Shrek Forth And Multiply

When the first Shrek was release way back in 2001 it's post-modern dissection of Fairy Tale mythology was considered both clever and humorous. Skip to 9 years, and 3 sequels later, and Shrek has run almost completely out of steam. Like Shrek The Third before it, Shrek Forever After's story is tired, the jokes are flat and the characters are over-familiar and safe. No life and no joy to be had...and that's from a first movie that I thought was merely OK to begin with.

The one positive thing it has in common with the other sequels is that of the Puss In Boots character. I've never been the greatest fan of Banderas, but everytime he voices the fantasy, feline swashbuckler he makes me chuckle uncontrollably. And he's given some great material to work with as Puss is now fat and pampered. Comedy gold.

But there's a bright side to this tepid sequel. It's the last Shrek movie. And in it's place we get a Puss In Boots solo adventure in 2012. It's just a shame it took Dreamworks Animation nearly a decade to figure out that's where they should have steered their fairy tale franchise.

Jesus Alegory Worthington

And so, practically a year after it's initial seismic release, AVATAR comes to home video in it's extended form, with the running time now standing at an epic 3 hours.
James Cameron extended editions fall into 2 categories; those that are better with the extra material (The Abyss, Aliens)...and those where nothing is gained from it (T2, Titanic). AVATAR falls into the former camp.

The main cause for celebration is the short sequence at the beginning of the movie where we see wheelchair bound hero Jake Sully on Earth. There's still a voice over and it still thematically and visually bookends the film perfectly with the final shot...but it puts the entire movie into context that little more sharply. It helps the audience see the dismal, dirty, overpopulated Earth of the future, allowing us to better comprehend what's at stake if the N'avi lose. And it also shed more light onto Jake's character...why he's such a pent up, angry grunt, that it's in his character to fight for the underdog, it foreshadows his destiny and helps us explain why Jake took the job on Pandora. It's amazing the scene wasn't included in the original cut.

The remaining additional scenes either add more of a story arc to the supporting characters Tsu'tey, Grace, Trudi and Norm. They also make the film flow better rather than let Worthington's subdued voice over stitch the plot together. A prime example is the new hunting sequence which gives further weight to Jake's dream/premonition about flying.

While the additional sequences actually strengthen the film, they can't eliminate it's faults. Having further insight into Jake's background does make his moody portrayal a touch more sympathetic, but he's still no leading man. The Jake/Neytiri love story still seems a little forced and the plot is still lacking originality and the dialogue a little clunky. But watching it again does reinforce what a incredible visual spectacle AVATAR is and what an imaginative world-builder and action director Cameron is.

Illumination Light & Despicableness

It's saying something that in Dreamworks Animation's long history, dating all the way back to Antz in 1998, that it's taken them until 2010 to produce a movie as good as How To Train Your Dragon. It says almost as much the Illumination Entertainment (which seems to be Universal's in-house animation company) produced something as great as Despicable Me on their very first outing.

Dreamworks should be doubly ashamed as Illumination beat them at their own game in several ways. There's the starry voice talent, in this case Steve Carell, Julie Andrews, Russell Brand and half the current batch of SNL actors. There's the hip plot, this time focusing on the current trend for super-heroics and super villains (see also Dreamwork's Megamind). And there's the Shrek-inspired soundtrack of
rap, ballads and pop to make it more contemporary feeling.

But here's where Despicable champions most Dreamworks stuff. They got a great, beautifully structured, streamlined story. Great characters voiced by actors that are perfectly cast and on inspired form. A great, offbeat look to the animation. And comedy that really, really works. This kind of reminds me of seeing Ice Age for the first time and being blown away by the Scrat sequences in terms of character animation and exaggerated comic timing. In Despicable, you have the super-villain's little, non-verbal minions that provide many of the gut busting visual gags. But, unlike Ice Age, the humour isn't just reserved for the sidekicks and the pratfalls and physical humour is incorporated into the film in a way that furthers the plot too. It's sweet and touching in a non-nauseating way and the tone is perfectly balanced between appealing to youngsters and adults alike.

A great achievement for a first time company. Think of it on a par with lower ranking Pixar (A Bug's Life / Monsters Inc). If it wasn't for Toy Story 3 being so darned good, this would be battling it out with How To Train Your Dragon for best animated feature of 2010.

Bruckheimer's Apprentice

After 2004's Pirates Of The Caribbean, something changing in Jerry Bruckheimer productions. It wasn't the shift towards family friendly entertainment or the much bigger budgeted productions. It was the lack of good scripts. Whether it's the Pirate's sequels, the National Treasure movies or this year's flop Prince Of Persia...they're weak, boring predictable scripts dogging these immense motion pictures.

And that's also the case with Bruckheimer's other big budget summer turkey, The Sorcerers Apprentice. As you'd expect from Bruckheimer this is the glossiest, most expensive, lavishly produced epic you could hope for. The money is most definitely on the screen with the best effects, locations, sets and photography that money can buy. But it's a predictable tale with little in the way of genuine wit, exciting action sequences or a compelling dramatic narrative to hook the audience. It's just nice. Nice and colourful and inoffensive, and fluffy. Nice.

It doesn't help when the director is the hack behind the National Treasure disasters, John Turteltuab, a man so incapable of stringing together an exciting action set-piece or staging a great visual gag it seems remarkable he's still getting A-List work (thanks for that, Jerry...cheers).

The saving grace is the excellent cast led by the quirky Nicholas Cage (registering about a 2.5 out of 5 on the Cage-weirdometer). Jay Baruchel is a welcome surprise, actually making his nerd hero likable...yeah, take a lesson from that Logan (Percy Jackson) Lerman, you plank! Aussie actress Teresa Palmer is an attractive and appealing leading lady, coming across as a fusion between a young Naomi Watts and a less moody Kristen Stewart. Alfred Molina is as dastardly and watchable as ever, while Tony Kebbel, Alice Krige and the lovely Monica Bellucci add strong support.

It all builds to an anti-climactic climax where the effects are wimpy, the drama hokey and the action sleepy. The best use of the resources available would to have filmed the cast playing poker for 2 hours instead. Come on Jerry, can't you return to the glory days of Top Gun, Crimson Tide and The Rock?

Harry Potter & The Bloody Half A Motion Picture

With the latest Harry Potter movie out in cinemas now, I thought I'd restate where I stand on the franchise before weighing in on the new movie. First of all I like all but Part 2, The Chamber Of Secrets. The Philosopher's Stone is a near perfect Sunday afternoon / Christmas Day family movie; magical and exciting all wrapped up with a sense of wonder. Chamber was a dull rerun of Part 1, but without the wonder. The Prisoner Of Azkaban was more mature and all the better for it while Goblet Of Fire was all flash and action, but no excitement or substance.

For me the first four movies are dispensable. Just as you don't need to see the Star Wars prequels to appreciate the classic Star Wars trilogy, or that you don't need to have read The Hobbit to marvel at Lord Of The Rings, you don't need to have seen the first four Potter entries (or risk being turned off by the franchise.) That leaves director David Yates Potter trilogy, The Order Of The Phoenix (still the best), The Half Blood Prince and this year's finale (in two parts) The Deathly Hallows.

And, as anticipated by Yate's previous sterling work, it's a strong movie. Dramatically it's the best yet as relationships are strained, the world as we know it is falling to the forces of evil, and our heroes are barely escaping with their lives. Yate's mature and measured direction is stronger than ever in this seventh entry. Alongside the Darabont/Kubrick inspired framing is a more experimental type of film-making. There are scenes that remind me of other famous directors...magic wand shoot-outs done like Walter Hill...dream sequences like David Lynch...fairy-tales animated like Guillermo Del Toro and frenetic chase sequences like Paul Greengrass. It stops the multitude of exposition scenes from bogging down the film and gives the film an energy the franchise needs this late in it's lifespan. The young cast are improving all the time while there's some nice adult support from Bill Nighy and Rhys Ifan's doing stand-out work.

Plot wise it's mostly set up for Part 2. If Superman Returns was a movie about lifting heavy objects and Lord Of The Rings was a movie about walking, then Deathly Hallows is a movie about finding MacGuffins. Since both of those movies turned out to be classics, you're best advised to ignore that over-simplification of the plot and get immersed in the ride.

If I have a complaint it's that the film feels incomplete having been cut in two (with the second part being release in July 2011). While I do disagree with critic who say there isn't a climax or a natural break for the film to stop...it does make you want to watch the next part immediately after...but the break isn't as smooth as The Lord Of The Rings or Tarantino's Kill Bill. Oh, and another thing, while he's not in it much and is rendered more likable thanks to Yates restrained direction, Dobby The House Elf is still an annoying worm.

The most action packed of the series since Goblet Of Fire, as many jump scares as The Half Blood Prince plus a few more regulars to meet their doom, Deathly Hallows Part 1 is well worth checking out. More than that, it would probably be the series best entry if it wasn't for that pesky break. Roll on Part 2.

Poo Spray For The Poo Spray Movie

If you see a movie with Ben Stiller and Jack Black in it you have certain expectations. Stiller will be the everyman, just trying to get by in life, who makes a few wrong choices. Mr Black you want to see mugging his way across the screen in a non grounded, over the top comedy performance. Both of these are in effect in Barry Levinson's satirical comedy Envy. The premise consists of Black's daydreamer coming up with the idea for an invention which the hard-working Stiller thinks is stupid. When Black makes his idea a reality...and a spectacular money generating bonanza...Stiller is left to Envy his best friends lavish new lifestyle. So far, so solid a concept.

The bad news is the script; it's not funny. Stiller gets into wacky situations...Black dances around parading his wealth, but it doesn't amount to many laughs. Rachel Weitz is wasted as Stiller's wife, and so becomes an opportunity to flex her American accent. The satire, mocking the American Dream, isn't that sharp and the comic set pieces too few and far between.

There are three saving graces:-
1/ Jack Black's invention is a spray that makes poo vanish. Yes, it's a comedy about poo.
2/ The set piece involving the transportation of a deceased horse does at least raise a smile.
3/ Christopher Walken is on top, loony tunes form.

A come home from the pub on a Friday night when you're completely trashed kind of movie.

Remember, Remember...

God, I love V for Vendetta, the 2006 adaptation of the comic book written by Alan Moore and illustrated by David Lloyd. It's not a perfect movie by any means, but those elements that work far outshine the negative issues…to the point where it was my favourite film of that year.

So, the negative stuff first:-
1/ Director James McTiegue is not a great, visionary film-maker. He's a protégée of the Wachowski Brothers (The Matrix) who also wrote Vendetta, and that shows in some outstanding sequences. But much of the film is helmed with a solid, workmanlike efficiency, and that's a style which dominates his other efforts Ninja Assassin and Invasion.
2/ For a film that's set in Britain, there's a U.S. bent to the script that's a little unwelcome. Eggy In A Basket might be a common breakfast dish in the States, but it should have no place here.
3/ Natalie Portman's British accent isn't entirely convincing. It's not quite natural in the way that Gwyneth Paltrow or Angelina Jolie have a habit of repeatedly nailing. Don't get me wrong, hers is a powerful and subtle performance, completely commanding the screen and serving the story 200%, but the accent niggles.

And that's it really, with only McTiegue’s style diluting a near-masterpiece of cinema (the other two are just fickle observations). But the rest is so, so right. And this is why:-

1/ The cast are hugely impressive with Hugo Weaving eating up the screen as masked revolutionary "V". Recasting poor James Purefoy with Weaving was a masterstroke. With his face completely covered for the entire running time, Weaving projects the whole human experience of emotions via vocal control and body language. Through his expressive work we get to see both the film's hero (outwitting and punishing the dictatorial political leadership) and the film's villain (a murderer, torturer and terrorist). The remainder of the cast are made up of the cream of British stage and screen ably supporting Portman and Weaving. Bonus points to John Hurt for his ranting, uncompromising dictator and Stephen Rea for his world weary but determined senior cop.

2/ It's an exploration of moral lines and where those lines are. Question are raised about the delicate subject of terrorism. At what point does a freedom fighter become a terrorist...and vice versa? Does the good of the many outweigh the good of the few, and if so, does that make murder a legitimate tool to achieve freedom? Should torture be used to manipulate a victim, even if it helps them achieve a mental and spiritual peace?

3/ It's a film about the concept of 'ideas' themselves which is explored in a few different ways. As V explains, ideas can be represented through symbols...which people give meaning to. The more people who give meaning to a symbol, the more meaning is given to the idea too. V himself is a symbol, masked for the entire movie, and therefore becomes an idea on which we, and the film-maker, can project their concept or understanding of what V represents.

4/ Vendetta also examines faith and religion. In the context of the totalitarian state represented here, religion is used by the government to control the population. Using propaganda posters and slogans, “Strength through unity. Unity through faith.” linking the government to religion and suggesting it’s the only way “England will prevail”, Chancellor Sutler and his goons can control the state with a ruthless efficiency.
Again, it boils down to an idea; in this case the idea force fed upon a population that a ruling body, united through a shared face, can reward with a safe country.

But the film also explores faith, without interference by an institution, like the government or a church. V teaches Evey, in a couple of the film’s most cinematic and powerful moments, that having faith in ones own ideas can allow you to live freely, without fear. She discovers that staying true to those ideas (or beliefs), without betraying or corrupting them by maintaining your integrity, can allow you to live your life with calm and clarity, even when faced with opposition and repression.

5/ Another reason I like it so much is it’s theme of sticking up to those in power and doing what’s right, rather than do what’s expected of you. It’s a big ol’ finger to those in power and it revels in it’s anti authoritarianism.

6/ The movie has a very strong mythological structure in it‘s plot. All good myths have a hero that has the power to change the world, but V For Vendetta has two. V himself uses his terrorist acts to change the future of England forever, but he soon realises that he must share that power with Evey also. Myths also require their heroes to die, and be reborn with a clarity of purpose… and both heroes do here. V is reborn in the flames that scarred him, in his escape from the Lark Hill Detention Facility. Evey’s rebirth comes with assistance from V, as she realises that she’s looked death in the eye and hasn’t submitted. You can even argue that Guy Falkes himself (as depicted in the pre-title sequence) also conforms to the myth, as he’s reborn (well, his ideas are anyway) in both V and Evey. It’s great stuff.

7/ While McTiege’s direction is generally quite workmanlike, the film is bolstered by a great, great story that’s lifted into the stratosphere by four extremely powerful set-pieces in the final hour. The first two depict Evey’s transformation from frightened and repressed citizen to a composed and enlightened individual. Part one has an imprisoned Evey reading the autobiography of Valerie, a former prisoner who, it’s revealed, has been executed. However, Valerie imparts her idea that retaining your beliefs and integrity are far more important than submitting to death. It’s a perfectly constructed montage sequence, inter-cutting Evey’s torture with flashback shots of Valeries life. It’s perfectly narrated, beautifully scored and one of the most powerful sequences I’ve seen committed to celluloid.

In a set-piece that has nearly as much impact, Evey digests what she has learnt and embraces this new idea. In the Valerie monologue, it’s stated that “God is in the rain”. Of course, the rain is symbolic. When Evey embraces the rain, you could say she’s embracing God. Except that here, God is faith, and that faith is in the idea that has been given to her by Valerie. What Evey really embraces is an idea; a world view.
And it’s incredible well handled.

The third set piece in yet another montage as Stephen Rea’s detective muses how V’s terrorist threat will come to pass, this time inter-cutting with V staging some toppling dominos, symbolically representing the effect he will on the country.

The final, powerful sequence is the movie’s climax as the Guy Fawkes masked masses converge on parliament. Stirring stuff.

So not quite perfect, but not far off. It’s by no means a subtle examination of the political and social problems plaguing America, but it does the job. It’s not as an accomplished piece of direction as if it would have been if the Wachowski’s had helmed it, but no matter. If they had, maybe some of the exquisite artistic choices of editing, performance, editing and score would have been lost. And that’s just not worth thinking about.

November Pick N Mix

Here's a rather dandy list of cool horror quotes...



A neat Harry Potter re-edit...



The Muppets playing metal...



The Paranormal Activity spoof, starring Balwin & Martin...



And finally, you can find a link here to Mr T's Big Gay Colouring Book...

Let The Right One In: Version 2.5

I came away from the 2008 Swedish Vampire film "Let The Right One In" with two trains of thought. The first, which will be confirmed by the majority of people who have seen it, was of what a great film it was. Wonderful stylistic choices from casting, to photography to location to score....all impeccably built on top of a tender and unique story. For a contemporary film to have such a quality of originality directed with confident delicacy is rare and is to be congratulated. But this admiration was tempered with another thought...a feeling really. Or lack of it as the subtleties of the acting, the stillness and placing of the camera and beautiful and low key score had left me cold. Touched but not heartbroken. Emotionally aware of the drama but not emotionally affected by it. And that left me kind of disappointed. Not in the film, but in myself, for not being in the right mindset to 'get it'.

Then the American remake was announced. While many lovers of the original feared it would betray their beloved original film (and the acclaimed book on which it was based) I felt there was an opportunity to retell the story in a warmer, more cinematic way. While the remake could be a steaming pile of vampire guano, if it was reshaped for American audiences who prefer a less subtle, more overtly emotional approach, may be I'd make that emotional connection.

So, is it better than the original? Well, I can't speak for anybody else but yes...it is for me. The remake, now simply titled "Let Me In" is everything I could have hope for. Well nearly. Director Matt Reeves proves that Cloverfield wasn't a fluke and demonstrates he's matured as a storyteller. The film continues the tradition of long takes from the original which lets dread slowly, slowly build (whether it's the threat of Nosferatu or school bullies) and allows the performers to build their performances. Reeves has retained the subtext about the pain and confusion about growing up and finding out who you are, both as a personality and physically (that gender confusion thing is still in there). The philosophical/theological discussion is intact regarding the existence of evil and Reeves has also grasped the core of the story about loneliness and the need to make a genuine connection with another.

When SFX magazine reviewed the film they observed that the artistic choices in the film pushed it away from a feeling of real life, in a 5%-10% shift towards it being a movie version of real life. And if you nudge it to 15% - 20%, I agree with that statement. The photography is 20% warmer and more glossy...the way a hollywood movie is. The performances are 15% less studied and more polished; Chloe Moretz is 20% more vicious and Kodi Smit-McPhee is 20% more doe-eyed and vulnerable than their Swedish counterparts. The score too is 20% more distinctive and memorable than the original's; the major difference her is that while Johan Söderqvist's elegant, restrained music covered around two fifths of his film, Michael Giachinno's follow-up dominates a whooping four fifths of the running time.

Since the story itself is largely identical to the original it's the score, combined with with the collective decreases in subtlety mentioned above, that gives the film a more distinct vision; one that I prefer over it's sister movie. In story terms the new film makes one big gain and suffers one big loss. Gone is the freakish cat attack, which is a shocking gem of a scene to be ejected. However in it's place is a fantastic sequence of sustained suspense as Abby's carer hides in the backseat of a car to collect more fresh blood. The decision to excise much of the side plots revolving the other residents is astute too as it allows Reeves to focus on the kids.

So why is it nearly everything I could have hoped for? Despite the story and artistic changes which I personally favor...I still don't have a great emotional connection to the story. Not with the power I was expecting anyway. Maybe I need a director that's even more manipulative and even less subtle to adapt this great story...Spielberg are you listening? More likely, thematically the film just doesn't resonate with me in the way that Shawshank, Field Of Dreams, Jerry MacGuire and Good Will Hunting do. Regardless, this is a fantastic film, confidently made by all concerned, and is easily one of the films of the year.

Scott Pilgrim Vs The Marketing Department

History is littered with great movies that failed to make a major impact at the box office. There are personal favorites for me like Serenity (2005), Innerspace (1987) and The Long Kiss Goodnight (1998)...well made, written movies that have broad commercial appeal, that failed to find an audience. Even established classics bombed on their theatrical release like Blade Runner and The Thing (both 1982) and The Shawshank Redemption (1995) which seems to make many people top ten of all-time lists, including me.* Scott Pilgrim Vs The World, the latest film from Shaun Of The Dead director Edgar Wright, has flopped at the box office. On a production budget of $60 million, it's only recouped around $45 million worldwide. And it's a stone cold classic, right off the starting blocks.

Edgar Wright was shot to fame, alongside Simon Pegg, with their geek sitcom Spaced. If you're familiar with Spaced, then Scott Pilgrim is a feature-length, North American version of that show done with 300 times the budget. Wright himself is clearly now at the peak of his creative abilities (so far) with every cinematic technique at his disposal and working in perfect harmony. The cutting edge photography from Bill (The Matrix) Pope, the retro electo-synth score, the insane editing using every cutting trick in the book (and a few new ones), a raw, exciting soundtrack, dazzlingly choreographed fight sequences, that are both exciting AND funny, that would impress Tarantino's The Bride and a first rate cast.

It's a simple tale of the ups and downs of teens/early twenty-something music and romance...but filtered through an off-kilter, parallel world where the characters see life as though it was lived through a computer game. It's a rom-com for the 'gamer' generation. This perspective alone would be something worth watching, but Wright adds his Landis/Coen Bros inspired comic timing to each scene, each dialogue exchange and each edit to give the film a unique auteur stamp. It's like a live-action Loony Tunes cartoon with sex, fighting and rock & roll.

None of the characters are particularly likable on paper (apart from Young Neil perhaps) as they're all struggling to find their way in life. They're selfish, they cheat, they lie, deceive, betray, manipulate and cheat each other..whether it's the two timing Scott himself or the self confessed 'bitch' Ramona Flowers, the object of Scott's affections. But the excellent cast convey these tortured souls with such depth and sincerity, it's easy to understand and sympathise with them. Cera is perfect as Pilgrim, a geek with confidence, charm and ninja skills to spare. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is beguiling as Ramona, communicating much through her large, expressive eyes in perfectly timed looks and glances. Chris Evans nearly steals the show (again) as a dumb movie-star hunk that Scott must defeat if he is to continue dating Ramona. But my favorite character is Knives Chau, played by the energetic Ellen Wong, whose adoration of Scott takes her from doe eyed Schoolgirl to crazed ninja avenger. Sweet, adorable...and utterly, utterly insane.

The set-pieces grow ever more imaginative and larger in scale as the film progresses, yet despite the surreal craziness of the situations, Wright and his team always keep the characters grounded and 'real'. We understand their hurt and pain, even if we don't agree with the way they deal with it. For all of the silliness in play, Pilgrim plays it straight making many of the gags quite subtle, despite the in-your-face visual style. There's a bucket load of memorable moments...including a Tom Jane cameo as a member of the Vegan Police, an OTT bass guitar showdown and some cool Flash Gordon references. It's cool, ground-breaking, breath-taking and fun.

One of the best films of the year, I hope that Scott Pilgrim will be recognised as a great piece of film making, by mainstream audiences, in the years to come. When it comes out on DVD this Christmas, every kid should have it.

* I saw Shawshank twice at the cinema, so it's demise wasn't nuthin' to do with me!

Fincher Accepts My Friend Request

Why would anybody want to make, let alone watch, a movie about Facebook, you ask? Well, when it's written by The West Wing's Aaron Sorkin and directed by David Fincher...it's a must see. Sorkin's script works on many levels; as a fascinating document of the conception and rise of the world's largest online social network, as a character study into obsession (Fincher's area of interest in many of his films) and the destructive nature obsession has on one's life, even though the protagonist might be trying to do good. And it's an insight into the working of the rules and politics governing American Higher learning institutions and business law.

Jesse Eisenberg is brilliant as Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg, playing him with just enough humanity to not make him seem like a complete dick. Zuckerberg is portrayed as obsessing about attaining a high degree of social acceptance and desires recognition for his intelligence and his achievements...but doesn't wish to actually engage socially with other human beings. Using the all the principle characters, not just Zuckerberg, Sorkin and Fincher show individuals who are driven by failure and rejection to achieve and earn more and more.

Fincher's trademark direction is more subdued in stretches allowing Sorkins clever banter, room to breathe. The opposite is also true in wonderfully edited set-pieces that allow the director's unique sense of cutting and composition to shine. It's all accompanied by a stunningly atmospheric score co-written by Nine Inch Nail's Trent Reznor. It's 80's synth vibe makes this talky drama far more cinematic and helps to seamlessly gel the sharp dialogue and the gliding camera moves.

Unlike anything Fincher has done before, but just as engrossing as Zodiac and Seven...and certainly better than Benjamin Button....even if it doesn't have serial killers.

Don't Panic...You're Not Going Mad

The great thing about animation is that you can let your imagination run completely wild. Your characters can be anything, do anything and go anywhere...all for no extra production cost. Most of the time animation is limited to the adventures of cuddly animals or, as seen in recent years, riffs on the superhero genre. But sometimes animation is left to run wild and the results can be spectacular. The french production A Town Called Panic is such an example. Shot in stop motion with a bastard combination of plastic children's toys and plasticine Aardman-esque characters if follows the everyday lives of folk in a small village. Sounding like the set up for a kids joke, the film focuses on a Horse, a Cowboy and an Indian (native American) who live in a farm house together. When the childlike Cowboy and Indian decide to order some bricks, in order to build a barbecue for Horse's birthday, a simple error causes dramatic consequences.

The film is batshit crazy, like a freakish mutant offspring of Robot Chicken and Mr Tourettes from Modern Toss. The silly French characters are, of course, subtitled which adds to the outlandishness of the story. The animation is crude and jerky, which adds to the charm and the frenzied lunacy of the film. It's a globe-trotting adventure with mad scientists, an equine romance, musical farmyard beasts, undersea aliens and physics defying stunts.

You may find this far too absurd and crazy, wanting to kick the TV in with disbelief and confusion. But if you can go with it you'll see a film like you've never seen before. Like the cocaine fueled nightmare of Toy Story's Woody, A Town Called Panic will keep you entertained and on a dizzy high when it's all over.

A Pile Of Dinocroc Shit

There are three types of movies, off the top of my head, which are worth avoiding:-
1/ Uwe Boll movies.
2/ Movies from the low budget exploitation production outfit Asylum.
3/ Direct to DVD / TV movies shot for either Zone Horror or the SyFy channel.

Dinocroc Vs Supergator is a Roger Corman produced dino-turd that falls into category three. Here's a list of things you should know:-

1/ The CGI is abysmal. Both giant creatures appear to be weightless and don't blend into their environment realistically. A camera shudder is slyly used by the film-makers to try to give the creatures some realism...but it falls flat.

2/ The cast is comprised of three tiers of actors:-
i) Cardboard lunks that were too shit to get jobs on American daytime soaps.
ii) Seemingly ex female-porn actresses who are trying their hand at 'acting'.
iii) David Carradine, in one of his final on-screen roles. Pisser.

3/ When the cast are supposed to run away from an attacking creature...they jog slowly. Who knows why, perhaps the cameramen couldn't keep up beyond a mild canter, but they never muster any speed. And when they do run away, they only flee about 10 metres than exclaim, "Do you think we lost it!?!"

4/ The heroes use heat seeking technology to locate the beasts. But they're lizards (which are cold blooded) so how do they...

5/ The final confrontation takes place outside an abandoned sugar factory. To avoid the explosion which will destroy both creatures, our hero leaps into a convenient, water filled bath tub that just happens to be lying around in the open...outside an abandoned sugar factory, did I mention that...

Film making of the lowest order. But it's never dull, the girls are pretty and the ultra-corny score by Chuck Cirino and company is more memorable than 90% of most contemporary movie scores. No wonder Carradine couldn't take it anymore...

Venturing Into Joe Dante's Hole

Some directors are never out of the lime-light (Spielberg / Scorsese). Some directors have their one shot and are never heard from again (Marco Brambila / Steven Lisberger). Then there are the directors that have substantial careers, but you wish would just go away (Bryan Levant / Brett Ratner). And finally, there's the directors that you wish would keep getting A-list work, but struggle to convince the money men of their marketability and relevance to contemporary audiences.

One such director is Joe Dante, he of The Howling, Pirahna and Gremlins. Although his body of work is variable in quality (as it is with all directors), it never dips below a certain standard...maintaining his wit, style and signature no matter the script or subject matter. His latest film, The Hole, once again proves why Dante should still be working alongside the top ranking film directors working today.

The Hole is a kids adventure film, much in the style that Dante himself has dabbled with before with Explorers, Small Soldiers and Gremlins. Like that latter movie, The Hole crosses the line into adult entertainment; not sexy, pervy stuff but it has a dark creepiness that's normally reserved for horror films. Now, it being a PG-13 rating, this might not be entirely unexpected, but when you have a child-centric film about them finding a mysterious, bottomless hole in their basement you expect it to be more Disney than The Ring. And that's what this film feels like...an American adaptation of J-Horror...for kids. Creepy clown toys, freaky ghost children, hulking supernatural entities and an undefined menace that preys on the little 'uns.

Dante gets great performances out of his cast and sculpts the movie with his usual black humour and dynamic camera moves. If I'd have taken an under 12 to see this flick, in full blown 3D, in a movie theatre, I'd have been concerned for their chance of sleeping without nightmares that evening. But given the amount of skill, wit and sophistication that went into crafting a superior entertainment for kids...is it so wrong to freak the wee folk out?

The 3D Health & Safety Rebellion

If there's one thing I've learnt from Resident Evil 4, Avatar and now Jackass 3D is that movies shot in 3D look much more impressive than those converted to 3D. No matter how complex the moving image, every pixel of it's digitally projected being is clearly and precisely situated in three dimensions. But it's not just the 3D. It's the combination of 3D AND ultra-slow motion photography. The results are frequently stunning; seeing the ripple effect of a boxing glove in a fat dude's face or the impact of a donkey's hoof in the family jewels. These are spectacular visual images...not to mention utterly hilarious.

As for the third Jackass without the 3D...it all depends on what you think of Jackass. If you like a bunch of immature American adults performing clearly dangerous stunts and pranks then you're in luck. If you like watching people inflict great pain on themselves, and each other, in the name of original entertainment, then you'll love it. And if you think poo, sick, urine and farting is funny (although admittedly juvenile and gut-churning) then Jackass is the comedy for you.

A non stop laughter-fest from start to finish, it's at it's most gut-busting the more frightened and hurting the charming band of charismatic pranksters are. They also leave one of the most spectacular and disgusting gags for last. Those with a weak stomach should look away...

How To Train Your Dreamworks Animators

Dreamworks Animation is perhaps the second best known (and the second most successful) contemporary animation company in the world, after Pixar. But despite their achievements, most of their output leaves me unimpressed. The first Shrek was OK, but the sequels struggled to find their mark. Madagascar, Monsters Vs Aliens and Kung Fu Panda were fun, but flimsy. And Sharks Tale sucks. Only Over The Hedge has had the right combination of story, comedy and characters to warrant being called a 'good' film...and even that wasn't quite up to Pixar standards. Well, with How To Train Your Dragon they've got a second impressive string in their bow.

It's the tale of a misfit Viking boy whose clan are at war with the dragons of the world. While his warrior father (Gerard Butler) struggles to defend the village and figure ot what to do with his wayward son, the boy, Hiccup, befriends an injured dragon. Dreamworks wisely go for a tone dominated by the weight of the story rather than impose a jokey feel on the movie. It's a big scale fantasy adventure, first and foremost, with the comedy less forced and silly than their other efforts. The characters are clearly defined, the script is sharp and well structured and the relationships are relatable and touching.

But there's a few things that stood out:-
1/ The relationship between Hiccup and his dragon, Toothless, is the heart of the movie. Without that key, believable affection between animal and master, the whole plot would loose it's power. As it is, the relationship acts as a hook on which the emotional bulk of the story is hung.
2/ Craig Ferguson's dragonslayer trainer, Gobber, is great. He's got the best humorous lines and sharpest delivery as the comic relief of the film.
3/ There's a great John Powell score which enhances the adventurous spirit of the film. For example there's a sequence where Hiccup saddles and rides Toothless for the first time...and a later one where he takes his girlfriend on her first flight too. Both sequences are more awe inspiring than the similar set-piece in Avatar. Sure James Cameron's sequence is cool and is 100% times better looking, but Dragon's has more whomph!

Still not up to Pixar standards then, but a rollicking good yarn and surprisingly well told. It's just a pity that Dreamworks have got Panda and Madagascar sequels on the horizon...

Gornography In The Third Dimension

With SAW D being the sixth sequel to the low budget, breakout, horror hit that was 2004's Saw, I've gotten to know what makes a good Saw movie, and what doesn't. So here's the checklist:-

1/ Are the traps any good? Only partially this time. As with any horror franchise (Elm Street / Friday 13th / Jaws), characterisation begins to take a back seat to the number, and quality of the kills. And when I say 'quality', I mean the originality, the gore quotient and the entertainment value combined. The kills here start of well, with the most being used of the 3D process, but after the first three the budget begins to reign in the sadistic inventiveness of the torture devices. Yes they're OK, but never quite matching up to the fun factor (if you can call it that in a Gorno) to the opening traps.

2/ How convoluted is this sequel? All Saw movies are obliged to tie it's narrative into that which has been established before. It has to provide some fresh perspective onto the events of all the other Saw movies so that, come the revelatory final scene, the audience is going, "Ooooo...ain't that clever!" Saw's 4 and 6 overdid this, making their plots difficult to follow. The audience can spend so much time trying to remember plot points and character relationships from a movie 4 to 5 years ago, it makes you want to stop watching then and there. Fortunately, SAW 3D gets the loose ends from Saw 6 tied up pretty quickly and it's off with the new plot.

3/ Does this sequel have anything interesting to say? Well, Saw 6, despite it being a bit dull, did at least have some social commentary on America's dubious medical insurance policies. Saw 3D does examine people's need to exploit the news and media for personal gain...but it's nothing in depth.

It's directed with all the anticipated gloom and grime of the previous franchise entries, the 3D isn't used to any startling effect beyond the first 20 minutes. Oh and Cary Elwes, the magnificent thesp that he is (!) turns up for a plot twisting cameo. Not a dud, but an average entry into a film series that needs a nice long rest.