REVIEW: Mission Impossible 4: Ghost Protocol

Tom Cruise is back in the latest explosive blockbuster, but is he getting on a bit? 


To any naysayers, I must say I really enjoyed Mission Impossible 3 and thought it was a real step forward for the franchise. This is a worthy sequel and with Abrams still on board as a producer, it is a gun-ho action packed piece of pure cinema to really get the blood pumping.

The story, much like many of this ilk, is inconsequential. Sawyer from Lost has been killed getting some nuclear codes from A to B or something. America and Russia are in another cold war and it's up to Tom Cruise to save the day. There are some great set pieces from around the world with all the whistles and stops that come from such a multimillion blockbuster and there's no doubt you get a lot of bang for your buck. Whether it's jumping out from a skyscraper, a chase scene in a sand storm, a prison escape or just the edge-of-your-seat tension of trying not to blow your cover (that's what she said), Mission Impossible 4 ticks all the right boxes. It must be said Cruise still gives it 110% effort and the results are really up there on the screen, his other cast members also make quite a good team all complimenting one another. Jeremy Renner impresses and shows that he can easily be the next Bourne, even Pegg didn't annoy me which is a first. The villains also might not be of Seymour-Hoffman calibre but still do some scene chewing.

Director Brad Bird has also done extremely well for someone who hasn't done a live action film before, his previous credits being in animation such as The Incredibles and working on The Simpsons for quite a while, and you can't fault his skill. However, the film did have a few issues. Namely, the pace isn't as high-paced as the last one, which might be ok but sometimes we don't need to see every tiny detail that happens with each mission. An example of how this worked before when in MI3 when they are in China, Cruise just suddenly jumps out of a skyscraper from above without the audience seeing anything at all of what happened before. It was a bold move and paid off, however MI4 just carries on the whole 'here's the mission, here's what we have to do, here is us doing it, here's where it's gone wrong, here's how we fixed it' and then kept to that formula about five times during the film. There were a few surprises but there was nothing that made me think it was taking chances, it was just pure spectacle. Which isn't a bad thing.

The added benefit was also that I watched it in IMAX which is always that bit better than seeing it on a normal cinema. There's nothing here that will change the world, but the action is top notch and it's definitely going to make the Bond franchise sit up and take notice again because on all accounts, Mission Impossible is in the lead. Overall, I'd give it an extra mark for IMAX mind-blowing visual candy, but as a film it is good but not great and you can't go wrong with hopping to the cinema to see it, you'll be thoroughly entertained.

Rating: 7/10

REVIEW: Drive

A film that people will talk about for years. Get in before it gets away.


There's a story somewhere about a woman who sued the distributors of this film for representing it like Fast & Furious and when it turned out to be something else she left disappointed enough to sue them. I can only hope they countersue and then instead of getting money, they take her eyes instead, or just take her out back and shoot her like a dog, because this has become one of my favourite movies of all time.

For those who don't know, Gosling plays a stunt car driver for the movies who works in a garage in the day and is a getaway driver at night. "What do you do?" "I drive." Once he bumps into his neighbour played by Carey Mulligan (a bit different from the Hispanic in the book) and her young son, he seems to take a liking to them. When the Dad comes back from prison, Gosling gets caught up in a situation he doesn't want to be in.

This is a film that not only resonates with women, but is for the modern man. Gosling takes care of himself, he doesn't smoke but instead chews on toothpicks, he's well groomed, moves as smooth as a snake - almost effeminately and isn't loutish. He's the strong, silent type and without a name, (he must say about fifty words the whole 90 minutes) and it draws comparisons with the Western genre, amongst obvious others. However, amongst all his charming ways and boyish good looks lies a sinister, animalistic dark side. It's that anger, frustration and sheer balls that lies behind every man - the need to do anything to protect the weak, the violent streak that we keep under control. What turns from an interesting love story goes to a Tarantino-like gangster caper but on a much smarter scale.

My initial thought was this was going to be like one of my favourite films from the Seventies called, funnily enough, Driver starring Ryan O'Neal and one of my favourite actors Bruce Dern. O'Neal playing a getaway driver who hates guns, who uses a car like it's attached as a limb. Drive shares these same values. Gosling handles a car like it's a walk down the street, he never needs to say much and oozes cool. He's the classic Noir anti-hero, blurred moral lines but a passion to do what's right. His conversation with the kid about sharks and knowing who the bad guy is sums his character up perfectly, just because someone seems bad and does bad things, does it make him a bad person? Aren't we all similar in that respect? We might not be kicking someone's face in to death in a lift, but then isn't it out of protection in any case? The scorpion on his back is a very apt simple, a symbol of evil and yet protection as well as a strong sexual image, an isolated creature that is deadly yet, when used for medicinal purposes, can also heal. It's an animal of contradictions, much like Gosling. Even his violent behaviour is like a scorpion, quick, sharp and with a sting. We don't know anything about the man, and neither do we need to, Gosling is able to provide such an atmosphere on screen that it keeps us on the edge of our seats.

That's not to take away from the peripheral characters, Carey Mulligan does an amazing job as doe-eyed, hard-working mum Irene and Bryan Cranston impresses as Shannon (though it reminded me a little too much of his character in Breaking Bad), but this is essentially Gosling's film, he eats up every scene like this was the role he was born for. There's no wasted dialogue, no scenes that don't work to the films favour and the story moves at a perfect pace.

The directing is beyond amazing. Refn paints the city in a beautiful light that would make even the likes of Michael Mann stand up and pay attention. His use of lighting, the texture of his shots, the depth and action scenes are expertly done, it's editing is unique and exciting and the soundtrack is mind-blowing. It gives the film an eighties, Blade Runner feel to it's modern day setting and every frame is like a picture. I only really knew Refn from Bronson, a film I thoroughly enjoyed and that introduced me to Tom Hardy, and the poorly received Valhalla Rising. However, his boldness itself to create atmosphere, chilling or otherwise is exceptional.

What also helps this is the score, a magnificent piece of work by Cliff Martinez and Bronson collaborator Johnny Jewel. The music has a French cool about it with a sinister undertone and at times a breathy female vocal that is transcending. It's not very often do I sit and listen to an entire score, proving how worth your time it is to listen to regardless of the film. Some scenes which would play out nicely in other films, such as when they are all eating diner together, have a sinister undercurrent dirge that plays throughout several scenes, invoking that evil side of Gosling that is hidden so well. It taps into your subconscious and plays with it.

Overall, this film is startling in every way. If you haven't seen it, then you'll really miss not being involved in conversations about it until the end of cinema. It really is that good.

Rating: 10/10

NEWS: The Thing Trailer Released

Oh dear. The remake of The Thing is on it's way and it looks pretty awful. This is supposed to be a prequel, but it's clearly set now and my only hope is that it might end with two uninfected guys trying to shoot a dog from a helicopter (which is how the original Thing kind of opens).
People forget that we don't want an 'origins' - I loved the idea in Carpenter's original that something has already happened, that we've jumped in halfway through an event. Why do we need something to ruin all that? Anyway, I'll probably watch it and hate it. I hate it already from this trailer which changes nothing except clearly has a worse story and looks more 'jumpy' rather than a slow-burn.
What's with all these paranoia based films? It's like McCarthy 'reds in the beds' all over again.

Does anyone remember the game either?

REVIEW: Burke & Hare

Why does John Landis do this to himself? He hasn't done a film since 1998's Susan's Plan and ... Blues Brothers 2000 - so where did it all go wrong? And why does it keep going wrong?

You would think with such a line-up as Tom Wilkinson, Simon Pegg, Andy Serkis, Isla Fischer, Tim Curry, Bill Bailey, Christopher Lee, Ronnie Corbett and more that it would have to go fairly wrong to be awful and it's the cast that really keep this atrocity afloat.

The story goes that Pegg and Serkis as Burke and Hare go around snatching bodies to sell them for science. But to raise income they start killing people to get their numbers up and Wilkinson's Dr. Knox is happy to receive them. At the same time, Pegg is falling for Fischer as she commits to her dream of putting on Macbeth at a local theatre. Soon enough the authorities, played wonderfully by Corbett, catch up to them.

The story is simple and the script very, very unfunny. That's not really much of a surprise since it comes from the guys who wrote St. Trinians and to be honest, it isn't much different in tone. The macabre arc completely jars with everything, they try so hard for the characters to be likeable yet slightly evil and selfish. It's a horrible mixture and a strange final redemption is too little too late and really brings you out of the film. There's also not much screen time or banter between Burke and Hare, especially as soon as Fischer gets involved and Burke's wife is played by Jessica Hynes who you can't help but feel sorry for as she keeps getting Pegg's handouts.

Pegg is the more innocent, starry eyed dreamer of the two which makes him the least interesting character of the whole piece. Serkis hardly gets a look in and it's a shame as he seems much more up for killing and is a lot more complex in a way that anything could be complex in this film. The whole thing about the play, which takes up a lot of screen-time, is that it keeps shifting the focus away and no matter how many cameos you throw in  (including the old guys from Trading Places), it's just getting in more buckets to stop a sinking ship of a movie. However, Wilkinson and Curry amongst others did lift the piece from the gutter on more than one occasion but I couldn't help but think my eyes were being dug out in a vain attempt to get access to my brain and make me become dumber until I started thinking that Paul Whitehouse falling down some stairs is really, really funny.

This was supposed to be Landis' big comeback but it felt like an annoying, humourless, stupid attempt to do something quite dark (they are serial killers after all) and put a fluffy edge to it. I found it to be a complete waste of time and because of the people involved and the money thrown at it - it makes me think that this should have been so much more. I wasn't that bored throughout the piece so I guess that's something, but this is lazy writing and acting and feels like someone has filmed a themed murder mystery and made a 90 minute feature about it.

Rating: 3/10

REVIEW: Never Let Me Go

Keira Knightley, Andrew Garfield and Carey Mulligan star in the adaptation of Kazuo Ishiguro’s novel of the same name. Is it the strange British sci-fi that is meant to sweep up the awards? No, it’s just “The Island” set in rural posh Britain. I think it’s time to let go…
It’s a strange film for director Mark Romanek to decide to make. Having had a history of making music videos, he branched out into features with “One Hour Photo” – which I adored and still enjoy watching having watched it again on my Sky Anytime last week. But what brought him to “Never Let Me Go”? The tale of three children living in some weird, parallel universe where humans are manufactured to donate their organs until ‘completion’ – otherwise known as dying – isn’t something you’d think Romanek would attach himself to and to be honest, he shouldn’t have.



Right from the off, the main problem I have here is I have no idea of the greater concept here. I enjoy tales about small lives in a changing world, whether it’s blockbusters like Spielberg’s War of the Worlds or Night of the Living Dead or The Road – the idea of putting normal people in extraordinary situations is an age-old popular trait. However, with Never Let Me Go the children in question aren’t ordinary and what is actually happening here is drip fed throughout the film in tiny tid-bits that aren’t enough to hold my interest. I want to know why humans are brought up to donate, what decision was behind this, why set it from 70’s to 90’s Britain, what other methods they have been doing, why the school was supposed to special? Everything is hinted on and even answered in some cases, but not to the extent or depth that I wanted. I’m not saying I want to be spoon fed information but I want to be given enough either from the start, or before certain events occur, that put the rest of the film and certain decisions into context.



Then again, I’m putting the film into literal terms. I’m sure there are deeper levels at work here that are probably more profound in the book, but instead they reveal themselves during the final scene as Carey Mulligan ponders death and love and it feels too little too late. I just can’t justify that this is an intelligent, creative film – instead it has been handled poorly and it’s just boring. The only thing that kept me going through it was trying to find out the reasons for all this cloning, donating and how it’s supposed to work in society but you only ever get the viewpoint of Carey Mulligan who has little or no interaction with the ‘outside’ world, whom I guess are just OK with this. Why haven’t they run away? Why are they obliged to donate? Why is it so good to ‘complete’? I wanted to know more and was left completely unsatisfied – I couldn’t give a toss about the love story, but they are guessing that you do – baring in mind the couple don’t get together until near the end and these characters are so detached from your sympathies by this point that the quiet, somber mood instead feels like indifference.

To it’s credit, a lot of the shots look great and the cinematography isn’t anything amazing, but it does border on impressive. Knightley is almost sufferable and Garfield is acting by the numbers, Mulligan fortunately holds the whole film together but even she fails to impress. The adult cast are only in half of the film and the children at the beginning make me want to bang my head against a wall – it’s their situation that intrigues me, not their characters. Everyone is just so wet the whole time – moaning and emotional, or emotionless, and you don’t really see much of Britain during this period save a café. The whole ‘art as an insight into your soul’ as proof of the human condition is so disgustingly blatant that it might as well be saying ‘art is about pretty pictures’. I hated everything about this film except the mediocre acting and the fact that they are brought up just for their organs rather than for humans – farmed if you will. The lame analogy of how their completion is just like our completion by spelling it out word for word is beyond patronising. If something is based on a book, it doesn’t mean it’s clever or should be considered as such. Like a clone, sometimes a terrible film can hide amongst the others and not get noticed.


I wouldn’t watch this film again and frustrating as it is, I have seen worse. It’s a complete disappointment and what I hate the most is that it has this appearance of being clever, moody and emotional when actually it’s catered for people who thought The Da Vinci Code was the best book they’ve ever read. People who don’t read basically. I don’t wish to sound like I think I’m better than others, but seeing as 40 million copies were sold, I’m better than 40 million people. Hey, I don’t make up the figures. I only hope it made people who hate reading go and buy some more books and then realise that Da Vinci Code was shit. I read Angels & Demons as well. Shit. But anyway, I’m going off track here …
If someone has read the book and feels it has done it a massive injustice then let me know but based upon this film, I’m going to steer clear of this book like it was Anthrax. If you love Knightley, she’s hardly in it, Garfield looks like his mind is elsewhere and you could spend 2 hours doing something better with your time rather than waste it on this. Huge disappointment but yet, such a good idea.
Except that The Island did it with Ewen McGregor and Scarlett Johansson. If Michael Bay has done a similar film better than yours – you know you’re in trouble.



Rating: 5/10

NEWS: First Look At New Spider-Man

Sony have released the first picture of Andrew Garfield in the new Spiderman movie. What do you think?

I still think it rather strange to reboot the franchise seeing as, although Spiderman 3 was crap, it still had legs and was leading on to other things. However, I imagine that since Raimi didn't want to do it anymore and Maguire was over it, they had to do something - so why not start again?

As you can see they've tried to give it a darker edge, a far cry from Raimi's initial Spiderman which was very bright and colourful. Instead, taking lessons from the hugely popular Batman reboot, it looks as if this will be a much more sinister affair. I'm just a bit worried that the original film is still too fresh, and it still stands up, and do people want to see time and time again how Peter Parker gets his powers? It's been done to death.

I'm also a bit worried about Rhys Ifans as Dr Curt Connors, but Martin Sheen and Sally Field as Uncle Ben and Aunt May are a good choice. Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy, Irrfan Khan as Proto Goblin (a big red beast that is a kind of experiment for Green Goblin), Denis Leary as Captain Stacy and Chris Zylka as Flash Thompson. Seeing as there is no talk of a Mary Jane then we're hoping that his less romantic, and more passionate, affair with Gwen can only be a good thing. Right? What does everyone think?

Tron: Legacy

After reviewing the Tron Legacy soundtrack and the Tron Evolution tie-in game, finally here is the review for Tron: Legacy - and it certainly is a Merry Christmas for one and all.


Before starting to delve into The Grid and it's inhabitants, I have to start by saying I've always been a huge Tron fan. As a kid, I would often pick up Tron again and again to watch over and over and has always had a special place in my heart, so when the initial concept footage for Tron 2 was released, you could imagine my excitement. Since then, I've been cautious not to get too over-excited. Sure the trailers look incredible, Daft Punk (whom I adore) were signed on to do the music, Jeff Bridges was going to do it, it was going to be 3D and also in IMAX. I had to bestill my beating heart that every time I get over-excited about a film, it very often disappoints and I didn't want that to happen here. Not to Tron. Please.

As readers know, I didn't rate the game very highly but Daft Punk's score got top marks (both reviews can be found on the right hand side or on Youtube's 'thewildboretv' channel) and once the film was released it got some very mixed reviews but I tried my best to keep out of it until I'd seen the final product myself, which was in centre seats at Waterloo's IMAX by the way.

If you don't know already, Tron Legacy takes place after the events of Tron (but not Tron 2.0 - the PC game for those non-geeks) where Kevin Flynn is taking advantage of being able to enter digital space by playing God and creating his own world. However, random beings, pieces of code or whatever they are, called ISO's have turned up and inside them could be the answers to the Universe, apparently. However, Flynn's 'supervisor' program Clu has a lot of ideas above his station and believes the ISO's to be imperfections and thus destroys them in The Purge (events of Tron Evolution). Kevin Flynn is banished and is hiding out with the beautiful Olivia Wilde (Quorra). Meanwhile, Sam Flynn, heir to his father's company, is busy causing havoc and being a rebel in the real world until he enters The Grid where luckily all his extreme sports hobbies come in good use.

Firstly the visuals are probably the best I've seen in anything, ever. It looks fucking cool and is absolutely incredible to witness. The first time we see the Tron world, it's unlike anything I've ever seen before. In this respect, the 3D-ness (is there a word for it?) works perfectly and it's the best use of 3D effects I've seen yet, and yes that's including Avatar. However, there is one massive flaw and I've seen it crop up time and time again in reviews - and that's the young Jeff Bridges as Clu. It simply doesn't work. It looks like Tom Hanks from The Polar Express or something, it is clearly animated and really stands out as he stands next to real people. It's a shame that technology has come leaps and bounds but actors don't have to worry, because recreating actual people won't be an issue for a while. It's a shame because it takes away from the rather dramatic scenes rather than adding to it.

The script is slightly flawed and they try to push in some key lines inbetween the set pieces but it's mainly because the pace is so incredibly fast. From disc wars to light cycle races to hand to hand combat the action is relentless and slows down in the right places to put it into context. If anything it's too textbook. Ever since Disney began, their writers were apparently handed out a guide to The Hero's Journey, a simple guide to Joseph Cambell's 'Hero Of A Thousand Faces', and it's essentially a template to creating an engaging storyline and one that can be traced as far back as Greek mythology and beyond. I know of it because I did a whole blooming thing on it in University. But Tron Legacy follows it point by point without missing a step which means that it might be simple but yet it's a familiar story, much like Star Wars or The Matrix but they had more depth. In fact, what Tron Legacy is missing, which is key, is the sense that it's part of a bigger thing and it feels way too self-contained without much knowledge of the actual geography of the place. To some this might seem indifferent, but subconsciously it works to give you a sense of realism and interaction. An example I often use is Alien, you often feel like you know the layout of the ship and it's a highly successful way of allowing your imagination fully integrate with the film by creating, arguably, boundaries. It's not saying you have to know where everything is, just that you realise that it's a part of the bigger picture. Unfortunately, there's not enough sense of what goes on inside The Grid and you're a bit confused as to where everything is. Why would they put the games arena right at the edge of the Outlands for instance? It sounds like nit-picking but I feel subconsciously people pick these things up, which is often why people find it hard to summarise why they did or didn't like a film. Pop psychology there folks or perhaps just slightly patronising.

You could argue that the whole point of The Grid in digital space is that it is infinite and these are programs, not living people, but I wanted there to be a bit more time in the 'city' part of the Tron Legacy world. What do these programs get up to? Do they couple off? Is it a working society? Why do they have to eat? Where is the food coming from? People can take it at face value but these are questions I found myself wanting to know the answers to after I left. Not in a geeky way of knowing every detail, more a way of wanting to understand the world more.

What's great about this storyline though is that a huge amount of history, myths and religion can be compared to it. Everything from the Nazi's, Cain and Abel, Darwinism, The New Testament, The Big Bang, Pat Pong, the Romans etc. could be related to this film and, in a way, the film itself is post-post-modern. A digital world within a digital world within the real world, where does the line end? You could read all sorts into it, that perhaps it is Flynn's purgatory, that it was Sam's dream, that it's the afterlife or perhaps it's just a simple story of a son searching for his father's love. Either way, it's not as superficial as most action films and, although it's not perfect, it's a great attempt to satisfy newcomers and fanboys alike.

The characters work quite nicely, Cillian Murphy makes a brief appearance (and one that will most definitely turn up in a sequel) as Ed Dillinger's son, the main villain in the 1982 Tron film, but it's a great glimpse into what will most certainly be a great sequel to come. Garrett Hedlund is remarkably perfect for Sam Flynn's role, it's never too cocky nor too naive, but does play up to the all-American rebel that tends to be popping up a lot (see Chris Pine in Star Trek as an example). It also made me laugh that his name is Sam and when asked how old he is, he states "27" - "Cor! Just like me! It's like I'm in the bloody film!" - I didn't say that, but I felt like saying it.

Jeff Bridges, I thought, did a great job as well. I had already read that people thought he was too much like The Dude and it had put some people off, however I honestly think it's only because he uses phrases such as 'man' and 'zen', which is a bit like not being able to see the forest for all the trees. People accustomed to the first film will know that Flynn was all about being laid-back and cool, it was pretty much what steered the first film, he had to be forced into action and indeed forced to mature which was the whole point of his journey in Tron. What people also forget is that he would have been a hippy child of the Seventies and seeing as he is trapped in The Grid for twenty odd years, he would not have been privy to cultural movements and therefore it might seem cheesy, but in fact works perfectly for the narrative. I was scared that Bridges would play his role too jolly, too happy-go-lucky like the original Flynn but fortunately, he has a lot more gravitas, probably not as much as I originally hoped (I wanted him to be a dark, angry, almost evil character - something to come perhaps?) but he is still clearly quite disturbed. His black and white grainy dreams looking more like a sketch, as if his dreams of the past are almost like out-of-date technology, which finally come back to colour as he is brought almost 'back to life' in a sense by the return of his son. People might think the journey is about Sam, but I'd argue it might be more about Kevin.

Bridges also plays Clu, who is very child-like and lashes out when he doesn't get his way. Just like in the first film, Kevin Flynn must conquer his immaturity, his fear, his naivety in order to continue, all of which is summed up in Clu. The real stand-out performance for me, for more than one reason is Olivia Wilde as Quorra, her wide-eyed innocence is as effective as her strength in such a powerful feminine role - she is clearly very sexual (the best leather-clad female on-screen since Pfiffer's Catwoman in Batman Returns) but it doesn't define her. Fellow House fans will already know that she is one of the most gorgeous women about at the moment and she certainly proves it here. Her cat-like appearance (and I bloody love cats) helps in her feline performance but she is more than just a love interest, which is respectable these days by itself. She will be on FHM's list next year if she isn't already. Is she?

Martin Sheen as a strange David Bowie character mixes up the seriousness with a bit of zaniness but the whole scene feels rather forced and I felt the club could have been a bit more impressive, even if it does have Daft Punk in it. The rest of the cast do look slightly like extras in a Tron version of The Warriors, or perhaps Emo-Rockers but for all the manliner, it does kind of work.

The whole world feels dark, gloomy, a constant storm hanging overhead, and slightly depressing, but in a good way, it's better than an iPod white future and Daft Punk's music over the top creates an amazing French soundscape that works perfectly into the film. It's further proof that as amazing as certain composers are, sometimes it's good to hand out work to more popular, respected musicians instead of a James Bond-esque title song that artists usually get dumped with. The film also has some light comic relief to stop people thinking it takes itself so seriously, it is after all a Disney film. But advert director Joseph Kosinki has done an incredible job and other gamers out there will recognise his work in the Gears Of War and Halo 3 adverts that did so well.

Watching this film in 3D and especially in IMAX was a treat for the eyes, but it wasn't a perfect spectacle, however it was perfect for me. Okay so it might be a little too close to Star Wars, the Jedi, Storm Troopers, Death Star and all that, but at least it knows it (you'll know what I mean when you see it). It's incredible to watch but is flawed in a few areas which means that speaking objectively I will have to mark it as such. But as a fanboy I'd definitely give a 10/10. May there be many more Tron's to come! I bloody loved it.

Rating: 8/10

Legend Of The Fist: The Return Of Chen Zhen

Hong Kong legend Donnie Yen hits UK screens in the latest Kung-Fu action film to grace our shores, but is it really a Legend or should Chen Zhen just ... not return?

There is a very confusing background to this film. Firstly, this is a sequel to a TV series called Fist of Fury in Hong Kong, that series was a remake from the original Bruce Lee film. Now, Donnie Yen has been made to basically be Bruce Lee including Bruce Lee sounds, fashion and even a Green Hornet hero disguise. It's also directed by Andrew Lau who made Infernal Affairs, but isn't the Andy Lau who was in Infernal Affairs, that's someone else entirely. Understand? Good.

So what's it actually about then? Well, it's based on an ancient legend but yet this film is set before the second Sino-Japanese war in a Shanghai settlement where the British and the Japanese are battling it out with China in the middle. Chen Zhen has come back from fighting the Germans in France and taken the identity of one of his fallen comrades, why he needs to do this is never clear. The whole thing is then set in a club called Casablanca (yawn) which looks like a shoddy Boardwalk Empire (which if you still haven't tried to get hold of then you're an idiot, sorry) and it's all about people double crossing each other, about politics, revolution and stuff I have absolutely no idea about. I'm just not that clued up on Modern Chinese History I'm afraid, and this film didn't help either.

For those who know their Hong Kong cinema, there will be some friendly faces and the fact Andrew Lau is behind this will be enough to put some bums on seats but if you're looking for an action film, it might be best to look elsewhere. There aren't many fight scenes but when they do come up, they are quite good, but nothing remarkable. Yen's fighting is fast and seeing as he must be about 50 now I'm surprised he looks as incredible as he does. Yet his fighting looks comical and it seems as if they have sacrificed power for speed to make it look more impressive but instead it looks like about ten happy slaps a second, not enough to knock out these bad guys, and a lot of 'signature' moves are repeated. The final fight scene was also not that impressive and if you look at what Hong Kong was making 40 years back, it isn't even close to that type of skill.

So perhaps the story is enough to keep you hooked? Well, not really. It's so melodramatic and unsubtle that you can't help but laugh through half of it and the negative display of foreigners has apparently got a lot of Japanese upset, but you don't see the Germans complaining when Hollywood does a war film do you? Also, haven't the Chinese and Japanese always hated each other? I think it's time to move on guys. The British don't get a good rep either, but then the British guy is clearly not British so I don't mind too much.

Overall, I left the cinema without really knowing what was supposed to be going on but keeping with it enough to know who was supposed to be good and bad. The directing was OK and the scale was somewhat small as it felt like it had been made in a studio rather than drawing you into the scene. I can't say I was ever really bored but I was never entertained, it's a poor introduction for those who haven't seen the rich content that Hong Kong cinema provides and I do hope this film brings in more money into their industry but for smaller, more cutting-edge films rather than Hollywood-wannabe cheese-fests like this one.

Maybe see it on DVD if you're really that bothered but with an April cinema release date, don't expect it until Christmas 2011. Ambitious, but ultimately dull.

Rating: 3/10

Predators

It's a return to the Eighties with a sequel that is worthy of the first Predator, instead of the inner-city Predator 2, and let's not even get started on Aliens Vs Predator ...

Predators starts a little bit like a hardcore Lost. A bunch of strangers wind up in a jungle and there's something in the trees ... you can guess it's a bunch of Predators, well, and other things. Adrien Brody plays the main lead as a more lithe Schwarzenegger role whilst other human 'predators', soldiers, gangsters etc. come along with him. The idea is that they are game for Predators to hunt and each set piece is them trying to survive. It is a definite homage to the original Predator with quite an identical set up (especially the end), but like how Aliens did with Alien, there's just a whole bunch more of them.

I went into this movie with pretty low hopes, I love the original Predator but felt like it would take a lot to do this justice but I actually was quite impressed. It might not be original, scary or particularly well-made, but for an action film it's a fair cop.

Directed by Vacancy's Nimrod Antal, this is a good step forward into a more illustrious Hollywood career, he clearly enjoys building up tension with the added satisfying touch of some good pay-offs. The settings look lush and rich, with a vibrant palette that gives it that European feel Antal is used to, the monsters look good and it's pretty much action from start to finish. They've also tried to give the Predators a bit more character by giving them unique 'tribal' looks and forcing them into two groups. They've also thrown in some weird predator dogs, some strange creatures which I imagine are also being hunted and a very crazy Laurence Fishburne as a survivor who has been there a little too long.

As you can imagine, one by one they get killed off, but each character has been thought about and there is often some good group dynamics. Adrien Brody steals the show for me, which is strange seeing as I don't rate him as an actor, but his soulless dead eyes and gruff voice make him perfectly cast in his lone wolf persona. The others I could give or take, except Walton Goggins whom I love anyway and is perfect as the crazy prisoner.

There's not much of a story apart from the fact that they have to survive. For some reason, one of the predators is tied up and there is a predator vs predator match which is pretty cool, there's also a secret within one of the group which was a bit predictable but generally speaking I had a good time watching this film. Though it was a bit confusing at times such as why the predators were in groups, why one was tied up, what the other creatures were, I'm sure they did explain all this but it felt a little bit like trying to overcomplicate something for no reason but to make the audience think. But then, maybe that's a good thing?

Seeing as Predator hasn't had a fair cop since his 80s heyday, this returning to the roots of the beast is something that has enough action to keep you happy, a simple enough plot to keep you sustained and is a good first step to recreating what Aliens Vs Predator has ruined. This isn't a film at the top of it's game, but instead is running with the same blood as the original Predator, a monster movie in a jungle.

Don't expect anything that will take your breath away, but I've seen a lot worse.

Rating: 6/10

Monsters

Reputedly made for $15 000, this post-apocalyptic sci-fi film might be the future of cinema, but I would like a little more proof please...

Let me start by saying that I'm all for people being ballsy enough to go out there and just film something but I will have to judge it on the result of the final film and I have a lot of mixed feelings.

Let's get all the money stuff out the way. In case you don't know, director Gareth Edwards is a visual effects artist, which means he's bloody good at putting together some CG crap and has made a sci-fi, slightly scary film which is really about two people 'finding each other'. Apparently the crew consisted of just two people and anyone else in it was just there on the day, all locations are real and it was all shot, edited and created on what you can pick up in any store. Well, let's just say I'd like to see the receipts. Having gone into this knowing these facts, that in itself almost ruined the film for me as I was constantly laughing at how it could get made so cheap but remain how it is.

Firstly, let's forget about the CG, which in itself would take ages and even though it's really good, the aliens can look pretty crap sometimes, it's lucky they generally come out at night. But there are shots of cars getting crushed, a lot of people with guns, tanks everywhere, buildings completely demolished, lots of rubble and a lot of travelling via different ways. I cannot see how they were able to do this unless someone sat me through it because either these CG tanks, military, explosions etc were the most realistic effects I've seen or they were real, and then I still don't get it, surely travelling it all around would cost more than $15k in itself?

This idea of filming on such a budget is more of a marketing ploy than anything. I don't know the relationship it has with Vertigo films, but that company isn't exactly small so it's not as if they couldn't put more money into it. Also if you look at the crew list, there's a lot of people working on the sound, an extras casting director and more. I could be wrong though, maybe 90% of the work was done in the editing room and that the $15k was just how much the location shoot turned out to be. Either way, the whole 'how did they do this for 15k?' game ruined the experience slightly for me, which is a shame because it's not a great experience anyway.

Comparisons will undoubtedly be made to District 9 (infected zone, misunderstood aliens, amateur director) but really this is a road movie. I enjoy films where it's a small story in the grander scheme of things - even Spielberg knew this during War of The Worlds (where one bit is copied in this), and this is clearly less about the aliens and more about the personal journey of the two characters, Sam and Andrew.

The general story is that something from NASA crashed on it's way back to the States in Mexico or something and now these weird sea-alien-creatures have popped up wreaking havoc. A big publicist wants his daughter (Sam) to come back to the States and it's the responsibility of one of his photographers (Andrew) down there to escort her back, then things go a little wrong and they end up having to trek back through the 'infected zone' to reach the States.

The main problem is everything moves so slowly. The story is broken up by trying to put in the odd alien sighting or them watching TV footage of aliens but the whole time you're waiting for the action to get going, it's not until the final scene where you get some kind of pay-off, and it's the lamest pay-off ever. Even though this is about two people falling in love, it's also a social commentary on America. The way the country has closed itself in, how the characters say how strange it is being outside of it looking in compared to being inside, how the real threat is seemingly from the American military trying to kill the creatures using gas rather than the creatures themselves, the media's lust for violent images and the country's general xenophobia. What makes it strange is that the monsters are almost electrical and 'feed' off the televisions, again another statement on how America's media almost 'feeds' the monsters, perhaps thus being the monsters themselves.

Either way, the monsters aren't the real focus of the film, Sam and Andrew are generally well thought out characters, more so Andrew than Sam. Throughout the film Andrew is flirtatious, rude, abrupt and impatient, perhaps like a typical man but there is a more sensitive side to him that Sam can see. Sam, however, puts on a strong front but really she's having a difficult time with the idea of settling down and there's no real indication of why she's down there anyway or why she has hurt her hand, which perhaps leaves the audience to think up a better reason than one that time could have been wasted on in the film. I thought more time was spent exploring Andrew's character and that Sam might have needed some more fleshing out, but generally the idea of two people trying to survive through an alien war zone was creative and original. However, it perhaps could have got away with them trying to get through anything because in the end, the aliens didn't really matter but to try and make the film more interesting and scary, which it didn't do too well. The last shot is also reminiscent with what happens only moments before (I won't give it away) suggesting that at the end of the day, all living creatures are the same. What a lovely image. Kind of.

I liked the way the film looked, the directing wasn't too in-your-face leaving room for the CG to make a more lasting impression, which I'm guessing was the desired effect, but the landscapes, the sheer feeling of survival and script were all very positive. I just wished they did have more money to really give it that kick that it so desperately needs. Even though it's a brave attempt and, if true, it's absolutely commendable that it was made on such a low budget, which I'll give it an extra point for but it fails to leave any lasting impression rather than a wish that it had more bite because, in the end, it was really just a love story. Which a film called Monsters should perhaps not be called because I think a lot of horror/gore/sci-fi fans are going to walk out disappointed. I know I did.

Rating: 6/10

Devil

Part 1 of 'The Night Chronicles' begins with this yarn about 5 people trapped in a lift and nowhere to go - then they start dying. M Night Shyamalan might have his name all over it, but really he just came up with the (pretty simple) story. In any case, with his films getting progressively worse and worse, is it time to call it a Night?

High concept films like this can sometimes be a blessing. If you can sum the film up in one sentance then you can concentrate on the other elements of the film, the look, the dialogue etc. without getting too bogged down in plot. However, seeing as it's plot that Shyamalan prides himself on, it has instead become his biggest downfall.

Let's be honest, his breakthrough The Sixth Sense was a generally good film. Mainly because of the acting, the sombre mood, the melancholy horror about it all and the well-known twist and hey, I didn't even mind Unbreakable. Sure it was a bit boring, it was predictable, it was slow, but it still kept a sadness that I enjoyed and also Bruce Willis as a reluctant hero is something I'll never get bored of; but it was still a disappointment. Signs I didn't see until recently, and it was awful but did quite well at the box office. The aliens looked terrible and it all felt like a massive joke. However, an invasion from the perspective of a small family in a small farm was an idea I enjoyed. I hadn't given up on him yet. The Village I enjoyed and I would argue might be his strongest film - yes the twist was predictable, the acting so-so and again by the end was a bit of a disappointment, but I enjoyed the first half or so. Then it really did go all wrong, The Lady In The Water might as well have been Shyamalan staring into a mirror and having a wank for 2 hours and The Happening was ludicrous at best. The Last Airbender? I haven't seen it but it's not done well. So after this brief recap, can he gain some more respect by taking a bit of a backseat and letting others do work under his name? Well ... no.

Devil is a tale of Satan taking an excursion to Earth and so, for laughs, chooses to enter the body of someone in a big office building. It's narrated by an idiot who seems to have a weirdo mum telling him horrible stories at night (Shyamalan?) and the main character is a cop who has a tragic past. Boo hoo. It's quite a slow moving film, which I imagine it has to be seeing as it is set mainly in a lift, but at times it's almost excruciating. The lights go off and something weird happens. Again and again. If it wasn't so supernatural this thing could actually be scary but unfortunately, it's mediocre at best.

There are some good aspects though. The shots inside the elevator are so close and intimidating that you feel as closed in as the characters are, the parts in the dark which rely completely on sound are fun, some shots are horrific enough to keep the gore-lovers happy and the general suspense works well, but not well enough that you're at the edge of your seat. You feel like it would make a good short story, or perhaps an episode of The Twilight Zone, but a 90 minute feature? It's definitely pushing it.

It just wasn't that scary, jumpy, or much of anything. The strange figure in the Devil trailer (which again is better than the film) makes the appearance just the once, apart from a lame 'face' in CCTV footage. Why would a scary devil be making lame faces in video footage? Then there's the Mexican security guard who is such a devout religious nut that it becomes absurd. It's trying its best to become a high-tension guessing game but instead it results in a stupid attempt to create horror from, basically, nothing.

Seeing as this is Part 1, you can't help but feel there must be a continuing theme that we will see happening. I imagine the suicide at the beginning (don't worry, it's almost the first thing you see) would probably appear in a later film, but I wish that he would have done perhaps a 2 and a half or three hour feature of his trilogy, Grindhouse style. But then maybe the other two will blow us out of the water? Well, I doubt it. Especially if there's a Lady in it.

Rating: 5/10

The Last Exorcism

Eli Roth takes a break from body-horror to straight horror in this documentary-style film about an exorcism.

I should really know better than to get too excited about films like this, I really am setting myself up for a fall and I know it. Let's be honest, the trailer made it look pretty freaky; even this poster looks fantastic, so how can it go wrong? Well, in quite a few ways.

The story is from the viewpoint of a documentary crew filming a preacher, Cotton, who wants to show everyone that exorcisms are fake. His reason for doing so is that he reads articles about parents killing their possessed kids and he wants to lift the lid on it once and for all. Cotton is a confident, suave, persuasive character who is, really, just a conman. He gets vast amounts of money from the poorest of people to perform these fake exorcisms and he believes that if it makes them feel better by him doing it, then so be it. A man's got to feed his family right? So the crew follow him out in the country to a small farm where livestock is getting slaughtered by their daughter, Nell. Then it all starts going a bit funny.

The slow start is something common for horror films and is a working formula that I enjoy. However, the pay-off's and especially the end are pretty terrible. If you've seen the trailer, you've seen all the scary bits of the film and if you can potentially see a 90 minute film in 3 minutes, and it be better, then there's a problem. It's a shame really because I really enjoyed the acting, the preacher Cotton is a great character and it's such a shame that everything around him was a bit shit. The girl playing Nell is very sweet and innocent but when she turns evil, it's not really that threatening, her father and brother also play the closed-off Southern folk to an impressive standard but the film just lacks the scare factor. The actual plot up to the finale is quite good as you're still not sure whether she is possessed or not but you know there's definitely something weird going on.

I don't really want to ruin this for anyone but I can't really recommend this film. It's a shame because it had all the basic elements needed to do a good horror story and, perhaps with a lesser budget might have even worked better, but with perhaps the most disappointing and sheer ridiculous ending seen on screen, it became a farce. It just tried too hard to put what it thought was scary up, rather than what is actually scary and mixed together the unique parts of other films. The look of Blair Witch/Paranormal Activity/REC, the demonic aspect of Rosemary's Baby, the content of The Exorcist, the body-horror of ... The Exorcist and all that. The film is trying, arguably, to be about the preacher finding his faith again but really it's a lame duck. It could have done so much but ended up being nothing more than a mashup of other films and being a huge let down.

The concept was good, some images were good, but it's most definitely not scary and you'll sleep soundly the night you watch it - don't worry. Points for trying though.

Rating: 4/10

Tekken

The King Of Iron Fist Tournament based on the widely popular video game series hits the cinemas. But is it just another Street Fighter or does this pull more punches? Is it game over from round one?

It was only a matter of time until Tekken went from beat-'em-up madness to the big screen. After all, the first game was released in 1994 and Tekken 7 has just been announced as well as the imminent release of Street Fighter Vs Tekken. It's never been a series to give up fighting and with an intriguing storyline, with even more bizarre characters and backstory, there's a wealth of material to be played with. The game also features the toughest Grandad, Heihachi, that has ever existed. However, it's telling to say that Heihachi is a little bit different in the movie. Skinnier, less threatening and looks a bit of an idiot - much like the film.

In it's defence it takes a bold attempt to recreate the atmosphere and energy that surrounds a quintessentially Japanese title such as this. It's all bright lights, ridiculous moves and lots of colours. But it falls down in the same old places that every video game adaptation falls down in - it's too bogged down in simple plot (meaning the video game fans who are the most likely audience won't be surprised by any plot devices) and just looks a bit silly.

Saying that, it could have been a lot worse. Funnily enough, I thought the acting was good. Luke Goss was a highlight and I didn't even mind the bland cardboard beefed up guys too much - they weren't exactly left too much time to delve into their characters. However, the simple idea that Jin (who only came about in Tekken 3 if I remember rightly) is the People's champion coming up from the slums to fight alongside the best in the world is workable. The evil Tekken corporation is commercialism gone mad but for the average cinema-goer, you don't really understand the correlation properly between the Iron Fist Tournament and Tekken. The actual tournament itself seems to be a complete mess, not only is it over quickly with some characters you don't even see fighting, but the fights feel like they are over before they've actually begun. Which is a shame because they're rather good. Another terrible idea they've had is that instead of the globe-trotting that happens in the game, they've tried to recreate different scenes in the middle of the arena - meaning they have put a fake castle or some trees there. It just seems ridiculous.

The father/son/grandfather storyline is a bit dishevelled and even Heihachi comes across as a nice guy, but I can't help but feel there could have been so much more. Jin isn't a nice guy as he appears here either, in the games he's still got a bit of the (literal) devil from his father in him and this evil power would have been far more interesting than the whole revenge thing that the film turned into.

I had pretty low expectations but it does stand-up to some degree thanks to actors like Goss and Ian Anthony Dale. Harmless, brain-dead action that won't completely bore you but I can guarantee once you watch it, you'll never return to it. I doubt there will be another 6 of these.

Rating: 4/10

Splice

Produced by Guillermo del Toro, directed by the guy who did Cube, this B-Movie monster horror is a bit deeper than others, but should it even exist?

I've got a lot of time for movies like this, a high-concept, no bullshit horror film that plays out slowly and dramatically until a final burst at the end. Unfortunately, this movie feels like it should be so much more than what it has become.

This is mainly due to the director - the shots often feel standard and uninspiring yet there are odd moments where some glimmer of creativity comes through. You only have to look at what he's done since Cube to get a feeling that this is his last big shot, and it is in something that his art department background can justify, the monster horror theme.

But what makes this different, and kudos to Natali for co-writing the thing, is that you're never sure who the real monster is. The set-up is that Brody and Polley (who I don't think I've seen since Dawn of the Dead) are doctors playing with genetics to create animal medicines etc., but when they want to combine human DNA for medicines for us lot, they are quickly turned down. So what else to do but do it themselves? I think you can get the rest of it.

The problem is Adrien Brody just can't really hold a film together, his passiveness in The Pianist was either great acting or non-acting and this proves the latter. Polley I feel sorry for, she always seems to be left behind and doesn't seem to ever age, her acting is mediocre at the best of times and she's a strange choice for the role. It's really Delphine Chaneac as the creature Dren that shines through. Her animal-like behaviour and visual confusion is impressive, the brilliant CG and make-up helps, but Chaneac really makes Dren a complete character.

So what of the 'monster' Dren? From the minute she's born, she's an object of disgust so initially we seem to side with the idea of killing it. However, she starts growing at an alarming pace (not evolving - species evolve not individuals) and soon that disgusting thing with a tail is a little girl. The fact that she's mute and relatively sweet makes it harder and harder to consider her a threat as she turns more and more human. The plot moves nicely so that you're never at ease when she's around, there's a nasty streak in Dren and she tends to lash out with ferocity.

You start to realise that this all one big metaphor for how Polley's character Elsa wants to not let Dren down like her mother did her and soon, after a medical incident in a barn screaming metaphors (Freud would enjoy this film), you start to sympathise more and more with Dren. Is she being kept alive for the sake of Elsa? Is she actually just as bad a mother as her own? It's only about two thirds through the film that things start getting a bit weird, Brody's character Clive soon breaks loose from being the audience's grounding force to start messing with things he shouldn't - and for what reason I have no idea. Then when all hell breaks loose and Dren develops again, it gets really incestuous to the point of sickening. Dren's suddenly changed completely (in more ways that one) and has become a true monster. Was this from the result of her 'upbringing'? Or was this because of her genetics? See what they've done here? Because, to be honest, Dren goes through a lot in a short space of time that would mess anyone up, let alone a creature that doesn't know if it's even human.

So what's wrong with this picture? Firstly, the acting is pretty atrocious from everyone concerned, there's not enough tension as I would have liked there to have been and why the characters are doing what they are doing isn't explained fully enough, or there's not enough reference to any subtext to justify it. The effects, CG, make-up and everything in creating Dren is pretty damn good and looks authentic and it's the disturbing plot that wins it over from being some weird farce.

Overall, this is a great original story that takes a few chances that pay off. But ultimately, there's not enough method in the madness and it all seemed to happen so quickly that we couldn't get close enough to Dren to fully engage with the character. I enjoyed the idea, the story and the film itself but I was left feeling disappointed.

And also Brody's nose kept drawing my attention away.

Great film to kill some time and get you thinking about the morals of messing about with God's work, but ultimately more forgettable than it should have been.

Rating: 7/10

The A-Team

When there is no plan B? Just film a remake.

Well, I wouldn't be the first person to say it's been quite a dismal summer of films so far. Shrek and Toy Story 3 seem to be bubbling beneath the radar more than their predecessors, the new Twilight film has completely thrown away any trace of trying to cater for all audiences and decided to please it's core audience and overall there's a profound sense of disappointment. Another one to add to the list then is The A-Team.

No-one would come into this movie thinking they are going to get cinema gold, so it's good that expectations are somewhat low, because it meets them. If you're a fan of the original series (which I found quite camp, but I'm sure others would beg to differ) then you're more than likely in for a treat as it doesn't try to be something it isn't - it is, after all, pure action.

The story is, to be honest, confusing enough that anything is plausible, but takes enough baby steps through the plot to make sure you don't ask any questions. What we're left with is set piece after set piece of little missions that make up a rather, dare I say it, almost boring action film. The CG looks fake, the out-and-out ridiculous action borders on stupidity and every cliche box is ticked. But then, there are parts I enjoyed.

What the all-important factor of The A-Team is that once you've taken away the political subtexts and social commentaries, you're left with a bunch of friends who look out for each other. Sheer male bonding. Luckily, the writers have focused more on this leaving you with the sense that they do actually care for each other and taking your focus away from the plot. Liam Neeson plays his mentor card (a card that he's using way too much recently) and again proves that he can do action, even at his ripe old age, his younger counter-part, and the main focus of the film, is Bradley Cooper's Face and, he nails it. His cheeky bravado and charm makes him perfectly cast but it is only when we get the 'love' bits that he lets us down, it's a subplot that is shoved in horribly into the story and jars like trying to justify putting a dancing monkey on the screen. That doesn't happen by the way.

Sharlto Copley (better known for his work in the amazing District 9) is the real stand-out and hopefully more work will be coming his way because of this. Even UFC fighter Quinton Jackson does well but in all fairness cannot compete with Mr T. His knuckles that bare 'Pity' and 'Fool' just seem a bit stupid seeing as he never says it and the van is hardly in the film. His story of trying to come to terms with his conscience is also horribly wrong and completely uncalled for. I don't really care if he has a soft side, I want to see him kick some ass blaxploitation style, which never really happens. Jessica Biel might as well have been played by a sock with eyes stuck on and Patrick Wilson tries to give the quirky bad guy a go, but I think he's more suited for 'real' acting.

Overall, the film is a mess and soon you just want it to end. As far as action films go, there's a lot worse and it gets points for trying, but is let down by a bad script and lack of originality. In fact, it could almost ruin your idea of The A Team, but then the series wasn't that great.
Was it?

Rating: 6/10

Bad Lieutenant:: Port Of Call - New Orleans

Cage opens up and releases a new kind of psycho. But can he outperform Keitel's cult favourite or is this another remake that's just plain ... bad?

Nicolas Cage is one of those rare entities in Hollywood. Not only has he secured his name for being completely mad, buying all kinds of crazy stuff, not paying his taxes and pretty much doing anything for a quick buck, even turning on the Christmas lights in Bath last year, but the list of characters he has portrayed is rather strange. Whether it's a beefed up action hero in Con Air, a reflective writer in Adaptation, a comic hero in Ghost Rider, or a heart-throb in City of Angels he's never been shoved into a box and Herzog joins the long list of acclaimed directors Cage has had the pleasure of working with, but seeing as Cage has hit a bit of a bad run recently, is this a renaissance for the man? Well, almost.

Cage's character Terence is so completely over-the-top that you'd think Cage's zany personality would compliment it perfectly, except for the fact that Cage has also gone completely over-the-top making it a bit awkward to watch. You can't help but think it's too try-hard and that it's not near dark or gritty enough to be taken seriously. But that's just it, it borders on the absurd and downright hilarious, which isn't really what it should be aiming for. There are some great pieces such as screwing a girl while making her boyfriend watch, and smoking crack with a terrible Xzibit, but this whole film seems to be a sequence of events that all fall into place at the end. It also seems that by doing the right thing initially and paying the price for it (though the reason why he injured his back is hardly mentioned), he will spend the rest of his days not caring for anyone else. Except that he does care for other people, his father and his girlfriend Mendes to name a couple. Val Kilmer seems to even be more cut-throat than he and hardly gets a mention.

There's no point going over the story because it's basically about a bad cop trying to play one side against the other and that's all you need to know. It's narrative is simple yet enjoyable and, much like The Shield that I've finished recently, it's always good fun watching dirty cops. Mendes does well with her prostitute character but the femme fatale role is something she is used to by now and they have as much electricity between them as they did in Ghost Rider - aka none.

The directing is okay, but hit-and-miss at the best of times. Herzog relates Terence to the animals surrounding him, by showing the world through their eyes, much like we are seeing New Orleans through Terence's - but why set it in New Orleans in the first place? This raised a number of issues for me. We all know about the government letting the survivors down, so perhaps Cage represents this or maybe it's the idea of a broken city, a man literally broken by Hurricane Katrina and left to fend for himself in it's wake with a pain that will be with him forever. Though these might all be credible, it is more to do with the idea that no matter how low you sink, you can always pull it back and that there's a faint glimmer of hope that shines throughout the whole thing, a hope for New Orleans, a hope for humanity - or maybe it's just because it was a nice place to film in.

Roger Ebert names this as one of his films of the last decade but then anyone with half a brain wouldn't listen to what he says anyway. Don't get me wrong, this isn't shit, but it's not great either. This isn't better than the dirty New York cop films coming out even in the 70s, and after coming out of The Shield recently, it all seems a bit lame in comparison and Nicolas Cage is far from scary, or even intimidating. Its a great way to kill a couple of hours but this won't be more than that. For anyone who thought this film was amazing, they should try watching something with a bit more meat and that doesn't rely on a character who is more pathetic than anything. Also, that's one hell of a long title!

Rating: 6/10

Prince Of Persia

Disney's big hit for 2010 isn't based on a theme park ride, but instead on a popular video games series. But will it be as cursed as other game adaptations or will Bruckheimer give Disney another cash cow to milk?

Prince of Persia is a very strange choice for Disney to undertake, it definitely ticks all the right boxes for an action/adventure film along the lines of Pirates of the Caribbean, but the game series has gradually become less and less popular as they have continued. This is mainly because it's essentially the same thing again and again, and what with another game to coincide with the film's release, it will inevitably be the same again. So for something that has proven to be less popular over time, Disney's new franchise which will inevitably spawn sequel after sequel seems to be a bit of a risk. But then, this film is full of risks. Namely because it is directed by Mike Newell, who fair enough did make Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, but has a very strange list of films attached to his name including Donnie Brasco, Four Weddings and a Funeral , Mona Lisa Smile and a huge UK TV background before that. He's not exactly first choice for something as delicate as this, but then Prince of Persia is, almost, a British film. It was filmed on location in Morocco but most of it was filmed at Pinewood and has, apart from Gyllenhaal, an entirely British cast.

Gyllenhaal himself is a strange choice, not necessarily known for his action roles, he is pretty much the sole bankable name and definitely a whole lot better than the other names being bantered about for this role including Orlando Bloom and Zac Efron. However, even though it's got Kingsley and Arteton in it, it's solely dependent on that Jake will be putting bums on seats and is he necessarily such a huge box office draw? I imagine we will soon find out.

If you're not familiar with the games there's no need to worry, the only thing that remains the same is the setting and the idea of the 'sands of time' - but that's it. This is actually quite a shame as the games have a lot of twists, turns and plays with the idea of time travel in innovative, unique ways. But Disney have decided against this and settled on a bog-standard tale of a man on the run trying to clear his name and looks more like a live-action adaptation of Aladdin than Prince of Persia.

The initial action sequence is exciting and epic, but I'm afraid it's downhill from there. After a confusing mishap, Gyllenhaal's Dastan is on the run with Arteton's Tamina in tow and he soon learns about a dagger that controls time. Seeing as the time travel element is the most exciting thing about the film, you'd think they'd use it a lot especially during battle, but in fact, throughout the entire film it gets used about three or four times. Not even close to the amount of times you'd like to see it, baring in mind that in the games you are time travelling pretty much constantly, this was an extremely disappointing result, but if it was sacrificed to make for a better story then I could understand but I'm sorry to say this wasn't the case.

Soon, the clear-as-day twist is discovered and Dastan runs into Alfred Molina and his 'hilarious' rogues. Meanwhile, his two brothers - the great Toby Kebbell and 'that guy from Coupling' Richard Coyle are also trying to chase him down. Then the evil hassassins are soon following Dastan to get back the dagger and you can guess the rest. By the end, the climax is actually rather insulting and you're left feeling completely unsatisfied.

For a story that at it's heart is very simple, it's unnecessarily complicated. The underground time sandcastle, the history of the dagger and other characters try and distract you from realising that this is actually quite boring. It's not engaging enough and the action was the only saving grace, but even then I'd imagine this was done by a second unit and in fact, I doubt Newell had much say over the action set-pieces at all. Unfortunately, the action isn't grandiose enough and is entirely forgettable once it is over. Even little issues such as the geography of it all drove me mad, I never knew exactly where they were going and why people seemed to catch up to them, or lag behind and in the last sequence where an entire chamber dissolves into sand, how they all managed to end up in the same place. This might not matter to the kids who this is clearly designed for, but for adults it jars horrifically and Disney has to remember that Pirates did so well because adults were able to enjoy it at the same time, something I thought they had considered seeing as Prince of Persia was a PG13, the second Disney film to do so after Curse of the Black Pearl. But instead it's more style over substance, and not much style at that either. This film has been so long in the making that it has totally missed a crucial selling point of the last year, and that is 3D. Something like this could have benefited hugely from being in 3D instead of relying on it's 2D action and unsubtle script and you'd have thought Disney wouldn't miss such a money-making trick, but in fact it has.

Gyllenhaal does make a good action hero, not only does he look buff but his English accent is near passable and he can definitely work the part; but you feel he is wasted in a character as 2D as it's image. Arteton makes the most out of her annoying Princess, but she did impress me seeing as I hadn't thought much of her before this and the two of them together works quite well, even though it sometimes feels as screwball as It Happened One Night in parts, and not in a good way. Molina doesn't exactly inspire as the comic relief but fares well as someone who seems to think they are working at a market stall in Eastenders and Kingsley (looking like Ming the Merciless) is clearly laughing all the way to the bank. Another strange and almost racist (Disney racist? Surely not!) fact I noticed was that all the Persians were white. Heavily made up with orange make-up and eyeliner, all the main parts were Caucasian while everyone else in the background, wasn't. Looking into this Rey-Phillip Santos was supposed to play Garsiv and Golshifteh Farahani was supposed to play Tamina and you would have thought putting some ethnicity into the cast would have helped, especially since Arteton seemed to be the only white woman in her kingdom.

Overall, this is a kid's film and should be treated as such. It could be shorter but has enough going on to keep the little ones interested although as an adult, I wouldn't go see it unless I had to. If you're expecting another Pirates of the Caribbean, then expect more At World's End rather than Curse of the Black Pearl or better yet, just buy the new Prince of Persia game when it comes out because I'm sure that you and your kids will enjoy it more than this.

Rating: 4/10

Cemetery Junction

Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant present us with this nostalgia trip back to their homeland of Reading during the Seventies. But after disastrous results like The Invention Of Lying, does the return of Merchant prove to be another winner, or should it just be left for dead? The Wild Bore goes up the junction to find out.

I used to be a big fan of Gervais, but recently his output has been somewhat crap. The Invention Of Lying might have been one of the worst films in the last decade, Ghost Town was alright, but he only starred in it rather than writing it. Even his stand-up hasn't been that great and I think it's clear he is at the top of his game when he is with Merchant. This film would prove this theory correct.

But don't go rushing out just yet because as much as this film was enjoyable, it felt like an ITV Sunday drama. The story is about three mates, one full of ambition for the 2.4 children lifestyle, the other one more care-free who is just shooting the breeze, and the fat, funny one. Julie, the love interest, is about to settle down as the nice little housewife but has aspiring dreams to be a photographer. The whole thing is basically about finding themselves, whether it's in Reading or not.

The Seventies setting worked well, the great music and amazing fashion really stood out and I'm sure a lot of the audience will gladly reminisce about their own youth. But trying to update it by using language such as 'cunt' and 'fit' made it jar slightly and, apart from the fact it's supposed to be about Gervais and Merchant's own youth, there's no real reason for this to be set during that time, apart from quaintness. The suburban frustrations still run solid today and that no matter what, kids will always think they are special. Which quite frankly is dangerous, look at the Americans for example (heyo!). The setting works though and casual racism and sexism that (as far as I know) was around back then, isn't being held back and, as people familiar with Gervais will know, can be quite cringeworthingly funny. But that's just it. It's absolutely not a comedy - though peppered with humorous bits, it's actually very serious.

Main character Freddie wants the big house, the big car and all that, but as the film progresses he sees how that lifestyle, and the people involved, can lead to nothing but an applause and a punch bowl, which is a great representation of how empty it all becomes. His job of selling life insurance says it all, people thrive on adventure and living for the moment, but everything he's planned out suddenly looks stale and he realises that there's a bigger world out there. His old sweetheart Julie spurs this on, her own sense of adventure inspires him to the point where he is constantly directly quoting her, however she believes she can have it all, the married lifestyle and the wide, open world for her to explore - but unfortunately, it doesn't always work out that way. Freddie is also working for her Dad, one of my favourite actors Ralph Fiennes, and she suddenly sees how her fiancee Matthew Goode, is just becoming a clone of her father. Freddie's own Dad, Ricky Gervais, surprisingly ruins the whole thing. You cannot see Gervais as a factory worker as he looks like he hasn't done a hard day's work in his life, his arms look useless and flabby and you can't help but still see traces of David Brent in everything he does. To be honest, he should now be stepping away from in front of the camera and concentrate on being behind it before we all get too sick of him. A cameo would be fine, like Merchant's brief yet hilarious one in this, and someone could have been better cast to play Freddy's dad than himself. It's once again a selfish move by a shameless self-promoter.

As much as I enjoyed all the acting in the movie (but Gervais), the real standout was Tom Hughes who plays Bruce. His character was not only more enjoyable to watch, but perfectly executed. He looks fucking cool for a start, like Lou Reed Velvet Underground era, and is a rebel with a heart, he'll stand up for his mates and for his principles. Even though his anger against his father is directed against others, he doesn't just kick off for no reason, he's an angry young man and wants to be like James Dean. Freddy might go on about how Bruce is just scared to leave the town, but you start to realise maybe he stays because he wants to be with his mates, or maybe that he doesn't want to leave his father or for some unfinished business of sorts. Whatever it is, he knows he can't leave until he's sorted himself out. His realisation about his father is horribly affecting, and a little too close to home for me but even though the story's emphasis is on Freddy, the true story is about Bruce and perhaps having him in the front of the poster is more telling than we suspect.

Then the comic relief, Snork, is a lovable idiot and, like a lot of people, is perfectly happy to just stay where he is. This pretty much sums up what the film is about. Even though your hometown is a piece of shit, no matter if you run away, stay or put things off until a bit later, it's your choice to make and you should do whatever makes you happy. This leaves a more heartwarming feeling than just trying to tell people that they should definitely go explore because, for some people, they just don't need to, and will probably be just as happy, perhaps happier, than if they go away. But then it does inspire you that there's more out there than what you can see, and that's always a good thing.

It's a shame that, by the end, it all gets a bit cheesy and feels too sweet and mainstream, something I wouldn't have thought of Gervais and Merchant, but there's enough here to keep every type of audience entertained. I wouldn't go see this at the cinema if you can help it, as like I said, it's a nice Sunday evening viewing, but it's not going to blow anyone away. It's a sweet little film and it's good to see the comedy writing duo doing something different and proving they can be taken seriously. A step forward perhaps, but by no means a leap.

Rating: 7/10