces and constantly be entertained. There's enough good games out now that you won't be wasting your time with fluff. Recently, if you're game isn't of the highest quality, it will be shelved rather quickly which cuts out the fat - something Hollywood will never be able to do. It also is more of an investment, you get a lot more bang for your buck. But I am going off on a total tangent here and so will hark back to Uncharted. But let me put it this way, I hate having to explain myself for why I like to be a gamer. There's a reason why games like Grand Theft Auto, Call of Duty etc. beat Hollywood films by huge margins (yes even "Avatar" - which in 2D looks JUST like a computer game anyway), and if you can't figure it out. Well, fuck off.
UNCHARTED 2! So ... the story is great - I'm not sure if it beats the story of the first game which I did love. But it does surpass it in every other area. The characters are so well-rounded and clearly important to the producers that it pays off hugely. It has raised the standard of game acting set by the first Uncharted (but could be beaten perhaps by Heavy Rain in the next couple of weeks?) and the control system is smooth, rarely without glitches. Though the odd hugging of a wall for cover can prove annoying when you're on the wrong side getting shot at.
I also don't like the way all the enemies, though there are different ones, essentially take 1 of about 5 or 6 different forms. It feels like they are all brothers or something. The puzzles are complex enough to have you guessing, but simple enough that you won't be stressing too much, you even get a hint if you're taking too long. The hanging off cliffs and finding your way round obstacles plays so fluidly and easily that when you do get to where you're going, you do feel truly satisfied for having figured it out. The game engine also blends into the cut scenes seamlessly and looks incredible - any game that can do that deserves respect.
So gameplay 'check', characters 'check', graphics 'check', story 'check' - it all falls into place. So what's missing? To be honest, not much. It was an adequate length full of different scenarios that would make any action film pale in comparison. The camera-work (yes there is such a thing) was very inventive - at one point it seems like you're looking at Drake from behind a boulder on the other side of a mountain, until it moves and you see it's some form of creature. Whoa!
Everything about this game is nigh-on-perfect. The only criticism might be is that it's greatest achievement is also it's greatest downfall. It feels like it wants to be a film so badly sometimes that you'd rather it keep to being a game as it also picks up flaws of most action films. The twist in the beginning is rather obvious, it feels like it jumps around the globe somewhat for the sake of it and there's even the big bad bald guy with scars, the hot femme fatale etc. and it plays into a box sometimes a bit too much. Also, where the hell is Sully through most of this?!
There is also the multiplayer, which is ... okay. It's not exactly going to see off COD or anything but it does work in some weird way. It's something to work on at least for the next one. There's also not much replay value unless you want to get ALL the artifacts. Which is a bit obsessive.
So overall, if you don't have a PS3 you should get one, even if it's just for this it'll be worth it. It is an experience you won't get from any film, book or TV show. It got IGN's game of the year last year (a very high accolade) because it's sheer innovation and blatant love for the game from it's producers make it an enjoyable experience for one and all. Except for those who don't want to try something new. Idiots.

Rating: 9/10

The Wolfman

What seems like a cursed film put through many re-shoots and changes, it might have made more of a monster than the Wolfman himself!

Ah! Valentine's Day! And what better way to spend time with a loved one than sat in a cinema watching a good ol' scary movie. I was a bit dubious at first seeing as the reviews were bad, and The News Of The World gave it 8/10. Not a good start. But I held judgement until it started.
I'd already heard about the whole saga in creating this film and the trailer looked a bit ... weird. There was also the fact that The Wolfman himself, as you can see from the pic looks a bit, well, shit.
Now, where do I start? The story's 'twist' is a bit predictable and the whole film feels a bit lost. The general Gothic darkness of it all is impressive, it does look like it should be an old Hammer horror or something, but this can't really compensate for the fact that it is flawed in so many other areas.
Firstly, Del Toro feels like he is completely not bothered about the character. He's broody, but that's about it. He's also quite fat. Emily Blunt does her bit as a caring damsel but she keeps leaving and coming back and it's all a bit much. Do they really love each other? They only really share a couple of 'romantic' scenes and there's not any spark between them I could see. Hopkins does okay, his classic old wise man persona he has given in Dracula, Zorro, Beowulf etc. gets another outing and to be honest, it was quite enjoyable. Hugo Weaving is not used as much as I would have liked, as his character was a completely 2D Victorian copper. The other 'characters' (Priest/Local drunk/Gypsy woman/Doctor whatever) are absolutely abysmal and the way they all share the Wolfman story in the pub was embarrassing to watch. It felt like that shit pub scene in Lesbian Vampire Killers.
So how about the Wolfman himself? A CG nightmare and his hairy face does hark back to the 20's, 30s Werewolf films, but they could have done something more inventive. It also seems to take a while before you get any Del Toro as a werewolf based action. Throughout the film, he only turns about 3 or 4 times.
The whole story just runs from one scenario to the other with the only real 'fear' coming from the fact it is very, very jumpy. If you don't like to jump in films, don't bother. The gore is good, and is another saving grace. But things like the howling were awkward, the CG-ness looked dated and it all felt a bit wasted.
The idea of a werewolf is the hidden human desire to kill, a regression back to our primitive state but it seems to be more to do with his obsession with his father. Which could work, 'a father's sins ...' etc., but instead of concentrating on how similar they are, that how he hates him but is exactly like him, it instead just turns into some kind of rivalry to do with his mother, and not in an oedipal way either.
There just isn't enough to make it worth while, it all feels like a bit of a mess. Like everyone had the best intentions but just couldn't pull it off. If you're gonna watch it, watch it for the gore, you can see it on your TV - doesn't have to be cinema and whatever you do, don't get scared. Because you won't be.

Rating: 5/10

The Shield : Season 1

It must be tough living in the shadow of a beast. You could be The Thing for instance, but you're not Hulk, which is quite apt for Fantastic Four star Michael Chiklis who played the former (see what I did there?). He also plays The Shield's main tough guy, Vic Mackey, but has to live with the fact that he will never be McNulty, or in fact never be able to touch the golden heights The Wire has received.
I should say first and foremost, I've been a fan of The Wire for a while. I was the annoying guy at work telling everyone about it who no-one listened to, and then once they read that it was good in a paper, or by Charlie Brooker, they decided to come back to me telling me how great it was. "Umm... I was talking to you about it last year?" But enough I told you so's because this is about the first series of The Shield.
Now, the thing is, people find it hard to get into The Wire because of the language, the slow-burn and the strange non-intrusive camera-work - which is really also it's main appeal. But I'm just going to put this out there - The Wire is really good, but it isn't the BEST series EVER on TV. I mean, come on, really? All in all, I'd say Soprano's wins that award for me right now. My mate Si argues that Sopranos wasn't consistent enough, and he's correct, but the highs of Sopranos, for me, outdo the highs The Wire gave me. I also don't like it when I'm enjoying my ride in a car and everyone piles in - also known as 'jumping on the bandwagon'. Because that's exactly what Joe Public are doing. Overall, I loved The Wire - it was a great series, very complex, thorough and a great work of character study. It was what people say, a novel on TV.
But can't I just read a novel for that? (Homicide?)
And this is where The Shield comes in. It's PURE television. From the first scene you know what you're getting, you're excited about what's happening and the characters are bloody great. Okay, they don't have the near-Shakespearean depths of The Wire, but you know what? Sometimes I don't want that ("Why am I always drunk?" "I have so much paperwork to do instead of doing some good ol' fashioned po-lice work!" "Ain't politics a bitch!" "Sheeeeet") I want to see some fucking crooked cop, beat up the bad guy, steal his money, then hand him over to a rival gang. Fuck yeah! The Shield gives this-a-plenty, but it's more than that. Much more ...
The Shield, like Sopranos, doesn't hold back. Kiddy porn, serial murders, race wars and more all crop up in the first series and the whole police squad is trying to keep it together even when by the end, the actual police station is getting shot up!
In the middle of all this is Vic, a strong tough family man, who is a crooked cop that makes the rules work his way. He might have a clear moral code in who deserves what, but what becomes apparent throughout the series, especially at the end, is that he'll do anything to survive and puts more than his life on the line. Following him is his team, who will clearly do anything for him, and rightly so - Vic will have their backs no matter what. They are a tight brotherhood and no matter what they might do wrong, Vic will look after them in an almost paternal way. Bless his heart.
They even have a political 'clever' story as the new Captain tries to make steps towards being a mayor and realises the path is just as crooked as Vic, and the two of them might clash sometimes, but you know they're both fighting the good fight - and that's what it's about. Vic might be a despicable, undisciplined maniac, but that's what we love him for. You don't fuck with him. Ever. You also know he's always thinking and the tangled webs he weaves are like watching a work of art. How will he worm his way out of this one? I can't wait to find out!
Other side characters like Dutch, Danny etc. also give the series it's staying power. You like these guys, you want to know what happens next, you feel for them. They might do some things wrong but hey, they're human. Each episode might work as a stand-alone story, but the overall arc is great and it really picks up the pace at the end.
But critics are right, it's not The Wire, but I'd say it's as good as The Wire but in a completely different way. It's NOT a poor man's version. It's just different. And thank fuck for that because I don't want to see another Wire, that would just be bloody lame.
If you hear people saying they'd rather watch another cop show, let them and keep schtum. Otherwise, The Shield might turn into the BEST TV programme EVER and it'll be ruined for everyone. Do yourself a favour and get ready for some bad cop trying to clean up the streets - HIS way - BOO YEAH!

Rating: 8/10

Up In The Air

George Clooney's latest film has been getting awards all over the shop. But does it live up to the hype?
Once I finished watching this film, I was slightly confused. Not by the story - it makes sense, but by what I had actually watched. It seems like it should be a rom-com - but it's not, it looks slightly 'alt-indie' - but it's not, instead it's a film about ... love? I think? Relationships?
Clooney essentially plays the part of his media persona. He's a charming man who refuses to settle down with a lady, or at all, and essentially the film is about him reaching out to others. His job is to fire people, a job that requires a certain lack of sympathy, but it doesn't really spill into his personal life. He's quite a warm, gentle guy - so all his motivational talk about life being better off by yourself seems slightly unlikely. Especially since he falls for a woman of a similar nature while he looks after a young aspiring work colleague - essentially the reason why he changes.
Farmiga as the love interest works well but it seems like she's aged since I saw her last (which was "Orphan" last year) and she does her bit well but essentially, there's not much to her character. Anna Kendrick does well as the young, naive but lovable suit but there's nothing particuarly amazing about her character. McBride and Bateman are completely wasted in their tiny roles and it just felt a bit like it was some kind of mutant of an indie comedy trying to be mainstream. The directing was actually impressive, Reitman can find interesting angles in quite mundane environments but the real let-down is Clooney's character. Though he's somewhat interesting, he doesn't really learn anything by the end and I don't really feel sorry for him. Instead I kept thinking 'seems like a good life' - he doesn't want a partner and really, I still think he won't ever need one.
Is this Oscar worthy? Not really. It's alright and worth a watch, it was an enjoyable couple of hours, but it was mainly to watch Clooney do his thing - which is to be watchable.
Rating: 7/10

The Human Centipede - Sickest Film EVER?

So as I was out last night with some old Uni pals, my good friend Nick let me in to something he found on the internet about a film concerned with a human centipede. At first, I didn't believe him - until I saw it for myself. As anyone who knows me will testify, the last film that made me feel like this was French film "Martyrs" which disturbed me for a while and even every now and then crops up in my head. Though it's redeeming factor for the fact that it's a tough watch (and will probably only watch it the once) is that it was actually a really good film. Though I doubt "The Human Centipede" will be. After being kidnapped, we see three girls who's mouths are now connected to the arseholes of the one in front of them, creating essentially a human centipede. Want to see more? Here's some pics and for those who want to see something in action, follow the link here!

Oscar Nominations 2010

You have all probably heard the list but The Wild Bore is going to tell you his hot tips and why:

Actor in a Leading Role

• Jeff Bridges in “Crazy Heart”
• George Clooney in “Up in the Air”
• Colin Firth in “A Single Man”
• Morgan Freeman in “Invictus”
• Jeremy Renner in “The Hurt Locker”

Bridges has already won awards for this part but Clooney is the Oscar poster boy. Freeman might have the political edge but let's be honest, Morgan Freeman only ever plays Morgan Freeman. Jeremy Renner and Colin Firth are the outside bets but, even though I haven't seen Crazy Heart, I'm going to risk it by saying Jeff Bridges. His long standing acting career means he's earned it.

Actor in a Supporting Role

• Matt Damon in “Invictus”
• Woody Harrelson in “The Messenger”
• Christopher Plummer in “The Last Station”
• Stanley Tucci in “The Lovely Bones”
• Christoph Waltz in “Inglourious Basterds”

This is one of the harder categories to predict as all performances are great. I'd be surprised if Damon gets it and it would be amazing if Woody bags the piece but my money's on Christoph Waltz and I would say it will probably be the only important Oscar Inglorious Basterds will win on the night.

Actress in a Leading Role

• Sandra Bullock in “The Blind Side”
• Helen Mirren in “The Last Station”
• Carey Mulligan in “An Education”
• Gabourey Sidibe in “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire”
• Meryl Streep in “Julie & Julia”

This one is tougher to call since I have not yet seen any of these films! Helen Mirren won an Oscar not too long ago, Mulligan might be too new on the scene, Streep has done more deserving parts in the past (another notch on her most Oscar nominations EVER record) and seeing as The Blind Side is a drama for usual Rom-Com Bullock (okay okay there was ultra-serious Crash), she might just get it this year. It will probably be her only one. Ever.

Actress in a Supporting Role

• Penélope Cruz in “Nine”
• Vera Farmiga in “Up in the Air”
• Maggie Gyllenhaal in “Crazy Heart”
• Anna Kendrick in “Up in the Air”
• Mo’Nique in “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire”

Once again, this might seem redundant as I haven't seen these films as of yet but I'm gonna have a go anyway. Cruz stands a fair chance in the disappointing Nine (according to other critics) but everybody keeps banging on about Mo'Nique, so she might just get it this year but really it will be for Precious as an entire film.

Animated Feature Film

• “Coraline” Henry Selick
• “Fantastic Mr. Fox” Wes Anderson
• “The Princess and the Frog” John Musker and Ron Clements
• “The Secret of Kells” Tomm Moore
• “Up” Pete Docter

This was a good year for animation - from the creepy movements of "Fantastic Mr. Fox" to old school Disney "Princess and The Frog" to classic Pixar "Up" and 3D extravaganza "Coraline". OK, "Up" was also 3D but Coraline did it better and was filmed for the purpose of being in 3D - it was the first animation to do so. As a result, I'd be bitterly disappointed if Pixar takes it home again this year as I didn't think that it was that good - to be fair this year I preferred the post-apocalyptic "9". I think "Fantastic Mr Fox" might win it for it's artistic credibility by being a Wes Anderson film, but I would like to see Coraline go home with it this year, sadly I doubt this will be the case.

Art Direction

• “Avatar” Art Direction: Rick Carter and Robert Stromberg; Set Decoration: Kim Sinclair
• “The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus” Art Direction: Dave Warren and Anastasia Masaro; Set Decoration: Caroline Smith
• “Nine” Art Direction: John Myhre; Set Decoration: Gordon Sim
• “Sherlock Holmes” Art Direction: Sarah Greenwood; Set Decoration: Katie Spencer
• “The Young Victoria” Art Direction: Patrice Vermette; Set Decoration: Maggie Gray

I have no idea on this one. I would probably say "Avatar" might win this seeing as it's a pure visceral experience and would have taken a lot of work to do.

Cinematography

• “Avatar” Mauro Fiore
• “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” Bruno Delbonnel
• “The Hurt Locker” Barry Ackroyd
• “Inglourious Basterds” Robert Richardson
• “The White Ribbon” Christian Berger

I'd be surprised if "Avatar" gets this and "Harry Potter" wasn't exactly wowing you with it's cinematography so why it's here is probably just a nod to the film. I'd say this will go to "White Ribbon" for it's black and white, old-fashioned feel. I always say if you can take any clip of a film and use it as a photo, the cinematography is world class. This rule applies.

Costume Design

• “Bright Star” Janet Patterson
• “Coco before Chanel” Catherine Leterrier
• “The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus” Monique Prudhomme
• “Nine” Colleen Atwood
• “The Young Victoria” Sandy Powell

Who cares? "Young Victoria" cos it's period innit. Or "Chanel" cos it's fashion innit.

Directing

• “Avatar” James Cameron
• “The Hurt Locker” Kathryn Bigelow
• “Inglourious Basterds” Quentin Tarantino
• “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire” Lee Daniels
• “Up in the Air” Jason Reitman

This is a tricky one. Cameron might get it, but I think it's really out of Tarantino and Bigelow. They might give it to QT for the simple fact that this might be the only film where he stands a chance of winning. But let's be honest, the film was a bit shit. My money is on Bigelow and she deserves it.

Documentary (Feature)

• “Burma VJ” Anders Østergaard and Lise Lense-Møller
• “The Cove” Nominees to be determined
• “Food, Inc.” Robert Kenner and Elise Pearlstein
• “The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers” Judith Ehrlich and Rick Goldsmith
• “Which Way Home” Rebecca Cammisa

I've not seen any of them, but I saw an advert for "Food Inc" so it probably means it'll win.

Documentary (Short Subject)

• “China’s Unnatural Disaster: The Tears of Sichuan Province” Jon Alpert and Matthew O’Neill
• “The Last Campaign of Governor Booth Gardner” Daniel Junge and Henry Ansbacher
• “The Last Truck: Closing of a GM Plant” Steven Bognar and Julia Reichert
• “Music by Prudence” Roger Ross Williams and Elinor Burkett
• “Rabbit à la Berlin” Bartek Konopka and Anna Wydra

What's the most relevant? The China thing? Let's go with that then.

Film Editing

• “Avatar” Stephen Rivkin, John Refoua and James Cameron
• “District 9” Julian Clarke
• “The Hurt Locker” Bob Murawski and Chris Innis
• “Inglourious Basterds” Sally Menke
• “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire” Joe Klotz

"District 9" should be the winner here, the way it blends seamlessly between different perspectives, the way the story can go from emotion to action in a heartbeat and more, it certainly should at least get one Oscar for it's efforts. Maybe this is it.

Foreign Language Film

• “Ajami” Israel
• “El Secreto de Sus Ojos” Argentina
• “The Milk of Sorrow” Peru
• “Un Prophète” France
• “The White Ribbon” Germany

I've come back recently from seeing "Un Prophete" and I did really enjoy it, but hearing from others that it was their film of the year - I don't think it quite lived up to that. But really I'd think it's between that and White Ribbon, and the French might just have pipped it.

Makeup

• “Il Divo” Aldo Signoretti and Vittorio Sodano
• “Star Trek” Barney Burman, Mindy Hall and Joel Harlow
• “The Young Victoria” Jon Henry Gordon and Jenny Shircore

Let's give it to Star Trek. Go on.

Music (Original Score)

• “Avatar” James Horner
• “Fantastic Mr. Fox” Alexandre Desplat
• “The Hurt Locker” Marco Beltrami and Buck Sanders
• “Sherlock Holmes” Hans Zimmer
• “Up” Michael Giacchino

I wasn't too fond of Zimmer's attempt this year with Holmes. He must have so many Oscars he could create a golden army for one thing, but it wasn't anything amazing. Instead I think "Up" had the right balance, and will probably get it this time.

Music (Original Song)

• “Almost There” from “The Princess and the Frog” Music and Lyric by Randy Newman
• “Down in New Orleans” from “The Princess and the Frog” Music and Lyric by Randy Newman
• “Loin de Paname” from “Paris 36” Music by Reinhardt Wagner Lyric by Frank Thomas
• “Take It All” from “Nine” Music and Lyric by Maury Yeston
• “The Weary Kind (Theme from Crazy Heart)” from “Crazy Heart” Music and Lyric by Ryan Bingham and T Bone Burnett

Please not Randy Newman. Give it to Crazy Heart.

Best Picture

• “Avatar” James Cameron and Jon Landau, Producers
• “The Blind Side” Nominees to be determined
• “District 9” Peter Jackson and Carolynne Cunningham, Producers
• “An Education” Finola Dwyer and Amanda Posey, Producers
• “The Hurt Locker” Nominees to be determined
• “Inglourious Basterds” Lawrence Bender, Producer
• “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire” Lee Daniels, Sarah Siegel-Magness and Gary Magness, Producers
• “A Serious Man” Joel Coen and Ethan Coen, Producers
• “Up” Jonas Rivera, Producer
• “Up in the Air” Daniel Dubiecki, Ivan Reitman and Jason Reitman, Producers

The big one. Films it will not go to is "District 9" (imagine if it did! Would be amazing!), "Inglorious Basterds", "A Serious Man" and "Up". They just won't. Really, it's between "Avatar", "The Hurt Locker" and "Up In The Air" I think. It's quite a conundrum, do the Academy go for the sheer spectacle, technological achievement, next-step-in-cinema "Avatar"? Or the real work of art as a film which is "The Hurt Locker". I go with the former, even though the latter should win. It was overall, a better film. And had no blue people.

Short Film (Animated)

• “French Roast” Fabrice O. Joubert
• “Granny O’Grimm’s Sleeping Beauty” Nicky Phelan and Darragh O’Connell
• “The Lady and the Reaper (La Dama y la Muerte)” Javier Recio Gracia
• “Logorama” Nicolas Schmerkin
• “A Matter of Loaf and Death” Nick Park

Not seen any of them, Nick Park then?

Short Film (Live Action)

• “The Door” Juanita Wilson and James Flynn
• “Instead of Abracadabra” Patrik Eklund and Mathias Fjellström
• “Kavi” Gregg Helvey
• “Miracle Fish” Luke Doolan and Drew Bailey
• “The New Tenants” Joachim Back and Tivi Magnusson

"The Door" sounds like "The Doors" - so that one.

Sound Editing

• “Avatar” Christopher Boyes and Gwendolyn Yates Whittle
• “The Hurt Locker” Paul N.J. Ottosson
• “Inglourious Basterds” Wylie Stateman
• “Star Trek” Mark Stoeckinger and Alan Rankin
• “Up” Michael Silvers and Tom Myers

Sound Mixing

• “Avatar” Christopher Boyes, Gary Summers, Andy Nelson and Tony Johnson
• “The Hurt Locker” Paul N.J. Ottosson and Ray Beckett
• “Inglourious Basterds” Michael Minkler, Tony Lamberti and Mark Ulano
• “Star Trek” Anna Behlmer, Andy Nelson and Peter J. Devlin
• “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” Greg P. Russell, Gary Summers and Geoffrey Patterson

No-one cares about these. So I'm going to say "Up" and "The Hurt Locker".

Visual Effects

• “Avatar” Joe Letteri, Stephen Rosenbaum, Richard Baneham and Andrew R. Jones
• “District 9” Dan Kaufman, Peter Muyzers, Robert Habros and Matt Aitken
• “Star Trek” Roger Guyett, Russell Earl, Paul Kavanagh and Burt Dalton

Avatar.

Writing (Adapted Screenplay)

• “District 9” Written by Neill Blomkamp and Terri Tatchell
• “An Education” Screenplay by Nick Hornby
• “In the Loop” Screenplay by Jesse Armstrong, Simon Blackwell, Armando Iannucci, Tony Roche
• “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire” Screenplay by Geoffrey Fletcher
• “Up in the Air” Screenplay by Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner

What is people's deal with "In The Loop"? It. Was. Shit. Did you see "The Thick Of It"? Just as shit. It's for people who think it's intellectual and funny. It's not. After all, isn't the sweary Scottish guy the 'funniest'? And he's more base than anyone. Politics might be a funny business, but it's not really. Sit and listen to the actual jokes. They are shit. So they add some swearing and Tony Soprano. Watch it by all means, but if anyone tells you it's 'sooooo funny', they are so far up their own arse they can chew on their own idiotic brains. If you argue it and they say 'oh you probably just don't get it' - you do get it - and it's shit. So just kill them to clean the gene pool a bit.
Oh so best Adapted Screenplay? "Precious"

Writing (Original Screenplay)

• “The Hurt Locker” Written by Mark Boal
• “Inglourious Basterds” Written by Quentin Tarantino
• “The Messenger” Written by Alessandro Camon & Oren Moverman
• “A Serious Man” Written by Joel Coen & Ethan Coen
• “Up” Screenplay by Bob Peterson, Pete Docter, Story by Pete Docter, Bob Peterson, Tom McCarthy

This will be given to the Coen's for an okayish comedy about being Jewish etc., oh how risky! But really it should go to "Hurt Locker" again. Give it everything.

So, to summarise, The Wild Bore's predicitions for 2010 Oscars (not necessarily what he wants to win) are:

Actor in a Leading Role

Jeff Bridges in “Crazy Heart”

Actor in a Supporting Role

Christoph Waltz in “Inglourious Basterds”

Actress in a Leading Role

Sandra Bullock in “The Blind Side”

Actress in a Supporting Role

Mo’Nique in “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire”

Animated Feature Film

“Fantastic Mr. Fox” Wes Anderson

Art Direction

“Avatar” Art Direction: Rick Carter and Robert Stromberg; Set Decoration: Kim Sinclair

Cinematography

“The White Ribbon” Christian Berger

Costume Design

“The Young Victoria” Sandy Powell

Directing

“The Hurt Locker” Kathryn Bigelow

Documentary (Feature)

“Food, Inc.” Robert Kenner and Elise Pearlstein

Documentary (Short Subject)

“China’s Unnatural Disaster: The Tears of Sichuan Province” Jon Alpert and Matthew O’Neill

Film Editing

“District 9” Julian Clarke

Foreign Language Film

“Un Prophète” France

Makeup

“Star Trek” Barney Burman, Mindy Hall and Joel Harlow

Music (Original Score)

“Up” Michael Giacchino

Music (Original Song)

“The Weary Kind (Theme from Crazy Heart)” from “Crazy Heart” Music and Lyric by Ryan Bingham and T Bone Burnett

Best Picture

“The Hurt Locker” Nominees to be determined

Short Film (Animated)

“A Matter of Loaf and Death” Nick Park

Short Film (Live Action)

“The Door” Juanita Wilson and James Flynn

Sound Editing

“Up” Michael Silvers and Tom Myers

Sound Mixing

“The Hurt Locker” Paul N.J. Ottosson and Ray Beckett

Visual Effects

“Avatar” Joe Letteri, Stephen Rosenbaum, Richard Baneham and Andrew R. Jones

Writing (Adapted Screenplay)

“Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire” Screenplay by Geoffrey Fletcher

Writing (Original Screenplay)

“A Serious Man” Written by Joel Coen & Ethan Coen

Assassin's Creed II

This open world action/adventure game is set within Renaissance Italy. You take on the role of Ezio as he makes his way from street fighter to assassin extraordinaire and killing a great many people along the way. A sure fire hit? Pretty much!
For anyone who played the first installment, or even if you haven't, the twist which appears right at the beginning of the game is that this isn't set in the past - but actually set in the future. In a weird post-modern way, you are taking control of a character called Desmond, who is actually taking control of Altair/Ezio. The device they use is almost a futuristic virtual reality console itself where a company, or what you find out to be the Templars, are trying to find the Pieces of Eden through a representation of the genetic bloodline belonging to Desmond and his subsequent assassin ancestors. Don't worry, it will make sense.
Picking up straight after the events from the first one, you have to escape the building and then you meet ... Danny Wallace?! Oh dear, he is by far the worst thing about the game. They even made the character look like him! Not a good start...

VISUALS
Once the action starts, the world Ezio is in is as corrupted as it is beautiful. You can tell the people behind this worked painstakingly on making the cities look incredible, and it definitely pays off. The problem is once the camera comes in for a close up, it starts to look a bit shoddy. The hair and facial movements look clunky and you'd rather see a cut-scene video rather than one using the game engine. However, this is just a tiny flaw in a visually exquisite piece. The whole game looks like a work of art itself and, even once completing the game, I still find time to go back and venture through the city's streets.
But how does it play?

GAMEPLAY
What I found annoying about the first game is I often ended up jumping around in directions I didn't want to which sometimes led to my death - this has definitely been improved. They have thought about every movement you could possibly make in the surrounding environment and it has never been so fun and yet so easy. The free running is amazing and you can now jump up further and even swim. The fighting feels fluid and you have a huge arsenal at your disposal, even including a pistol. However, except for the hidden blades, I rarely used anything but the sword for combat, probably because it looks cooler. The strafing, dodging and counter-attacking becomes an art you quickly learn and the upgradeable weapons and armour only serve to make you more powerful as you progress. Some people got excited by the flying apparatus and carriages, but the flying machine is used only once in a mission - as is the carriage, which is annoying. I don't think it would have taken much to unlock them as a playable means of transport. The boats down the canal of Venice might also be a nice touch but it's so achingly slow I'd rather swim. But if you wish to travel further, luckily there's a Fast Travel service that allows you to automatically travel to the other cities if you don't fancy going by horse. Nice touch.

WHAT'S IN A GAME?
So what happens when you play? Most people's criticism of the first game was that it was the same thing again and again - just offing a bunch of people one by one. Well Ubisoft have fixed this by mixing things up by including carnival games, races, freeing prisoners and other such alternative missions than just assassinating people. This gives the game a broader more satisfying feeling that pushes the story forward as well as keeping you interested. Of course there's the side missions you can do - courier services, beating up cheating husbands, trying to find all the treasure chests, finding all the 100 feathers or, which is the most interesting aspect, going through dead assassin's tombs in a complex puzzle-ridden fashion to retrieve a disc that, once all are gained, unlocks Altair's armour which makes you look F-ING COOL!
You can also try to retrieve codex pages (you'll have to get all of them at some point to complete the game) which, if you give to Leonardo Da Vinci (who has a surprisingly big part in the game) will update your hidden blade and increase your maximum health. Da Vinci might sound like a poor way to purposefully shove history into entertainment, but his character works well within the confines of the game and has an extremely likeable quality. He's basically your best mate throughout what must be a lonely existence for an assassin.
If you like your games more Splinter Cell then instead of going into battle guns-a-blazing, you can hire thieves, prostitutes or blend into crowds to avoid detection, and if you become 'notorious'? You can rip down wanted posters or bribe heralds. There's always a way!
You are also able to invest your money into the upkeep of a little city centred around your Uncle's villa, which will give you money every so often that you can re-invest, or spend on items and weapons or to even dye your clothes. These details give the game a depth the first one didn't even come close to. Ubisoft have clearly listened to what everyone had to say.

CONCLUSION
The voice acting is top class and the story also feels captivating enough to keep you interested instead going to and from the 'future', an annoying detail from the first game. The difficulty may be too easy at times, (the final boss is absurdly easier) but the game has a good 12 hours on it and has a 'Lord Of The Rings'-esque multiple ending syndrome. All in all, the game feels varied and detailed enough to keep you playing long after you've completed it, and though there's no multiplayer online option (which a lot of games are including these days), it would probably feel more pushed in. What with new levels already available to download, the longevity is instead infinite in that the world will always be there for you to venture through. Fancy a holiday being a highly trained killer in the beautiful provinces of Italy? Pop in that disc.

Rating: 9/10