Unstoppable

Tony Scott and Denzel Washington are back with yet another 'thriller' as an unmanned train is running along the tracks. Not exactly Trainspotting...

Why, oh why, oh why do I even bother going to see a Tony Scott film, they are unbelievably awful. The camera is all over the place, making me feel sick, his focus pulling, sweeping shots, intense close-ups and shaky-cam look unprofessional to say the least. This whole effort to create action through a flimsy script by making the audience feel like they are on a rollercoaster is, in essence, playing on people's stupidity. By drawing their attention away from what matters, it's like dealing with a thick child who has fallen over; he's so taken away with a cuddly toy that he forgets that his knee is bleeding everywhere - and watching this film was definitely painful.

The journey to even get this film made was painful. The overrated diva that is Denzel Washington refused to have his $20 million salary cut holding up production. Tony Scott even got his pay cut to $4 million, though God knows who would pay him so much. It's a recession remember? The entire budget for the film was $90 million, so you can see how much of that was spent on Denzel's pulling power. Finally the film got made and is 'inspired by true events'. This statement always makes me laugh. Isn't every creation inspired by true events? Based on true events is something different (and usually a lie in films anyway) but 'inspired' by true events? You could say that about a diary of birdwatching - which would probably be more interesting than this film.

In any case, a train is left accelerating by accident without anyone driving it and it's left to Washington and Pine to save the day. Denzel plays his classic 'everyday' hero role that he usually does, especially in Tony Scott films, and Chris Pine tries to keep some integrity in the film by giving off a clearly angry young man on his first day on the job. How unlucky for him then. There's some lacklustre back story which is to fill in the gaps where trains are moving because, as every commuter knows, train journeys are usually very boring. The two bond and it's supposed to show a coming together of generations, and a somewhat meagre attempt at how people are losing their jobs, which Denzel can obviously sympathise with seeing as they were unfairly offering him only $16 million - the cheap bastards, no wonder he was threatening to pull out.

They film the train like it's a monster on the rampage when it seems to be going at different speeds from shot to shot. It needs to be stopped before it goes round a rather nasty bend which is inconveniently located above a bunch of fuel tanks and is carrying a load of flammable liquid as well. Not ideal then - who decided to put the train track there? So yeah, they have to stop a train. When I came out, some people were saying how great it was and that it was 'just like that programme 24' - so I guess there's always a market - for idiots - who probably don't watch 24 anyway. I was also annoyed I lost a button on my coat which got caught on the drinks holder as I stood up. That didn't help.

There's some explosions and it has Rosario Dawson in it as a dressed down stressed out worker, but she's still hot - and for the ladies Chris Pine has his shirt off at the beginning of the film so maybe watch it for that and then leave. I would rather have not gone and then I'd still have that button. Stop the Unstoppable and just don't watch this film. It's shit.

Rating: 2/10

Paranormal Activity 2

Surfing on the popularity of the first one, this sequel - but actually this prequel - to the events of the first one tries it's best to deliver the same scares with lame results.

For those who have not yet seen the first Paranormal Activity, you're missing a real treat. Released in 2007 the film was shown around festival circuits to great acclaim, the cast was essentially two people, it was shot in the directors house and used very simple techniques to great effect. In fact, I would go as far as saying it's really a masterclass in film-making.

This might seem far-fetched but it's so clever in it's execution that any budding auteur ought to take note. Firstly, the narrative is simple and the 'monster' is really a metaphor for the relationship between Micah and Katie. The film also relies on your imagination to create fear, you're actually subconsciously interacting with the film, it's framing makes you look in places that you wouldn't normally find interesting, in fact you're looking for something in the shadows. It's open doors invokes a Hopper-esque sense of desperation and mystery with the depth of the image playing an important part in creating the tension. That's the real killer, the tension, there's more tension than anything Hitchcock could have done, and I don't say this lightly. You know watching every diary insert that you're about to see something and it's gradual development from an opening door, a light switching on to a more violent intrusive force makes every night shot more and more unbearable. It plays on the post-9/11 paranoia and terrorism-at-home American sensibility (which in fact is joked about in the sequel). Not only all this, but the sound, the simple effects and the 'possession' (a brainwashing of sorts) all create this horrible yet thoroughly enjoyable 90 minutes of the fear of the unknown and no matter what anyone says, if you're at home by yourself at night you can freak yourself out by just thinking about it.

However, once Spielberg got a hold of it and wanted to release it internationally, he wanted to do different scenes and a different ending. Therefore, if you went to see this on the cinema or saw this on DVD recently, chances are it's Spielberg's monster that you saw. I would thoroughly recommend viewing the original, or at least watching the different endings on YouTube because the original ending is a million times better. Anyhow, it's the re-released 2009 version that this prequel draws from, which is important.

This might sound like a long-winded approach to dealing with the second film, but it's very important to make people aware of these issues because the problem with the second one is that it recreates, to a much less effect, almost exactly the same as what happens in the first one. The deal is Katie's sister has just had a baby boy with her new family she's married into, after a while things start going bump in the night as the monster tries to claim baby Hunter.

The problem is (and here's a SPOILER if you haven't seen the first one) you know you're not going to see the monster harassing them because of the first one. So every noise, every opening and shutting door is just stuff that you've seen before so you don't find it scary, instead you're waiting for the more hardcore stuff. However, all this ghoulish foreplay takes up about 70 minutes of the 90 minute film and there is a LOT of watching nothing, but you're watching it knowing not to look out for anything because you know you won't see anything. The idea of the baby being harassed yet guarded by a brave dog is a good one that doesn't get interesting until near the end and, unlike the original first one (not the remake), they get hassled during the daytime and the night-time. But it's everything we've seen before, dragging them away, opening doors and a ridiculous pool cleaner that keeps turning up outside of the pool (a machine not a man). However, there's something going on in the basement which I thought could turn into something interesting but instead becomes a REC wannabe that wasn't scary at all. Katie's sister becomes possessed and she is completely lame and the whole thing lacks all the originality, all the fear, tension and mystery that the first one thrived on. In fact, it was what made the first one any good, so if you take that away you're just watching people doing nothing and getting scared about tiny things.

The company have also not released the details of the cast which is trying to keep to the 'real' element of the first one (when it obviously cannot be real) as we know full well, with enough interviews, promotions etc. that it wasn't real. Why try and recreate the Blair Witch effect the first one had? 'Found footage'. We're not idiots! Who would actually think this was real? The girl was in 24 for God's sake.

During the film they try to create more of a backstory and a 'why' to all the attacks but I don't want to know why. The whole point is it could happen potentially to anyone and even though the first one made it clear this stuff had happened to Katie before, that's all I needed to know, I don't want to know all the details of their family tree, of deals with the devil or whatever, MYSTERY remember? When it coincides with the first film it is completely crap and the ending made me want to throw something at the screen. It took everything that made the first one great and shat on it, in fact it might have potentially corrupted the experience of the first one for me by being so shit. I'll never want to watch this again, in fact I'm really angry about it.

Overall, there were a few good 'scares' and when I say a few, I mean like 2. But if you liked the first one and you want to run the risk that watching this could ruin the first film for you, then go ahead, but I thoroughly recommend you leave this film alone. However, if you haven't seen the first one and you want to check this out you might find it more enjoyable than I, so keeping that in mind I have to give it an extra mark as this could be a new experience for you; but I just cannot get away from the fact that Hollywood has again tried to suck something dry until it tastes rotten. Thank you Spielberg for fucking up another good film memory. Dickhead.

Rating: 3/10