Movie Review: Prometheus

The lukewarm reviews did Prometheus a favour. They helped puncture the biggest bubble of hype to surround any movie in recent memory. It's been impossible to take a breath over the last few weeks without someone trying to ram Prometheus down your throat. Complete three minute TV ad breaks devoted to one monster trailer. "Special cinema featurettes" interviewing the entire crew, right down to the big stone head's cleaning lady. You couldn't go out in the street without being accosted by Ridley Scott, desperate to tell you about his "creation myth" and how "this was much more than just an Alien prequel".

Like many people, I'm wary of too much hype. When Hollywood throws so much money at a film before it opens (and refuses critics access till the very last second), I start to smell turkey. And then, late last week... I started to hear the reviews. Ho-hum three starrers that complained of a poor script, a lack of suspense, anticlimax and 'meh'. One former colleague, possibly the world's biggest Alien fan, whose excitement over this movie has been bubbling over for months, broke down in soppy wet tears on Facebook and blew his brains out with a bicycle pump.

As I said at the top, all this did Prometheus a huge favour. My expectations weren't too high... and so...

I liked it.

Go in expecting another Aliens movie and you'll probably be disappointed. Because that's not what's on offer here: and that's a good thing. Indeed, the closing moneyshot seems almost shoed in to make the obligatory connection to the franchise Scott gave messy birth to back in 1979. This is a film that stands fine on its own, and may even have benefited from not being tied to the movies that went before. It has a fascinating mythology all its own, a great cast (Fassbender steals it once again) and some truly stunning visuals (note: I did not watch this film in 3D, and can only imagine what a mess that pointless "technology" would have made of many of the key moments).

Don't get me wrong, Prometheus is by no means perfect. There are some pretty huge plotholes and the last half hour feels rushed. Guy Pearce, while excellent, seems a strange choice for a role that could just as easily been filled by an older actor minus the liver-spotted war paint. But these are quibbles; I didn't have any major problems with the script, the mystery kept me engrossed, and Noomi Rapace proves a great choice for the lead, more than just a girl with a dragon tattoo... and much more than just a Ripley substitute.

It's all left wide open for a sequel, obviously, yet if they do go down that route they'll need to make damned sure not to revert to type. There are many questions still to be answered here, but the temptation to run back down a dimly lit corridor towards another crowd pleasing humans versus aliens shoot-out must be avoided at all costs.

Movie Review: The Raid

All the critics loved Indonesian action movie The Raid. Listen to them bleat...

"Remember your first time with Hard Boiled? Die Hard? This is how it's done - a clean, hard, constant hit of adrenalin." (Empire)

"High octane excitement from start to finish." (5 Live)

"You have never seen anything this AWESOME." (Twitch Film.)

Even the normally reserved Peter Bradshaw at the Grauniad chimes in with...

"The Raid is completely deranged - and completely superb."

Blimey!

Now, I hate to be the voice of 'meh' in all this, but...

I just don't get it. It's a nice enough premise (and one that suits a city as lawless as Jakarta is painted - not sure how they'll explain the inevitable Hollywood remake): a tower block full of criminals in the worst part of town is targeted by a rogue SWAT team, and a shoot-em-up / kick-boxing bloodbath ensues. However... and this may just be me... but once you've seen 5 chop-sockey pummelings in a row, you start to feel a little... well, pummeled... yourself.

The comparison with the godfather of all action movies only goes so far as "they're both set in a tall building". What Die Hard had... and The Raid palpably doesn't... is a charismatic hero, a superbly arch pantomime baddy, good jokes (to break up the fight scenes) and heart-stopping tension. It's not a bad film, and Welsh director Gareth Evans gives it his all, but in the end there's little more to be found here than one fight scene after another after another after another after another. After another. If that's all you're looking for... then go join the critics.

Movie Review - The Dictator

On exiting Sacha Baron Cohen's The Dictator, I decided to play a little Generation Game memory test, recalling as many of the broken taboos that had trundled past me during the previous hour and a half on this Conveyor Belt of Wrong...

Terrorism
Murder
Rape
Suicide Bombing
Torture
Childbirth
Racism
Sexism
Capitalism
Communism
Liberalism
Feminism
Homophobia
Disability
Masturbation
Blow Jobs
Defecation
Urination
Nuclear War
Megan Fox
Death*

Truly, there are no sacred cows in Sacha Baron Cohen's world: any subject is a suitable target for either satire or flat-out farce. Of course, Cohen and director Larry Charles would no doubt argue they're not making jokes about any of the sensitive issues above... they're making jokes about people's attitudes to them. Which is a very fine line to tread.

But none of that's for me to argue. The only question that mattered to me was this: Is it funny?

And, yes, I found The Dictator a very funny film.

Your own mileage may vary.



(*It occurs to me that this list may have a wonderful effect on my SEO rankings. But I guess that just goes to show the world's as screwed as Sacha Baron Cohen thinks it is... and if so, what else have we got left but to laugh?)

Apocalypse Girl

My movie-making pals over at Special Order 937 have completed their masterpiece, Apocalypse Girl - a 10 minute shot of dark, druggy, nihilistic depravity that's definitely NSFW or those with weak stomachs / easily offended moralities. Have no fear, Apocalypse Girl is here... god help us all.

Movie Review - The Avengers

How much more I enjoyed watching The Avengers in 2D rather than through the mud and blur and migraine of threedy. I felt like a partially sighted man suddenly given the gift of 20/20 vision. "Look at how beautiful it all is!" I cried at the cinema screen. "The colours so bright and vivid, the action distinctive, the background detail actually visible... I can see - I CAN SEE!"

In truth, The Avengers looks no better or worse than any other big screen FX fest. Unless you watch it in 3D... when it looks just as bad as every other big screen 3D FX fest. I couldn't help thinking of those adverts in which terribly earnest thesps like Ray "Cant" Winstone or Tim from The Office (you might know him as Dr. Watson or The Hobbit, but he'll always be Tim from The Office to me) encourage us not to download badly pirated movies from t'internet because not only are we damaging the film industry, but "the picture quality is rubbish". And yet (not that I've ever downloaded any badly pirated movies from t'internet), I imagine that'd still be preferable to watching said movies in 3D. But...

...enough about all that. What about the newly crowned BIGGEST OPENING WEEKEND EVER movie, the superhero blockbuster even the most churlish of critics are lauding (with the exception of Philip French's wonderfully pompous review in The Observer, which begins thus...

"Unhappy the land that has no heroes!" someone remarks to Bertolt Brecht's Galileo. "No. Unhappy the land that needs heroes," Galileo replies.

...and you can guess the rest); what about The Avengers? Is it any cop?

Well, yes. It's not an unqualified success, but it does the job far better than it might have... if not quite as well as I'd hoped. All the main characters are well-handled, although it's new-boy Mark Ruffalo who really shines as the most likeable Bruce Banner since Bill Bixby's David and a more enjoyable Hulk to boot. Robert Downey Jr's insistence on throwing away some of his best lines continues from Iron Man 2; Chris Evans brings flashes of nobility to the otherwise faintly ridiculous Captain America; and Chris Hemsworth's Thor faces real competition from his half-brother Loki, with Tom Hiddleston almost stealing the movie after a somewhat muted performance first time out. (I love his Loki-grin.) Scarlett Johansson is slightly less annoying than she was in Iron Man 2 and a whole lot less annoying than she is in anything else and Jeremy Renner rather draws the short arrow as a mindwashed Hawkeye stolen from the first half and given little development as a result.

The script has some nice visual gags and typically Whedon one-liners (when RDJ's goatee isn't fast-talking them into inaudibility) and the fanboys will be happy to see that virtually every character gets the chance to go one-on-one up against each other. Best are the scenes where someone faces off against the aforementioned God of Mischief... Fury vs. Loki, Cap vs. Loki, Widow vs. Loki, Stark vs. Loki... and, best of all, the hilarious Hulk vs. Loki sequence which is worth the price of admission on its own. The hero-on-hero fight sequences (while necessary to slake the geek thirst) seem a little forced... and the film is at least 20 minutes too long, especially considering how little actual story there is to go round. I was impressed by the way the writers tied together the earlier movies, making each a genuine prequel to the main event, but after that it's a mishmash of chase scene, destructo-porn and quipping slugfest right up to the closing credits. I'd have hoped for a few more plot twists... especially from Loki, the king of crafty shenanigans. And the Big Bad Reveal at the end is distinctly underwhelming, even for fanboys who know who Thanos is. I reckon they only roped him in to piss on DC's Darkseid chips should that fabled JLA movie ever get past the planning stages. Oh, sorry, was that a spoiler? Pretend I wrote it in 3D and you'll not even notice it was there...

Where I'm At

It's been a busy week here at SOS towers, so apart from the keeping-the-wolf-from-the-door opportunism of my previous post (apologies to those of you wondering why I broke off my musical journey into space for an entirely unrelated Top Ten... but I had to find some way to afford the Amazing Spider-Man Omnibus Volume 2) things have been rather quiet on the blogging front.

That's not to say I've not been writing blog posts. I've actually been employed to write them for my University (where I'm currently studying my PGCE). There's not a whole lot of money in it and I'm only writing one post a week, but every little helps... as I believe one of our Evil Corporate Overloads has it. My Uni Blog is probably of very little interest to anyone reading this (hell, Sunset Over Slawit is probably of very little interest to anyone reading this), but should you have a spare five minutes, you can always click here.

Meanwhile, for those of you wondering why I haven't posted my review of The Avengers (not "Marvel Avengers Assemble" - an idiotic title made created by idiots who believe even bigger idiots might confuse it with Patrick MacNee and Honor Blackman), the truth is I need to see it again first. Or rather, I need to see it properly first. Because, through an unfortunate series of circumstances entirely beyond my control, I ended up watching it the first time in 3D. Yes, I knew that would be a mistake, but I thought I'd be able to ignore the stupid fx and just enjoy the film. Unfortunately, this wasn't to be, and I spent the entire time feeling twice removed from the film, constantly aware that I was watching something and struggling so much to focus on the dark and blurry (i.e. 3D) images that I was unable to immerse myself in the story or even follow the dialogue. So my review of the film - at this point - would be far more negative than expected. I'm hoping that will change once I've seen it the way God intended us to watch movies... because what I could make out through the unfocussed murk looked like it had a fair bit of potential. Just not in 3D.

Movie Review - Cabin In The Woods

I read a review of Cabin In The Woods that compared it unfavourably to Scream. Far be it from me to criticise a fellow reviewer, especially a professional getting paid for his opinions, but... bollocks. While both films attack the horror genre with a postmodern, deconstructionist pickaxe, Scream largely tells its audience what it's up to... whereas Cabin In The Woods almost always shows. And we all know which is better from a storytelling perspective, especially in a visual medium like cinema.

I've also seen CITW mentioned in the same breath as Jeepers Creepers for the way it willfully wrongfoots its viewers. Again, that's a totally spurious comparison. While Jeepers Creepers sets off in one direction, then u-turns with no warning into a far less entertaining cul de sac, Cabin In The Woods places its cards on the table from the opening scene. Not all those cards are turned face up, but at no point does it attempt to cheat us like Jeepers did.

Instead, what Drew Goddard and Joss Whedon deliver here is not just the most original and entertaining horror movie in years... but one of the most original and entertaining movies full stop. It's a film with the guts and balls to attempt to explain and justify every ridiculous and crappy horror flick you've ever seen. Genre fans with a sense of humour will lap it up. Those who don't appreciate Whedon's irreverent brand of snarky humour and playful iconoclasm can go watch Battleship instead.

Oh, and did I mention the cast? Beyond the five subverted teen cliches led by Chris 'Thor' Hemsworth and the doe-eyed Willow-alike Kristen Connolly, the cream of the Whedon alumni is present in full force (notably Amy Acker from Angel, Fran Kranz from Dollshouse and Tom Lenk from Buffy). But it's Bradley Whitford and Richard Jenkins who steal this movie, and not just for fans of The West Wing or Six Feet Under. We really didn't need the stunt-casting cameo at the end... but I can forgive the script's one mis-step into clunky exposition because by then I'd already had so much fun I was guaranteed to go home with a huge grin.

Now even if The Avengers proves a disappointment, Joss Whedon has still delivered one of my favourite movies of the year. More power to him.

Movie Review: John Carter

The first rule of Film Club is: you do not talk about Film Club.

You all know the second rule of Film Club.

The third rule of Film Club is... if there's a crap genre movie (sci fi, horror, superhero) that all the critics have ripped to shreds: you will go see it in the hope that "it can't be that bad" and generally walk out saying "actually, it was worse".

When I compiled my list of Worst Movies of 2011, Louise pointed out that I hadn't seen any of them with her; I'd seen them all with Film Club. I replied that it was for her own good. Film Club watch the most awful pieces of dreck with me so that she doesn't have to.

It was with Film Club that I saw Ghost Rider: Spirit Of Vengeance. Solomon Kane. Pandorum, Surrogates and Outlander. The execrable 10,000 BC. And, of course, Green Lantern. So it came as no surprise when Film Club called me up and said "right, for your birthday, we're taking you to see John Carter - on us!" How could I resist?

In case you haven't yet heard, John Carter has already been dubbed "one of the biggest flops in cinema history". It looks set to lose Disney $80+ million. Even Mark Kermode hated it... and Mark Kermode watches even more crap films than Film Club. In short, John Carter was going to be a stinker... what better way to celebrate my 40th?

So, OK, I've set this up nicely, just like an M Knight Shyamalan script. You're all ready for the twist...

The truth is: I didn't think John Carter was all that bad. Oh, it was no classic, but I've seen far worse films over the last 40 years, and far, far worse sci fi films. As cheesy, fx-laden romps go (yes, in 3-bloody-D, obviously) John Carter was still way more enjoyable than any of the films listed above, had far more heart than any of the Star Wars prequels, and was far less bursting with patronising bullshit than Avatar. It had a charismatic leading man, some cute and non-annoying aliens (certainly no Jar Jar Binks), hammy villainy from two decent British thesps who should know better (though both Mark Strong and Dominic West have previous form in the crap genre movies category with Green Lantern and Punisher: War Zone respectively). And, you know what? If it hadn't bombed worse than Hiroshima, I'd have happily let Film Club buy me a ticket to see the sequel they struggled so hard to set up (which now looks a forlorn hope). I really don't see what all the whinging is about. If audiences will happily plunk down their money to watch three dire Transformers films (and, yes, I saw all three with Film Club) then why did everyone have such a problem with John Carter? It was better than Cowboys Vs. Aliens...

Movie Review: The Muppets

If, like me, you grew up with The Muppet Show, these little fuzzy felt characters will always hold a place in your heart. And if that's the case, the new Muppets movie gives you everything you could possibly want. A heartwarming backstory, perfectly pitched so that innocence overrules sentimentality thanks to the performances of Number One Muppet fan (and co-screenwriter) Jason Segel and Amy Adams and the songwriting talents of FotC star Bret McKenzie. Well-chosen celebrity guests (including Alan Arkin, Kristen Schaal and Jack Black - giving his best performance in years). A sneering villain with a maniacal laugh (Chris Cooper - he raps too). A Muppets tribute act featuring Dave Grohl filling in for Animal. And most of all... the gang themselves, doing what they always did best: putting on a show.

So we get Kermit fighting to maintain a brave face while everything falls apart around his little green ears. Miss Piggy being a stuck-up sow (in Paris, naturellement). Fozzie being hugely unfunny. The Swedish Chef going 'durstyburstywursty'. The chickens singing Cee-Lo Green. Gonzo jumping off a roof. (Actually, I could have done with more Gonzo.) Stadler & Waldorf being sarcastic old grumps. Beaker going 'mee-mee'... in a barbershop quartet rendition of 'Smells Like Teen Spirit'. In short, everything we laughed at till we weed 30 years ago... updated slightly with contemporary references, but not a jot of contemporary cynicism.

If you love the Muppets, you'll feel like a child again. If you don't love the Muppets... can I suggest medical help?

Movie Review: Safe House

I can never quite get my head around Denzel Washington being a bad-ass. In my mind he's an ordinary, everyman hero-of-the-people so whenever he plays a psycho or supervillain I always feel like I'm watching my dad dress up in a Freddie Krueger Halloween costume. It might be scary, but I know it's still my dad underneath.

In Daniel Espinosa's Safe House, Denzel plays Evil Jack Bauer, a former CIA agent who's been off reservation so long, redemption seems impossible (should he even wants it in the first place). When Dark Denz comes into possession of a secret MacGuffin that could bring down some very bad people in very high places, suddenly everybody wants a piece of him: from waterboarding aficionado Robert Patrick (memo to the former X-Files Agent Doggett: who ate all the cow pies?) to sneaky espionage chiefs Sam Shepard, Brendan Gleeson and Vera Farmiga.

That's certainly a top notch cast... though the real star of Safe House is Ryan Reynolds, playing a vulnerable young pup determined to teach old dog Denzel some new tricks. Despite starring in the worst film of 2011, Reynolds can do little wrong in my eyes. He's an action hero with a heart and it's good to see him flexing his acting chops beyond his usual twinkly-eyed smart-ass roles to stand up against Denzel and co. in a Bourne-esque thriller that benefits from a fast-paced (and only occasionally implausible) plot and imaginative South African locations.

A cut above your average action movie then... if you can swallow Denzel as a bad-ass. (Robert Patrick certainly looks like he's game.)

Movie Review: The Descendants

There were a lot of reasons I wanted to see The Descendants. I'm a big fan of director Alexander Payne's previous movies: Sideways, About Schmidt and Election. I enjoy George Clooney's laconic Cary Grant shtick and was intrigued by the awards buzz surrounding his latest performance. And the film's set in Hawaii, so if nothing else we could be sure it'd be nice to look at.

As with all Payne's prominent work, The Descendants is a leisurely, spacious film that allows much time for subtle characterisation and quietly observed comedy. I'd say it probably made me laugh less than any of the films listed above, but then I did make the mistake of popping to the loo during what Louise later informed me had been the funniest scene. That said, it did make me smile a lot and Clooney was charming and sympathetic as ever. Was it his best role? No, he was far better in O, Brother Where Art Thou? where he actually got to do some proper acting, rather than just playing himself. But it's his time, there's a lot of good will towards him, and there are far worse movie stars getting far more recognition, so I don't begrudge him the plaudits. Some attention must however be given to his kids, played by Shailene Woodley and Amara Miller, both of whom inhabit their complex roles with ease, and the dumb teenage layabout Sid (Nick Krause), who gets dragged along on their adventures and ultimately proves to be there for more than just clichéd comic relief. As for Hawaii, I was impressed by how Payne showed us a different side of the islands than we usually get from Hollywood. Still beautiful, but a little more rainy and windswept with random chickens scattering the streets and fallen leaves filling the swimming pools. It made me want to visit even more.

If you enjoyed Payne's previous films, you'll enjoy The Descendants. Arguably, it's not his best work, but it's another fine addition to the cv for both him and Clooney. And there's a Beau Bridges cameo too, looking almost more dudelike than even his brother could manage.

Book Review - The Good, The Bad and The Multiplex by Mark Kermode

"All you really need to know about The Oscars is that they're the awards that didn't give a Best Picture gong to Citizen Kane, but did give one to Driving Miss Daisy. Just think about that for a moment and try to imagine a world in which Driving Miss Daisy really was the best film you were going to see all year. Be honest. You'd throw yourself off a bridge, wouldn't you?"

As I said when I reviewed his last book, It's Only A Movie, I rarely disagree with Mark Kermode when it comes to cinema. Films, yes, occasionally we quibble over individual movies. Even then, I can usually see his point (even if I disagree). But when it comes to his thoughts on cinema itself, Mark Kermode is my soul brother.

I don't think critics should do the job of watching movies for you. I don't even think they should do the job of telling you which movies to watch. Or what you should think about them. No, I think critics should do the job of watching all the movies and then telling you what they think in a way which is honest, engaging, erudite and (if you're lucky) entertaining.

Beyond that, you're on your own.

His latest book tackles just What's Wrong With Modern Cinema. And I nodded my head so much, Louise thought I'd developed a twitch.

From major problems with the movie-going experience itself (the frustrations of online ticket buying, badly framed films and why popcorn is wrong) to the way Hollywood is screwing up and dumbing down the end product (like me, Kermode has a serious loathing of 3D - though he does point out that the Nazis were big fans) to the thorny question of "What are film critics for anyway?", this book is always entertaining, often hilarious and occasionally infuriating. I shared his frustration and pain - particularly when he was arguing with a pompous cinema "manager" who obviously had little interest in how films were projected onto the screen. Together, we mourned the death of the professional projectionist and looked back fondly on a world where ushers did more than just tear your ticket stub. And when he compares the modern cinema going experience to Westworld minus Yul Brynner... well, I had to shudder.

In the wake of Avatar's bum-numbing stereoscopic success, every half-witted Hollywood producer without an original thought in their coke-addled heads decided that 3D was a cash cow and all future products must be forced to conform to this glutinous economic paradigm forthwith. Never mind the fact that (James) Cameron had spent years gazing at his own navel trying to figure out how to make a game-changing movie in a medium which no one had liked for almost a century. Say what you like about Avatar (that it's infantile, overlong, shamelessly derivative, wildly patronising, and laughably lacking in humour from start to finish - which it is), at least its creator believed in the technological innovations apparently required to bring it to the screen. Never mind that the film looks a million times better in 2D (clearer, sharper, brighter) or that Pandora is a far more immersive world when not viewed through the alienating annoyance of polarised lenses that make everything seem dark, dingy and dismally diminutive. At least Cameron thought he was doing the right thing - like Tony Blair deciding to invade Iraq, only with less tragic results.

Movie Review: Ghost Rider - Spirit of Vengeance

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...

Like most sane moviegoers, I didn't have a great deal of time for the original Ghost Rider movie. OK, it was a stinker. So why, pray tell, did I plunk down my hard earned shekels (well, I.'s hard-earned shekels, since we went on Orange Wednesday and he took pity on my unemployed ass and gave me the GOF of his BO) on the second one? My defence goes thus...

1. I like Ghost Rider. He's one of those Marvel B-listers I've always had a soft spot for even though very few writers seem able to make him work. JM DeMatteis managed it back when I was a kid and Jason Aaron knocked it out of the park recently, but beyond that I can't think of too many other great Ghost Rider stories. The potential is there though, as I discovered while writing this week's Thoughtballoons script based on the character. There's so much can be done with this concept. Sadly, the writers of this movie (mostly David bloody Goyer, Hollywood's go-to guy for bad - and occasionally surprisingly good - superhero movies) preferred to run with a tepid combo of Hellboy, The Omen and The Fast & The Furious... and however exciting you might think that sounds: trust me, you're wrong.

2. I (used to) like Nicholas Cage. And every now and then he makes a film which shows a spark of the manic genius he displayed in Wild At Heart or Bad Lieutenant rather than just SHOUTING ALL THE TIME and ACTING REALLY BADLY. Sadly, this was not to be one of those films. Hey, Nick, if you love Ghost Rider as much as you say you do... why didn't you put some bloody effort in?

3. Idris Elba was in it. I like him a lot. He made the absolute most of an underwritten role and provided a couple of moments of blessed comic relief. Many more were needed. Meanwhile, Ciaran Hinds popped up as the devil. Another hugely talented actor... wasted.

4. The reviews told me this one was much better than the first. They lied.


On the other hand, I can't say the warning signs weren't there. I should have paid more attention to the following...


1. The directors, Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor, are most famous for making dumb action movies starring Jason blinkin' Statham. Their style can best be described as "less accomplished Guy Ritchie". I hate Guy Ritchie.

2. It was only possible to watch this movie in 3D. Which is strange as Spirit of Vengeance featured the least gratuitous 3D effects of any pointlessly 3D film I've seen in recent times. In fact, other than the fact I was wearing those stupid glasses so (as usual) my eyes hurt and I couldn't focus on the whole of the screen... at no point was I aware of any 3D effects whatsoever. It was like watching a 2D movie with 3D glasses on. I'd rather have just watched it the way god intended.

3. There was a sequence in which Ghost Rider takes a leak and pisses fire. As if to suggest this might be the highlight of the movie, they even included it in the trailer. It was desperate, humourless and lacking in imagination. Actually, that was pretty representative of the movie as a whole. I take that back: it belonged in the trailer. It should have been the whole trailer. 30 seconds of Ghost Rider weeing. That would have been apt.

Movie Review: Carnage

Should you be the sort of nihilist who believes that pleasant society is a "waffer thin" masquerade that threatens to crumble at any second... that all human relationships are built around insecurity and resentment rather than love and trust... and that everybody secretly (and sometimes not so secretly) hates everybody else... then Roman Polanski's adaptation of the blackly comic Carnage by French playwright Yasmina Reza is the movie for you. Go see it now: I insist.

The premise is simple: two sets of liberal New York parents gather to discuss a playground fight between their respective sons. Jodie Foster and John C. Reilly's boy, Ethan, has had two teeth knocked after being struck with a stick by Kate Winslet and Christoph Waltz's son, Zachary. What starts as a cordial get-together to discuss a minor childhood fracas soon descends into anarchy as the two parental pairs go to war - with each other and themselves. Tempers fray and allegiances switch (and switch again). It's couple vs. couple, spouse vs. spouse, husband vs. husband, wife vs. wife, every man and woman for him or herself... with whiskey, cigars, pear and apple cobbler, projectile vomiting and a "dead" hamster thrown in for fun.

Carnage is an actor's dream, and Polanski wisely steps aside and leaves the film to his thesps. Winslet and Foster compete in the uptight bitch category (until alcohol loosens their inhibitions) while the always excellent Christoph Waltz displays his prodigious talent for deadpan grimaces. But the real revelation here is Reilly, going from bumbling nice guy to bitter, misanthropic bigot in the space of an hour. Which only makes us love him more.

Should you believe people are inherently decent, you might want to leave that opinion at the door... or prepare to think again.

Movie Review: Haywire

Gina Carano kicks ass. The former pro martial arts stars and American Gladiator spends the majority of Steven Soderberg's tense action film Haywire knocking seven bells out of the likes of Channing Tatum, Ewan McGregor, Michael Fassbender (yep, him again) and assorted extras - and it's a pleasure to see. As Louise pointed out, it's good to see a woman beating up tough guys in a movie, especially as she looks so very capable. Forget Angelina Jolie and Zoe Saldana - Gina Carano is the real thing.

Some reviewers have carped that because of this, Carano's acting chops don't quite match up to her karate kicks. To that I say: bollocks. Admittedly, this is hardly a role to stretch an actor, and I doubt she'd be able to pull off costume drama (unless it was Pride And Prejudice And Zombies), but as action heroines go she's not only believable: she's likeable. And just as good at the flirty dress-up stuff as she is the smackdowns. She's a hell of a lot more sexy and charismatic than Scarlett and not half as Terminatrix-scary as Angelina. And if you were to line her up against Sly or Arnie or Jean-Claude, she'd win in every category.

Haywire's plot is a typically convoluted affair (typical of Soderberg rather than most action movies) that'll have you scratching your head if you stop to think. Thankfully, you're rarely given a second to do so. The supporting cast, which also includes Michael Douglas (who I can't take seriously since Alan Patridge described him as "a grey crow") and Antonio Banderas, is uniformly solid and nobody seems unhappy about playing second fiddle to a virtual unknown. The weak link for me was Channing Tatum, a young actor with a head so square he can't help but remind me of Mr. Strong. Louise assures me he's not without his appeal... and along with Fassbender and Banderas, she was adequately catered for, so I didn't feel too guilty about my admiration of Ms. Carano. Something for everyone then...

Movie Review: Shame

Michael Fassbender's cock. Carey Mulligan's muff. Let's get them out of the way to begin with, since both take a starring role in Steve (not that one) McQueen's grim new critic's fave and potential Oscar-botherer Shame. I'm sure both genital organs are very nice if you like that sort of thing. Maybe I'm getting old.

For a movie about a predatory sex addict, Shame is a curiously cold and unerotic affair. Of course, that's the point. There's nothing remotely sexy about Brandon Sullivan's addiction. It's mundane and grey, much like the rest of his life. Porn viruses infecting his work pc, crafty wanks in the office toilets, nameless couplings with strangers in grubby car parks. The one time he does come close to a genuine relationship with an actual human being (Nicole Beharie's charming Marianne), he can't even get it up. Ironically, this is the only remotely erotic scene in the movie. And yes, that's the point.

When Brandon's crazy sister Sissy (Mulligan) moves in, she threatens his life of monotonous depravity. Brandon, meanwhile, threatens her plans for drinking, self-abusing, and shagging his oaf of a boss. And they should both learn to lock the bathroom door. There's probably a point in that too.

Shame isn't a bad movie: it's engrossing, atmospherically shot and features some top notch performances (Mulligan is very annoying... but she's supposed to be). My only complaint was that it felt a little too much like a film that was trying to make a point... and it didn't offer much in the way of resolution either. Kinda like this review...

Movie Review: The Artist

Michel Hazanavicius's homage to the era of black and white silent movies has been lauded as a brave, funny and moving piece of film-making. It tells the story of George Valentin (a star-making performance from Jean Dujardin), a silent movie actor who finds himself dinosaured when the talkies start making a big noise in Hollywood. George's career is on the slide, his marriage is failing and his fortune is dwindling - but he's not without friends, notably his dog (a canine-Oscar worthy performance from "Uggie") and his former butler, Clifton (the always excellent James Cromwell). Then there's Peppy Miller (Bérénice Bejo, another name to watch), an up-and-coming starlet whose career follows the opposite path to George's as she becomes the first genuine star of the talkies. Will she remember the silent star who gave her big break... and will George's wounded pride allow him to accept her help?

The Artist arrives on a huge wave of hype and it's certainly unlike any other film I've seen in a long time. It took a while for my brain to adjust to watching a movie with no dialogue, but one pivotal scene where George faces up to the fact that sound is the future (and he's the past) made it all click. Although there's nothing revolutionary about the plot, the way it's told should be celebrated as a lesson to film-makers and storytellers everywhere. It certainly made me realise how lazy a lot of contemporary directors have become with regards telling (via dialogue) rather than showing (via visuals). In the bloated 3D SFX era, The Artist was a breath of fresh air... and a must-see movie for writers everywhere, particularly those working in any kind of visual media (not just film or TV - but comics too). No one's a bigger fan of well-crafted dialogue than me - but at risk of paraphrasing Ronan Keating (or Alison Krauss, to maintain some semblance of cred), sometimes you do say it best... when you say nothing at all.

Movie Review - Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol

I'm certainly no Tom Cruise fan and although I didn't mind the first one, I hated MI2 so much that wild horses couldn't drag me to watch the third. Louise twisted my arm into going to see Ghost Protocol though... and it turned out to be a mission I didn't mind accepting.

Possibly because I watched it shortly after the shockingly awful Sherock Holmes, and probably because I had very low expectations to begin with, MI4 proved a pleasant surprise. Cruise is as wooden and hard-to-like as always, but he's thoughtfully drafted in Jeremy Renner, Paula Patton and Simon Pegg to provide all the stuff he can't: the charm, the wit and the sex appeal. (That Simon Pegg, eh? Phwoarr.) Not to mention Lost's Josh Holloway, who, frankly, I would have happily watched doing Cruise's secret agent stuff for the whole film rather than just 5 minutes at the beginning. Maybe one day.

Like Sherlock Holmes, the film also manages to throw away one of the original Dragon Tattoo stars, giving Michael Nyqvist very little to chew on as the baddy - and a Take Over The World plot so ridiculous even Dr. Evil would have thought twice. But what MI4 gets right is the action - notably that already infamous set piece atop the Burj Khalifa in Dubai, breathlessly exciting for two good reasons. Firstly, the vertiginous height. Secondly, who wouldn't want to see Tom Cruise fall 2723 feet and go splat? The whole cinema was on the edge of its seat... but not for the reason Tom imagined.

The MI series seems unlikely to self-destruct any time soon, but there are definitely worse ways to waste your time, money and braincells at the multiplex.

Movie Review: Sherlock Homes - A Game Of Shadows

Let's not dwell too much on Sherlock Holmes: A Game Of Shadows. I didn't like the first one, and despite all the reviewers (Steve included) telling me the sequel was an improvement, I found it... sedimentary, my dear Watson.

Guy Ritchie's freezeframe-the-action-sequences direction is completely lacking in excitement (God, I'm sick of bullet time). Robert Downey Jr. is wasted... again... though not as much as the original Dragon Tattoo girl, Noomi Rapace, utterly thrown away in her debut Hollywood role. Worst of all, there's no mystery whatsoever. The world's greatest detective is given nothing tougher than a mild Sudoko to puzzle over. The crime even Sherlock Holmes can't solve... what happened to all the mystery?

As for gags... even Stephen Fry struggles to raise a smile, getting his kit off as a last resort. Mad Man Jared Harris as Moriarty is the film's sole redeeming feature, but he's fighting an uphill struggle all the way to the Reichenback Falls. Speaking of death-defying escapes... just count yourself lucky, Guy Ritchie. If I'd seen this film one week earlier, it would have crashed into my Top Five Worst Movies of 2011 right behind Transformers 2.

Thank god for the REAL Sherlock... now that's the way to do it!

2011 - Movies of the Year

Let's start with the turkeys... click the links if you want to know just how much I hated them.

Worst Five Movies of 2011

5. The Thing (2011)

4. Immortals

3. Season Of The Witch

2. Transformers 3

1. Green Lantern

Despite those, it's actually been a really good year at the cinema and I could easily have filled a Top 20 with runners up including Never Let Me Go, The Adjustment Bureau, The Skin I Live In, X-Men: First Class and The Guard. But if I have to pick 10...

My Top Ten Movies of 2011

10. The Inbetweeners

9. Thor

8. Another Earth

7. The Big Picture

6. The King's Speech

5. We Need To Talk About Kevin

4. 127 Hours

3. Source Code

2. True Grit

1. Super 8

Super 8 might not be the best film of the year, but it's the one which gave me the warmest glow - nostalgia for the kind of movie I grew up loving, like Back To The Future with aliens. The long awaited Coens / Bridges reunion was a shoe-in, but Super 8 had more twinkly eyed magic than I'd expected and deserves its place at the top... though I'm sure many would disagree.

What was your favourite movie of the year?