Dragonballsup Evolution.

If your gonna make a movie based on a cartoon that 8 year old kids used to like, then aiming your moovie adaptation at the same age group seems the sensible thing to do. WRONG!

First, the kids that used to like Dragonball Z have matured since then. Second, to get the current generation of 8 year olds into the cinema, you've got to entice their parents too, maybe by adding some thoughtful subtext, wiity banter, decent charaterisation or maybe even an involving plot. Ok, Ok, just make a movie thats pretty to look at and you've guaranteed your audience.

So well done for Fox for getting it very very wrong. One of the main problems is the tone; it takes itself so, so seriously. Which means when the looney tunes gags commence, it's daft, embarresing and out of place. Its a weird anime style mash up of impossible machines, monsters, aliens, magic and mysticism. If you do it tongue in cheek, you can get away with the balance of humour and absurdity (see Big Trouble in Little China).

It's cheap and small in scale, relying on poor special effects to beef up the epic scope of the story. Sadly the VFX aren't up to much and the fight seens are shot down by the most obvious wire work I've ever seen.

With the cast, Justin Chatwick aquits himself adequetly but the legendary Chow Yun Fat is reduced to farce here. Fortunetely, the girls add value, with an extremely cute Emmy Rossum ticking the right boxes as the Han Solo-ish Bulma.

So for all you 8 year olds out there, this is the one for you..the way its written, performed, paced, directed and produced. Beware everybody else.

Jaa Rules!

Ong Bak proved that Tony Jaa was the extremely talented inheritor of the king of martial arts cinema. Not only could the man kick arse with the best of them, but he could do inventive, potentially death inviting stunts in the vein of Jackie Chan in his prime.

The sequel/prequel sadly lacks these ludicrously dangerous stunts in favor of more Jaa kicking bottom, which he choreographs spectacularly. But there's something lacking.

It's a handsome production, this time set in the past, with Jaa's character being trained by other badasses, so he can exact his revenge on the baddies. I watched the movie without subtitles, so I'm not entirely sure about the plot. But with this much kickassery, frankly, who cares...

Definitely Feeling Apathetic Tendancies, Captain!

After achieving gold with First Contact, the producers wisely kept many of the high standards in place when making the follow up, Star Trek: Insurrection.
Unfortunately, the writers weren't retained, leaving an uninspired Michael Piller to write the blandest of the Trek movies.

The director, composer, cinematographer and cast all return to the same level of ability as before. The only returning player that drops the ball is production designer Herman Zimmerman. His designs appear to be derived from the coma they awoke him from before work and his use of a saturated royal blue in the Sona spaceship interiors make it look like a visual effects bluescreen, without the effects. Therefore, the sets and movie look incomplete, on occasion.

ILM's replacement FX company do a competant job. However the visuals don't stand up to close scrutity, with most shots appearing too CGI.

The foundation of the movie, the basic story concept, is what undermines Insurrection. Nobody give a monkeys about a planet of 600 youthful looking, 300 year old Amish space-hippies. The Data story (he's trying to discover his inner child) is light, frothy and forgetable. The Picard romance goes nowhere (come-on guys, give the man some action!). Finally, the Star Trek does the Magnificent Seven plot, as the regular cast save the villagers, is unimaginative. Script-wise, much of the humour seems mis-placed...reducing Worf to a moody teen and Data to a life-raft. And there's an over-reliance on incomprehendable techno-speak again the Enterprise battles her foe and the power of the planets rings is explained.


The action's ok, but rarely exciting. The humour smirk-worth but rarely funny. Unlike Generations or The Final Frontier, its all makes sense. It's not a bad film, its just not very good either. If Twenieth Century Fox made Trek movies, this would be theirs. (Er, then again, I suspect it might be even worse!)

X2: The Mutant Chronicles

When it comes to blockbuster summer movies, the test as to its quality isn't the impressiveness of the special effects. It's what happens when you tale them away.
If you've a great script, a talented director and a cast that knows their craft, then taking all the FX out of the movie will not detract from its impact.

That's the case with X2, or X-men 2, Bryan Singer's brilliant follow up to his 2000 original. The script seamlessly integrates the Wolverine origin, Stryker's Mutant War, Magneto's agenda and the Dark Pheonix set up into a
formula one superhero express. Despite the amount of plot to cover, Singer never forgets to keep us glued to the characters so that Storm, Nightcrawler, Rogue, Iceman, Pyro, Magneto, Professor X, Jean Grey, Cyclops and Wolverine
all have meaty compelling stories while the other stuff's going on.

The film adopts an adult thriller tone that doesn't pander to the tween superhero crowd. There are tons of iconic moments from things as simple as Logan pointing his claws at a cat to the magnificent White House assaination attempt.
The action is exciting with Stryker's Mansion raid being a standout too. With the close quarter combat the action excells especially
in the Deathstrike / Wolverine smakdown. Internal organs are puncture and concrete pillars are decimated before the clever resoltion.

Singer's direction is, once again supurb; each composition and camera shot helps tell the story powerfully and concisely.
You know a movies great when it flies by while watching it; X2 is 2 hours 10 minutes long, but it feel like a mere hour and a half.

Resistance Is Slutty

Perhaps reeling from their previous disasterous effort, writers Branon Braga and Ron D Moore pulled it together in dramatic fashion for the second Next Generation movie, Star Trek: First Contact.

Every aspact of film-making has been improved upon over its predecesor, creating a movie that demands multiple viewings.

As before they pull together a wish-list of want-to-see story elements (time travel, space bettles, Borg). This time, however, these elements blend perfectly. The time travel device is kept simple and uncomplicated...keeping Modern Trek's achilles heel(technobabble) restrained. The chosen time zome is the 21st century, at the birth of warp travel, as we get to witness the precise fictional moment that the Star Trek world came into being. This more contemporary setting allows a wider audience to relate to Star Trek and help them understand and appreciate the optimism present in the core Trek concept.

The Borg story strands create two ticking narrative bombs that provides tension and urgency. On the planet its a race against time to repair Cochrane's warp ship before first contact, while on the ship its a race to prevent the Borg, the unreasonable/unstoppable foe from the TV show, from taking over the Enterprise. Either way, there's plenty of end-of-the world drama to drink up.

The script is lean and economic as shown in the first two scenes, informing Picards history and it also sets up the plot quickly. It also comprises some great character moments for both the regulars and guest stars. The Earth story providing many moments of comedy gold (a drunk Sirtis & a bemused Frakes) while the Enterprise story has the juicier dramatic scenes (Worf vs Picard). Indeed the confrontation between a revenge obsessed Patrick Stewart and fish-out-of-water Alfre Woodard is prehaps one of the franchises most memorable dramatic moments. A typically dependable pushes his restrained hatred right to the limits. But an exceptional Woodard matches him with intensity, mixed with vulnerability.

The ILM effects, supervised by John Knoll, are stunning; why is it so rare to have quality and striking art direction in FX shows these days? After forgetting to properly introduce the Enterprise in Generations, here she gets a magnificent intro.
The spacewalk combat adds some variety to proceedings and the space battle, while brief, is quite epic for movie Trek.

The film has a rich, gritty look and director Frakes provides a solid effort visually, but inspires him team of crew and actors to find memorable moments to enrich the piece. Jerry Goldsmith's third Trek score is both beautiful and scary; the main theme evoking mankinds nobility. The new uniforms are a major improvement and the new Enterprise is cool looking, inside and out, but lacks the elegance of previous designs.

Everythings working on full cylinders here...the Borg queen design and her intro, the holodeck scene integrates into the plot seemlessly...even the annoying Dwight Shultz charcter appearing briefly to provide enlightenment to further propel the story.

Easily the best of the Next Gen films...and one of the best of the series.

Vikings Vs Aliens - Who ya got?

Whaddya get if you cross Predator with Beowulf? Answer; "Outlander", a much-better-than-it-should-have-been, R-rated adventure flick.

Probably due to the presence of Matrix/Lord of the Rings producer Barry Osbourne, the production standards are top-notch on this thing from the location (New Zealand?), Special Effects and Casting. Jim Caviz... Caveeze...er,Jesus is the stoic hero (the stong, quiet type) with Sophia Myles (mmmmm) John Hurt and Ron Perlman providing gravitas to what could easily have been a extremely silly period adventure (as it is, its just daft).

Fortuntely, the first time director pulls it off, creating a rousing, well judged exploit. It's not original in any way conceivable and recalls many other movies... Dolph Lungren's I Come In Peace, The Relic, The Thing (the opening shot) and The 13th Warrior.

This is one of the surprise movies of the year. It may not be a classic movie, but it is a geek indulgence that screams to be watched again and again in the years to come (on a Friday night with much Guiness to consume) as a reminder that B movies can be made well, and not have to put up with crap scripts, crap casts or crews, just because of their poor pedigree.

ST: TNG - WTF !?!?

Star Trek Generations had a mission; to incorporate the classic USS Enterprise crew, and introduce The Next Generation crew on the big screen, in an original, exciting new adventure. On most counts, this movie fails miserably.

It starts off strongly with a sequence featuring Kirk, Scotty and Chekov saving a ship in distress. Apart from a tidal wave of technobabble with which they bullshit their way out of the predicament, the set-piece is fairly exciting and the (apparent) death of Capt Kirk is handled poignantly. From there on, it's down hill..

The rest of the movie feels like a wishlist of story elements jammed together into one story; much like many of the two-parters which frequented the Next Gen TV show.
And most of these separate elements are unworthy of a big-screen adventure in their own right. The Data story (where he wrestles with his emotion chip) is unnecessary. The mystery of the Observatory attack mediocre beyond belief. Geordies capture and torture is dramaless, to say the least. The inclusion of Klingons Lursa and Betor (recuring characters from TV) are an unpaletable distraction, filling the perceptual need for Klingons as baddies. And the Captain's grief for his freakin' nephew is a monumental misjudgement and should have been reserved for one of the show's minor episodes.

The greatest scripting error is the use of the plot macguffin The Nexus, a deux-ex- machina that allows the writers to join any story dots they want, without having to make sence. While its an original concept for using time-travel...it STILL doesn't make sence and undoes the entire narrative. For example;-
1/ When trapped in the Nexus, the El-Aurians are pulled inside. Why doesn't this happen to the Enterprise-B crew?
2/ If Soran got inside the Nexus on a spaceship originally, why doesn't he do it again (despite the bullshit excuse by Data)?
3/ If an 'echo' of Guinan is still in the Nexus, how does she know Picard; she left the Nexus before he was even born?
4/ Despite his grief of his nephew, Picard has shown no regrets about being in Starfleet. So why would he even be tempted by his 'Nexus' family?
5/ The same goes for Kirk. His true love is starship command. Wouldn't his 'Nexus' idea of joy be on the bridge of the Enterprise? And if that is the case, WTF is he doing cooking eggs, chopping wood and riding horses? WTF!
6/ Why has Kirk only just arrived in the Nexus when Kirk gets there? No amount of bullshit can deflect the fact he got there 79 years ago! WTF!
7/ The Nexus dream world is in the Nexus ribbon, travelling through space at a very specific place and time. So how can Kirk and Picard leave anywhere and anytime they want?
8/ Why does Picard elect to leave the Nexus to go back to the planet to stop the villain, with only moments to go? Couldn't he have given himself a bit more time?
And thats just the script.
9/ Captain Kirk, one of modern culture's greatest charater creations, final words are, "It was fun. Oh my." WTF!?!

The cinematography is pretty good and ILM's effects are professional but adequete.

The rest of the movie doesn't fare well technically. The score, while comprising a good theme, is the usual incoherant, bland mess we've come to expect from most of the modern TV Trek shows. The Voyager costumes look undignified when compared with their Next Gen TV counterparts. The flashy blue font of the credits sequence looks utterly cheap. The sound mix is strangely echoy, adding an amaturish feel to the film. David Carson, a standout on the TV show, fills his movie director shoes with stinky feet. It's routine, workmanlike, uninspired 'point-and-shoot' film-making.
The greatest criminal here is the narcoleptic editor. He's completely asleep for the Verhidian set stuff and I cannot think of a more uninvolving climax to an action movie. Three old men dancing around some scaffolding for a remote control do excitment make not. Like Shatners delayed verbal delivery, you shout at the editor to. Cut. This. Quicker!

It's a shame that this was the final movie to feature Shatner as Kirk as it's a poor send-off; falling from a bridge while pressing a TV remote. They'd made a better attempt at it 90 minutes earlier in the movie! Still, at least there was better to came from the TNG lot...

Once More Unto The Breach, Dear Friends...

It's odd going back to a movie you like, when you haven't seen it in a while...as it was with Star Trek 6: The Undiscovered Country.

It still plays as one of the strongest of the Trek movie series. But what struck me is how 'small scale' it is due to minimal studio expendature. The production team do a fantastic job of stretching their budget to tell the best story at hand, without sacraficing quality (which is what happened with the ambitious, but unsucessful Trek 5). It doesn't help the scope of the movie being filmed in a 2.0:1 ratio (reduced from 2.16:1).

Visually it lacks the iconography and distinctness of previous outtings; only the new Klingon ruling-class costumes and courtroom set stick in the brain. The reduced budget means plenty of redressed sets from The Next Generation and no new Spaceships, just cleaned up old ones. It's a little overlit for 80% of the movie; the cinematography only getting dramatic in the Klingon sequences, and a few others. It also lacks the visual wow factor compared with what TNG was doing on TV the same year with their Borg episodes.

But this is no fault of the film-makers themselves as what is on screen is a gripping, engaging and moving story about the last voyage of the original USS Enterprise and her crew. Credit to Leonard Nimoy for suggesting the Glasnot parallels in the story. And once again Nicholas Meyer saves the fate of big screen Star Trek with a tight, supurbly plotted script, this time built on a murder mystery set-up. His direction deftly balances great character arcs for Kirk and Spock while giving the rest of the regulars some decent participation. The action sequences are tense with the final space battle in particular (with the aid of a bombastic Cliff Eidelman score) are proof that you can provide maximum entertainment, even with a few bucks to spend.

The optimistic subtext about embracing your previous enemies, rather than destroying them, strikes a topical chord with the implimentation of the Obama administration's foreighn policies.

Despite the age of the cast, you can't help but feel for them, and the actors, when it's time for them to be decommissioned. At least they went out on a high... (or did they...tune in next time for the Generations review)

WHERE'S MY STRAWBERRY TART?!?!

Crank: High Voltage picks up immediately after the events of 2006's Jason Stathan starrer Crank. And it's to its credit that it feels like part of the same movie; frenetic, surreal, relentless and psychotically amusing.

While not as urgent as it's predecessor (as it has to deliver exposition regarding the first movie while set up new challenges for this film) it more than makes up for it with a willingness to put common-sense aside, and deliver barkingly mad set-pieces.

Just when you think it can't get any more outrageous, along comes another classic one-liner, dip-shit character or deranged situation. The Chev-zilla sequence is a modern classic and the movie contains the best use of the word "c~~t" in a motion picture to date. Several times.

Loved it, and if you loved the first one, so will you.

Presented In Shatnervision

This may prove to be the most controversial...and fun, of my Trek movie blogs: Star Trek 5 - The Final Frontier. Generally considered to be the worst of the franchise, the William Shatner directed Trek has a lot of problems..mainly a script that contains more plot hole than a sponge. While there are a few hardcore fans that could imaginatively fill these plot holes, I still have several questions, including;-

1/ Why does vulcan Sybok laugh?
2/ What is going on with Shatner's wig?!
3/ Did Shatner think his 'Go climb a rock' T-shirt was funny?
4/ Does any body think that Uhura & Scotty flirting is anything but creepy?
5/ Pah Pah Pah. Why did they have unconvincing and embarresing Klingon dialogue?
6/ How did Sybok obtain his unique power?
7/ How does 'sharing your pain' brainwash someone or make them obedient, without question?
8/ Why would Sybok fall for the lame 'Captain Chekov' ruse?
9/ Who doesn't want to vomit after Uhura's skanky dune dance?
10/ Why does Kirk enter the bar, at the centre of the villains lair, without a phaser?
11/ How is the cat creature rendered unconscious when lobbed into a shallow paddling pool (table)?
12/ Where do all the terrorists come from, as few are seen to travel on the shuttlecraft to the Enterprise?
13/ When and why does Sybok decide to get a haircut?
14/ Why doesn't Spock fight Sybok, after deciding not to shoot him?
15/ If Scotty is THAT familiar with the Enterprise, why does he knock himself out on the engineering beam?
16/ When did a bright lamp ever replace a landing shuttlecraft at night?
17/ Why are the effects, cheap, fake, flattly lit and unconvincing?
18/ Isn't Chekov intelligent enough to realize his blizzard impression was unconvincing...and not funny?
19/ Why are there 77 decks on the Enterprise (it ain't that big)?
20/ Why do they travel up the elevator shaft out of sequence (deck 65, deck 52, deck 77)?
21/ Why leave Earth, Starfleet central, with less-than-a skeleton crew onboard?
22/ How small is the galaxy if you can travel to its centre in a couple of hours?
23/ When alone with Sybock, why doesn't Kirk & Co overwhelm him?
24/ How can Sybok project people's internal fears externally, so they can be viewed by others?
25/ Why can't a probe fly into the barrier?
26/ If we assume the Enterprise can travel through the great barrier due to Sybok's influence, then how does the Klingon ship penetrate it?
27/ If Kirk can refuse to be brainwashed, why can't anybody else?
28/ Sybok had a vision of Shakari. How did the 'God creature give him that vision?
29/ If the God creature has been there for an eternity, why hasn't it influenced others before Sybok?
30/ Why does it suddenly turn to night on the 'God' planet?

On top of this is some crap dialogue, forced humour, appaling effects, and Shatner's glaring inability to direct himself. It also contains the worst set in a major motion picture (The God Planet Prison).

Despite the flaws, it's not the worst of the franchise. It's got a fast paced hostage plot, the score's great, as is the sleek photography. The desert settings give the movie scope and the remainder of the set design (the new bridge set/ officers quarters) fantastic.

In addition it's got subtext that could be interpreted as controversial; religious terrorists, destroy, kidnap and hijack to spread the word of their one, true God. It shows how evangelicals are deceived by what they perceive to be God, and how they brainwash others into their beliefs. Kirk questions God, promoting free-will, and also suggests God is what you carry inside (it's what the free-thinking individual interprets it as, not what others would tell you).

Despite the dumbness of the script, there's some smarts buried deep in this cheap little romp.

Laid To Rest director, Robert Hall, graduated from Special Make-up effects work. And there he should have stayed, as this is shite, and the effects are all there is to recommend it.

Suckered into watching this with the presence of Sarah Connor Chonicles Lena Heady and Thomas Dekker, I thought this slasher movie might contain some of the quality of that show. WRONG!

It's boring, doesn't make a lot of sense (much like its leading lady) and is devoid of anything remotely...well, good. Uber-crap director Uwe Boll will now be fearing the competition from Mr Hall, while the rest of us can quake in fear (but not from their movies..at their lack of talent, you understand).

Captain, There Be Whales Here!!!

Well folks, looks like I'm on a Trekathon...

Star Trek 4: The Voyage Home has two jobs; to wrap up the "Genesis" trilogy and to create a separate adventure for the ever-widening crew of the (now destroyed) USS Enterprise. But with Nimoy's second outing as director he delivers one of the franchises most memorable entries.

The story is unique (time travelling whales)and shuns the space battles and all-evil bad guy that in commonplace for most of the other Trek movies. Also, it combines different elements to keep it fresh; culture clash comedy, caper movie, save the world against the ticking clock movie.

The ensemble are at there absolute best here; Shatner's at the peak of his game, delivering something both subtlely introspective and inspired. Nimoy , Doohan and Kelley's comic timing is impeccable.

Nimoys direction has matured too. The story is presented in a steady, old fashioned pace and confident long takes which allows the comedy performances to breathe. The photography is possible the best of the series being warm, dramatic with depth to the picture.

A refreshing change of pace for the series; it's a shame, even with a space-battle filled prequel just around the corner, they can't create more original stories like this. After all, that was the beauty of the TV show...do a ompletely different story each week, but using the same characters, as the travel their merry way...

Watch Out! Statham's Cranky!

The Transporter established Jason Statham as a talent to watch. Crank confirmed it.

It starts with no set up; Chev Chelios has been poisened with some chinese cocktail of lethal drugs, and the only way he can keep himself alive is by stimulating the natural adrenaline in his body. Its an escapist movie (just as The Terminator or Rambo was); the audience would never do what Chev does so its cathartic to watch him do it for us.

This is the Evil Dead 2 of gangster movies; the usual plot of hitman wanting out...but mixed with a heady cocktail of ultra-violence and dark, comc strip humour.
The directors inventivness and bravery in trying new techniques is to be congratulated with the camera communicating not only how Chev feels but the urgency in which he carries out his quest for survival and revenge.

Humour and violence has rarely been this well combined.

The Tom Hanks Mullet Movie

Dan Brown's novel The DaVinci Code gets a bit of a kicking because of its basic, unsophisticated, workmanlike craftsmanship. For the same reason, the 2006 Ron Howard adaptation is not in favor with many critics; the direction is largely unimaginative and sticks to closely to the book. And while that is still true, the movie is still very entertaining thanks to the research on which it's based.

Doctor Who bossman Russell T Davis knows that using cultural iconography & mythology (wheely bins / double decker buses / christmas / werewolves) you can draw your audience in, and get them to look at something in a whole new light. With the Da Vinci Code, the iconography of Da Vinci is interwoven with New Testament bible mythology to reinterpret the Holy Grail myth.
This whole aspect is bloody marvelous, especially Sir Ian McKellan's massive exposition dump in the middle act.

Where the movie falters is the treasure hunt plot that gels the mystery together; it's not that exciting and you wish for a visionary director to give it an adrenaline rush.

It is however a compelling mystery. Love the final scene as Tom Hanks resolves the final location of the grail accompanied by some fantastic Hans Zimmer score.

Battlestarless Caprica

After the amazing high that Battlestar Galactica ended on, it might have been considered foolish to try and compete with yourself by producing a spin off series. Just look at Star Trek: The Next Generation; it had varying levels of sucess, from the worthy Deep Space Nine to the miserable Voyager.

However, coming from the genius mind of Ronald D Moore, the pilot episode of Caprica demonstrates we had nothing to worry about. It's every bit as smart, compelling, facinating and well-made as BSG. Be warned though, this is not the military action-drama that BSG was. The spaceship aspect is downplayed to present a contemporary world (save for a few sci-fi gizmos) that feels like our modern day Earth and also part of BSG's past (people say frak, spend cubits, travel to Geminon etc).

It's the writing that excells charting the intersection of two families, the Greystones (soon-to-be inventors of the Cylons)and the Adamas (a lawyer, and his son William). It explores themes of religion, terrorism, racism, psychology, philosophy and morality to a degree that most other TV shows can't. Even in this pilot, there more potential to examine the human psyche than the whole season of Dollhouse has done so far. And more compelling too.

I'm very glad this is getting made into a series. However, it's lack of action may cause its financial backers to turn on it, real quick. We'll see...

Excuse Me, Did I Say You Could Come In?

The Uninvited is yet another attempt by the US studio system to sucessfully remake an Asian horror movie; this time A Tale Of Two Sisters.

After a spell at a psychiatric unit for trying to slit her own wrists, troubled teen Emily Browning returns home to her father and sister. Her terminally ill mother died in a fire, which is the cause of her distress, and much of the movie is spent with her trying to remember/discover what happened that nigh. In addition, her mothers sexy nurse (Elizabeth Banks) has now moved in to the family home with Dad looking for his second marraige.

Did the wicked stepmother kill Mom, you ask? Frankly, it's nearly so predictable that you give up asking and start yearing for the end credits. The cast are phoning it in, the horror consists of no gore and a couple of weak jumps that couldn't scare a mouse with a heart condition. It's also devoid of tension; fatel for a horror movie (even a psychological one)

Fortunately for me, I couldn't remember how the excellent Tale Of Two Sisters ended, so The Uninvited's twist came as a pleasent surprise. However, the film makers tried so hard to deal me a red herring, I got boorrred.

Next time guys...try to keep your viewer entertained...all the way up until you reveal the twist. Cause the cleverness of your ending don't make up for an hour and a half of Captain Bland.

Big Man Trouble In Little Japan

2007 Japanese movie "Dai Nipponjin" or Big Man Japan is yet another movie that explores how superheroes might exist in reality. Presented in a mostly mockumentary fashion it follows seemingly average slacker Daisato, who is probed by the film crew on mant aspects of his mundane life. It is soon recvealed that Daisato is the last generation of Japan's "Big Men"; King Kong sized supermen, when electricity is applied, that defend Japan against giant monsters, that evidently still exist in that country. It paints a world where huge monsters are commonplace, to the point where the general public barely acknowlege their impact on society.

It's a weird blend of science-fiction, low-key deadpan comedy, social satire and loving spoof of Godzilla style monster movies. The fantastic CGI, which brings the off beat monsters to life might not be photo real, but it does lend the movie a daft visual style. The monster designs are completely barking, my favorite being the chicken legged-eyeball fusion.

It's got a lot to say too, with insight being offered in to the changes experienced as new generations take over from older ones. The difference in generational attitudes is examined. How individuals perceive themselves and how they are perceived my other is explored with a focus on media. Media exploitation, bias in presentation, fame, reality TV, corporate advertising...all come into question.

This is a mad film that not everyone will get...but if you do, you'll love it. The last 10 minutes, in particular will divide people right down the middle. Whether you understand the ending or not, find meaning in it or not...doesn't really matter. It's a hilarious finale to a smart, funny fantasy.

F&F: Fast & Furiestist

Fast & Furious is a solid entry in this franchise which reunites the cool Vin Diesel with pretty-boy-plank Paul Walker.

It's an improvement, in some ways, by bringing the crime investigation to the fore, leaving the teen street racing aspect to one race. It feels like the cop action-thrillers they used to make, but don't anymore 'cause superheroes are more interesting. Director Justin Lin does a competant job with the car chases, with the opening Gas Truck heist working particularly well. He's undermined by some dodgy CGI though, which detracts, rather than enhances the cool stunt-work. After the fall of CGI Bond in Die Another Day, and the ressurrection of real stunt work in the Bourne franchise, I thought this day of poor CG stuntwork was behind us.

The plot is entirely predictable, and the dialogue downright crap at times ("This is where my juristiction ends." "Yeah? Well, this is where mine begins". Which, is fine, if delivered right. But the mighty Vin Diesel is once again saddled by the charisma vacumn that is Paul Walker. It must be said Walker is improving as an actor; the less he emotes the better. Silent, determined Paul Walker is better than affable, surfer-dude Paul Walker.

All in all a fun action thriller, that you instantly forget once exiting the cinema. You get the feeling the best car chase in the movie starts just as the movie's credit begin. With a fifth movie inevitable, I'd like to see the producers hire writers and a director who can inject some nitrus-oxide in to the franchise.

Mission: Alias

While not as good as the two previous instalments, JJ Abram's Mission Impossible 3 is still a graet addition to the franchise.

Back on its theatrical release in 2006, Mr Cruise had an uphill battle with this movie. The world was still reeling from his couch jumping antics. It paled in comparison to the other high profile spy movies out there (Casino Royale / Bourne Ultimatum). Plus , it had an untested movie director (although JJ was already aclaimed for Lost, Alias & Felicity).

In retrospect, while it it lacks the focused artistic vision that DePalma & Woo brought to their instalments, it has only gotten better with age.
The Tom-Cruise-Is-A-Loon image has receeded (not that this bothered me anyways). Compared with the weak plot in Quantum Of Solace, both the character aspects and the 'Rabbits Foot' macguffin work very well. And now that the hand held camera style has become more dominant in contemporary cinema, the movie feel less the efforts of a newbie TV director.

If there is critisism, it's the TV feel still undermines this cinematic franchise; the action sequences (all fast, fun and frantic) lack the confidence in editing that might have elevated it further. What saves most of the big action sequences are the character dilemmas intercut with them (Agent Farris's bomb-in-the-brain during the helicopter chase...the former bit better than the latter). Also the script could be much tighter, with tons of exposition being dumped in boring FMI headquarters rather than on the move (as they did later in the Vatican mission). The whole thing has a feel of Alias; a good program but, considering the franchise, undermines the mystery and enigma of the IMF department.

But it got a rocket propelled pace, the cast fantastic, the photography beautiful, the missions inventive (but not quite iconic) and the character story of Mr & Mrs Hunt provides the unique signature of this franchise entry. Best of all though is the pre-title teaser of Mr Cruise, in the chair, with a bomb up his nostril. Mint!

Can I Get Off This Ride Please...

Final Destination 3 is the one with the rollercoater.
Welcome to by the numbers film-making with returning director James Wong.

The second movie of this trilogy is still the best. It acknowledges the set up of the first film then has fun as the characters try and prevent their own deaths.

This is unexceptional. Average is as average does.

Mary Elizabeth Winstead is very cute. Nuff said.

Easter Sunday, Pointy Earred Resurrection

The general opinion is, odd numbered Trek movies are bad, and even numbered are good.
Star Trek 3: The Search For Spock is a mixture of success and faliure making a proof of that statement questionable.

Rather than an example of exemplary, tight scriptwriting (like Wrath Of Khan), this is an exercise in serialised storytelling. The objective, to resurrect the deceased Mr Spock in a way that satisfies the need of a family adventure movie, while using the characters and situations set up in the last movie. It's brisk and fun...but never contains the depth or intelligence of Star Trek 2. Although it still takes itself seriously, this is more of an ensemble adventure rather than a dramatic, thought provoking science fiction drama.

Leonard Nimoy takes over in the directors chair and does a solid job. But he's a director without a strong vision and is underserved by a shitty budget. The set redressings (to save cash) are obvious, the new sets embarressing (the Genesis Planet and Starfleet officers lounge are frankly crap) and is made even worse by overlighting everything (the scene in Spocks quarters being a rare exception).

Fortunately the money's been spent on the effects, and it shows. FX shots aren't reused from previous movies and tons of new models have been designed, icluding Spacedock, The Excelsior and the iconic Klingon Bird Of Prey, which are imaculately lit by ILM.

Shatner again proves what a strong performer he can be when he reigns it in, Mark Lenard provides gravitas as Spock's dad Sarek and Christopher Lloyd is a memorably intense Klingon commander. Only Robin Curtis disapoints as the recast Saavik, draining the naivety from the character, leaving blandness. In fact, the only scenes that drag feature her and the returning David Marcus on the planet's surface.

A fun, but technically flawed movie, which breaks the odd numbered rule then. But you may disagree...

Catching Up With KHHAAANNNNNN!!!

uss enterprise


Now that JJ Abram's new Star Trek film has been unveiled, I thought it time to revist Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan, widly considered to be the best incarnation of Trek.

And they're not wrong either. It's certainly one of the best written movies I've seen, fusing character with plot with subtext with fresh science fiction concepts. Each script element reinforces the other elements making it stronger (eg, the youthful characters of David and Saavik remind Kirk and Spock of aging and death, the theme of the movie). In the Directors Cut, this is reinforced slightly further; Scotty's nephew banters with Kirk, who is reminded of that youthful quality he also once had. The Genesis device itself gives licence to discuss birth and death. The reintroduction of people from Kirk's past (Khan/Carol) provides a platform to discuss how the past catches up with you. The inclusion of Kirks birthday and his gift of spectacles serves as a reminder of aging an the inevitability of death.

On its original release in '82, many people knew going in that the much adored character of Mr Spock was going to die...and the movie has fun playing with the audiences knowledge while sewing its thematic and plot threads (Spock is seen to die in the opening space battle, only for it to be revealed it's a simulation).

The cast are supurb, especially Shatner, who gives a wonderfully introspective performance of a man who's resigned himself to do what others expect him to do, rather than what he wants to do. Montalban's portrayal of Khan is, deservedly, legendary. The revenge obsessed superman is proud, elegant, confident, powerful, charming and magnetic. Both Shatner and Montalban demonstrate their characters obsessions; Khan with Kirk, and Kirk's with starship command. Kirsty Alley makes an impression too as vulcan Saavik, playing her as smart, capable, but naive.

There are so many great moments in this piece, whether it be a character exchange, effects shot, or plot revealation. Stand outs include KIrk's introduction, stepping out of the light. Kirk's reaction as he steps back onto the bridge of the Enterprise. The McCoy/Spock Genesis argument. The magnificent USS Reliant shot, as it fills the screen in anticipation of battle, and the later 'Jaws' shot as it emerges from behind the Enterprise's saucer. Perhaps the best are the moments of brinksmanship that Kirk displays, the best being his revealtion of how he beat the no-win Academy simulator.. and revelation of his rescue plan. Perhaps no other moment in movie history makes me want to shout at the screen and say "YES!!"

James Horner's score is one of my favorites ever, coveying the majesty of navel life in space.

Nicholas Meyer directs with a sure hand. The movie is adult and confident; the editing may be slow but steady, but the plot is so strong it travels at a fantastic pace. It doesn't have the budget, and therefore the scope of 1979's The Motion Picture, but that works to its atvantage by providing a more intimate, claustraphobic atmosphere that serves the story. Meyer gives the Starfleet Star Trek universe a military feel which helps by transforming the space battles into submarine chases and tallships at war.

Even before I saw this as a kid, I was bound to love it. It's got spaceships, space battles and characters I'd loved on TV. As an adult I still love all that stuff. But I've discovered I love movies where characters have to learn to deal with bleak situations by looking at them in a whole new way (like Red in The Shawshank Redemption. And so it is here with Kirk's loss of Spock. Despite the downer ending, you end on a high. For me it's a 27 year high.

This Blog Will Self Destuct In 5 Seconds...

With JJ Abram's Star Trek reboot just round the corner, I'd thought I'd revisit Abram's movie debut MI:III. Unfortunately, my DVD player was having none of it, forcing me to watch the best of the franchise, 1996's, Mission Impossible.

And what a corker it is...combining the talents of screenwriter David Koepp and director Brian DePalma (both at the top of their game). DePalma wisely chooses a 60's cold war style, reminisant of the TV series on which the movie is based.

It has a memorable, starry cast (Emilio Estevez, Kristen Scott Thomas, Vanessa Redgrave, Ving Rhames, Jean Reno, the foxy Emmenuelle Beart, the twitchy Henry Czerny and the coniving Jon Voight; even if they're not on screen long, they bring the story to life and add weight to their scenes.

Koepps script is lean, mean, tight and consise. Despite the seemingly complicated plot, its structured in a way that helps tell the story; a simple three act structure (Prague, Langley and London) and each scene within the acts are stremlined to maximum efficiency. Gadgets are used sparingly and are used more than once (unlike Bond movies)which raises the plausability of the fantastical plot.

DePalma directs the f#*k ot of this. Each shot designed to convey information, whether it be to set up visual story elements (the knife design) or storytelling devices like DePalma's trademark POV shots (used to show the camera-mounted-in-the spectacles-gadget). Every aspect of story-telling has been considered here, from the use of sound (listen as the soundtrack fades to nothing as Cruise lowers into the computer room) to the inventive editing on display (the tension is racked up as Czerny loses his cool in the fish tank restaurant with a frenzied display of editing). Couple this with a crate of iconic shots (the now legendary hanging centimetres above the motion sensitive floor scene) and thrilling set pieces (the channel tunnel chase) and you've got a spy movie thats amoung the best there is.

It odd, that on first viewing, I didn't immediately warm to this. But now, it easily one of my favorite movies ever.

Top Gear

I haven't seen The Fast & The Furious in many a year. But in anticipation of the upcoming 4th movie in the franchise, reuniting the original cast, I thought I'd check it out again.

And I'm surprised at how well it still plays. Essetially a lesser-remake of Point Break, substituting boy-racer culture for surfing, it follows a cop (a solid but vacant) Paul Walker, infiltrate (a typically magnetic) Vin Diesel's gang of petrol heads.

The stunts and set-pieces are well choreographed and shot, with the lorry-jacking sequences standing out. Director Rob Cohen revitalises his style with some glossy photography, and neat stylistic touches (the racing 'light speed' effect / the rollercoaster ride thought the engine).

It also successfully gives an insight into an unfamiler world, with the meetings of street racers and enthusiasts coming off as authentic.

On every level, this doesn't measure up to Point Break (Walker will never be as good as Keanu!!!) but its a damn solid ride. As I recall it came out of nowhere to bitch slap Driven, the year that it opened. In retrospect, that gap for that year's top racing movie has widened even further.

**** This Movie!

Fuck is a documentary which examines the curse word of the title. It explores the history of this English word and charts its connections to politics, censorship, religion, media, comedy, ideology and sociology.

Billy Connelly, Kevin Smith and Bill Maher give insights as well as a host of right and left wing celebrities, giving a balanced opinion as to the appropriatness of using this, or any other, curse words.

Informative and very amusing.

It's The Parents Fault, I Reckon...

The Children is a 2008 British horror film which chroncles the Christmas get-together of a clan at a secluded family house. Apart from sulky teenager and dad-with-a-short-temper, all is well until the kiddies become prone to spurts of spontaneous violence.


It's a bit by the numbers, but well made. The Brit cast is familier but unforgettable. What raises this a level is choice of characters to defend themselves... should they try and kill, attack the 4 year olds trying to slaughters them? Is it their fault? Could you kill your own child even if they were hellbent on killing you?

There's some irritating jumps in logic that detract from the experience. The question as to where the requested ambulance is hovers overs two thirds of the movie (until an implied resolution presents itself).

Another is more jarring. I'm pretty certain I can outrun and restrain a 5 year old (even if posessed by evilness) so why in heaven don't they lock the little buggers up!?

Not great, but some welcome savagry saves the day.

If I Knew Now What I Knew Then I'd Know Something worth Knowing...

When is an M. Night Shyamalan movie not an M.Night Shyamalan movie? When it's an Alex Proyas movie, of course! But you'd be forgiven for mistaking Knowing as the work of Shyamalan, with its mysterious tale of a man facing a crisis of faith, only for it to be resolved in a twisty way.

Nicholas Cage plays a scientist whose child is given a piece of paper containing a list of numbers, from a time capule buried 50 years earlier. The number seem to list the dates and casulties numbers of all the worlds major catastrophies since the capsule was buried. As the story progresses we wonder if the predictions of future disasters will come to pass...which they do!

And when they do...wow! The plane crash is shot in one continuous shot, showing the plane's impact, Cage's reaction, and his subsequent rescue attempts. The sound/music mix is the best I've heard in ages..with the roar of the carnage and sceams of the victims blasted into your brain. The effects are great as well, selling the 'what it would really be like to be there' aspect.

While many have been dismayed in the direction the plot turns at the end, I feel it fits comfotrably into the sci-fi premise and is well set-up as the story builds.

Despite the Shyamalan structure, this is also a distinctely Alex Proyas movie. Like his earlier Dark City, this explores themes of destiny vs coinsidence and of mysterious figures guiding humanity without there knowledge.

Finally, it's a shame that actress Rose Byrne has a role that requires her to scream uncontrolably and run, arms flapping in a pre-teen girly way. Note to other directors; Rose Byrne is unbelievably cute and such uncute behaviour should not be encouraged.