Drive

How does Ryan Gosling do it? The man is in front row to be my hero of 2011. His acting talent grows ever more intriguing and varied with each role he undertakes and he has a great eye for picking fantastic parts in great films. Blue Valentine  is quite possibly one of my favourite films this year, this week he is in two notable release (the other being Crazy Stupid Love) and with George Clooney's The Ides of March garnering serious oscar buzz for later on in the year the mans star wattage shows signs of growing ever brighter. Hands in the air, I have a serious man-crush on the guy. However here he achieves greater acclaim for making a quilted sports jacket with a gold scorpion on the back while mysteriously chewing a tooth pick look like just about the most stylish thing you may see all year. Drive is for all it's hints of loneliness and existentialism is far more concerned with smooth and pretty surfaces. Like Gosling's unnamed character, the film might have torrents of emotion running underneath, but it rarely lets them out. Unless to cave someone's head in that is. Drive might be ultimately shallow and even perhaps contrived at times in it's storytelling but when everything is handled as well as it is, it's hard not to fall in love with it's arthouse/action stylings. Dutch director Nicholas Winding Refn (him off ultra violent and questionably pretentious fare like Bronson or Valhalla Rising) deserves applause for delivering stale plot threads and characters through anything but standard means. Through every frame, the film brims with gorgeous images and subdued, yet vibrant colours. The story goes that upon Gosling and Winding Refn's first meeting, the heavily medicated director, recovering from a cold, burst into tears in a flood of inspiration at hearing REO Speedwagon on the radio. This was their 'Driver'. A lonely guy who drives around on his own all night listening to 80's pop music. True to his word, Drive is the perfect marriage of 70's/80's car chase 'heist gone wrong' thrillers, updated with a cool indie sheen. And it's all breathless, adrenaline inducing stuff.

From it's credits of retro indie beats mixed with pink font you know there is something striking in store. Gosling plays the Driver with no Name who works as a Hollywood stuntman while moonlighting as a getaway driver at night. His life is one of solitude and never getting too close to anybody. That is until new neighbour Irene (Carey Mulligan) moves in with her son and the two strike up a relationship. As the Driver begins to melt his hard exterior and get close to this new family, his violent past comes crashing back into everyones lives. Along the way, supporting characters are filled out by fantastic character actors from Breaking Bad's Bryan Cranston (his usual reliable self), Ron Perlman (having great fun), Oscar Isaac (about the only one who escaped from Sucker Punch untainted) Christina Hendricks (fans of Mad Men will not be happy with her limited screen time) and the usually typecast Albert Brooks. Brooks in particular is mesmerizing. Usually seen in childrens fare and nice guy roles, here he plays the psychotic main antagonist to fantastic effect. Interestingly, he is infused with layers making his violent actions all the more shocking and unpredictable. Surely an oscar nod can't be far off? And then there is Gosling. Given little to no lines throughout, Gosling gives a hypnotic and quietly powerful performance and one that is sure to be remembered in cult circles for years. Winding cast his film perfectly and everyone delivers in their respective parts. That is, apart from Mulligan. A usually fantastic talent, she is never less than entrancing in anything I have seen her in prior. Unfortunately here she seems distractingly miscast and is given little or nothing to do. One minor flaw in a fantastic film. Spontaneously prone to breaking out in hyper violence as it is in 80's synths, the film is certainly one of the more memorable you will see. Gorgeously shot and impeccably acted, Winding Refn has crafted one of the best of the year with scenes that will stick with you for a long time after. An art house version of an action film and one that is filled with as much quiet moments of introspection as it is in gun fights and car chases. Channeling the vibe of Bullitt and early Michael Mann, Drive is every bit as exciting and interesting as that might expect. While it's title might suggest revving auto parts; what it in fact refers to, is the driving force behind decisions and what consequences they may take.

9/10
Stylish, exciting and frequently adrenaline pulsing stuff, this takes the stale notions of what a crime movie might usually entail and turns them into a far more interesting and memorable experience. It may not be deep, but Winding Refn handles the atmosphere perfectly and delivers one of the sure to be favourites of the year.

"Drive" Trailer

Kill List

There is a stunning sense of dread that permeates every frame of Kill List. It is unfair to call the film an outright horror - although things do get mighty horrific, building steadily to more disturbing happenings; the film rather, is it's own thing completely. It's own curious oddity. That underlying tension throughout proceedings helps subvert genre. Parts gritty drama, hit-man thriller and buddy comedy, the film is every bit as original as you might expect from such a blend. Taking such stale staples of cinema as it's starting point, Kill List then uses them to mould an increasingly bizarre, violent and disturbing tale and is one that come it's end, will leave a cold grasp on you. In fact that is perhaps where the film may get it's true power from; in letting some of it's more subtler character beats and plot developments mature in your head, you realise just what director Ben Wheatley and his cast have crafted. This is a film that makes you work for it and you will only get out what you put in. But if you're prepared to go the distance - and Kill List goes to some pretty dark places, then you will have one of the more original hard hitting films this year. Somewhat unfairly, the film has been proclaimed to almost 'instant classic' status by some reviewers; a move that while it will surely help it's box office, can only leave most somewhat underwhelmed by such a high benchmark. Not to say the film isn't good enough, rather it would seem that the film is simply too small for the masses. This is something that works best as a more cult finding. Those who discover it knowing as little as possible will be those whom the film works best on. I would even go so far to suggest not even reading this review for fear of only adding to the hype machine, but I digress......

Focusing on the minutiae of British suburban life, we open on Jay (Neil Maskell) and wife Shel (MyAnna Buring). Locked in a passionately violent marriage, the stress of bills and mortgages are taking their toll as their young son Sam (Harry Simpson) watches on helplessly. So far, so regular, until we discover Jay has the far from regular job as a hit-man. Eight months after what seems a disastrous job in Kiev, Jay reluctantly takes on another job with cohort and best mate Gal (an excellent Michael Smiley): the titular list. Of course in films, that 'one last job' is never a good idea and pretty soon, the two find themselves in increasingly murky territory as each hit on their list leads them down darker alleys. The cast are all uniformly excellent. Wheatley and the cast spent almost as much time improvising various takes as with scripted material and the result is incredibly effective. Maskell and Buring's relationship is painfully conveyed to almost too realistic effect. A couple that bicker and fight, only to make up seconds later; it is obvious to everyone but them, that they should not be together. At the heart of things however, is Jay and Gal. As the two embark on their murderous road trip, they paint a memorable couple. Killers with their own set of moral codes; they are fiercely loyal to each other. The two actors do a fine job in making the audience believe the bond between the two. Their core relationship also leads to some of the more wittier moments; never too far off it seems and perfectly breaking up all that tension and misery in between. However, as the List becomes unofficially longer, and the boys realise they are in over their heads there is only more and more unresolved questions stacking up. Who exactly is the man who hired the guys in the first place? Why do Jay's targets continually thank him before each murder? What exactly is that mysterious symbol scribbled on the back of the mirror in Jay's bathroom? All and none of these questions are answered. Mystery surrounds every corner of Wheatley's story and while he may not give a solid answer to any of them, you can rest assured that he has provided enough hints prior to let you connect the dots. It is also safe to say a second viewing will be almost as enlightening as the first, and help clear up some of the mystery. Throughout, Wheatley effortlessly builds tension. Though not much at all may be happening, there is a sea of violence just waiting to explode at any time. All this is only built on by the films atmospheric soundscapes, breathing deep unease into the images. Overall the film is an incredibly peculiar chiller. Not outright horror, drama or crime/thriller, it is hard to categorise.  Instead of this being a hurdle, the film uses this confusion to build a very original and disturbing tale, although definitely not for everybody. If you let the film work on you, by the time the lights come up you may be shocked, confused and just a little bewildered, but no less stunned. But don't listen to me, you're better off taking the film on it's own merits and finding out for yourself.

Verdict: 8/10
A frequently disturbing and odd film that effortlessly blends genres to stunning effect. Some will bemoan the lack of cohesion come it's end, but everyone else will be taken on a very uneasy and murky ride through the underside of British suburbia. Darkly comic and very unsettling, it is an experience you might not be able to shake soon after.

"Kill List" Trailer

Scre4m

"Scream 4's" recent box office failure in the States at the very least, makes one thing, thankfully, very abundantly clear. There will not be a "Scream 5" (or '5cream' if you will). This is something to rejoice in for a number of reasons, the most pertinent of which is that "Scream 4" is not very good at all. I could argue as to the many reasons why this sequel does not not work but it will always come back to the main fact that had the film doomed straight out of the gate. "Scream 4" was unnecessary. No one was waiting for a fourth entry into the franchise, especially after the dismal third chapter. "Scream" is a product of its time. It worked because it kick started the referential and acutely self aware trend in films, that had never really been done before that point. It was fresh and new. It's concept could not last beyond it's first sequel, of which it just barely did. Then it just began repeating itself. In "Scream 4" all original surviving cast members return, in an attempt to restart the franchise for a new generation. Sidney (Neve Campbell) is now an established author, writing about her traumatic experiences and self-help. On the fifteenth anniversary of the Woodsboro killings she returns home on her book signing tour. However, as soon as she arrives home, more killings start. Killings tracking Sidneys niece Jill (Emma Roberts) and all her high school friends. It's up to Sidney and the now married Sheriff Dewey (David Arquette) and Gale (Courtney Cox) to find who is behind all these new slayings. People forget just how hip the original "Scream" was. It had a hot young cast on the (thought to be) verge of some very big things; an original, achingly cool script, and a renowned classic horror director looking for his big come back. Flash forward eleven years since the last film, and most of its cast have all faded away into obscurity, its writer has a slew of failed film projects and bad TV and the directors last film went straight to DVD over this side of the pond, so bad was its failure in America. This reeks of its original creators cashing in to each give their flailing careers a much needed shot in the arm. The film isn't absolutely atrocious but it really doesn't do itself any favours when it constantly succumbs to the horrible horror cliches it constantly pokes fun at. "Scream 4" wants to have its cake and eat it, which it just can't do. The films witty and all too knowing nature clash violently with its scary and tense framings. Wes Craven is a horror institution but is showing more and more how hard it is to sustain a career in it, whilst still trying to come up with something scary. "Scream 4's" scares are tired and predictable. The most terrifying thing in it is Courtney Cox's horribly stretched and botoxed face. It's characters are all one note and the films final reveal (without giving anything away) is easily the worst in the franchises history. On a positive note, the new generation of victims aren't grating for the most part and some of its digs at recent horror remakes and torture porn are slightly amusing. But it just isn't scary enough or witty enough to really convince as something truly relevant anymore. If its argument is 'there's nothing left to do with horror, lets just have some fun with it all', then why attempt a reboot in the first place? Sure, it's better than "Scream 3" (Scr3am anyone?) but that wasn't exactly too hard in the first place. It is struggling to find a voice in a horror climate that didn't ask for it. It can't mock horror conventions and then fall prey to them itself. "Scream 4" has turned into the thing the film series originally set out to make fun of in the first place.

Verdict: 3/10

The first "Scream" loved horror and loved scaring you with its wit and intelligence. "Scream 4" hates horror and doesn't know what to do with itself. Poor work from everybody involved.

"Scre4m" Trailer

Piranha 3-D

It first must be noted that before those sitting high and mighty start sniffing their nose up at this movie, they cannot argue against this: At the very least "Piranha" knows its audience and it plays to it brilliantly. It is a remake about man eating Piranhas set loose on lithe, beautiful bodies during Spring Break. What did you expect? High art, this most certainly is not. What it is however, is the most out and out, rollicking good time you may have at the movies this year. While hardly the first 3D exploitation film, it is certainly the most high profile in recent years, following the dreadful "My Bloody Valentine 3D" released early last year. While that film seemed to have aspirations to knowingly playing to generic and cliche horror conventions, it had a horrible cast, daft set pieces, not an ounce of tension and horrid use of its 3D. "Piranha" on the other hand, not only plays hilariously with its tongue lodged firmly in its cheek, but with actual talent in front and behind the camera. Those who can withstand the copious amounts of blood and ridiculously gratuitous nudity will find a live action cartoon in front of them. Do not take this film for one second seriously; it's cast and director certainly don't. What they do take seriously is entertaining their demographic, something the film does in spades.

It's Spring Break on Lake Victoria, Arizona. Hundreds of students cut loose and go wild here every year. However this is the time that an underground earthquake hits, releasing a large swarm of prehistoric Piranhas from their underground lake. Falling prey first, to a very unfortunate Richard Dreyfuss (in the first of many nods to "Jaws") they then descend on the nubile, party goers on the lake. It's up to a small group of strangers to bond together to escape the snappy jaws of the very vicious fish. One of the small successes of the film is in it's casting. Already mentioned was the very welcome cameo of Dreyfuss, yet there are plenty of other surprises in store. Just seeing Christopher Lloyd back on screen again spouting some fantastic OTT dialogue is enjoyable in its own right. Adding to the 'knowing factor' is including talented comedy actors Adam Scott and one third of 'Human Giant' Paul Scheer. In fact its cast has to be one of the oddest in a while; many average cinemagoers won't understand the simple virtues of seeing seasoned veterans Elizabeth Shue (in her first lead in quite a while), Ving Rhames and the aforementioned Lloyd and Dreyfuss back on screen. Jerry O'Connell hasn't lately been in anything other than what is found in DVD bargain bins, Kelly Brook is hardly a 'serious' actress by anyones standards and the rest of the supporting players are filled out by porn stars. All of this adds to the fun on display and shows Director Aja's intentions from the off. To know these actors is to know perfectly what each character will fulfill. It is shameless in its intentions. Somewhat surprisingly, it's distributers Dimension and The Weinstein Company must have had very little faith in the film. Declining to show the film to critics before the films official release usually screams out 'stinker'. But then a curious thing happened. When the film was released, the film actually received good reviews. Happy that critics seemed to be in on the joke, they immediately greenlit a sequel. This has to be the first time a sequel has been put into development as a result of glowing reviews. The film did not open very successfully in its opening weekend. Probably down to the fact that audiences were not to be aware of the intentionally camp and cheesy tone of the film from its many promotional spots, it is regrettable. It seems that everyone involved got the tone the film was aiming for, apart from those promoting it.

Now as you probably can tell, the film is not plot or character based. It has only two things on its mind: Sex and Violence. And the film offers heavy abundance of both. In fact it spends its first half ogling acres of naked flesh, while then spending the second gleefully and very violently ripping it apart. At its center piece is an admittedly very well choreographed and sustained massacre sequence, as all the Spring breakers run (or is that swim?) afoul of all the vicious underwater carnivores. Aja shoots what resembles "Saving Private Ryan" as a stunningly gory and very literal 'bloodbath'. The lake runs red as decapitations, scalpings and lacerations run rampant. The sheer awesomery of the violence on display is both shocking and hilarious. Credit must go to the great make up effects supplied by KNB, for kitting out an entire lakes worth of amputees and bite victims.

Aja has got a lot of praise over the years. Credited with starting the Extreme French Horror genre in "Haute Tension" he then moved to America to remake a string of forgettable and very po-faced horror flicks. While "Haute Tension" was not the horror masterpiece that many proclaimed it to be, it did show that the Director knew how to handle tension and violence in a picture. He can frame a shot well and knows how to play to demands for the genre in a fresh enough way. I thought his talent was to be dimmed in America, but it seems he has found his feet here. He builds proceedings well enough and handles his cast well. Most impressivily, he seems to be having fun with the material. 3-D is very well handled throughout. The film is after all, an all out and unashamed exploitation picture and Aja relishes in throwing as many bodily functions and objects towards his audience as he can think of. The effect works well in adding to the scream-jump-laugh factor. The creatures themselves are hardly menacing in their CG appearance, but they do the trick and work well on screen. The films revels in its absurdism and gleefully celebrates its debauchery. It is gratuitous in every sense of the word, it has zero brains or originality and it panders to the lowest of the low in its audience demographic, but it is competently made, well acted and most importantly of all, great fun. Audiences do get it wrong sometimes it seems. See it on the big screen with mates and laugh along to the glorious violence and mayhem on display.

Verdict 69%

The definition of a guilty pleasure; this offers mindless, nasty violence and pointless and gratuitous nudity, but I chuckled and laughed throughout. Everyone delivers the ridiculous material with a wink and events are well sustained. The sequel cannot come soon enough. Let's hope they decide against the flying piranhas of James Cameron's original 1981 sequel.

"Piranha" Trailer

The Expendables

You have to hand it to Sylvester Stallone. Now in his mid 60's and not content with fading away into 'where are they now action hero limbo' he has over the past few years, been sustaining not only his own career, but audiences interests. After spending the latter half of the 90's and the first part of this decade in flop after flop, he decided to return to his roots with the franchise that made his name in the first place, ''Rocky Balboa''. A surprising critical and commercial hit, he then followed that up with that other franchise that made him, in ''Rambo''. Now, not content with living out his later years with all his hits and characters gone, he now drums out an action heroes Hall Of Fame extravaganza. Stallone will not be leaving his past anytime soon it seems. For it, Stallone assembles his dream time action Wish List. Actors are known only for their action chops; recent puny 'brains over brawn' types such as Jason Bourne or Bruce Wayne have no place here. If veins are not bulging out of every single muscle on your body, then you are not wanted on this cast list. Stallone Writes and Directs as if he has no concept of the word 'cliche'. But for the many reasons this is one of the clunkiest and cheesiest films of the year, it is also at times, quite entertaining in its own lug headed way.

For many males, this is for them, what ''Sex & The City 2'' was to women. An all out male testosterone fest; simple things like plot or characterisation have absolutely no place here. Not that you would be able to hear any of it over the explosions. Stallone and his crack team of mercenaries for hire seek to overthrow a corrupt general and ex-CIA agent in some small country in South America. An alarming amount of the cast have been languishing in straight to DVD hell for quite some time now. For Lundgren, Austin, Crews and Couture, the prospect of appearing again in a theatrical Summer 'event' movie must have seemed like it was never going to come. After the surprise success of the film in the States, they must be thanking their lucky stars that Stallone remembered them. It does at times feel like it is checking off fan boys desires for fight scenes; Li Vs. Lundgren!!! Stallone Vs. Austin!!! That the acting and dialogue is some of the most grinding in recent memory only adds to it's 80's nostalgic feel. Something tells me Stallone was not intending the piece to be as cliche and irony ridden in its delivery, he just doesn't seem as clever as that. A knowing wink every now and again to the audience could have sold the material a bit better. As it stands, a lot of the film is just bad. Characters reminisce about 'that time in Bosnia' and many (awkward) cuttaways to other team members exist only to show that, hey, all these are just blue collar friends and that these cold blooded killers are just normal people underneath all that muscle and brawn, not to mention, give more screen time to some of the lesser featured Expendables. Sexual tension between them all is palpable but just so some guys in the audience don't get uncomfortable from all that male bonding, Stallone throws in woman troubles for Statham and a corrupt Generals daughter that needs rescuing for himself. While we are on acting it is worth noting that Mickey Rourke actually delivers a very fine monologue about his war experiences. Rourke, in the film as a favour to Stallone, sticks out like a shiny penny. He has acquired genuine acting talent through his many down-trodden years that none of his other team mates could even muster for a second. It is an unexpected scene of emotion in an otherwise extraordinarily loud and very bombastic film.

So with all this focus on the many 'once great action stars' in the film, it surely lives or dies on its spectacle. Stallone goes for broke in many of the scenes here, crowbarring enough gun fights, knife fights, fist fights, car chases and giant plane explosions into the plot as he can muster. Most of these deliver, if only for the fact that the young boy in you will get a small excitement quiver at watching those action heroes you once idolised all those years ago, finally getting another chance to show they still have what it takes, before they are brought out to the pasture. A minor concern is that Stallone shoots things too close, and achieves that dreaded 'what just happened there' bug, that seems to be plaguing most big tent pole releases these days. Somehow, all of these things do not destroy the film going experience. There is at least a sense of fun that was missing from the sometimes too nasty ''Rambo''. After ''The A Team'' and ''The Losers'' we could be forgiven from getting 'action ensemble fatigue', but for the most part this stays entertaining. Events don't run on too long and just simply seeing these guys back on screen is enough to sustain interest. Action is never far away at all times, and it features plenty of bone crunching violence to laugh and wince at. If you're in on the joke then you will certainly get a kick from it. It is best watched through boozy and reminiscent eyes. The boy inside you will not be able to resist.

Verdict: 45%

Weak by almost all standards of judgement, this is pushing the 'so bad its good' category of films. I can't say that it offers much in the way of anything, but I can say that I laughed and whooped along with it. If that sounds like something you might be interested in, then rent next time you and your mates are drinking. If you are a woman, then subtract 20% from the verdict. I look forward to the already announced sequel....

''The Expendables'' Trailer

May/June Round-Up: Iron Man 2/ Sex & The City 2/ The Killer Inside Me/ The Collector

I haven't been writing for the last few months and have missed out on a few releases. So for anyone interested, here is my take on them.

Iron Man 2

The first big tent pole release of the Summer went off with a bang. Our hero Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) has to face off against new enemies in the shape of a psychotic Russian 'Whiplash' (Mickey Rourke), who possesses the same power as the Iron Man suit and rival arms manufacturer Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell), who is hell bent on acheiving the same success that Stark has. Other turmoil comes from Starks discovery that his suit is also slowly killing him, and tension between him and best bud Rhodie (Don Cheadle). If that sounds like a dark and convoluted super-hero extravaganza (a la, Spider-Man 3) then rest assured that Director Jon Favareau manages to keep proceedings as light and breezy as the first chapter. Downey remains as likeable as ever, and the new additions to the cast all deliver, especially Rockwell as Starks business rival, who is far too desperate to be like him in every way. The material could have become too convoluted for its own good, so kudos to Favreau for keeping an eye on things and easily matching the first in terms of excitement and fun which is all the series ever set out to do in the first place. Also in that Monaco sequence near the start, he delivers the action scene of the year thus far. Problems include Scarlett Johannsson getting lost in the mix, and that the film never rises above its 'fun' origins, means it never fully gives the adrenal glands the work out it should, however in a Summer full of lack lustre releases, this can stand above them all. Until Inception is released that is.

Verdict: 69%

Sex & The City 2

If, upon the original success of the show back in the late 90's, you had told its fan base that the once insightful, clever and witty formula, would dissolve into a camp, bloated and very cynical juggernaut, would any of its viewers have actually turned off? We find the 4 girls, for the second time in the series' history, not feeling fully fulfilled after becoming 'happy ever after'. A rut in marriage, the complexities of juggling a career and family, the sheer hell raising children can be and the eternal battle to stave off old age are all dealt with by our leads. Unfortunately for Jessica Parker, Cattrall, Davis and Nixon is that these so called problems all come off as whiny and selfish. These could have been dealt with far more intelligence, as to give a decent meditation on any of these subjects could provide interesting observations on life for 40 plus women. Unfortunately, the film seems to be far more concerned with fashion and Liza Minnelli singing Beyonce, than any true drama. Not for a second the realistic take on 'women' that the show once set out to be, it has become a parody of itself. Hell, there is even very little sex and practically no city, as the girls (and writers) struggling to keep things fresh, decide to take a sojourn to Abu Dhabi. This is where the franchise reaches its low point. In trying to inject fresh life into it, the film becomes ever more shallow, stupid and almost offensive to the point of ridiculousness. Contrasting and compromising the differences between West and Middle Eastern women should have been ripe fodder for some interesting and yes, witty observations on the differences. This just comes off as being naive to the extreme. If the series is meant to be fun, then where are witty exchanges that made the show famous in the first place? In fairness, the leading ladies all gamely try and inject fun into proceedings (they have been playing these characters for far too long to not be able to), but it is no where near enough. The series has become as tired as Kim Cattrall and should be put out to the pasture. The fact that it didn't make quite as much money as the first in theatres, shows that fans may be slightly in agreement, that this is surely, one trip too far.

Verdict: 25%

The Killer Inside Me

To release this film smack bang in the middle of the Summer Season is quite odd. A slow burning and occasionally sadistically shocking study of a very disturbed mind, it does not scream 'summer crowd pleaser'. To say this film is its own beast, is an understatement. It plays entirely on its own terms. In fact those of you can stomach the brutal bouts of violence, and quiet intensity, might not even like what they find come the end. Casey Affleck proves yet again, what an actor he has been the entire time, while his brother hogged the lime light and media glare. There are a few moments in his performance where it is are quite disturbing to see what a true monster lurks behind his good looks and soulful eyes. That Affleck conveys these small moments so well is a tribute to his skill. The plot is set in the 1950's and centers on young Deputy Sheriff Lou Ford. He attempts to blackmail the local town head honcho, which spirals steadily out of control. This is all a facade however, as the film really concerns itself with the psychotic inner workings of Ford himself. An unreliable narrator, we see the world through his eyes entirely, which must be remembered come the films close. A very damaged individual, all the films drama stems from his thirst for murder and intense hatred of women. He is joined by a surprisingly capable Jessica Alba. Kate Hudson also manages to escape her bland filmography and apparant lack of acting skills and they both engage as the women who attempt to love Ford, without fully knowing what he really is. The film, however will be mostly remembered for its shocking bouts of violence. Now, it must be stated that for all the headlines this film grabbed about its excessive (hardly) and shocking (very much so) violence, is that there is very little of it in the actual film. It is all simmering under the surface of Fords facade, threatening to brim over, and when it finally does, it can be very tough to watch, even for this battle hardened veteran of violent film extravaganzas. The film has also been accused of misogyny, which it is. However, the main reason for this, is that that is what Ford is and it is through him we experience everything in the film. As a result, throughout watching it, I see-sawed in between hating and being quite intrigued by what I was seeing. Director Michael Winterbottom is a master of switching genre whenever he feels and must be applauded for his ruthless adaptation of the original 1952 novel. However, as curious as the end result is and the strength of every performance, especially Afflecks, it just may seem, that you may not be willing to spend as long inside the head of a man like Ford, for the films duration. File under as one of the most curious releases of the year.

Verdict: 59%

The Collector

For whatever reasons I initially went to see this film, I could not remember come the films end. Another (yawn) excessively violent torture porn yarn, this one gets more kudos than it deserves thanks to a genuinely tense and inventive first 45 minutes. After the film descends into grand guignol and people start losing limbs left right and center, you will be become completely immune to the shocks and scares that this film initially threatened to offer. That the film has an inventive idea at its core reeks even more of a missed opportunity. Diamond thief Arkin breaks into a remote and apparently empty mansion to steal from the family he has been casing out. However, upon his arrival he discovers that something far worse has got there before him and are holding the family who live there at bay to torture and maim them. What follows is an interesting idea as our hero becomes quite conflicted in his feelings to either stay and try to save those he initially tried to rob, or to save his own skin. That the leather masked murderer also laced the house with inventive and deadly booby traps to prevent anyone from escaping adds to the tension as it becomes a warped version of 'Home Alone'. Unfortunately this is where the film decides to become a daft exercise in torture porn as tension gives way to blood red viscera that is no more shocking or scary than Macauley Culkin's antics were. The film grows ever more stupid and tiresome until it finally peters out. That it is from the writers of 'Saw's 4,5 and 6 show you all you need to know about the film. When are horror screenwriters going to remember the lost art of things hinted at, are far more terrifying than anything they could ever show us? After its rapid downhill descent you will be begging for the Collector himself to come take you away.

Verdict: 35%

Predators

The tagline to 'Predators' is 'fear is reborn'. Rather apt on the audiences part, as it seems that despite the first entry to the saga back in 1987, Fox has been churning out films starring the mandibled, Rastafarian, space-psycho ever since, with each one hugely lowering in quality from the last. It is a saga that never got going. This can also be applied to the (admittedly more successful) saga that 'Predator' shares most in common with: 'Alien'. In owning two of the best movie monsters from recent years, Fox seem so intent on screwing up their legacy as to wondering how those original films ever even turned out to be as good as they were in the first place. Including the excretable 'Alien Vs. Predator' films, these entries have at least 3 classics between them ('Alien', 'Aliens' and 'Predator'). In 3 sagas which altogether includes 9 films over the course of 4 decades shows Fox really has lost what made those films so special in the first place. However, with the news in mid 2009, that Robert Rodriquez had shown interest in reviving the 'Predator' franchise and giving the first one a sequel it deserved show that Fox may be waking up. This coupled with recent news that Ridley Scott is to direct (with an idea/script from James Cameron?) an 'Alien' prequel, show that Fox may have finally decided to stop squandering these monsters, and put them to use in films worthy of their forebears. However, talk about the 'Alien' franchise is for another day, as first out of the cage is Rodriquez's effort. Alluding itself with James Camerons classic sequel title, by adding an 's', immediately shows Rodriquez's intentions. This is a saga to be treated with respect. The respect it owes to both the original 1987 effort, and its many fans, that have sat through too many poor treatments of their monster to finally give up hope. Rodriquez claims he is the man that could save it.

First things first, it should be noted, that the original 'Predator' is by no means a stone cold masterpiece in certainly not the same way the first two 'Alien' films are. While on many levels an extremely tense and exciting ride, it also features some horrid lines of dialogue and some questionable levels of male flesh (pun intended) on show, even in a place as hot as the South American jungle. From the start these films were quite trashy and forgettable. What elevated the original was the design of the Predator, (now a classic monster in my mind) and the set pieces; particularly Arnies heroic last stand against the creature. In the 80's, Arnold Schwarzenegger had killed and destroyed all that there was to. Nothing could stand in his way and no one could stand up to even coming close to defeating him. That this is partly why the film works, is one of the main reasons all the sequels haven't; until the Predator came along, we all believed Arnie could never be defeated. But here was a more than formidible foe, which bested Arnie and his team on almost every level, and almost destroyed them all easily. This is one of the main reasons the first is as successful as it is. The second one may not be as bad as we all seem to remember, however two major mistakes it made was casting a portly Danny Glover in the lead and focusing far too much time on the monster itself (we have never actually been given a name for the creature in any of the films). This took away from the group dynamic of the first, and the tension of not knowing what our heroes were up against. That the sequel was by no means as big a hit as the first meant the franchise was stalled. Fox obviously had no idea what to do with it. Thank God then, that Rodriquez did.

Originally written in 1994, the script was only recently dusted off from the inner vaults in the Fox studios which got everyone remembering how great the Predator was and still is, as a movie monster. So Rodriquez polished off the script and hired the unfortunatley named Nimrod Antal to direct. Fans were cautiously optimistic. It is a relief then after all that, to announce that 'Predators', while by no means approaching the excitement on the first is a step in the right direction. The fact that it is the second best film in the series, (though from its prequels that may have been not that hard to do), does show that Fox are headed in the right direction. Indeed, Rodriquez and Antal have fashioned a very entertaining nights fodder down the mutiplex, one that pays respect to the original, while also being unique and original in itself to be a stand alone entry in the series. So a series that was becoming quite a laughing stock, is brought back from the brink, and not in the nick of time. But is it enough to sustain its running time and lift it above the many other mediocre efforts of the Summer thus far? The answer unfortunately is 'almost'.

The films main selling point is that it is set on a different planet from ours. In getting back to the team-based dynamic of the first, we follow a group of Planet Earths best cold blooded killers, each plucked randomly it would appear, as they struggle to comprehend what is going on around them. Indeed the films title could also apply to our main characters; back home, they themselves are all predators. So in order to survive, our team is going to have to learn to work together. Of course this is all before any appearance of three-pronged laser sights appear aiming at anyone. Chief among them is Adrien Brodys 'Royce' as the hesitant leader of the group. Antal and Rodriquez wisely spend time with the characters so we can identify each one, and get some nice character detail before the havoc ensues. Included, we have a member of the Japanese Yakuza, a member of a Mexican drug cartel, Russian militia, an American death-row prisoner and a South American sharp shooter. As broad as their backgrounds are, it also unfortunately also stems to the characterisations themselves. It isn't long before Brody realises that they are being hunted, and are on a game preserve, albeit one covering the entire planet. The Predators it would seem, drag their prey here, in order to hunt and become more efficient killers. Carnage ensues. Relatively straight forward, as any 'Predator' movie should be, this wisely focuses on characters before the creatures show up bringing back a sense of tension missing from every entry into the series since.

The film has a few more tricks up its sleeve along the way and keeps the viewer engaged for most of its running time. However, one of its main problems, ironically lies in its direction. Scenes of action are sometimes clunkily handled and while Antal is a million miles ahead of any of the directors of the 'Alien Vs. Predator' movies, you can't help but wish Rodriquez had stayed in the directors chair on this. Another problem lies in its script itself. Throughout its running time, the film shows flickers of originality and welcome bouts of humour. Unfortunately, these moments are too few and as the film goes on, it grows less exciting. What is good is the cast. Brody here easily proves himself as a tough guy, spouting some pretty bad-ass lines of dialogue; any doubts about whether or not the skinny dude from 'The Pianist' can hold an action role convincingly, will be fully put to rest, come the films climax. He is ably supported by everyone from a scene stealing Walter Goggins as a shank wielding inmate, to a nice cameo from Laurence Fishburne which unfortunately, is over all too soon. Topher Grace shines as a Doctor with a secret and Alice Braga keeps up the 'Predator' tradition, of having a South American woman, who knows more about the alien creatures than anyone else does.

One of the biggest successes of the film is actually making the Predators threatening again. After the cartoonish depiction of them in previous films, we have finally got back to the root of what made these guys so memorable in the first place. For seeing, appreciating and mainly remembering the potential the Predators have, Rodriquez should be thanked. That it never fully hits the heights of the first one is regrettable, but a sure sign that they are back on track, and that the inevitable sequel, will put rights to that.

Verdict: 61%

Robert Rodriquez reboots the stalled franchise just about. Set pieces never quite deliver the intensity they deserve and it slightly runs out of steam towards the end. But for an entertaining night of B-Movie monster entertainment, which is all the franchise ever set out to be, you will not be dissappointed. Oh, and that ace shot of Brody covered in lasers from the trailer? Sorry to disappoint you, but is sorely absent from the final film.

"Predators" Trailer

Kick-Ass

Matthew Vaughn, welcome to the big time. After two decent attempts and wild genre change in 'Layer Cake' and 'Stardust', he now, with his latest effort finds himself on the speed dial to every studio in Hollywood. Quite simply, this is a film designed to entertain, thrill, and provoke endless censorship debate in modern cinema. This is a film for the times and one that will be surely be remembered in many years to come as a sure sign of the zeitgeist at the early 2010's. And with it, Vaughn has sealed his place in A-List Directors to watch out for. Here he directs with such confidence and flair, you wonder why you haven't noticed it before in his movies. This is down to one major reason I believe. Vaughn funded 'Kick-Ass' independently thus alleviating himself from the constant strain of over bearing studios breathing down his neck. Incidentally, he ended up selling the film back to Universal for more than he initially asked from them to make it in the first place. As a result, he made the film on his terms and on every frame does this show. Where else would you see a foul mouthed 11 year old girl-assassin lay waste to a room full of drug dealers? As is befitting its source material, (the 2008 comic book series written by Mark Miller) the film pulls absolutely no punches. It is quite possibly, the most fun you might have in a darkened room full of strangers this year.

Dave Lizewski is an everyday normal teenager. Painfully normal. His humdrum boring existence (not to mention, a love of all things comic-book related) leads him to wonder why real life people don't don spandex and become vigilantes on the streets in the name of Superheroes everywhere. 'Because they would get their ass kicked', retorts one of his friends. Aside from this being true, this does not sway Dave and soon he is patrolling the streets and attempting to stop muggings and every day street violence in his own, E-Bay bought costume. It turns out Daves friend was right. Dave does certainly get his ass kicked. It's not long however before Dave makes a name for himself online as his Superhero alter ego Kick-Ass. This leads to a few copycat vigilantes in the name of Big Daddy (Nicholas Cage) and his daughter, Hit-Girl (Chloe Moretz). The difference here, is that these two are the real deal. They are the closest things to Superheroes the film has, albeit completely bat-shit crazy. While Kick-Ass has his sights on small time gang crime, the other two have their crosshairs set on Gangster Kingpin Frank D'Amico (Mark Strong)and it is in this that Kick-Ass gets involved and way over his head with.

The cast are all uniformly excellent. Without a single false note in it, everyone delivers very memorable work and manages to stand out amongst the mad cap profanity and violence. As the lead protagonist British actor Aaron Johnson handles a very tough job very well. It is in he, that the film must be grounded in order for all the craziness to lead from later. Christopher Mintz-Plasse proves he actually isn't the one note McLovin everyone had him initially pegged for as the (again, useless) Superhero Red Mist. Strong, playing the bad guy is going to get tiring quite soon as he has done it so many times before already, however here he is a very formidable threat to our heroes. And then there is Cage and Moretz, the movies secret weapons. Cage here is having a ball and seems to be having the most fun he's had in years. It is easily the best performance he has given in a very long time. Whether he is taking out an entire warehouse of goons or imitating Adam West (Big Daddy's costume bears a striking resemblance to one caped crusader) Cage excels in all his scenes. It might still be a while for him to crawl his credibility back, but on evidence here, it seems that all is certainly not lost from him. And now for Moretz. The character that will define the film for years and the one in which everyone will be talking about as they exit the cinema; she is a giddy riot. Whether spewing out filthy obscenities or mercilessly and fluidly taking out perps, Moretz proves she is now a name to watch out for. Her headline grabbing turn as Hit-Girl is sure enough going to have newspapers spewing out controversy over the moral deviance Vaughn has created by having a character like this in his film. She kills with no remorse, and is the most exciting thing in the films many excellent set pieces. An empowering female role to be proud of, she beats everyone to a pulp and is the strongest character in the film. She recalls the initial impact of originally seeing both Jodie Foster in 'Taxi Driver' and Natalie Portman in 'Leon' such is her impact. Moretz nails it, being at turns hilarious, threatening and tough while reminding the audience that she is only an 11 year old girl all the time.

With all this madness everywhere, a lesser director might have got lost in the mix. Not so Vaughn. This is a very ballsy movie in quite some time and both Vaughn and co-writer Jane Goldsman should be applauded in their adaptation. The film is hilarious. It lampoons comic book movies while simultaneously being one. An off-the-wall 'Watchmen' if you will. It plays completely on its own terms and if you don't want to go along with it, then get out of its way. It is the ultimate fan boy movie writ large. Sure, the script, despite building excellently and being razor sharp does include a few small formulaic details here and there. I say put them aside; the film is there merely to entertain you, and is original in more than enough different ways to keep you watching. When something is so unabashedly crowd pleasing as this, you would be a fool not to go along with it as it breathes new life into the Superhero genre. It is violent and very morally questionable at times, but it's also a 'movie'. Are you really going to take something in which an 11 year old can kick the crap out of men twice her age as serious as that? Make no mistake, while it starts off as proclaiming a need for a Superhero in the 'real world', it is very much set in a 'movies' world. Vaughn as it turns out can have his cake and eat it. A sophisticated and funny satire of the genre yes, but also packed with enough action to keep everyone happy, lest those themes go over some peoples heads. Kudos also to John Murphy, for delivering another nuanced score to go with the picture, and Vaughn himself packing the movie with enough already known pop hits to rattle along to all the carnage. This is the 'Pulp Fiction' of comic book movies. It takes stale conventions and turns them on their heads. It is original when it needs to be, yet is wise enough to play to audience demands for entertainment.

The film is the definition of crowd pleasing. If it is possible, make sure and catch the movie with a group of mates or in a crowded theater to get the most out its charms. Laugh along to the jokes, cheer and whoop the violence (in all its comic, bloody glory) and wince as everybody at some stage gets their ass kicked. Our eponymous hero, lets not forget, is a crap Superhero after all and Vaughn gets great pleasure in repeatedly beating him to a pulp. So throw your morals out the window and go along with the fun this movie has to offer. It isn't going to win any awards, but I have the feeling that this will be remembered very fondly in many years to come. As for Matthew Vaughn, we intriguingly look on to see where he takes us next. After gritty, cockney gangsters, tongue in cheek fantasy and now, morally questionable and gun toting Superheroes, the sky is the limit.

Verdict: 79%

An hilarious script, genuinely exciting action, original characters and lots of violence added together a great movie makes. The true hero here is Vaughn who takes a very combustible concept and makes a classic, knowing comic book movie for the ages.

Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oy4IFvH2Tc

Retrospective - 'Inside' (À l'intérieur) 2007

How do I recommend this film? It is quite possibly one of the most shocking and downright disturbing films of recent years. Its blood soaked hands possitively burst out of the screen and grab you by the throat such is its effect. It is a film that stays with you long after you see it. Many of you will be sickend by its gore and violence. Many of you will simply not be able to watch it. How then, can I rate this so high and proclaim it as one of the best horror movies of the last decade? Of course, someone telling you 'you won't be able to take it', only makes most people want to see something even more. Just don't say I didn't warn you. 'Inside' was initially released in its native France, very surprisingly, in 2007. So why am I reviewing it now? Well part of this blog is to provide information about films that you may or may not have heard of. So while a lot of you probably have not seen this, I can safely and one hundred per cent say that you have never seen anything quite like this before.

The film is set on Christmas Eve. Sarah (Alysson Paradis) is heavily pregnant. She is still recovering (physically and emotionally) from the death of her husband only 4 months before. She is to have an induced labour the next day and is understandably, quite anxious about it. However, this is all before a mysterious woman (Beatrice Dalle) comes knocking late in the night and refuses to go away. You see, this strange lady wants Sarahs child, and will stop at nothing to get it. This film is incredibly stripped down. There is something so simplistic about a heavily pregnant woman in such peril, I'm surprised that other films have not taken advantage of it before; tension is a given with it. And what tension. This begins almost instantly with such nerve shredding terror, and does not let up for its entire running time. You simply have no idea where this film will go next, such is its visceral rawness. And the places it takes you, well it will simply be far too much for some. Which brings me to my next point. The violence.

I am a fan of horror. While I have reviewed a few here before, I believe that the good ones are very far and few between. Before viewing this film, I had some preconceived notions about what the genre should feature. Less is always more, the lower the budget the better and under no circumstances, should the film ever rely on gore. This film gloriously tears up any ideas I previously had about it. It is easily one of the most vicious films I have ever seen. It begins quite violently and gets more and more over the top gory as it goes on. Previous reliance on gore used to be at the cost of tension, I believed. Here it enhances it. Before the film is over you are left watching through fingers at disbelief at the carnage. Why is this though? When watching it, I found myself torn in whether I actually liked the film or not. I had been advised on the similarly violent 2008 gallic-horror 'Martyrs' before I watched 'Inside'. These are quite similar films and yet having such conflicting opinions for the two is quite odd. That the former had received very positive praise from critics and that also in my opinion, you have to seek out the best horrors yourself, I eagerly checked out it out. 'Martyrs' was, for me a sleazy exercise in shock tactics. Centering on the dreaded 'torture-porn' sub-genre, it offered me next to nothing. Shocking, just for the sake of it. 'Inside', is quite possibly, more violent and yet affected me so much more. I can't quite pin-point where and why my opinions differ on the two films. And with this escalation of screen violence, where does this leave violence in movies to go and what can be acceptable for audiences?

So why then, is this film so good? Well it is shot beautifully. First time directors Alexandre Bustillo and Julien Maury ensure every scene carries a sense of menace, and the pacing of it is impeccable. It's eerie use of primary colours recall a sense of the 70's classic 'Susperia' along with its soundtrack, enhancing the shocks greatly. Its relentless assault on the senses is due to its pacy editing. For such a low budget film, it looks great. Make-up and many of its special effects are top class. So while it is very technically proficient, why does it carry such an emotional punch? This could be down to its two female leads. Both are played with great devotion and conviction in their parts. Dalle cuts a very imposing figure in her gothic, black dress and Paradis must be applauded for receiving quite possibly, the most punishment any character has gone through in a film in recent memory. 'Home invasion' films are unnerving simply by what they stand for. Our home is the one place we feel safe and can relax. Add in the very primal fear of pregnancy and you have ready made effective themes for the audience to relate to. The house is the one place Sarah is safe; the womb is the only place her unborn child is safe. We are already rooting for Sarah from the start just for the terrifying predicament she finds herself in. It is ambiguous in all the right places (is the 'Woman' a real, or supernatural presence?) and all characters carry just the right shades of grey to them; Sarah already blames the death of her husband on her unborn child, so consequently, does she want to fight as hard for her, and its survival?

Gore aside, this film is incredibly tense. Its mayhem and carnage is well handled, but were it not for its eerie unpredictability, it would not have near the effect it does. It is very, very scary. Minor criticisms center on some comically inept and stupid police officers added to the mix, for no other reason it seems, than to up the body count. Hopefully, you will be too wrapped up in the film to notice, but they are good examples of characters that 'live in the film world' and do certains things that will have some people screaming at the screen in disbelief. It also becomes almost too blood soaked by the climax. This for me did not take away any of the movies enjoyment. Come the end, you will have been through an experience like no other. Some may not have liked what you have seen, but one thing is for certain, you will not be able to shake this films effect on you.

Verdict: 85%

An stunning achievement in modern horror. If you find yourself jaded by the genre, then this film is for you. Most people will be put off by the endless and shocking violence, but when it is handled as well as this, you cannot fight the primal effect it has on the viewer. I urge you to seek it out, wherever you can find it.

Trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldUsz12kSQU