The Mad Evil Supernatural Psychiatrist Will See You Now

You almost expect for a sequel to take a step down in quality from the original. Take the classic Predator; it starred Arnie and was directed by John Mctiernan at the top of his game. The sequel had Danny Glover. Yep Danny Glover...but it was still cool beans.

The same can be applied to House On Haunted Hill, a glossy, but ever so crap horror movie starring the mighty Geoffrey Rush with Famke Janssen, Brigette Wilson, Taye Diggs and Ali Larter. So if the original shouldn't be watched again...what about the sequel?

That's correct...it shouldn't be watched. It's got a TV reject cast...that bloke from ER, that bird from The OC and that kid from Primeval. In fact, the most intriguing aspect is tring to work out if the professer bloke is, in fact, actor Stephen Pacey, who plyed Tarrent in Blake's 7 in 1980 (it was).

There's some nonsence about how the events of the first movie were caused by a satanic idol...which give it a Z-Movie, Raiders rip off vibe...but don't let that encourage you to see this.

The Frog Bros Present: Vampire Jack Bauer

Up until the arrival of Blade in the early 1990's, I never really 'got' the appeal of vampires in pop culture. Lost Boys didn't help either.

It's a movie of two halves. There's the serious teen-vampire movie with Jason Patric's braindead, new-to-town jock falling for vampiric cutsie Jamie Gertz, who's part of pointy-toothed rebel Keifer Sutherland's gang. AS a metaphor for teen angst and parental rebellion it's rather dull stuff. Director Joel Schulmacher gives it his usual flair (glossy extravagence and a rather cool pop soundtrack) but it's all a bit dated now.

The other, more entertaining side, has the two Coreys (Haim & Feldman), battle the undead with humourous consequences. The one halve never really gels with the second. I could argue that it's a case of style over substance but I've never agreed with that arguement. Instead, let it be said, that I've never cared for Schulmacher's style (from Flatliners to Batman and Robin.)

Best moment goes to Barnard Hughes who ends the movie with a killer statement. Pity you've gotta endure the whole movie to get to the twist.

Perfection In Perfection

Following in the shadow of Amblin Entertainment features, which had broad audience appeal combined with a high concept, arrived Tremors, a Jaws on land monster movie.
And just like the Amblin flicks, its got imagination that doesn't exceed its budget, enough action to fill a mega-budget blockbuster, and a collection of weird and wonderful people you wanna spend an hour and a half with.

The cast are great. Kevin Bacon and (an always under-rated) Fred Ward are Val and Earl, a couple of bickering, best friend, modern day cowboys. Without their banter, the movie would sink a notch. With them is a great ensemble including Reba McIntire and Michael Gross as a couple of survival nuts.

The effects are flawless, back in the days when CGI was rarelky used. It relies on some amazing go-motion work plus some fine floor FX to bring the Graboids to life.

Not many movies can pull off monsters, action, humour and thrill, but Tremors does it with ease. The script is rock solid, chucking some excellent one-liners to Bacon "mother-humpers" and Ward "pardon my french".

There was a studio-system philosophy in the early '90's that less mega-budget should be made as greater rewards could be earnt from high quality medium budget films, of which Tremors is one. Surprisingly, in the midst of the current financial crisis, Hollywood studio's are intent on creating more expensive and dumber blockbusters (Wolverine / GI: Joe / G-Force). Perhaps someone ought to show a studio executive something like Tremors. It's a stretch, but they might like it...

Bigga Badda Boomstick

Some of the greatest aclaimed directors of recent movie history have started off in shlock horror. Peter Jackson moved from Bad Taste to Lord Of The Rings, James Cameron from Pirahna 2 to Titanic. And there's Spider-man's Sam Raimi who produced the Evil Dead series in his youth. The third of that series, Army Of Darkness, displays Raimi's unique cinematic sensibilities.

Like director Joe Dante's stuff, Army Of Darkness is a live-action Looney Tunes cartoon. When it hit's its stride...from the insane windmill sequence onwards, it's a collection of surreal, humorously violent set-pieces as Raimi relentlessly tortures his star, Bruce Campbell.

To say Campbell is the star is an understatement. He's in every scene and even gets to fight the leader of the Deadites...himself. There's some unforgettable quips "Hey, she bitch. Let's go!" and some side-splitting physical comedy (Ash swollowing boiling water to kill the mini-Ash inside him).

The cheap effects (the obvious rear projection / the stilted animatronic skeletons ) actually add to the charm of the movie...not detract. It turns the legendary Jason And The Argonauts skeleton fight on it's head making Ash's opponants dumb, Wile E Coyote, puppets-to-the-slaughter.

I still prefer the theatical ending over the directors cut. While the future ending is true to form, give hero Ash lots more grief...the S-Mart ending provides the best bit of the movie. Despite his incompetance, Ash is still an arrogent nob. And what better weay to show it than an off-it's-breasts finale.

Hail to the King, baby. Hail to the King.

Love, Vengence and Fart Gags

Consider, if you would, the above poster for Sylvester Stallone's Avenging Angelo.
If you're advertising a thriller you make the poster dark and serious. Oh, and there must be weaponery, preferably a gun. Add to that the title and you've got a humourless mafia revenge flick. And that's a movie I can't be bothered to see. Seven years not bothered due to it appearing just like Stallone's other tired gansta revenge movie; the Get Carter remake.

So when I finally gave in, that's when the romantic comedy aspect crept up on me. Avenging Angelo is a silly, old fashioned, frothy, romantic gangster themed dramedy.
The nearest comparison is if Skin Deep/Pink Panther director Blake Edwards had made this. It's got Edward's 60's style visuals, a Bill Conti score that's reminicent of Mancini's classier works, mixed with Edward's trademark humorous absurdity and sharp comic timing.

However, like Edwards work, this isn't perfect either. Many gags fall flat; for every sucess (the Brute aftershave joke that runs through the film) there's crap ones (the farting squirrel / farting corpse jokes).

Stallone tries his hand at comedy again, but isn't quite up to it. Fortunately, he's the straight man. Madeline Stowe get the plum role of the girl Stallone's been assigned to protect from afar, all his career. She's spoilt, eratic, skatty, impulsive, neurotic and completely adorable in the role, that reminds one of Teri Hatcher in Lois & Clark or Cybil Sheppard in Moonlighting.

And hot too. I know the movie was filmed back in 2002 but Stowe, wherever she is these days, is a righteous honey. Viva la Stowe!!!

Where's The Pause Button?

REC was one of those movies that everybody else in the universe has seen...except me. People would either encourage me by saying "Come on mate, It's brilliant!" or "The girl in REC is really cute!". Perhaps expecting the same old, same old, I put it on the shelf for a rainy day.

Well that rainy day finally came and REC is stunning. In the tradition of Blair Witch and Cloverfield, it's shot from a first-person perspective with a video camera crew filming a TV show 'While You Are Sleeping' with the programme's attractive presentor. It sets up the story slowly, getting to see the energetic personality of host Angela and the firemen she'll accompany later.

On arrival at zombie central, the mystery and suspense is built, only breaking for breif and shocking moments of violence. Epically long steady-cam shots maintain the anticipation of scares while unpredictable situations and characters are thrown into the mix to spice things up. The movie steps up the intensity in the final twenty five minutes, while the finale delivers a frenzied, viceral horror that is practically unrivaled.

Like Cloverfield, the hand held technique puts the viewer into the heart of the story, forcing themn to consider how they'd react under the circumstances presented.

After careful consideration, soiling oneself is a dignified, and entirely proper option, given the occasion.

So Long And Thanks For All The Rockwell

It was with mixed feelings that I approached the movie adaptation of The Hitch Hikers Guide To The Galaxy back in 2005. Primarily, I was concerned the producers would f#*k up my favorite book; its quirky, very English with some of the most amusing and perfectly formed sentences commited to paper. On the positive front, the film was produced by Jay Roach, a talented comedy film-maker, had a decent hollywood budget and was co-written by the book's author, the late Douglas Adams.

The result, while not perfect, was at least a satisfactory adaptation. The biggest obstacle the movie had to overcome to achieve production status, was to appeal to a large contemporary international audience. See Hitch-Hiker's is a very, very English affair; the humour is both Monty Python daft and drier than all the hosts of 'Have I Got News For You' combined.

The cast are variable. Zooey Deschenel is adorable as Trillion, Mos Def makes for unexpected, but spot-on casting while Alan rickman doesn't come off as well as the voice of Marvin the paranoid android, as Stephen Moore did in the radio play. Martin Freeman is adequete in the lead role of Arthur Dent...but his modern interpretation of the stubbornly middle-class englishman from the book drains a lot of the humor's sharpness. Standing head over heals above everybody is Sam Rockwell as Zaphod Beeblebrox. He perfectly capture the stellar arrogance, stupidity and zest for trouble that embodies the rock-star persona of the President of the Universe.

The film-makers make good choices in the designs from Jim Henson's globular Vogons, the spaceship Heart of Gold and Deep Thought...the second most powerful computer ever. There's a definete Terry Gillian vibe which does the movie no harm at all.

Where it falls down is where it varies from the book. The detour to meet John Malkovich, whilw weird and never dull, slows down the story and detracts from the laughs. Whenever it's being faithful, such as Stephen Fry's beautifully timed passages from the Hitch Hikers Guide, it's stunning.

So not bad, but not great. Perhaps it needed a bigger budget (they kinda cheat Zaphod outta his second head) and bigger balls. The opening sequence, involving a musical number sung by dolphins, is a bizarre creative choice that puts a grin on the face. Then again given the quirky nature of the material, it's a miracle the movie got made at all.

Mega Shark Vs Lionel Lionel Cool J

What do you get if you cross Jaws with a traditional disaster movie. Sorry, no, it's not Jaws 3-D. I am of course refering to Renny Harlin's dumbfest Deep Blue Sea. Aparently Harlin was drawn to the imagery of sharks swimming indoors...and watching it fresh, it's a concept that works really well.

In traditional disaster movie structure, we're introduced to the B-movie crew of underwater science lab Aquatica; Michael Rapaport plays himself as usual, LL Cool J the comic releif and Stellan Skarsgard the mad scientist. There's also Safron Burrows in the Emily Blunt role (beautiful, toffy-nosed bitch), impressive newcomer Thomas Jane in the Clint Eastwood part and Sam Jackson as the red herring leader of the group.

Once the set up is out of the way, the science experiment goes wrong, and all bullshit breaks loose (well, three large brained sharks). Deep Blue Sea is basically a Michael Crichton adaptation, if Crichton had been arsed to research ocean biology.
In it's 100 minute run time it takes 2 minutes to preach about the dangers of genetic manipulation before resuming the carnage.

It's great fun, well made, crowd pleasing tosh. The effects are a little slack, but is compensated for in the never ending array of set-pieces. But the movie will always be remembered in the way Sam Jackson exits the movie.

Sam Jackson 0, Mega Shark 1.

Hasta La Vista, Arnie

Before I went to the cinema in 1991 to see James Cameron's sequel Terminator 2: Judgement Day, I watched his original 1984 movie, The Terminator. This, at the time, may have been a mistake. So edgey and intense a movie is the original, when that quality was lacking a little bit in the follow up, I was a little disappointed.

However, T2's strength lies in it's differences, as well as those qualities that made the first movie so strong. Terminator 2 follows the same structure as the original; a Terminator is sent back in time to assasinate John Connor and a lone protector is sent to protect him. Cameron, a master of the sequel already with Aliens, has fun with the format, keeping enough of the original intact, while changing the details in the sequel. Playing with our expectations, he sets up Arnie as the evil Terminator with Robert Patrick apparently in the heroic (he's dressed as a policeman) protector role. It's only when we get to the first confrontation, mirroring Tech Noir in T1, that the agendas of the Terminators are revealed to be reversed.

It follows the first movies structure exactly; Future war bit, time travel bit, first confrontation, basil exposition scene, Dr Silverman interviews hero on video tape, confrontation on road against tanker, mistaken destruction of the bad terminator and final showdown in a factory (which holds the key to victory). Onto this it layers new elements. Wiser-than-his-year kid John Connor seeks his mother's love Sarah. Mummy Connor seeks to prevent the war by terminating the creator of skynet. And a machine slowly learns what it means to be human. It's an ambitious film (both in story and visually) that couldn't exist without standing on the shoulders of the giant original movie.

Lina Hamilton transforms, emotionally and physically, as a bitter and obsessed Sarah Connor. Edward Furlong is perfect casting as the young John, showing the intelligence, strength and charisma the future world leader would require, while still retaining the vulnerability of a kid who still needs his mom. Arnie's back to, delivering his trademark performance with a layering of ehumanity as the movie progresses.

It's Cameron's show, though. Gone is the Roger Corman prodigy; it's the budget busting Abyss director who runs this circus. The film is more confidently directed than anything he's done before, each shot precisly framed, paced, lit and performed to perfection. That precision means that the raw, dangerous energy of the original is deminished. But in its place is a glorious epic...ambitious in scope and daring in execution. The action sequences, particularly the hospital escape, the LA river truck chase and the later escape from Cyberdyne are all flawless in execution, firmly placing as Cameron as one of the worlds leading action helmers.

The ground breaking CGI are still eyepopping. Cameron took the limits of CGI at the time and incorporated them into his villain. They should feel dated, but aren't as they perfectly capture the form of the unstoppable T-1000. Brad Fidel's score presents a more subtle variation on the original...something that bugged on first viewing, but whose unique sound has sunk into established lore as the sound of a stalking robot assassin. Adam Greenberg's photography ranks as his best work, and elevates T2 as the best photographed Cameron movie, to date.

Ans so to the arguement of which is the best Terminator movie. Well as a fully-formed piece of film-making..it's probably the original. The story is so tightly constructed, it's more suspenceful as a thriller, combines sci-fi, love story and chase movie elements perfectly, plus creates a convincing fully formed universe in under two hours. However, on cinematic terms, I've got to say I prefer T2. The visual perfection of it is food for the soul, the action sequences some of the best commited to film, and the character stories only enrich the Terminator universe, not detract from it. And then there's the genius of the T-1000. The idea of a killer robot, as embodied by Arnie, was a clever if not original idea. By making the robot an average human/sized metal blob it created one of the most iconic characters of modern cinema. And then made it go head-to-head with one of the other most iconic characters of modern cinema.

Mintage time two! So good was this face off, in fact, that poor Jonathan Mostow could come up with a sufficently iconic baddie for T3. Unless you call inflatable boobs iconic?

Come With Me If You Want To Live

The eternal question; what's the best film...the original or the sequel? It's a question that troubles several franchises including The Godfather, Toy Story, Mad Max, Alien and The Evil Dead movies. I've constantly grappled with that question regarding James Cameron's first two Terminator movies. So with T4 harbouring into view, I'd thought I'd revisit the dilemma.

1984's The Terminator has an advantage as it gets to showcase one of the best fictional universes commited to film. Taking a lead from 1970's Collosus: The Forbin Project, it presents a future where Artificial Intelligence has taken over Strategic Missile Command. It take it one step further and sets off the bomb, destroying most of humanity, leaving a parade of robots to make mankind extinct. Cleverly, it makes this projected future the story's past by introducing a time travel element. This not only deepens the story but allows hero, Kyle Reese, to emotionally relive his past (our future). With this as an intriguing foundation, the primary chase story is built; an unstoppable machine intent on killing the mother of it's (eventual) nemesis.

James Cameron knows how to pace his movie, keeping the tension building as both Reese and the Terminator race to find their objective, Sarah Connor. From then on the action sequences keep coming thick and fast. Even at this early stage in his career, Cameron is confident in the staging of his action, building from simple foot chases to full-on endo-skeleton smackdowns in the finale.

Arnie is perfectly cast as the emotionless Terminator, his Mr Universe winning frame simply conveying the sheer power the cyborb posesses. Biehn is a solid lead, mixing vulnerability in with his humourless, battle-hardened commando persona. It's Linda Hamilton that excells her transforming Sarah from a girlie, fragile waitress to a determined, responsible fighter.

There are 3 things that really set this apart from it's 1991 sequel.
1/ The budget. Surprisingly, the ultra-low budget didn't restrict Cameron's imagination. But it does rear it's ugly head in some of the FX sequences. The future scenes are carried off really well, but it's the later stop-motion, endo-skeleton scraps that aren't all too hot (even though they remain convincing).
2/ The tone. The Terminator has a much darker, grittier and more dangerous feel than it's predecessor. Perhaps because of a lack of budget, the film has a more intimate, grainer feel (down to the size and type of film stock used). In addition, Brad Fidel's score is more pronounced and bombastic, shadowing Arnie's greater physical threat.
3/ The story. It's original (well, unless you've seen The Outer Limits episode it's based on), it's simply told, is efficient and fun.

There's no denying the brilliance of this film. It's main flaw is also one of it's greatest assets; the budget. Because there was no money to spend, the film lacks scale and looks a little dark and dirty. But that very style gives the movie an edgey quality that makes the sequel a little tamer in comparison.

At the end of the day, it's a matter of taste. When Arthur C Clarke was asked what the best science fiction movie of the 1980's, surprisingly he didn't proclaim it was his own 2010... but you know what. Clever bloke, that Mr Clarke.

Twatting Bankers

Ah, they don't make films like The International any more. It's an elegant, slow-burn conspiricy thriller that used to be produced by the likes of Alan J Pakula or Sidney Pollack. The movie is adult in tone and doesn't pander to the MTV generation; no steady-cam shots at all, with static shots dominating the movie. Just some long takes on intense actors doing their thing (Clive Owen NEVER blinks!) and some epic, composed shots of international locations like Moroco, Berlin and New York.

There's a scary subtext of banks controlling the world (not too fantasic an idea as money, does indeed, make the world go round, plus an intriguing character arc for star, Owen , regarding the morality of upholding justice. The shoot-out in the Guggenheim museum ranks as one of the best, and most realistic, action sequences of the year.

It's refreshing to have a change of pace. One can imagine a FOX produced, F Gary Gray directed version, 40 minuts shorter with city blocks being demolished at 5 minute intervals. No thanks, I'll get the next one.

Bring On The Bush. Flick The Bean.

I didn't have high hopes going into the 2007 remake of The Hitcher. For a start I adore the original starring Rutger Hauer, who terrorises a supurb C Thomas Howell.
Secondly, the production company of the remake, Michael Bay's Platinum Dunes, have a habit of making good looking, but ineffective, horror remakes (The Texas Chainsaw Massacre / The Amityville Horror).

And unfortunately, my concerns were justified... The Hitcher sure does look purty...the director's probably an ex music video helmer, but it's completely lacking in atmosphere, suspence or smarts. It follows the original plot, beat for beat, changing the details rather than the major plot points. So rather that a lone male driver picking up a selfless waitress along the way, driver Jim Halsey takes his girlfriend (the leggy Sophia Bush) from the outset.

Part of the problem is the casting of Sean Bean (an actor whose work I admire) as the title character. He lacks the enigmatic charisma of Hauer's original. In stead of the almost-supernatural force of nature the was John Ryder in 1986, Bean is just a naughty man with a bit of stubble. Scary!

CGI roadkill and Nine Inch Nail's songs do nothing to improve the situation. Like other Platinum Dunes efforts, it's not bad...just average. The original was one of those movies that worked because the tension was built slowly...despite Halsey's encounters with the Hitcher, as an audience, you were relieved when he shook the man off and prayed that he could drive fast enough and far enough away to escape Ryder's influence altogether. You could relate to Halsey. And everytime the Hitcher caught up with him, you'd ask yourself...what would I do.

In this version I'd shrug and wait to be butchered. It's the kindest way to treat oneself.

Thick As Sadists

I don't get this. The movie, Thick As Thieves...I just don't get it. It's a caper flick with MOrgan Freeman and Antonio Banderas as two rival diamond thieves teaming for the ultimate heist. You've got a sexy Rhada Mitchell to slut things up and the reliable Robert Forster to add some weight to proceedings. With a cast like this combined with capable director Mimi Leder, were onto a winner, you'd think.

Forget it. This is THE most uninteresting movie I've seen in years. The director and sciptwriter take every concievable element of originality, excitement and tension from the story and piss it away into coma inducing blandness. Even if the flying monkeys from the Wizard of Oz had shown up to shave Freeman's eyebrows off, I couldn't have cared less if I'd have asked a genie to make me care less.

It. Moves. So. Slowly.

How did it attract the likes of Freeman? Banderas? Sure. But Freeman!?!?

Aghhhh! The only thing I can think of is Leder wanted to inflict pain on her audience as retribution for thinking her Kevin Spacey flick, Pay It Forward, was shite. The sadist bint!

Question: How high is Anna Faris? Answer: Very.

Anna Faris upholds her reputation as the go to girl if a socially clueless girlie is required. In 'Smiley Face', Faris plays Jane, a stoner, who makes a seemingly inconsequential decision, while under the influence, which snowballs throughout her very weird day.

Not as broad, or as laugh out loud funny as The House Bunny, it's more of a low key, quirky, indie comedy. It is however compelling in it's oddness with strange situations, characters and storytelling devices thrown in to stir things up.
Faris, of course, own the movie, giving Jane a drug induced innocence, positivety as well as being simultaiously lazy and pro-active.

Bizarre but unquestionably likable.

This Movie's Got Bluntitude

Three things must yee know about "Wind Chill";-

1/ Star, Emily Blunt, plays a character, so annoying, you'll want to get a bus, a train, a boat and a plane to track her down and slap her.
2/ Wind Chill is soooooooooooo boring.
3/ Star, Emily Blunt, is so attractive that once you've completed your epic quest to slap her, you'll then want to kidnap her for your own, private 'Emily Blunt Shrine' in your shed back home. Probably.

The Animal House Bunny

The House Bunny is almost everything you'd expect it to be. The production company is Adam Sandler's Happy Madison...and so is funny, but not hilarious...crude but not offensively filthy...with a generic structure you can anticipate before the main titles role. It's also from the creators of Legally Blond...ans so, predictably, follows the same basic story of a blond, air-headed bimbo who leaves her natural environment to transform the outside world (and they teach her a little something too!! Tee Hee!) Of course, there's also a rom-com sub plot...how couldn't there be!?

Fortunately then for the lead, Anna Faris, for which this is essentially a star vehicle. Not even Cameron Diaz or Reece Witherspoon could have lifted this movie out of the gutter as Faris does. She's adorable, damned cute, extremely sexy with a staggering ability to take the piss out of herself. Ever since Scary Movie, Faris should have been a huge star...hopefully this will launch her onto the A list.

Worth mentioning is Superbad's Emma Stone, who excells as the uber geek of the sorority house. There's definetely a major career in comedy beckoning for this girl too.

Does The Pope Shit In The Woods?

As with The Da Vinci Code, Ron Howard's adaptation of Dan Brown's novel Angels and Demons appears pretty faithful. And thats the problem with this solid adult thriller.

Angels and Demons was the first Robert Langdon Novel commited to the page. Its got an intriguing premise, woven around the modern church and their history, a treasure hunt structure and cleverly includes iconic mythologys, works of art and landmarks. But Brown obviously didn'y quite nail the story with this version, chosing to re-tell the same story with different variables. So he replaced the Illuminatti with the Templars, replaced Sophie with Vetra, replaced Rapael with Da Vinci, replaced Italy with Paris and London and replaced the Church's conspiricy to gag scientific truth with the church's conspiricy to gag religious truth. And by changing the iconogrphy to those that are much better known, he produced a far more interesting story.

Unfortunately the movie adaptations were filmed the opposite way round, making Angels and Demons much more familiar and far less facinating. But there's still some intriguing stuff here, from Vatican tradition, Renaissance history, Church protocal as well as how Catholicism relates to the modern scientific world.

Its a better photographed movie to it's predcessor, more tightly scripted (thanks to co-writer David Koepp) with a great Hans Zimmer score (proving that, while others may attempt to replicate him, he's still the best). Direcor Ron Howard's direction is fine but unremarkable. The whole endevour comes across like a mild mannered, religious, screen version of TV series 24; you almost expect a digital clock to appear to countdown to each cliffhanger moment.

Now that would have made an adrenalising movie; Jack Bauer consumed with obcession as he tortures his way through the Catholic ranks, seeking to difuse the nuke. If Keifer Sutherland survives season 7, I think season 8 is a go!

Push It Real Good

Even though super hero movies are all the rage at the moment, you'd have thoght that it would be inadvisory to make a movie that closely follows the premise of TV series Heroes. However, when said TV series is tangled in its own web of covoluted storylines and over-complicated characterisations...it's just fine to make a movie like Push.

Its given an adult thriller, Euro-feel tone by director Paul (Lucky Number Slevin) McGuigan which sets it apart from other super-powered themed movies out there. He's not afraid to experiment with editing and montage techniques. Setting it in Japan gives the movie a lift and also help make the characters feel like outsiders they are (due to the gifts)...strangers in a strange land. McGuigan provides some nice action sequences paricularly a restaurant gunfight, where the weapons are telekinetcally controlled, not physically.

Chris Evans seems to be on auto pilot while love interest Camilla Belle gets the Jessica Alba role; supremely pretty...but vacant.AS usual a fast maturing Dakota Fanning delivers a performace you'd expect from a talented actress, twice her age.
The Fanning is still a freak. God help the competition when she matures into adult roles.

Mega Shark Vs Giant Octopus

Every now and again, there's more entertainment to be found taking the piss out of a movie, than watching an average movie (take note FOX execs). And lo, Mega Shark Vs Giant Octopus is born.

It is, of course, awful. Terribly written using a continent load of cliches in the dialogue, as well as statically and unimaginatively directed...all by a bloke called Ace, who has no idea what he's doing. Special mention to Lorenzo Lamas who goes straight in to my Top 10 Worst Actors Ever list, due to his ill-judged scenery chewing.

However, its much more interesting than any other Asylum studio production and, while terrible, at least it doesn't make you as angry as X-men Origins: Wolverine.

Worth checking out for the sequence where Mega Shark attacks a passenger airliner flying at altitude. Why and how does Mega Shark do this? Who knows. Just be thankful the scene exists at all.

12 Rounds ...Knocked Out In The First...

Take the plot of Die Hard: With A Vengence. Add the director of Die Hard 2. Cast a wresting lunk with presence, adequete acting ability and no carisma and you have 12 Rounds.

Director Renny Harlin hasn't made an entertaining movie since Deep Blue Sea and he doesn't quite make one here either. Since 2000's shitefest Driven, the man's tried to remain a 'fresh' and 'relevent' director by using steady cam, AVID farts and hip music scores. While the movies look good and are at least well made, they don't have the desired impact...that of exciting the audience.

If you wanna dumb, watching-while-your-pissed-on-a-saturday-night kinda movie, this is just dandy. You get the impression Arnie could have made this directly after Collateral Damage, if he hadn't gone into politics. If you were expecting a return to form (Cliffhanger / Die Hard 2) for Harlin, keep on hoping.

Never Wanted To Be A Martyr, But I Am Now...

Once again the French confirm they produce the best films in the horror genre right now, with the critically aclaimed Martyrs. It starts with a young girl escaping from her captors, who obviously have been physically abusing her. After spending her remaining traumatised youth in a care home, befriending her caring room-mate, she tracks down her abusers 15 years later, seeking revenge.

Martyrs is the one of the best movies I've seen this year..and definitely one of the best horror films of the decade. Its raw and unrelenting... using a hand held camera to get that realistic documentary feel. Its sadistically nasty too, obscuring American efforts in the torture-porn sub-genre like Saw and Hostel.

There two thing that elevate this exceptionally well directed movie from its shallow US counterparts. Firstly it has a great, twisty-turny plot. It constructs a set of circumstances, which you believe will be be sustained through the whole movie (eg, Lucie's revenge plot), then resolves those circumstances, or introduces an unexpected plot element. You never quite know where the movie's taking you. It constantly makes you question who the characters are, and what their motivations and beliefs are. It also creates tons of tension.

Secondly, it's surprisingly layered and deep, for something that appears to be just another vicious horror movie on the surface. It deals with spirituality and religion...how a new religion might operate, how religion can have little respect for human life...and how ultimately pointless life can be. It's both nihilistic and haunting.

The meaning of the word martyr means someone who will endure great pain for their beliefs. However, before the credits role, we're informed that Martyr is derived from the Greek word for 'witness'. It seems that we the audience are the Martyrs, and have been called upon to react to the savagery we've just seen.

It's rare that you get that combination of smart, smart film-making...and moments where you exclaim, "Now that is really f**ked up!".

Living Longer and Prospering

The re-imagining of classic Star Trek shares some similarities with the previous Trek movie, Nemesis; an enraged Romulan with an invincible spaceship seeks to destroy Earth with his ultimate weapon. Unlike Nemesis, where everybody calmly sits around desks to politely discuss what to do, Star Trek is a adrenalin fuelled, entertainment blast.

JJ Abram’s Star Trek represents the biggest reboot of the franchise since The Motion Picture in 1979. Yep, even greater than The Next Generation in ‘87 which inherited that movies set designs (to a large degree), reserved inter-personal dramatics and restricted parameters regarding direction. The Trek movies mostly followed the Wrath Of Khan template each time (small scale, intellectually stimulating, old fashioned dramas)…and why not, since Trek 2 is still the best example of Star Trek to date. On TV, producer Rick Berman creatively smothered the spin off TV series into blandness (restricting the types of music scoring done or limiting inventive camera moves, etc) so the work might retain a timeless quality. Alas, while both media outlets produced some strong work, eventually the highs were swamped by the quantity of overwhelming mediocrity.

The success of the movie as a reboot has, in part, to do with the cunningness and political savvy of the script. Knowing full well, a complete reboot (like the much loved but much less-well remembered Battlestar Galactica) might alienate the massive Trek fan base, the writers decided to pull a ‘Back To The Future 2’ and create a parallel universe. This wisely resets the Trek universe, allowing us to see the most popular Trek characters, Captain Kirk and Mr Spock, in their youth, while allowing them to reinvent the product so that is visually exciting and dramatically compelling to a 21st Century audience, weaned on $200 million blockbusters. However it’s a story device that allows for the rich history of Star Trek to still exist and be relevant.

The second aspect of the reboot’s success is the way it’s been directed by JJ Abrams. I expected it to be a more dynamic movie, visually…it needed to be for the franchise to continue…but Mr Abrams has constructed himself a unique directorial style that is not only fresh and exciting in Trek franchise terms, but frontier pushing in general movie-going land too. His debut, MI:III, was lacking a certain cinematic element, as JJ seemed unable to escape his TV directing root. With Star Trek, his confidence and imagination has grown, using multiple techniques to create a different style.

There’s elements of Paul Greengrass in the direction, as Abrams keeps the camera moving without quickly editing, so we feel thrilled, without the confusion caused by fast cutting. JJ has lessened the use of the steady cam, getting rid of a lot of the TV feel in the process, and uses cameras on dollys instead (again like McTiernan) allowing the camera to move.. but giving a smoother, more cinematic look. A running gunfight, late in the movie, is shot in a frantic, frenetic way that wouldn’t have been considered a couple of years ago in a Trek movie. With the steady cam reduced, he needed a different technique to boost that fly-on-the-wall documentary feel, that makes the events more naturalistic, so he employs another strong John McTiernan device; colourful lens flares which creep into nearly every shot. He's pushed the use of colour since MI:3, with rich vibrant lighting and production design (red matter is really red/ the royal blue of sick bay walls). The man knows how to compose a shot, often with high contrast lighting with figures cloaked in shadow or dazzled behind flaring lights. Abram’s is also attuned enough to pull back and deliver an epic master shot (such as the shuttles evacuating the Kelvin). And just to make sure, there’s some unusual, surreal shots thrown into the mix, like the opening shot of the USS Kelvin (all moving lights, bleep and flashes) or the exploding red matter particles…something Trek’s never dared to try before.

ILM’s effects are practically flawless. The art direction matches the live action style and the compositions are extremely detailed and beautifully framed. In particular, the hero shot of the Enterprise leaving Saturn’s atmosphere showcases the quality on display.

It doesn’t stop with the visuals. Ben Burtt's sound design is stunning, using the full range of volume and story-telling devices to tell the story; the audio in the vacuum of space is absent in a couple of scenes as well as the score being the only sound present in a hauntingly tragic sequence where Kirk is being born. Most enjoyably is the use of contemporary songs in a couple of early sequences. The Beastie Boy’s Sabotage reflects the rebellious nature of young Kirk (and besides, why has Star Trek up till now never showed people playing pop songs…shouldn’t it be considered classical music of the 23rd century?). I also love the way the songs bridge the scenes between Iowa and Vulcan.

Michael Giachinno’s score may end up being the best of the year. In an ages when every budding composer is trying to mimic Hans Zimmer (and doing it badly…see Wolverine), its refreshing to get someone who’s got their own distinctive arrangements and who isn’t afraid to use a traditional orchestra.
The main theme is exciting, memorable and a little different from recent Trek…being more of a classic Western genre theme than the maritime inspired melodies of past. Nowhere is this more noticeable than in the main title sequence as the logo is revealed to a deafening, rousing fanfare; if the exhilarating Kelvin sequence doesn’t stir you; the is will.

The production design reflects the aims of the script; renew and reinvent. We get to see the familiar settings (bridge, transporter room) but they are retro-fitted for contemporary sensibilities. It all looks impressively futuristic, with a hint of that reality-based ‘Blade Runner’ lived-in quality. The lighting incorporated into the sets, especially the Enterprises bridges and the Iowa bar, interact with the crew. I love the Titanic inspired engine room with mazes of pipes and boilers; the ships have two areas now, below decks and above decks, living/working areas. Also noticeable are the cool stalactite shaped Vulcan architectural structures.

The cast are uniformly superb. Pine is a great leading man, bringing the charisma, drive, initiative, horniness and cockiness that defines Captain Kirk. For the most part he plays the character his way, but it’s a blast when he delivers several subtle Shatnerisms, especially upon his bridge arrival at the finale.
Quinto is fine as Spock, delivering a more emotional take on the character (that’s required in this reboot). It's only in his exchange with McCoy that he really captures Spocks codecending delivery and the character subtly enjoying his own superiority. Urban nails the essence of Leonard McCoy better than his colleagues and their characters, never once coming across as false when cynically and curmudgeonly uttering Bones’ famous catch-phrases. Simon Pegg steals the show as Scotty, bringing energy and humour to his interpretation, while never reducing the engineer to a caricature or buffoon. Zoe Saldana is sexy and sassy as hell as Uhura. To her credit, she makes the role her own, helped by her script requirements which are much more pivotal (and emotional) than Uhura’s has been before. Anton Yelchin has limited screen time as Chekov but entertainingly makes the most of the young ensign’s intelligence, excitability and thick Russian accent. Only John Cho as Sulu feels interchangable…but at least his character has a couple of hero moments to shine (saving Kirk above Vulcan and his ballsy Saturn manoeuvre ).

Story-wise, the first hour is relentless and pitch perfect. It doesn’t harm it’s effectiveness by being a reworking of Star Wars; farm boy with daddy issues meets a wizened figure and goes on a space journey to battle a baddie who’s destroyed one planet and want to decimate his home base too. A brilliant and provocative Bruce Greenwood plays Christopher Pike (the Obi Wan role) while Scotty gets to be C3-PO and Deep Roy his sidekick Keenser (or R2D2).

I wasn’t sure, at first if the second hour worked so well, due to Nero back-story and time travel consequences being introduced. Although he has impact as Nero, Eric Bana doesn’t get much screen time, lessening his presence on the story. Maybe he should have been removed from the story leaving just an aggressive, malevolent spaceship as the adversary. In addition, the convenience that Kirk meets Spock Prime (a dependable Nimoy) irked somewhat.

But after consideration I think both Spock Prime and Nero are vital to the main story, which is really all about Spock. Having Nero in the story antagonises Spock to become visibly angry. Nero’s feelings of revenge are also reflected in Kirk and Spock, who parents deaths were caused by Nero.
This couldn’t have been created with a faceless villain so the writers created a baddie that could be effective with minimal screen time; a bloody angry bloke. Dis I mention he was really really angry?
Spock Prime brings insight to his younger incarnation’s inner turmoil, as well as supplying some needed exposition and connection points to bind and drive the story, as the characters band together into the family we know. What matters less is his exposition; it's his emotional impact on Kirk and young Spock that is vital.

It’s a movie with many great moments and details to enjoy and savour;-
1/ Young Kirks mobile ring-tone.
2/ Uhura’s bar entrance…fun, infectiously bubby…Trek history right here.
3/ Uhura’s knowingly fake line-delivery in the Kobayashi Maru Test.
4/ Enterprise’s view screen is now a window…you can see the hull!
5/ McCoy’s line “Good God Man!”
6/ The Enterprise pirouetting through debris (arriving at Alderan anyone?)
7/ Bana’s line “Hi Christopher, I’m Nero”.
8/ Engineer Olsons enthusiasm to fight Romulans only to die in a hilarious and brutal red shirt death shortly after.
9/ Chekov’s sigh of “Oh, Yey” as he’s left in charge, mid emergency.
10/ Acting Captain Spock’s line to Kirk, “Out of the chair!”
11/ Keenser’s bottom lip wobbling as his mate Scotty transports off-planet.
12/ 25 years of simmering rage conveyed in one, long duration close up of Nero’s face.
13/ Scotty final line "Get down!!" to Keenser.

There’s some nice homage’s too:-
1/ The Ceti Alpha Eels.
2/ Captain Pike in a wheelchair
3/ The Motion Picture inspired Admiral’s uniform.
4/ The Voyage Home inspired Vulcan learning pods.

Many have questioned the narrative hoops that have been jumped to put Kirk in the Captain’s chair…but that doesn’t bother me at all, for 2 reasons. Any convenience in the plotting can be explained away by the time travel shenanigans in the plot; they’ve reset the universe and that’s just the way fate rolled the dice. Plus, as it was pointed out to me, it’s Kirk… one of the greatest contemporary fictional characters. If anyone can make Captain, straight out of the academy, it’s James Tiberius!

There’s no great depth to Star Trek 2009. This is more Indiana Jones and Star Wars than 2001 or The Dark Knight. The only subtext is that of destiny verses freewill….the timeline has been radically altered due to Nero & Spock Prime’s actions, yet the Enterprise crew seem destined to come together. Characters find themselves in tough situations (Kirk is fatherless / Spock’s mixed heritage) due to events beyond their control. Then again, many characters make a conscience choices…Spock and Kirk to join Starfleet that are theirs to make, and theirs alone.

But it doesn’t matter. What it loses in philosophical depth it gains in audio/visual and emotional punch. You get involved in the people…even George and Winona Kirk, who are only on screen a few minutes, manage to bring a lump to the throat. Emotion is kept at the centre of all scenes, not the spaceships or the spectacle. McCoy's introductory rant reveals why he’s called Bones…it’s funny but it adds depth, making us understand and care for the Doctor further. Even a scene which reveals that a Klingon outpost has been attacked is made infinitely more entertaining by having Kirk be discovered hiding under Uhura’s roommates bed. If there was a flaw in the original concept of Star Trek it was that people have learned to overcome their differences…that we have evolved. Well this shows that you can have humans, fight, argue, insult and conflict frequently…and not undermine the Trek universe.

Its relatable. It’s entertaining. Most of all it’s bloody fun.

Oh Lordi Lordi Lordi

Talk about exceeding expectations! You watch a low budget cheap horror movie called, appealingly, Dark Floors. Chances are it's gonna be shite, yeah? Make the monsters, who haunt the deserted hospital thats stuck in time, the fully made up band members of European Song Contest Champions, Lordi...and you've got a massive stinker. Right?

Nope. This is a well crafted, strongly directed ghost/monster movie. The cast, including a bloke that used to be on Emmerdale and that bloke from Aliens, is fine. But its the confidence and restraint the director has in holding his shot to maintain atmosphere and tension. The monsters stay unseen for the most part, appearing sporadically to kill the defenceless few.

Long Live Lordi!

Faffing With The Fanboys

Never has a better premise for a Kevin Smith movie existed; its 1998 and a group of uber Star Ward nerds attempt to break into George Lucas' Skywalker ranch to watch The Phantom Menace. Like all Mr Smiths movies, it's tale of friendship with a sprinkling of Rom-com.

Sadly, Kevin Smith didn't direct this...which is why it's not that funny. Amusing, sure... Clever movie jokes, of course... But lacking the big laughs. There are some cute cameos from Ray Park to Billy Dee Williams and the mighty shat, but it can't compete with the far supiriot Free Enterprise.

An uncredited Seth Rogan plays two hardcore geeks, one Trekkie, the other a Star Wars nut...and ends up fighting himself. Oh, and it's not entirely devoid of Kevin Smith, as he cameos along with the Mewes.

Still, it has its charm. Seeing this on week that a critically aclaimed reboot of Trek hits theatres...I kinda get the blinkered enthusiasm they possess. Sob.

Talk To The Vulcan Hand Salute, 'Cause I Aint Listening...

When I were a lad, Star Trek: The Motion Picture was the business. Kirk and Spock were back and there were Klingons, spaceships 'n' stuff. In my teens I felt Star Wars had got it right; no lingering spaceship shots. Just show the universe as dirty, everyday and normal...and give the spaceships the attention you might give a beaten-up Chevy in a US car chase. I bought in on the first Trek movie as 'The Slow-Motion Picture'.

In retrospect I was very wrong. Both the Star Wars way and the Motion Picture way have their merits.

Since new, live-action Trek had been off the airwaves for 10 years by the time ST:TMP came along in 1979, the movie had to reintroduce the Trek universe to the forgetful and the unfamliar (something I'd never really noticed in great detail). And so the two primary character arcs of Captain Kirk and Mr Spock are reintroduced; Spocks desire to embrace his Vulcan heritage, against that of his human side, and Kirk's love of Starship command. The obsession both men possess bounces neatly off the main story of massive alien space ship V'ger's search to find it's creator on Earth. All are searching for emotional completeness and spiritual enlightenment. Kirk needs the Enterprise. Spock needs Kirk's friendship. And V'ger/Ilia needs human emotion/Decker. By the second half we have the classic trio of Kirk, Spock and McCoy in play; the junior officers feeding the Captain with info while he formulates a plan. We even see Kirk try to bluff the computer adversary, something he was skilled at on TV.

We also have the reintroduction of the Star Trek universe itself; a near utopian world where war is obsolete, everybody has a high living standard, everybody seeks to better themselves and science is God. The production is appealingly sleek, clean, spacious, uncluttered and modernist. The spaceships feel real and are elegant re-designs of the TV originals.

Being the (official) most expensive film of all time for nearly a decade shows on screen, because it's the only Trek movie (to date) that has a genuinely epic feel. The Recreation Lounge is an Enterprise set unrivaled in size in the sequel while the intruder cloud exterior is awe inspiring.

But it's those lumbering/slow special effects shots that really benefit, not detract from, the movie. The sequences of the space-station and spacedock shout "Hey! Isn't humanity clever? That we can achieve this wonderous technological constructions in this breath-takingly beautiful environment of outer space!" It present this world on a pedastal for all to behold and show that humans can achieve great things. It also sells us of of the opposite, with the V'ger cloud, malfunctioning transporters and wormholes, showing that space can be simultaneously spectacularly vast and dangerous beyond comprehension. The two long V'ger fly-bys ask us to look at the universe with awe and humility as we are just ants to other beings, which may be out there. The other major effects sequence is the Spacedock fly-by which not only reintroduces a major character, the Enterprise, put also demonstrates Kirk's love for his ship.

All of this is done in a powerfully cinematic way with minimal dialogue. Jerry Goldsmiths score is majestic (so good in fact, they give the Ilia theme a blast before the studio logo appears). It's powerful and lyrical themes tap into the celebration of humanity's spirit of exploration and adventure.

When the sequel was release in 1982, it's many fans (including myself) proclaimed The Wrath of Khan had better captured the spirit of Star Trek. While that film is much better (well, it's practically perfect) The Motion Picture better encapsulates the universe Gene Roddenbery had intended to represent as humanity's future.

The human adventure is just beginning...

Lost Pet: Wolverine. If found please call...

After watching Bryan Singer's supurb first two X-Men movies, as well as Ratner's flawed but entertaining third film, I was really looking forward to the forth, prequel entry X-Men Origins:Wolverine. Despite the negative buzz, with critics suggesting it was only slightly better than X3, I really wanted to like it.

Alas, Wolverine is suckage at maximum. Why? Well, for a start, for a movie about the most popular of the X-men characters, they forgot to include the Logan we've all grown to love in the movies. Even with returning star, Hugh Jackman, the introvert, cynical Wolverine who quips sarcastically is AWOL. In his place is an always angry, frowning and serious bloke who talks with a lower voice than normal, as if doing a 'Christian Bale Batman' growl was the only way to progress the character.

On the story front, the back bone is the development of Stryker's Weapon program. This ambles along with no real sense of danger or feeling of awe, crucial for a fantasy movie. On the personal side, it focuses on Wolverine's relationship with his bloodthirsty brother Victor, and his tragic romance with school teacher (and fellow mutant) Kayla. Unfortunately, neither relationship is fleshed out or provided with adequete dialogue to sufficiently make us give a shit about anyone involved. We never get a scene that properly explains what these people mean to Logan, so when the bad stuff goes down (Victor killing innocents/Kayla's murder) we don't understand, and so, we don't get emotionally involved. It'a basic Rambo plot from the eighties; traumatised-with-nightmares Nam vet turns his back on his past until it brutally catches up with him. He's then manipulated into action, leaving him tragically alone in the end. Boo hoo.

Elements of the plot are needless and dull, such as the Weapon X experiment and the details of Stryker's son; all seen in the vastly superior X2. The inclusion of Scott Summers is a gimmick (its just as well he wasn't given his own origin movie...discovered doing detention isn't classic origin material). Since his inclusion only serves to service the Weapon X plot, the writers perhaps should have used Kayla's kidnapped sister more, to deepen both characters and streamline the messy plot. Other mutants (Bolt / Zero) are only included to up the coolness factor. Wolverine journeys from one mutant ex-colleague (Blob, Wriath, Gambit) to the next, only to pad out his quest and prolong our agony (sorry, suspense) as to the mystery of Stryker's agenda.

Theres's plenty that defies logic:-
1/ Logan kills his father. Yeah? And? What affect does this have on the tyke?
2/ Logan and Victor spend a century fighting in American wars. Why would Canadians do this? What motivates them to fight? Why don't they open a Sandwich bar in Vancover instead?
3/ Why do the nice old people give Logan their son's jacket? He's a stranger who broke their goddamn sink!
4/ Why does Gambit fight Wolverine in the alley? He attacks Logan in the bar 'cause he thinks he's with Victor. But when Logan's obviously about to slay Sabretooth, Gambit interupts by attacking again! Duh!
5/ If Wolverine is Weapon X, then why is Deadpool called Weapon Eleven, not Weapon XI ?
6/ How does Wolverine criss-cross his claws in such a way to entirely deflect Deadpool's laser eyes?
7/ If Cyclops' laser eyes have to be contained by sunglasses, why don't Deadpools?
8/ Why do most mutants jump like crickets? Deadpool, Zero, Gambit, Sabretooth... whatever your ability, do you always get springy legs as a mutant?

The cast are varied. Jackman takes three steps back in his portrayal of the hero. Huston brings gravitas to Stryker in an extremely underwritten role. Lynn Collins is cute as Kayla. The guy playing Gambit might be eye totty for the girlies, but he's a plank with a shitty southern accent. Only Liev Schrieber stands out as Victor bringing a playful wicked spitefulness to procedings. The only one better is Ryan Reynolds in a cameo as Wade, exibiting deadpan wit and coolness in the role. However the producers even mess that up by making him mute in the climax, perhaps worried Reynolds might upstage their star.

The effects are 95% substandard with just a few digital matt paintings coming up to scratch. Most effects shots lack authenticity, appearing too CG. A few are staggingly poor such as Logan's claws in the bathroom (wobbly CG where a prosthtic would have sufficed), terrible rear projection (that puts 60's Bond movies to shame), and the oh-so plastic face of a de-aged Patrick Stewart (superior in 2006's Last Stand).

With the story not up to much, at least there's the action to sustain it. Alas, that's underwhelming too. Victor and Logan's scrap in the lumberyard is spiritless and the escape from Alkalie Lake eye-blinkingly brief. The central setpiece of Logan vs Helicopter is ruined by unnecessarily quick editing, abysmally obvious effects and too many out of place slow-mo shots that would make The A-Team proud.

The script is hollow with no subtext. The layered meaning of prejudice in society is non existent, replaced with a dumbness reserved for early 90's low-budget action movies. Lines like "Those were good people back there. Innocent people" and " I am so cold"(as they die) are cliched and laughable. If the movie had a vein of fun or adventure running through it's body, it might have gotten away with it.

So my advice is to avoid this dumb, lumbering mistake. Once again Tom Rothman and his 20th Century Fox's quest, for populist, generic film-making, has backfired resulting in a film fit for neanderthals and halfwits. The best bit of the movie is the opening titles, which depicts Logan living through 120 years of America's past. However, Fox executives probably didn't think their audience was capable of following a non-contemporary story. Where in reality, that lack of capability lies with the hobbitcocks at Fox Plaza.

Here's hoping for a non-Fox Deadpool movie.

X-Men: The Last Sit Down And Have A Nice Cup Of Tea

I don't think Brett Ratners threequel to Bryan Singers original two X-men featues is as bad as many people think. Fundamentally its an entertaining, well made movie with a great basic story and some great sequences; both dramatic, humorous and action orientated.

The script has two main threads...the re-appearence of Jean Grey, reborn as the powerful Dark Pheonix and the discovery of a new drug which will 'cure' mutants of their abilities. Both allow opportunity for electric character conflict and the potential to explore themes of psychology, politics and sociology. For the most part, Ratner uses production design and lighting and a serious tone reminisant to the first movies, making it feel very much part of a trilogy. WETA's VFX are magnificent.

BUT, the curse of Ratner can't be entirely discounted. The biggest problem is that these stories, and the familiar and new characters the events affect, aren't given any room to breathe and reach their full potential. So the movie feels dumbed down and the characters short-changed. For example, when Mystique is 'cured' and Magneto abandons her...there's virtually no consequence...what is she feeling? How does Magneto live with that decision? Similarly, key character icon Cyclops is killed by Jean Grey. Unlike many hardcore fans I don't object to characters being exteminated...but if it doesn't affect the others dramatically...whats the point?
Rogue, is also mistreated in a similar way.

The mutants are also dumbed down, with the vast majority being able to leap like frogs from boiling water. The inclusion of porcupine boy (surely the most useless ability anywhere) is puzzeling while the entire concept of Juggernaut, from casting, costume design, to dialogue is apocolyptic in every sense.


Go into this with low expectations or low intelligence...and you'll be contently entertained. If you loved the originals...you might wanna reserve that high regard for soimething else.

Romulus, Remus and Repeatition

After the lack of success with the last installment, Trek producer and his bunch of monkey's on typewriters decided to concoct a masterplan Star Trek movie. The result, Star Trek: Nemesis is a clever fusion of popular Trek movie narratives and moments (or so they thought).

While its not as pointless as Insurrection (at least it's got a compelling dramatic foundation to the story) it's the least original of the movies to date. The vengeful villain, wanting payback against the heroic captain and crew, is something we've seen before. Data's desire to become more human by teaching his brother/offspring/mother is old hat to the TV show. The unstable weapon threatening the Federation has been done in The Wrath of Khan, as is the noble sacrafice for the USS Enterprise, including the obligatory ambiguity of survival (in case of another sequel).

The core concept of using a clone of Picard as the bad guy is commendable. However, with de-aging effects still in their infancy...using another, weaker actor to portray the young Jean-Luc negates the premise. It doesn't look like a young Picard. It doesn't feel like a young Picard. It just appears like a stroppy lad with a fondness for temper tantrums. Without a strong adversary there lacks dramatic fireworks. Thank god then for his fuck-off space ship!

Production wise, this is a good looking film with a darker visual pallet than normal. However it still suffers from a lack of scale, perhaps due to the ship bound settings, familiar production design and average direction. The effects, while effective, feel a little CGI though, lacking the authenticity of the previous efforts shgot with practical models.

The planet bound action sequence is dull, but at least has a good punchline. Fortunately things pick up for a flashy but epileptic space battle, stoping and starting in fits rather than flowing with any pace, rhythm or momentum. Despite its critics, you've gotta love the sight of 2 starships ramming each other. Each Trek movie prides itself on a awe inspiring effects action sequence (even if they don't end up impressing) and this is Nemesis's.

Despite bowing out at a younger age than the classic crew, it was a good decision to bow out of theatrical Trek with this voyage.