Valhalla Rising

On the surface, Valhalla Rising seems like a fairly straightforward viking action romp, with plenty of blood, beards and...metaphysics? 

Ok, so not so straightforward then.

In truth, the only thing that is straightforward about this film is the premise: mysterious mute viking warrior (named One-Eye by his young companion, though that's clearly not his real name...if he even has one) escapes his pagan captors and falls in with a bunch of Christian crusaders who are en route to Jerusalem. One-Eye joins their crusade (for his own reasons that are not divulged) and things go pear-shaped when the crusaders somehow end up in America as opposed to the Middle East. From then on, things get very weird indeed...

While it's trendy these days to paint vikings as rather more civilised people than the popular legends, the fact remains that they were quite partial to spilling blood and crushing the odd skull. This is certainly the angle that Valhalla Rising takes, and subsequently the film is packed with eye-wincing brutality. It's not gratuitous - the violence is necessary and appropriate, though it is certainly visceral.

Don't mistake Valhalla Rising for a dumb action film though, because it's much more than that. For a start, the cinematography is excellent; the first third of the film in particular is wonderfully bleak and moody, and the rugged landscape is used to impressive effect. The early parts of the film are shot through with strong sense of realism; it all just looks so authentic, which is something that historical films don't always achieve.  The final third of the film, set in America (or is it? Yeah, it's that kind of film) lacks the brooding intensity of the earlier scenes, but makes up for that by cranking up the weirdness.

Another aspect worthy of praise is the sound; it's been a long time since I've seen a film where the soundtrack plays such a huge - and effective - role in promoting the tension and paranoia that percolates through the film. It's utilised so well that even in apparently static scenes where not a lot is happening, the skittering beats and discordant notes keep the tension levels high. When combined with the obscure 'dream' sequences that repeat throughout the movie, the overall result is pleasingly unsettling.

It's difficult to say for sure what exactly Valhalla Rising is trying to say or do (if anything at all), yet the religious undertone is clear, and the film can be said to be riffing on the idea of faith (and faithlessness). The mist-shrouded journey certainly has an element of the supernatural, and the film ranges into metaphysical territory when the crusaders arrive in the New World. If that all sounds a little weird, then that's because it's a strange film - yet absorbing too, especially earlier on.

Mads Mikkelsen is excellent as One-Eye; despite not having a single line of dialogue (hell, he doesn't even have a single grunt) he manages to imbue his character ('the creature' as the crew members refer to him in the 'making of' feature) with a strange, detached ferocity. Yet he's curiously enigmatic at the same time, which provides an odd counterpoint to his brutal side.

Valhalla Rising is unflinchingly brutal, unsettling and bizarre. This violence and weirdness is merged seamlessly with often gorgeous visuals and a hugely effective soundtrack. A very strange film, but also a curiously good one.

A few words on Paranormal Activity

I find it hard to believe that people actually walked out of test screenings of Paranormal Activity because they found it "too scary" - that sounds like cheap publicity talk. "One of the most scary films of all time" is an exaggeration.

That said, there's a lot to like. The 'home-made' style (clearly influenced by Blair Witch) works well, with a convincing mix of CCTV film interspersed with footage from a handheld camera. The two leads, Katie and Micah, have a believable chemistry (although Micah's childish attitude towards the paranormal events really starts to grate as the film goes on, and seems rather unbelievable given what he has experienced). The tension is carefully cranked up - perhaps too slowly at times - and there are some genuinely unsettling moments that are handled extremely well; you feel a sense of impending dread as the lights go out and the nighttime footage begins once again. The ending (or at least, the one that was used - there are two alternative endings) has seemingly split opinion, but for me it was the most shocking moment of the film and worked well.

No doubt the hype had raised my expectations to levels that the film never really stood much chance of reaching, but nonetheless I do feel there were not enough shocks. As mentioned above, there are some really chilling moments - sometimes the tension is almost unbearable - but not enough in my opinion. I think there's too much of the 'daytime' footage, and this breaks up the tension.

Still, an enjoyably unsettling film that certainly has its moments. Kudos too to the director, who has achieved impressive things with a tiny budget, unknown actors and a tight timeframe.

A few words on Buried

I've often found that many of the best books have very simple premises, and the same is sometimes true of films as well. I've always liked the original Saw film for its simplicity: two men awake in a filthy bathroom, chained to the walls, with no idea of how they got there. 

Buried starts with an even more simple premise: Paul Conroy, a truck driver working in a Middle Eastern trouble spot, awakes to find himself buried alive in a rough coffin, with - initially - only a phone and a zippo lighter for company. After overcoming the terror that initially engulfs him, Conroy starts to make frantic phone calls in a desperate attempt to organise his own rescue. But with oxygen - and battery life - in short supply, he finds himself in a desperate race against time. 

Ryan Reynolds excels as Conroy, turning in a very convincing display as his character flits from one emotion to another: terror, anger, frustration, sorrow. His believable performance is augmented by the sheer oppressiveness of his situation; the camera never leaves his coffin, so the watcher effectively spends the entire film locked in that cramped, dark space - Conroy's phone and lighter providing the light. The end result is an uncomfortably realistic depiction of the horror of being imprisoned six feet under. 

Conroy's conversations with a variety of figures drives the story, and adds additional emotional depth. Some conversations are moving (his declaration of love to his wife) while others explore the cynical self-preservation employed by major corporations (Conroy's boss telling him he's fired and that the company won't pay insurance to his family in the event of his death ). The voice acting of some figures is unconvincing; sometimes the tone of the other person doesn't quite fit with the current emotion of Conroy, while the voice of 'Jabir' the antagonist is rather lacking in character - "You give one million money. Now!" - and is perhaps a missed opportunity to explore the insurgents' motives more. 

Unconvincing segments of voice acting aside, Buried makes for an extremely uncomfortable two hours - for all the right reasons. 

A few quick words on 'Into the Wild'

It seems that there's two different perceptions of Christopher McCandless and his voyage of self-discovery that saw him end up in the wilds of Alaska.

The first suggests that McCandless was reckless to the point of stupidity, and that the hardship he endured was the unavoidable result of his naivety. The second argues that he is an inspiration, as he turned his back on materialism and the mundanity of life, and instead sought out a deeper meaning.

As always the truth is probably somewhere in between. The good thing though, is that the film Into the Wild - which charts McCandless's personal and physical journey - is not in the least judgmental. It doesn't hold back, and clearly shows the dangers of what McCandless subjected himself to, but the spirit of the film is very much one of adventure, discovery and self-develpment - and all the emotions that these things inspire.

Into the Wild is a deeply moving film. There are many touching moments, and it's inspiring (although of course is intimidating and tense at times). It's a real ode to adventure, to forging your own path, and to eschewing materialism and modern culture in favour of something deeper, something more timeless. Something more real.

Emile Hirsh turns in a deeply convincing portrayal of McCandless, while the soundtrack - much of which was provided by the inimitable Eddie Vedder from Pearl Jam - fits the mood of the film perfectly.

In short, it's a great watch. Whichever perception you hold of McCandless, it's hard to deny how moving and inspiring this film is in its depiction of the triumph of the human spirit.

Brief thoughts on Inception

Yeah, so I finally got around to checking out the film that everyone's been raving about.

I thought it was very good; not the spectacular film some have suggested, but certainly one of the best films released in quite a while. At a time when Hollywood seems content to churn out remakes, reboots, and just depressingly bland films in general, it's great to see a film that completely goes against the grain and rises above this tide of mediocrity.

Inception feels both fresh and sharp. The underlying premise - of stealing information from people by entering their dreams - is wonderfully developed, and offers all kinds of possibilities, many of which are subsequently explored. It's pleasing to watch a film that demands you actually think carefully about what is happening, rather than just throwing mindless action at you (Transformers, anyone?).

That's not to say there's no action and violence in Inception, as there is. It's just not the driving force of the film, although it must be said that it is handled very well indeed (there's some wonderfull editing and cinematography involved). No, the driving force of the film - gratifyingly - are the characters; specifically Leonardo DiCaprio's protagonist, Dom Cobb, who struggles to deal with some shocking memories that he just can't escape. There's a very strong emotional aspect that adds genuine depth; despite the original premise and often blistering action sequences, this is very much a film about human emotions and the power of the mind.

I've never been fully convinced by DiCaprio; in some films he's brilliant (Blood Diamond) and in others he's, well, not (The Beach). But I thought he was good in Shutter Island earlier this year, and the same is true here: he turns in a very solid, believable performance. Ellen Page complements him neatly in her role, while Tom Hardy also impresses. The soundtrack is also worthy of mention; Hans Zimmer has developed a reputation for great movie scores, and he's on form again here. The music fits the atmosphere of the film perfectly.

Overall, a very good, original film that's definitely worth checking out.

Predators

Despite only being four years old when it was released in 1987, I've always been a big fan of the action/horror film Predator - there's something eternally enjoyable about watching a team of battle-hardened, crack commandos slowly crumbling under the pressure of being stalked by an unseen enemy that always seems one step ahead of them. Of course, the fact that the script was packed with great one-liners ("There's something out there waiting for us...and it ain't no man") and had a seriously cool alien antagonist certainly helped.

The inevitable sequel followed in 1991, though pleasingly it was a worthy follow-up. It didn't match the first film, but nonetheless it was an enjoyable romp and further developed the alien predators, providing a more substantial glimpse of the creatures' culture and their strange codes of honour (not to mention throwing in the odd geek reference, like the alien skull in the predators' spaceship).

Frustratingly, despite the potential scope for further films (the first two movies barely scratch the surface of predator culture) the pickings for fans of the franchise over the next twenty years were slim indeed: the painfully mediocre Aliens Vs Predator in 2004 and the laughably terrible Aliens Vs Predator: Requiem in 2007 offered next to nothing in terms of further development of the species.

But in Predators, fans of the franchise have finally got a film worthy of the two original movies.

Like its predecessors, the new installment in the series has a simple premise: seven strangers from a variety of backgrounds (mostly military) find themselves on an alien world with no idea of how they got there, or why. When it swiftly becomes apparent that something is hunting them, they're forced to work together in order to try and survive. Naturally, all sorts of mayhem ensues.

Predators has been called a 'reboot' of the series, and while I'm not overly keen on the term, it's certainly true in the sense that this film takes the franchise back to its roots - hunters and hunted, locked in a desperate struggle in a jungle environment. This is one of the most pleasing aspects about Predators: that it pays homage to the first film in a number of ways (the music and sound effects are deliberately very reminiscent of the original movie, while certain lines of dialogue are also borrowed - as is one entire scene which is clearly a nod to a moment in Predator).

One of Predator's strengths was the focus it placed on characterisation, and the same is true of this new installment. Although the results are admittedly somewhat mixed, there's enough depth here for the watcher to engage with. Adrien Brody - somewhat surprisingly, it must be said - is convincing as the brooding mercenary Royce, as is Alice Braga as an Israeli sharpshooter. There perhaps could have been more character development - the individuals' backstories are barely touched on - but of course this would have had to have been balanced against the film's pace, and the filmmakers have clearly plumped for pace and action, which is hard to argue with.

The predators of course, are the stars of the show: they've been given a 21st-century makeover, and are as fearsome as ever. The unnerving way they shimmer in and out of visibility never gets old, while the mask-and-dreadlocks image is as cool as ever. There's no serious revelations about them or their culture, but there are hints here and there - such as the fact that they sometimes turn on their own kind, which has never been alluded to before.

There are flaws of course; the dialogue is occasionally stiff and lacks the quotability of the original film (though it does have its moments), the plot itself isn't much of a departure from the film's predecessors (and is one of those plots you can pick holes in if you want to),  and you can't help but feel that more could have been done with this bunch of misfits in terms of character development. Yet this is an action film, and to be fair it does the action part pretty darn well - there's plenty of exciting sequences, one or two twists, and overall it's a lot of fun.

And as always, the predators are very, very cool.

How to Train Your Dragon

I went to see this film partly because it received very good reviews, but also because the principle dragon kinda looks like one of my cats, which naturally I found quite amusing (obviously I'm referring to the feline on the left. And no, I don't still have that horrendous sofa).

Anyway, the film was very enjoyable indeed. The story is a classic misfit-comes-good gig: young viking is frustrated at not being given the chance to prove himself to his dragon-slaying peers, yet ends up playing a vital role in building bridges in dragon/viking relations and eventually becomes a hero. A simple, classic tale then, but it's a heck of a lot of fun. Let's face it, dragons and vikings are COOL, so what's not to like?

The relationship between our intrepid hero Hiccup, and his dragon Toothless, is very well portrayed and packs a surprisingly emotional punch, as does Hiccup's relationship with his father (there's no doubt this is a kids' film, but there's perhaps a few themes that are aimed at the more discerning older viewer). Toothless himself is an amusing creature, and the cause of much of the film's humour. The story moves at a good pace, with plenty of 'action' sequences to keep things ticking over. The climax is somewhat predictable (like I said, it's a film made for a young demographic) yet is pleasingly epic and handled well.

The soundtrack is one of the film's genuine surprises - some lovely classical compositions in the mix. Anyway, How to Train Your Dragon is well worth a look if you're stuck for something to watch at the cinema.

Gran Torino

I've now concluded my war films binge (or at least, I rather hope so - there's only so many explosions and flying limbs that you can take in a short space of time), so will begin a full write up of the movies I watched (might take a while, there were nine of them). In the meantime, a few quick words on Gran Torino, which I finally got around to watching last night.

Put simply, Gran Torino is an excellent film. Not only did Clint Eastwood direct and produce the movie, he also starred in it. His performance as Korean War veteran Walt Kowalski is superb - the blurb on the back of the DVD calls it 'bone-deep' and I think that's spot on. He portrays Kowalski as a brooding, prejudiced and aggressive individual, yet also as a man who has a kind nature and surprising sense of humour. The way Eastwood pivots between these different sides of the same character is both subtle and utterly convincing.

The story itself focuses on Kowalski's dislike for the Hmong immigrants that have moved in next door, and how his perception and attitude towards them gradually changes as he forms relationships with the younger members of the family. As a gang starts to terrorise his new friends, Kowalski finds himself helping the very people he initially disliked, and as events come to a head he realises that only he can save the family's future...but that a sacrifice will need to be made.

It's an absorbing story, covering a number of themes: prejudice, loyalty and the importance of staying true to yourself being just three of them. The script is very good and the plot itself is constructed well. I felt that the middle third lagged slightly - perhaps could have done with another run-in with the gang just to keep the tension going - but overall the pacing was good. The relationships between Kowalski and his Hmong neighbours are rendered very well, and the final climax is both surprising and powerful.

Highly recommended.

Thoughts on some films

Eden Lake

A British horror/dark thriller film that does a superb job of tapping into a very modern fear: the threat posed by a gang of juvenile thugs. Eden Lake follows the story of Jenny and Steve, who head off to a remote lake for a romantic weekend. Their experience is soured when they incur the wrath of a gang after a confrontation on the shores of the lake, and worse follows as petulance leads to anger, and then bloodshed. Before long Jenny and Steve find themselves in a desperate struggle for survival as, lost in the dense woods, they try to escape from the gang that are by now intent on their murders.

The fear of idle, ill-educated gangs of youths with nothing better to do than hurl abuse (and often more) at innocent people is a very British problem; over the last ten years it's become a real indication of our so-called 'broken society'. Eden Lake plays off the fear associated with such gangs very effectively indeed, giving the film a contemporary, relevant feel. Furthermore, it also explores both the nature of the problem (ie, the lack of positive parental role models) and also the pyschological dynamics of the gang (how their relationships rapidly sour as events spiral out of control is both intriguing and realistic).

In all, Eden Lake is a brutal, visceral portrayal of a series of events effectively grounded in a modern British fear. While this makes the film strikingly relevant, it may mean that viewers from outside the UK might fail to fully appreciate the themes that it explores.

The Wrestler

This film received so many plaudits, but I never got around to watching it. I remedied that last weekend by picking it up on DVD, and I'm so glad I did - it's an excellent film. Mickey Rourke turns in a career-defining performance as Randy 'The Ram' Robinson, a former pro-wrestler now scrounging a living by performing small-scale shows in high school gyms around New Jersey. After suffering a heart attack, Randy is forced to re-evaluate his life, leading to attempts at reuniting with his estranged daughter and striking up a relationship with a sympathetic stripper.

Despite the subject matter, The Wrestler is a surprisingly subtle film. Randy's a relic from the 1980s and struggles to come to terms with the modern world - watching him struggling to deal with his relationships and failing health makes for a touching, absorbing experience (much credit goes to Rourke for this, but also to the excellent script - much of which was improvised). Randy - for all his faults - is a very likable character and one that invokes easy sympathy. The main question that permeates the film is whether or not Randy can give up the thrill of the ring - and thus make a permanent break from his comfort zone - or whether he will ignore his worsening health and seek respite in what he knows best. It's a question that finally gets answered in moving, convincing style. A simply wonderful film.

Shutter Island

I really liked the premise for this film: two US Marshals investigate the disappearance of a missing prisoner from a creepy institution on a remote island, only to rapidly discover that nothing is as it seems. Visually the film pushes the right buttons, creating a tense atmosphere (the flashbacks are particularly effective). I wasn't wholly convinced by DiCaprio in the lead role as Edward Daniels (no matter how old he gets, he always looks about twenty) but he does a decent enough job. The star of the show however is Ben Kingsley who turns in a very assured performance as the rather sinister Dr Cawley. Despite the strong atmosphere and visuals, and solid acting, Shutter Island ultimately falls flat on the basis of a plot device that rears its ugly head towards the end of the film. Obviously I can't reveal what it is, but it will suffice to say that I'm not a fan of this sort of plot device and it completely cheapened the film for me. Overall, a disappointment.

Solomon Kane

Really enjoyed this film. I knew next to nothing about the actual character of Solomon Kane beyond what Mark Chadbourn described in the piece he wrote for me a while back, but the film seems to do the character justice.

James Purefoy turns in a suitably brooding performance as Kane, and certainly looks the part when he's got his cloak and slouched hat on. The combat sequences are handled well, but the real strength of the film is the atmosphere: bleak, oppressive and unforgiving. The scenery proves invaluable in helping to create this atmosphere - the desolate, snow-bound woods and burnt-out settlements create a real edge of tension. The supernatural elements are also portrayed in a convincing manner - my favourite scene of the entire film involved Kane, an abandoned church, a half-mad priest, a trapdoor, and...well, go see for yourself. It was pretty chilling.

The film's main drawback is that the overall plot is rather linear and predictable. You'll also work out the identity of the masked lieutenant both too early and too easily (plus it's a cliché I could have done without).

Flaws aside though, Solomon Kane is a very enjoyable romp: swordfights, demons, bleak landscapes and a bleaker atmosphere - what's not to like? Even better, there's (hopefully) more to come - this is allegedly the first film in a planned trilogy, with the ending certainly suggesting future instalments. Hopefully that will be the case.

Check out the trailer here.

Thoughts on Avatar

Had I seen Avatar before I did my end of year review, it would have replaced District 9 as the best film I saw last year. 

The opinion I'd garnered from the interwebs prior to seeing the film was mixed; there was a plethora of different reactions, ranging from hugely critical to gushing appreciation. It was hard to pinpoint a majority consensus, though the statement I saw most often was one along the lines of "Don't let the weak storyline and hamfisted ecological message ruin what is a visual, action-packed masterpiece."

I think that's roughly the opinion I hold of Avatar. The story itself has come under fire for being too simplistic, with the criticism that it was largely left undeveloped due to the focus on visuals. While this is largely true, personally I don't feel the film needed a more detailed story. Sure, it's a fairly simple plot, but I don't feel this detracts from the quality of the film. In fact, it can be seen as a strength - a more complicated storyline may have proved confusing and undermined the power of the film. I think the story suits the film's needs perfectly. 

As for the 'hamfisted' environmental message, I didn't have a problem with it. Some viewers suggested it was clunky and oppressive, but it wasn't for me. It's there if you want to embrace it, but it's no problem if you don't. It's not like the message is rammed down your throat. In any case, I think it's a decent statement and adds a nice thematic edge to the film. 

As you'd expect, the visuals are easily the film's strongest point. The world of Pandara is wonderfully realised and surely ranks as one of the greatest examples of world building in film history. I found it utterly convincing and absorbing, not to mention stunning to look at. The colours are beautifully done and there's some great ideas in terms of flora and fauna that make the film a really impressive spectacle (and the CGI is first class). These visuals, when combined with some thrilling action sequences, make for a seriously exciting watch. Make no mistake, this is a truly epic film and it is jaw-dropping at times. I'd recommend seeing it in 3D, which is what I watched it in, though I'd imagine it would be equally good in 2d (hard to judge how much the 3D elements really adds to it). 

Characterisation isn't a strong point, but it's satisfactory. There's one or two cliches, but it doesn't detract from a film which is all about visuals and action - and on these two elements it delivers with ease. I very rarely make a point of seeing a film more than once on the big screen, but Avatar is probably going to be one of the few exceptions. 

To sum up in one word - exhilarating. 

Thoughts on some films...

Thought I'd just give my opinion on some films that I've seen recently...

Quantum of Solace

I thought Casino Royale was a real triumph - a successful reinvention of the franchise (or, some would say, a reversion to a more accurate depiction of the Bond from Fleming's novels - minus the misogyny). Daniel Craig made for an excellent Bond - cool and collected, hard as nails, yet compassionate as well. I liked the new focus on realism rather than on pithy one-liners and ridiculous gadgets (I don't care what anyone says, that 'invisible' car was the dumbest thing I've ever seen in a film).

I expected good things of Quantum of Solace, so was extremely disappointed to find that it didn't meet my expectations. Craig once again turned in an admirable performance as Bond, but the weak plot and lack of any real connection between Bond and Camille undermined the film for me. It just came across as a series of gunfights linked by tenuous plotting, and had me hankering for a gadget or two and a bit of the old banter again.

If you want to see how a spy action thriller should be done, check out the Jason Bourne films - they do everything the Bond films do, but much, much better. The third one in particular, The Bourne Ultimatum, is superb.


Star Trek

I've never been into Star Trek, so a new film aiming to re-introduce the franchise to the unconverted was a good opportunity to see whether I was missing out.

Overall this is a watchable film, but certain aspects let it down. I didn't like the huge gap in the timeline for a start - one minute our young heroes are joining up at Starfleet Academy, the next minute they're well into their third year. So three years disappears in a flash, and for some reason this bothered me. I would have quite liked to see the sort of stuff they got up to there, a bit like how in Starship Troopers we get to see how the recruits are put through their paces.

I thought Zachary Quinto was very good as Spock, though Chris Pine as Kirk didn't quite work - not sure whether this was Pine's fault or due to the script, but Kirk in this film is a walking caricature - a bland, cocky local-boy-come-good. There are hints of a deeper characterisation, but not enough. His difficult relationship with Spock is reasonably well handled though.

The film's plot is also a bit weak, a little underwhelming. I really liked the Romulans - their spaceship is extremely cool - but we don't really see or learn much about them. Still, it's far from a bad movie and if they make a follow-up then I expect I'll check it out.

Angels and Demons

Probably the most positive thing you can say about Dan Brown's hugely popular, much-derided novel The Da Vinci Code is that at least it's better than the dull film version. Yet as bland as the film was, it unsurprisingly made a load of cash and so another film was inevitable.

Angels and Demons isn't much better. I've read the novel, and if you can ignore the total lack of characterisation and wooden prose, and suspend your belief enough, it's a reasonably enjoyable read. The film manages to replicate the non-existant characterisation (there's absolutely no connection of any sort between Langdon and Vittoria, nor any depth to them individually) but somehow manages to lose whatever it was that made the novel vaguely entertaining.

It's watchable bubble-gum fare, but nothing more than that. Still, at least they changed the ludicrous helicopter scene from the novel to something a little more believable.

Thoughts on some films...

Been meaning for a while to give my thoughts on some films I've watched recently, so rather than doing full reviews I figured I'd just lump them together and give my general opinion on each movie.

I am Legend

Alternative titles for this film: I am Mediocrity; I am Missed Opportunity; I am Total Waste of 90 Minutes of Your Life.

I'd heard that this film was bad, but I didn't realise how bad. I am Legend bears so little resemblance to the classic SF/horror hybrid novel by Richard Matheson that you almost wonder why they bothered to give it the same title. Aside from the fact that the protagonists in book and film both have the same name, there's not a lot in common between the two mediums.

What makes the book so brilliant is the tense, claustrophobic feel as Neville cowers in his barricaded house, listening to the vampires howling his name as he prays for the dawn. This aspect just doesn't appear in the film at all, which is one of two fundamental flaws that undermine it.

The other flaw is the use of CGI for the monsters. The mutants just look like cheap cast-offs from the Mummy films - they just don't inspire fear at all. This really killed the film for me - why the hell didn't they just use actors? Sure, this would mean less flexibility, but a far better degree of realism.

Will Smith does his best with a rather dull script as he wanders about a ruined cityscape that just looks like a movie set, but the whole film just falls totally flat. There are flashes of what could have been, namely the sequence early on when Neville ventures into a dark building to find his dog, but overall it's a bland, unexciting mess with a really weak ending bolted on. If you want a post-apocalyptic film with ruined cityscapes and survivors struggling for survival against a mutated population, then watch 28 Days Later instead.

30 Days of Night

Now this is a rarity - a good vampire film. In terms of atmosphere, this film is bang on the money - it's tense, it's unnerving, it's visceral. Josh Hartnett is perhaps a surprising name to take the lead role, but he does pretty well. The script is good, building believable relationships between the characters and setting up some cool sequences.

The vampires are really well done, bearing more similarities to the terrifying creatures of European folktales than the melancholic types floating around in frilly cuffs. Unlike the monsters in I am Legend, real actors are used instead of dodgy CGI, and it makes all the difference.

In all, a really strong horror movie with a surprisingly moving ending.


Franklyn

Bit of an odd one, this. One of those movies which you quite enjoy, but don't really quite understand the point of.

I loved the scenes set in Meanwhile City; really liked the Victorian/Steampunk setting, and the really odd happenings going on here. These sequences were really evocative and atmospheric.

The storylines set in the real world were engaging as well though, with some surprisingly noir-ish prose and characters. The script cleverly links all the stories of the separate characters together, resulting in an intense climax to the film.

And yet, despite this, I couldn't help but wonder what exactly the meaning of at all was. Still, clocking in at just over 90 minutes it's well worth a watch, and a good opportunity to show some support for an upcoming British director. And it's certainly better than much of the drivel coming out of Hollywood these days (Pirates of the Caribbean 4? Yawn).

Iron Man

Bit underwhelmed by this one. Robert Downey Jr. is admittedly terrific, bringing real charisma and dynamism to the role, while the effects - as you expect these days - are excellent, and the actual Iron Man suit is just unbelievably cool.

But the plot is rather thin on the ground; the film starts well enough, though a lot more could have been made of Stark's imprisonment. But once he escapes, the whole thing goes downhill a bit. Main problem is a lack of a decent villain; Obadiah Stane just didn't cut it for me. The eventual mash-up between Stane and Stark was rather disappointing.

Feel like this was a bit of a missed opportunity, it's all just a bit lightweight. Hopefully the planned sequel will have a meatier plot and better bad guy, as that was all that was really missing from this first instalment.

Cronos

I loved Pan's Labyrinth, which single-handedly proved that Guillermo del Toro is a massively talented film director. I was intrigued by the premise of Cronos (which involves a parasite contained in a mechanical critter, giving eternal life to anyone who uses it) and the many accolades the film received seemed to indicate that it would be well worth a watch.

Wrong. Cronos left me totally cold, it just didn't do anything for me at all. There's no tension or atmosphere, and the painfully one-dimensional plot offers little of interest. So much more could have been done with the relationship between Gris and his wife, after he becomes a vampire (there are hints but it's emotionally muted), and also with Dieter de la Guardia, the dying man who is desperate for the parasite's gift. Ron Pearlman's villain, Angel, is one-dimensional to the point of embarrassment.

Film review: Alien Vs Predator: Requiem

Alien Vs Predator: Requiem

(2007)

I'm going to just cut straight to the chase here: this is the worst film I've seen in a very long time. The last really bad movie I saw was the crap-tastic Pirates of the Caribbean 3, but that at least had one or two redeeming moments.

I'm a bit of a Predator/Alien geek, so I normally enjoy these sort of films. I actually saw the first AVP film in the cinema, and thought it was decent. Having watched it again on DVD (the UK recession has been good for one thing: dirt-cheap DVDs) I came to the same conclusion - it's not big or clever, but it was decent entertainment.

There was some sort of plot, some attempt at characterisation, and plenty of 'geek' moments (I still love the shots of the ancient tribes worshipping the predators as they stand atop pyramids). All things considered, it was good fun. Nowhere near as good as the Alien films (well, the first two at least) and probably not even as good as either Predator movie, but still a decent addition to the franchise.

AVP: Requiem, by contrast, is just a total mess and the problems are legion. For a start, most of the movie is filmed in the dark. Why? No idea. Perhaps the directors thought it would make it scarier. It doesn't. It makes it pointless, because you can't see what the hell is happening most of the time. Subsequently any decent action (if there actually was any) is wasted.

As for the plot, there isn't one. Aliens and a predator invade a small town, and everyone runs around screaming and panicking. That's about it. Characterisation is equally non-existent: the main leads are wooden and utterly lacking in depth. The script is horribly stiff and packed with crap one-liners. My favourite was the token pretty blonde squealing "We're not going to make it, are we?" in an attempt to generate some emotion. I just wish one of the other 'characters' had replied, "No, you're not going to make it. You see those nice aliens outside? They're going to forcibly remove you from the gene-pool so that the rest of humanity doesn't have to listen to your constant hysterics."

There aren't even any decent 'geek' moments for us geeks to enjoy. The main attraction was the fact that the 'boss' alien had predator characteristics (having burst forth from a predator) but this admittedly cool aspect was sadly lost in the darkness. The disappointing confrontation between the pred-alien and the predator (I think there was a fight, though I could be wrong) was a bit like watching two people have rampant sex in the dark. In fancy dress.

Overall, a shocking film and a total waste of the potential of the franchise.

Rating: d

Film review: The Dark Knight

Batman Begins (2005) was a damned cool film for many reasons but the best thing about it was the fact that it made Batman cool again. After some woeful Batman films in the 1990s - including a horrific attempt by Jim Carey to single-handedly destroy the franchise with his embarrassing interpretation of The Riddler (Batman Forever) - what was required was a film that gave Batman the respect he deserved. Batman Begins hit the nail on the head in this respect and turned out to be one of the best superhero movies in living memory. Maybe even the best.

The question for the sequel was simple: could it deliver amid the heightened expectation? Now that we knew what to expect, would the impact be quite the same? Perhaps more importantly - given that so many Hollywood sequels fall flat on their faces - could director Christopher Nolan deliver a sequel worthy of the first film? The simple, immediate answer is yes to all three.

The premise for The Dark Knight is simple: the Joker has arrived in Gotham, and is looking to - putting it rather bluntly - fuck some shit up. And fuck some shit up he does - in great style. There's no doubt that Heath Ledger delivers a brilliant performance as the Joker and almost completely steals the show. He allegedly spent a month alone in a hotel room getting into character, and it shows. Every giggle, every gesture, every word: all are delivered perfectly. Subsequently, his interpretation of the Joker is one of the most psychopathic, unnerving and entertaining performances of a villain in film history. That the Joker makes this movie is in little doubt - he's the ultimate criminal, because he cares about nothing - not even money, as we see - and that includes his own health and safety. His only goal is to prove that no one is incorruptible, no one is so pure they can't be soiled and dragged down to his level. It's an interesting slant, and Ledger works it very well indeed - as do the director and writers.

That's not to say the other cast members don't play their own significant roles as well. Christian Bale is as good as ever as Batman, Aaron Eckhart turns in a very strong performance as Harvey Dent (his character progression is handled very well and makes for riveting viewing), Michael Caine is once again perfect as Alfred, while Oldman and Freeman shine as Lt. Gordan and Lucius Fox. Only Maggie Gyllenhaal failed to convince for me; believe it or not, I actually preferred Katie Holmes more as Rachel Dawes. I never really sensed any real emotional connection between Gyllenhaal's character and Batman, but then again perhaps this was deliberate.

The plot itself is well constructed, with quite a few threads and one or two surprises. There are some extremely cool sequences, and once again we get to see the Batmobile in all its glory...as well as a rather cool bike. Despite the impressive effects and set-pieces, it was the human element that really worked for me. For example, the sequence with the two ferries was a brilliant idea, and when that scene finally resolved itself I felt like standing up and applauding there and then. The script is also strong, with some good lines (most delivered by Ledger).

Another strong element is the way Batman is presented. He's not an out-and-out superhero, and the movie reflects this. He does things other superheroes wouldn't do, and subsequently he possesses a dark edge that materialises as the film progresses. I've never really read any of the comics, but I understand that the Batman of this movie (and the first film) is far closer to the actual character than any of the previous films. The film crew should certainly be applauded for this, and also for managing to largely steer clear of CGI.

So, great set-pieces, good script, some excellent acting and a strong plot - sounds like The Dark Knight is a complete triumph, right? Well...not quite. Not for me. I'm not even sure why I think this, apart from being aware of a few minor quibbles (didn't really like Gyllenhaal as Rachel, as I said, and thought that the film lacked the truly climatic ending that the first film had). Maybe I just enjoyed the development and creation of Batman that the first film offered, as opposed to him already being established. I'm not sure really.

Still, The Dark Knight is a very good film and a worthy sequel. Like most others, I look forward to the inevitable next instalment...

Rating: dddd

Film review: Cloverfield

I'm rather late to the party with this one, the reason being that I refuse to pay exorbitant prices to watch a movie in an uncomfortable seat while hordes of tracksuit-wearing teenagers proceed to talk all the way through the feature. Instead, I generally wait for the film to be released on DVD which is why the review will often appear here some time after the movie's release. Still, better late than never...

The premise of Cloverfield is pretty simple: Rob Hawkins' farewell party is interrupted by what seems like an earthquake. Chaos then ensues as it becomes apparent that some sort of huge monster is rampaging through New York City. As the rest of the populace try to flee to safety, Rob and a handful of friends try to reach the apartment of his longtime friend Beth, who is trapped there, as the monster fights a running battle with the military. 

The key selling-point for Cloverfield was the Blair Witch Project approach it took: all the action unfolds through the lens of a single video camera carried by the protagonists. I must confess that I like this style very much; it lends a very personal quality to the proceedings and a certain dose of reality. It worked brilliantly in Blair Witch and it works very well in Cloverfield. A subsequent aspect that works well is that the footage is filmed over previous material of Rob and Beth on a day trip, snatches of which crop up from time to time, emphasising the relationship that is at stake. 

After the obligatory slow opening (in which the scene is set and characters are introduced) the action kicks off with a momentary blackout accompanied by what seems to be an earthquake. From this point on, the tempo barely lets up. One of the most effective parts of the film is the sequence following the blackout and tremors, when citizens pour into the streets and watch helplessly as the Statue of Liberty's head rolls down the road. A glimpse of the monster follows and naturally panic spreads like wildfire. These harrowing scenes are reminiscent of the panic of 9/11, particularly with regards to the dust cloud that envelops the surrounding area as a building collapses. The result is hard-hitting and unnervingly realistic. At times you almost feel you're watching a real news report, such is the impact of these scenes.

As the film progresses we get to see more glimpses of the monster, and the CGI is absolutely first-rate. This sort of film often lives or dies by its special effects, but the Cloverfield team totally deliver. There are some stunning set-pieces (the Brooklyn Bridge scene is superb, as is the sequence where the group get caught in a fight between the monster and the military - to say the latter is realistic seems almost an understatement). While the monster is the star of the show, the human protagonists play their parts well and manage to effectively alternate between looking terrified and shell-shocked. Another strong point is the film's length - at 84 minutes it doesn't overstay its welcome, managing to pack plenty of action into its relatively short duration. 

The film is however let down by the human aspect. The actors/actresses do a decent job but they're given very little to work with. None of the characters are particularly interesting and the strength of their relationships doesn't really stand up to close scrutiny. Given that the entire plot revolves around the relationship between Rob and Beth, this is something of a problem. The plight of the characters doesn't really inspire any genuine involvement, though credit should be given for the attempts to provide some sort of emotional impact which is too often lacking from monster movies. 

Despite this, the weak characters and their shallow relationships do not spoil what is a hugely intense, enjoyable monster film that by turns excites and terrifies. The special effects are first-rate and the first-person perspective works brilliantly to create an exhilarating experience. 

Rating: dddd

Film review: The Spiderwick Chronicles

Ever since the success of Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy, Hollywood movie bosses have been squealing for more fantastical movie scripts as well as scrabbling to option the movie rights to fantasy books they think will make them plenty of money. The Spiderwick Chronicles is the latest film to rumble off the production line.

Based on the children's books of the same name, The Spiderwick Chronicles follows the story of the three Grace children - Mallory (the sensible one), Jared (the rebellious one) and Simon (the boring one) - as they move into a spooky house (yes, that old chestnut again) with their mother. Jared finds an old book - a "fieldguide" to the fairy world by Arthur Spiderwick - and then before long the siblings find themselves up against the evil denizens of the fairy world, who want the book for themselves...so their leader, the evil ogre Mulgarath can destroy the world. Or something.

The bog-standard plot is fairly indicative of the entire film; other than the solid CGI (which, let's face it, is expected these days) everything about this film is just so mediocre. The plot, the characters, the script, it's all just kid's fantasy by-the-numbers. Evil villain, check. Half-arsed critters, check. Half-baked action sequences, check. Totally unexplained plot device that fails to paper over the cracks in the story, check. It's all just so mundane, which is rather ironic given the supposed fantastical element.

Some aspects, other than the CGI, are good - Hogsqueal the Hobgoblin and Thimbletack the brownie with anger management issues - add the odd moment of humour, and...that's about it.

Some aspects, as mentioned already, were not so good. The character of Simon is barely developed at all and he hardly serves any purpose, while the scene where the trio visit some token 'magic glade where time doesn't exist' is not even explained at all (in terms of where and what it is).

Perhaps I'm being a little harsh; The Spiderwick Chronicles is a kid's film after all. But then again that doesn't mean it can completely ignore character development and plotting in favour of CGI set-pieces.

Kids will probably enjoy it, as will perhaps fans of the books, but anyone else would probably do well to steer clear.

5/10

Film review: Tales From Earthsea

After the disappointing TV series based on Ursula Le Guin's A Wizard of Earthsea, I was interested to see if Studio Ghibli could do any better. Studio Ghibli has forged an impressive reputation thanks to the superb quality of their animation and direction - the latter largely due to mastermind Hayao Miyazaki - as well as the thoughtful, emotional nature of their films. Having created masterpieces such as Spirited Away and the epic adventure Howl's Moving Castle, Studio Ghibli seemed well placed to deliver another stirring adventure in Tales From Earthsea. I certainly had high hopes; while not a massive fan of anime, I have nonetheless enjoyed the Ghibli productions I have seen so far and can appreciate the superb animation and production of their releases.

So it was a bit of a surprise to find that Tales From Earthsea falls well short of the standard I think we've all come to expect from Studio Ghibli.

The main problem with Tales From Earthsea is the storyline. I've only ever read the first book in the Earthsea series and that was a long time ago, but nonetheless I can remember fragments. Subsequently I hoped Tales From Earthsea would follow the storyline of the first book, where Ged the farmboy becomes a wizard. Instead the film follows what is allegedly a plot cobbled together from the third and fourth books in the Earthsea series. The result is an uninspiring tale about Ged (fully-grown) and Arren (a young prince who murdered his father) teaming up to defeat the evil wizard, Lord Cob. The disappointingly predictable plot plods along and only really gets going towards the end of the film, by which point I was past caring. Ghibli is known for its warm, distinctive characters but those in Earthsea feel strangely lifeless; there is no real spark. Arren's inner torment is not really illustrated enough, nor for that matter is Therru's. The only character that makes any real impression is the uncomfortably androgynous Lord Cob, excellently voiced by Yuko Tanaka.

Even the animation is a pale imitation of Ghibli's usual excellence; there are some nice backgrounds and the dragons are superbly done, but the usual atmosphere that Ghibli visuals evoke never really materialises. Earthsea is portrayed well enough, but doesn't sparkle as it should. Alongside the visual mastery of fantasy adventure Howl's moving Castle, Earthsea pales hopelessly in comparison.

Perhaps the failings of Earthsea are down to the fact that the film was directed by Goro Miyazaki, son of the renowned Hayao, and that it is his first film. Whatever the reason, there's no hiding the fact that Tales From Earthsea is a big disappointment. The fact that Le Guin herself commented "This is not my book"after watching the film indicates that she wasn't impressed either.

With the failures of the earlier TV series and now Ghibli's Tales from Eathsea, fans will have to wait longer for an adaption that does the series justice.

5/10

Film review: 28 Weeks Later

Although this blog will primarily focus on speculative fiction and authors of the genre, I watch a lot of films and so the odd film review will slip in now and again.

When 28 Days Later was released back in 2002, it breathed some fresh air into the zombie genre. On first appearance it looked much the same as previous zombie movies; a band of survivors struggling to stay alive in a world now filled with the living dead. Except 28 Days Later was different.

It wasn't the 'zombies' that took centre stage. Sure, the 'infected' as they are referred to in the film, are pretty terrifying. Yet it is the horror of a post-apocalyptic United Kingdom that took real prominence. The amazing shots of a deserted London were both beautiful and harrowing at the same time. It was these scenes that generated the real fear. If a real virus broke out that caused the world we know to end, this is what the aftermath would look like. The gritty, visceral production just added to the realism and, subsequently, to the horror of it all. There was no cheap supernatural terror here, which is why the film is so powerful. It depicts the results of what happens when science goes too far. This is the real power of the film: a nightmare future that could realistically happen.

Of course, it doesn't matter how well the setting is portrayed - if the plot and characters are crap then the film will suffer. Fortunately the plot held up well (albeit with a weaker final third) and the characters had real depth. The script managed somehow to insert moments of humour without ruining the overall effect (in fact, the only threat to the atmosphere was the actress that played Hannah, whose acting could give you splinters). In short, 28 Days was a triumph - a relatively low-budget British film that managed to be utterly harrowing and dispense with one or two cliché s along the way.

So when news of a sequel - 28 Weeks Later - surfaced, I was pretty excited. Then I saw the trailer and thought it was...ok. But not what I expected. For a start the focus seemed more on action and big explosions, which was exactly the opposite of the first. Still, I kept an open mind. I didn't actually manage to see the film at the cinema (I rather dumbly forgot to attend the viewing that I had free tickets for) but finally picked it up on DVD. And finally, I got around to watching it.

The story to 28 Weeks starts - yes, you guessed it - 28 weeks after the first film ends. Under the supervision of the American army, survivors that fled abroad are now being returned to London, to a 'safe zone.' The infected are all dead, we are told. The war against infection has been won. It's safe. But of course, it all goes horribly wrong. The infection returns and the Americans lose control. The film then follows a young boy and his older sister as they try to make their way to safety amidst the carnage.

28 Weeks starts promisingly with a scene set during the original infection, where a group of survivors - hiding in a boarded up farmhouse - try to continue life as normal. They sit down to dinner. They open a bottle of wine. There is small talk. It's extremely unsettling and for me is the most unnerving part of the film; the idea that the whole country - perhaps the world - has gone to hell and all these people can do is try and block it out and act as if everything is normal. This is the closest 28 Weeks gets to the atmosphere of the first film. Unfortunately, after the first fifteen minutes the film slowly goes downhill.

Too much of the film takes place in the ‘safe zone’ - a kind of hybrid military/civilian compound. When the action does move outside into London, night has fallen and so we don’t get to see much scenery. There is precious little of the haunting footage of a deserted London that made the first film so effective.

Secondly the characters are just not as engaging as those from the first film. Jim and Serena, the main protagonists from 28 Days, had real depth: Serena was resourceful and brutally pragmatic, yet her steely exterior hid a kind personality. Jim overcame his early emotional fragility to risk everything to save his companions. Together, with Hannah, they were merely survivors, yet they formed a bond that made them more like family.

Tammy and Andy, the two main protagonists in 28 Weeks, are family: they are brother and sister. But there’s no real connection there, their closeness never really surfaces. The most interesting character is Don, their father, who hides a terrible secret but crumbles when the past comes back to haunt him. Don aside, the rest of the characters are disappointingly flat. The American soldiers in particular could have just been snatched from any random Hollywood film.

Speaking of Hollywood, although 28 Weeks is a British film, like its predecessor, the plot could have been ripped straight from a mainstream Hollywood blockbuster: brother and sister try to escape a city full of crazies, enlisting help along their sadly one-dimensional way. A strength of the first film was that you couldn’t see where it was going, or how it would end. 28 Weeks is in this regard far more predictable. The plot is a lot more action-orientated, perhaps to make it more mainstream. Again, a strength of 28 Days was the focus on the characters, whereas the focus in 28 Weeks is on the big explosions and the chase scenes.

There are some weak moments in the plot as well, for example Tammy and Andy’s decision to sneak out of the safe zone to visit their old family home just seems so unlikely and is little more than a plot convenience. There are good moments however: their trip into the underground for example is particularly unnerving, and ‘the helicopter scene’ is pretty cool. And, to the script-writers’ credit, the explanation for how the infection returns is completely credible and not just some cheap crap.

28 Weeks Later isn’t a bad film. It’s entertaining and manages to give the odd scare, but the overall effect falls short of the benchmark set by the first film. Hopefully, the third film - 28 Months Later (no, seriously) - which allegedly will be set in Russia, will restore the series to its former horrifying glory.

7/10