Reviews

'The Hulk' is the most interesting and original approach to a 'Hollywood blockbuster' that I've watched in a long time. It's also the most problematic and for that you can thank Ang Lee, who a certain webslinger would call both the film's blessing and curse.

'Hulk' looks stunning - some typical art cinema symbolic shots, others so beautiful you want to frame them. Even the action sequences - which, despite the Hulk's much criticised CGI are great - have a real poetry in their rhythm. A lot of comic-style screen wipes and camera zoom-outs as well as split screen techniques to try and establish pace too. Also, this is FAR more character and psychologically-driven then any blockbuster I've watched before. You really feel for the Banner/Hulk character - a real feeling of pathos and tragedy surrounds him (Lee pays homage to the original Frankenstein at one point with a scene by a pool and the 'tragic monster' similarities are plain throughout).

The problem is that you also expect certain things of a comic book film and you can't help but feel that Lee struggled to compromise himself for the audience that 'Hulk' will appeal to. That's to be applauded at one level - but, at another, it made it a distinctly uneasy mix. The film is almost uniformly downbeat in tone and, when Ol'green skin doesn't appear for the first 45 mins, it becomes a little gruelling despite setting up some fine melodrama. Also, the rhythm is of the film is uneven because the Hulk sequences are so energised up to the rest of the film. The fancy editing and techniques talked about above are used in strange places sometimes - they're refreshing but whether they add to the film's 'feel' is questionable.

Overall, you have to applaud Ang Lee for attempting what he has - it works on some levels and it's astonishing that he had the artistic freedom to do it (you can clearly see where the 'Hollywood' stops and Ang Lee starts). But the mix is also a problematic one as its far less 50-50, more 75-25 in favour of Lee and it is easy to see why audiences have had real trouble with accepting it. Personally, I hope he gets the sequel - am sure that, with mainstream action practice now under his belt, he could refine it to be an absolute classic film. But I dunno if studios will take the chance again. A valiant effort, but flawed masterpiece or interesting failure? Hard to tell.

The Long & the Short of It - Stanley (Jackman) is a down-and-out computer hacker, denied access to his terminally-knitweared 10yr old daughter after serving an 18-month jail sentence for hacking the federal computer. When the mysterious Ginger (Berry) invites him to meet the rich and dangerous playboy Gabriel (Tavolta), he's sucked into an increasingly confusing, cliched and mildly uninteresting world of hi-tech computer hacking and terrorism. By the time it's explained, you'll either be a) too confused to concentrate or b) too bored to care - probably both.

First, a comment on the pulling of the film after Sept 11th - given the extremely touchy subject matter (which is uneasily accurate in retrospect, as well as making it the most ill-timed film release in history), taking Swordfish off the screens was a good move. Unfortunately it didn't bury it far enough and, with the inevitable curiosity the controversy has caused, far more people will subject themselves to it.

Despite an enormous budget and a cast who try hard with what they're given, Swordfish is simply too flawed to be an enjoyable, or even competent film. The script is an uninspiring, cliche-ridden mess (one scene's dialogue is close enough to The Usual Suspects to give the lawyers a call) and, though Jackman and Berry rise above it on occasion, Travolta seems to be riding on the same 'repetetive bad guy' rollercoaster with worrying relish (no doubt waving to Gary Oldman sat behind him). They're not helped by a narrative that either thinks it's far cleverer than it really is - each 'revelation' is met by a thoroughly unimpressed 'oh' - or thinks the audience are, and so they don't really NEED a narrative in places. The effects, though impressive, waver between Speed and MI:2 in terms of believability/nonsense, and too much towards the latter. Perhaps filmmakers should that in order for these set-pieces to work, the audience must be able to justify the possibility of them in some way.

Not so much a Swordfish then a Flounder.

Isn't evolution just a great idea. Think for a second - without it, we'd all be a floppy race of fish people, eating plankton and not tuna, in case it used to be a relative. Charles Darwin truly is the daddy. However, the rest of creation hasn't caught on to the advantages of the idea yet. Personally, I think slugs are just lazy and should try harder to grow arms and legs like normal species.

Such an accusation can be aimed at 'Evolution' the movie. A sci-fi comedy in the same vein as the far superior Men In Black, Reitman has simply remade Ghostbusters and replaced the ghosts with aliens. 'No bad thing', you might say. After all, Ghostbusters was a classic of its time and a thoroughly entertaining film. Yet, the second time round, it just seems as though he couldn't be bothered to advance the plot any further and the formula simply doesn't work as well.

It's a promising if unoriginal premise. A meteorite lands on outskirts of small town, local scientists with shady past discover it before a government cover up, culminating in much chaos and eventual showdown (pick your 50s B-movie). Yet the plot is laboured and poorly developed, and it takes an age to get moving. Unlike its more illustrious predecessor, 'Evolution' has no 'big scene' until two-thirds of the way into the film, and often has to rely on the charisma of its lead actors to keep it moving. This wouldn't be a problem if Bill Murray, Dan Akroyd et al were on hand - but they're not (Akroyd actually has a cameo late on in the film, just to remind you of what it's missing). Orlando Jones and David Duchovny (not the most charismatic of actors at the best of times) try hard with an inoffensive and occasionally witty script, but are defeated by its sheer predictability. As for Julianne Moore's attempts at slapstick - spare me. Even the effects, one of the main selling points of the film, are nothing special. True, some of the creatures look great, but perhaps someone should tell the FX man from Jurassic Park (on set here yet again) that too many dinosaurs can eventually get a little boring?

Despite this, 'Evolution' does have its moments. The Alien gestation spoof is genuinely funny, as is the alien dinosaur chase through the Mall. Orlando Jones is good throughout (though no Chris Rock), and Duchovny shows enough to suggest that he may make it on the big screen after all. Yet, with MIB available for half the price and twice the laughs (and Ghostbusters for even less), it's hard to get too excited about such an average film. Mildly entertaining, but no more.

5/10

Robert Rodriguez is not the first person you'd suggest to make a children's film. As entertaining as 'Desperado', 'The Faculty' and 'From Dusk Till dawn' are, you wouldn't line them up alongside 'Toy Story 2' and 'The Jungle Book' for good, old-fashioned family entertainment. Yet, as this energetic, light-hearted Bondesque spoof proves, Rodriguez has the talent to turn his hand to just about anything, and inject it with the suspense and adrenalin that are his trademark.

From the gloriously OTT opening scene (which tells the story of how two agents sent to kill each other fall in love and settle down) to the last second, 'Spy Kids' doesn't miss a trick. The obligatory gizmos, mad villains and dastardly plot to take over the world are all there, along with a star cast all playing their roles with tongues firmly in cheek. The action/humour mix is extremely well-balanced too, with some hilarious visual gags sitting within a sharp script and Banderas, in particular, revels taking a sly swipe at his normal 'strong yet silent Latino' image. Yet, refreshingly for a children's film, it's never patronising, never obvious, and genuinely original in places (soldiers made of thumbs, secret agents transformed into tellytubby-type TV characters - imagine Goldeneye-meets-Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory-meets-Any Tim Burton film and you'll be close). In truth, some of the surreal moments and the more graphic effects may get a little too much for younger kids at times, but these moments are few and far between.

Ok, it's a 'U' certificate and you may well have to sit through the trailer for 'See Spot Run', but don't let that put you off. This is one of the better films you'll see this year, and the best out over Easter by quite a way. Go and have some fun.

8/10

Yet another 'Sixth Sense' clone hits the screens and, unsurprisingly, fails to live up to its illustrious predecessor. Annie (Blanchett) is a small town psychic who, when widowed a year before the events in the film, provides for her three children by using her psychic talents to perform 'readings' for the neighbourhood. Yet when her visions lead to local bad-boy Donnie Barkside (Reeves) becoming chief suspect in a murder investigation, she wonders whether he really is the guilty party...

As predictable as this sounds (and yes, it turns out to be as predictable as it sounds), 'The Gift' is still a respectable addition to the genre. Blanchett adds a strength and depth to her character lacking from many others in the film, while even Keanu 'Wood' Reeves is surprisingly animated up to his normal stump-like performances. The atmosphere is suitably eerie in places, and there are even a few 'seat-jumping' moments for good measure. Yet the film simply takes way too long to get going and, when it does, is frequently pulled back into a sea of melodramatic nonsense. It has its moments, the end is great (if predictable), and is moderately entertaining - just make sure the backlight on your watch is working, ok?

6/10

It's 1933 and, ten years on from their last encounter with the bandaged one, Rick and Evie are happily married and living in London with their 8-year old son. Yet Evie is troubled by strange visions of ancient Egypt and the fabled Bracelet of Anubis, the control of which will bring about the resurrection of the Scorpion King. This would be (you guessed it) a bad thing to happen, as said King sold his soul to the evil god Anubis and, upon his return to life, would lead Anubis' nigh-on invincible army to take over the WORLD! Oh and, in case this wasn't enough, Imhotep has also been exhumed and revived by his followers, in the hope that he can defeat the Scorpion King and twist the inhuman army to his own fiendish desires. Muhahahahahaha. Sorry.

The first 'blockbuster' of this Summer, 'The Mummy Returns' is a lot of fun, as long as you abide by one simple rule: do not, under any circumstances, think about what you're watching. Cerebral content, as in the original, is sacrificed to stop anything getting in the way of the constant stream of fights, stunts and special effects and, happily, it has the same effect. Where this sequel succeeds over many others is in maintaining the level of exuberance and excitement which made the original such a success. The extra budget means that the set pieces are far bigger, the explosions far more spectacular, the extras are far more plentiful (and we all know what that means), and the locations far more grandiose. Luckily, much of the CGI has been improved as well. Some truly innovative little nasties are introduced (the skeletal pygmies being the high point), and the decaying Imhotep won't leave you sniggering behind your hand this time. The original cast are clearly having just as much fun second time around (even new additions like Freddie Boath, the Connell's eight year old son, stay on the right side of irritating), and the self-aware, tongue-in-cheek scripting of the first film also makes a welcome return.

If anything lets 'TMR' down, it's the sense of excess and keenness to entertain. With access to the kind of money the first 'Mummy' film only dreamt of, Sommers sometimes throws just a little too much into the visuals and it doesn't all work. Some of the CGI is decidedly ropey, and other ideas (the jet-powered dirigible in particular) simply stretch credulity that little bit too far. In truth, the plot is merely a very loose framework to hang the action on (writing the very instructions needed to kill you off again should you reawaken in your own tomb seems a little foolhardy), and The Rock really shouldn't give up his day job.

Yet, to be truthful, who cares? The pace and rhythm of the film is so relentless that such faults can be ignored, as they really defeat the object. I defy you to sit through the London Bus chase scene and the Mansion house fight and keep a regular, unwavering pulse. Yes it's corny and yes it's totally and unceasingly OTT, but this is Sinbad not Indiana Jones, replete with legendary monsters, handsome lantern-jawed hero and feisty heroine. If you want intelligent, thought-provoking and mysterious material then look elsewhere. Otherwise, strap yourself in and enjoy the ride.

7.5/10

Matt Drew

At a time when the comedy genre is saturated with the crude, lewd and unsophisticated toilet humour of the U.S ('See Spot Run', 'The Animal', 'Say It Isn't So'), it's encouraging to watch a film that really makes you laugh out loud without wanting to cringe at the same time. Like it's antipodean predecessor 'Priscilla...', 'The Dish' takes the best aspects of Australian culture and the Aussie persona and uses them to create the finest comedy of the year so far. Much of the humour is brutally honest, delivered in the kind of relaxed, conversational style which has become an Aussie trademark. Paired with a homegrown cast (headed by a wonderfully understated Sam Neill) and filmed on location at the satellite receiver station in South Australia, the film feels refreshingly natural and unconstructed.

This sense of cultural identity gives 'The Dish' a surprising depth for such an uncomplicated film. Rather than resorting to the contrived, exaggerated Australian image of Paul Hogan, it revels in its roots without a hint of self-consciousness or compromise. Such an intense warmth towards its small-town location and everyman characters is shown that it is impossible not to share it, and from that grows a wonderful sense of intimacy. Despite the global importance of Apollo 11's mission, a real sense of the importance of it to the community and the individuals therein is present throughout. An American film may have made this subservient to the moon landings - here, the two are intertwined on an equal footing, and you care equally about each.

And in that lies the secret of why 'The Dish' is such a damn good film. It's not the well-paced, extremely funny and well-delivered script, nor the quality of the acting, nor the great location or period soundtrack. It's because the film has a real sense of soul. It makes you want to care about it and it's characters. In mainstream film, that's a rare achievement indeed. Let's hope the Farrelly brothers are watching...

8.5/10

Let's start with the good things about the film - the two leads look great and if Hollywood values looks above acting talent (surely not?!), they'll go a long way. As for the rest? Well...*deep breath*...

'Dungeons and Dragons' could have been great. Whether you love fantasy, or believe it to be the realm of spotty-faced young men with no social life, the franchise itself is so huge (and has such an enormous fan base) and has such scope for development that the film-makers should've been frothing at the mouth with excitement. Unfortunately, the end result appears to be frothing at the mouth with no more then rabies. Firstly, it looks terrible. Half the battle with a fantasy film is convincing your audience that such a world could exist, and using cheap CGI effects are not the way to do this. Not only that, the 'Dragon Mace of Wobbly Destructiveness' (or something) worryingly resembled a plastic 'He-Man' toy. Hmmmm. The acting gets no better. Whalin and McLellan look great without achieving much, yet even a bad script cannot forgive Jeremy Irons, one of the strongest actors from these Isles, for committing such crimes against humanity. The plot, as you may have guessed, was almost non-existent in its simplicity.

Only Richard O'Brien walks away with any credit, stealing the show with a gleefully malicious cameo halfway through. Yet this just isn't even to atone for the film's many sins. Die-hard fantasy maniacs may get some perverse satisfaction from the film, but the rest of us will just carry on waiting for 'Lord of the Rings'.

2/10

What's it all about? Rather difficult to tell. Lara Croft is a chesticularly-challenged heiress with a taste for archaeology, inherited from her missing presumed dead Father. She has lots of money and guns, which she shoots a lot until the end of the film. Oh, and some nonsense about a clock and triangles and time travel but that doesn't seem to matter much... So, the film of THE game has finally arrived and, after endless publicity about 'who'll play Lara and how will she look', we finally have the answers. And none of them matter because of one simple, undeniable truth. Tomb Raider is abysmal. End of story. Though God knows I'm tempted to leave it there (and not relive the horror of that 100 minutes), let me expand.

'TR' has clearly been produced with an attitude of contempt towards its many fans, and the moviegoer in general. In the light of the film's marketing (which, in retrospect, the studio must really be regretting), it is impossible not to compare 'TR' with 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' and the more recent 'Mummy' films. Yet it lacks the depth and gravitas of the former, the self-irony and breathless editing of the latter, and the high quality script bestowed on both. The studio clearly believed that the sexual dimension of the Lara Croft character, so played on by themselves, would be enough to compensate for it's many shortcomings. They were very, very wrong.

The settings are bland, empty recreations of the Indiana Jones movies, the action scenes numbingly boring, uncreative and repetetive. Self-indulgent to the extreme, they've been done a hundred times, and a hundred times better. The soundtrack does the film no favours at all, it's horrendous overuse making you feel as though you've been duped into watching the Tomb Raider Lucozade advert over and over and over again. With the exception of Jolie (who, as always, provides a fine performance which recreates and expands on the look and spirit of Croft), the film is woefully miscast, and even fine actors such as Jon Voight are reduced to mouthing cliched and frequently cringeworthy drivel at a blameless audience. In terms of effects, the film already appears dated. The props, at least, provide some welcome amusement. Fresh from The Gadget Shop, many of them must have 'Made in Taiwan' stamped on their bottom. The bulky 'Pay As You Talk' Orange phone that appears on the dashboard of Lara's Land Rover is almost an anti-climax.

There is nothing original here, and what is here is simply cold, soulless rubbish. It's a bland, predictable, boring, cynical attempt to cash in on the popularity of the game by expending very little creative energy and few financial resources. The only good thing may be that Jolie's fantastic performance should lift her above taking on anything that sinks as low as this film. Don't waste your time.

3/10

With it's rapturous reception at Cannes and box-office success both sides of the Atlantic, what I'm about to say may come as a bit of a shock.....sitting comfortably?.....pulse ok?.....Shrek is not quite as good as you think.

Recovered? Good, because Shrek is still a damn good film. It looks great, is funny, and the characters are endearing. Myers' Ogre may be a little dull sometimes, but Diaz' fiesty princess and the Donkey (an absolute scream, and possibly Murphy's best role in years) more than make up for that. Most of all, it's brimming with an attitude and streetwise nature which many of Disney's films lack, which recognises that kids really can be nasty little sods at times, and are far from stupid. 'Shrek' really does pull the conventions of the fairy tale to pieces at times, and it's combination of body jokes and black humour (the Magic Mirror's 'Blind Date' style description of Snow White ("Though she lives with 7 guys, she's not easy") for example) are an unceasing attack on Walt's whole back catalogue of kiddies classics.

However, it does have it's faults. The script is a little light in the joke department. When it's funny it's really funny, but there's not enough humour for all ages to strike a perfect balance and you feel that, without Murphy's wisecracking ass, Shrek could have been pretty boring (the rumours were that Dreamworks cut much of the black humour out of the film to get its certificate, so this may explain it). The main premise of the film isn't used enough either. Aside from the start and end sequences of the film (with the exception of one hilarious fight with Robin Hood and his Merry Men), the fairy tale cast is anonymous - a shame, as it's a great idea.

Despite that, Shrek is still a great piece of entertainment and shows that Dreamworks, although they lack the quality script of a 'Toy Story', aren't too far off of stealing Disney's crown.

8/10

'State and Main' is one of those welcome rarities that the Hollywood production system sometimes throws up - a sedate, unspectacular yet hugely enjoyable film which revels in its intimacy with the viewer. Like last years equally entertaining 'Bowfinger', 'State and Main' is an examination of how disconnected Hollywood is from the 'real world'. Yet, where as 'Bowfinger' was a manic parody, Mamet's love for his subject leads to this being more of a homage to these practices, a celebration of such lunacy. The setting is suitably pleasant (think 'It's a Wonderful Life and you'll be fairly close), the scripting subtle in its quirky humour, and the performances masterful. Baldwin and Parker in particular, thrive on sending up their real-life counterparts as the lead actor who has a penchant for teenage women (Rob Lowe, anyone?) and the actress who, since finding God, refuses to do a nude scene. Yet the best performance comes from Macy as hyperactive director 'Walt Price', who supplies a constant stream of quality one-liners throughout.

Granted, the film isn't the greatest comedy ever (inspiring more knowing chuckles then belly laughs) and, if you're a 'shock-a-second thrill seeker', it may not be your kind of thing. But if you prefer something a little more cerebral, infinitely more subtle, and genuinely heart-warming then you could do far worse.

7.5/10