Reviews

Within modern cinema, cars have become pornography to the eyes. Warn-out franchises such as 'Fast & Furious' and 'Transformers' milk the parts for the visual candy their viewers need, tossing aside 90% of their cinematic functions to simply excite and explode. Not since the 80's has driving been taken as seriously as it is in 'Drive', a decade well remembered by the film's director which has a clear and distinct stamp on the final motion of the piece.

The opening alone is art of the highest calibre. Ryan Gosling's silent Driver simply does exactly that, he drives; but it's the way he drives that so captivates and ultimately enthralls our eyes into a frenzy of sheer wonder. Gosling is so fluent in his execution, so unfazed by any aspect of his role that he's instantly believable and so, we cling to his now legendary white jacket. We cling and we never let go; we never want to let go. Director Nicolas Winding Refn not only creates this longing, but amplifies it and uses it to great effect, forever tugging on our loyalty to Gosling's Driver, forever reminding us of how unimaginably cool and composed he is, and in doing so creates one of the greatest and most memorable characters of all time.

Despite being possibly generic in some views, the plot allows room for Refn to truly showcase his uncanny ability to amaze. The story ticks by casually, merely a vehicle to expand The Driver, to test him, to watch him, but always offers plenty of meat for both the cast, the crew and the viewer to chew on. Shocking acts of brutal violence are also sewn into the lining of the tale, but only surface when necessary and only extend to realistic effect, never once do we see Refn get carried away, he's calm and composed just like his star. It is this composure which helps to highlight his true talent as a director. The movie could have been taken in a number of different directions, mostly ending up horrifically uniform and too Hollywood to fully swallow. Instead Refn veers off down a radically different turning adopting heavily tinted night-shots, pumping 80's electronica and hot-pink titling. It is here where 'Drive' finds its true originality, its place amongst the other car-related features; it's an art-house character- driven crime thriller, and never tries to be anything more, or anything less.

Although Gosling steals the show, strong and memorable support is handed by the sweetly innocent Carey Mulligan who, despite her lack of input, matches her co-star's innate ability to capture the viewer's attention with a simple eye flicker or facial movement. Long, lingering shots of the two simply gazing into each other's eyes, devoid of dialogue or movement, stand out as a mark of their excellency; never once are we bored, our eyes forever transfixed on every muscle, waiting and demanding movement and so so grateful when it finally comes. Bryan Cranston, Christina Hendricks and Ron Perlman all make able and gracious performances, not a foot out of place but far from the same league as the lead.

The most fragrant feature of Refn's 'Drive' is however, the very existence of The Driver. Even if he's just simply sitting and staring vacantly out of a muddied windshield, he is demanding your vision and your thoughts; and he always gets what he wants. It is only within the several moments of sheer terror brought upon by the fantastically sickening sound work that we get a real glimpse at the fearless fiend that lies beneath Gosling's pretty-boy exterior. These moments are the ones that truly allow the multi-layered Driver to show most of himself, to show his hidden vulnerability as the beast takes over. Although revolting to some, the violent and frenzied action sequences are hereby necessary and present an unmistakable path to truly absorbing The Driver as a character.

Ultimately, 'Drive' is possibly the most originally approached and awe-inspiring collection of celluloid to reach screens this year, and due to one of the most finely tuned and thoughtful performances ever captured (by Ryan Gosling, of course), it will no doubt sit unbelievably high on the list of films considered to be the greatest of all time. Nicolas Winding Refn has created something truly beautiful, packed with nerve-wrecking tension, shocking brutality and simple artistic passion; 'Drive' is in many ways a masterpiece, and solid proof that driving doesn't have to be exploited to be enjoyed

With British horror now returning to the peak it previously reached so many years ago at the height of the Hammer Horror fame, it's slowly but surely become one of the freshest genres around. With such original titles as 'Severance', 'Eden Lake' and most notably 'The Descent' gracing our screens with their deeply chilling presence as of late, all eyes have been transfixed on Film4's Frightfest, Britain's leading horror-based film festival, for the latest slice of truly horrifying cinema. As this year's closing night film, 'A Lonely Place to Die' found itself walking in the footsteps of some true hidden gems, but could it live up to expectations?

As the brainchild of previously uncelebrated brothers Julian and Will Gilbey, 'A Lonely Place to Die' will most likely not register on many people's radars. The untraditional location and lack of star power will mean many shall overlook it's existence, but hidden behind the shoestring budget, the relatively unknown cast and the oddly basic sounding plot lies a deeply disturbing and involving thriller with little use of exhausted clichés and an unbelievably unpredictable narrative.

Despite a rather breezy but nail-biting opening, the Gilbey brothers hold off on the majority of the shocks until at least half-way in, allowing the basic emotional structure and tone of the picture to fully take hold first. A rather basic introduction is rather quickly washed over, the dialogue clunky but acceptable and the mood settling nicely. However, when the script does begin to take off and lives are lost in the blink of an eye, the film truly kicks it into overdrive. What the Gilbeys to do so well is to capture the shock of loss. The sickeningly fast pace of death and how quickly it can creep up on you. It is here where they truly reach their winning stride, a solid 30 minutes of the movie bang in the middle providing incredibly alarming and startling fresh thrills literally appearing as if out of no where. One second the mood is calm then a second later, another life lost. Doubtlessly marvellous.

Veteran-horror-chick Melissa George leads the pack of otherwise unnoticeable climbers, assassins and lost little girls, her performance both solid and believable but never once bordering on the outstanding. Her fellow cast members too tow the line ably but none particularly shine, their characters becoming nothing more than nicknames, but likable nicknames at that. It is more the presence of certain characters than the characters themselves that begin to command the scares, one powerfully-stomached assassin becoming almost an unstoppable force and a true sense of fear within the viewer's mind.

Following the rather intense and erratically unforeseeable events of the second act, the plot begins to flesh itself out a tad, unfortunately losing much of the suspense and fear that so dominated the previous section. Much more of the Gilbeys' obvious dialogue and sudden character appearances are thrown in in an attempt to fuel some rather strange and disconcerting explanations, forcing the thumping pace back down to a general saunter, sadly wrecking the previously unpredictable tone.

When the finale does eventually come however, it thankfully manages to mimic the truly demented tone of the second act at least partially, creating a nail-biting yet slightly foreseeable conclusion. Although it might not be the painfully dark and sinister climax many may hope for, it's certainly a fitting end to a surprisingly thrilling and incredibly shocking piece of British cinema.

Although filled with pointless landscaping shots (which remain beautiful for all of a minute) and shamefully poor dialogue, 'A Lonely Place to Die' succeeds in creating an astoundingly rickety and worrying tone in which no character's safety is guaranteed, leaving you both unsettled and gasping for more. It's far from perfect, but exists as a wonderfully disconcerting experience, earning itself a place amongst the other hidden gems of the British horror market; 'A Lonely Place to Die' demands and deserves your attention.

Since the late 1980's, British cinema has drifted in and out of mainstream success, most notably (and most recently) the groundbreaking accomplishment of Edgar Wright's 'Shaun of the Dead'. It's well toned blend of British humour and clever parody noted it as an audience favourite on both sides of the Atlantic, planting it's stars Simon Pegg and Nick Frost firmly in the limelight. All eyes then turned to the talented threesome of Wright, Pegg and Frost as they set up part 2 of the now aptly named "Blood and Ice-Cream Trilogy", a buddy cop-comedy entitled 'Hot Fuzz'. Another runaway hit, the 3 are yet to come out with the third and with Hollywood knocking who knows what will happen. In the meantime though, Team Shaun have been behind several new projects, the first being this very film, 'Attack the Block', directed by Wright's writing partner and star of BBC Radio, Joe Cornish and featuring Nick Frost himself; Cornish's ambitious debut has been surrounded with plenty of hype following the 2011 SXSW festival with many hailing it as the new 'Shaun of the Dead'. But are they right to jump to such vivid conclusions?

As the cinematic debut of a lowly British radio-host, 'Attack the Block' appears on paper, to be the most ambitious yet. Featuring large and violently creepy alien breeds, an inexperienced inner-city cast and an entirely new "street" language, Cornish certainly had his work set out for him and with a budget of roughly £8 million, he did startlingly well. Although heavily British in its setting and characters, the film looks no different to any other Hollywood blockbuster, the tone replicating that of a much higher-budgeted picture perfectly, allowing maximum enjoyment from such basic effects. Cornish's simplistic touch to both the scripting and the pace of the film work beautifully, never slowing down to explain the origins of the increasingly menacing and uniquely dark alien creatures. It is through this that Cornish builds the biggest and most vital bridge of all, a link between the audience and the central characters, the "youth" gang.

By beginning his feature with the fragrantly intimidating group mugging an innocent woman, Cornish doesn't make it easy to immediately love his subjects, but by putting us directly in their shoes throughout the entire ordeal, from first landing to the final fight, we build a close and almost personal bond with these troublesome boys and begin to see them as real human beings, not hooded cloaks of death as the British media would have you believe. By doing this, connecting his audience with his cast, Cornish makes the entire picture a lot deeper than any of us ever expected it to be; you begin to care for these boys, you invest your energy in hoping for their survival.

Having said this, the pace of the movie moves so quickly and brutally, with Cornish desperate to tell his tale in less than 90 minutes, that when certain "homies" are strategically picked off, we have no time to dwell on their lost souls, and the boys have very little or no time at all to grieve their dead friends. Partner this with the under-use of some of the film's best talent (most notably Nick Frost) and we have ourselves a huge gaping hole of opportunity left shamefully blank.

As far as inexperienced casts go, this is easily one of the best however, the majority of the leads finding their place amongst the group quickly and surely with only a few stragglers not towing the line as well as they could. John Boyega adds terrific layers to his mysterious Moses, the gang's silent leader, Alex Esmail peppers the creeping terror with well-time humour and Jodie Whittaker is fantastic as the believably concerned young nurse who seeks security in her previous muggers. Despite certain unmentionables drifting a little too close to home with some rather unhinged performances, the casting is to be highly praised, the true spirit of the film captured within the believability of the cast.

Certainly far from being the new 'Shaun of the Dead', 'Attack the Block' is a fresh and considerate take on the Brit-buster. Evenly paced, mostly well acted and with some smart and sassy dialogue along the way, as a piece of entertaining science fiction, 'Attack the Block' passes with flying colours. Just don't expect for it to remain etched in your memory for long, the rather abrupt conclusion stealing away the dying seconds. Expect no brilliance, just good fun, Cornish's energetically contemporary debut is a sure fire hit amongst the teenager generation this side of the pond, but large chunks will surely be lost in translation.

The best it is not, but 'Attack the Block' still manages to be fun and frothy without dwelling too much on unimportant aspects of its genesis. Think of it as a polite reminder of the kindness of the human condition, through the medium of alien invasion.

On 2nd April 2002, a 50 page script (originally written as a short) born from the creatively messed up mind of James Gunn flourished into the world. Entitled 'SUPER' (deliberately all in capitals) the film was destined to be a personal homage to the early comic-books Gunn had grown up with as a child, combined with the sincerely twisted Troma films he had worked on whilst first touching down in the movie business. What remains today, 8 years later, is both a darkly sarcastic tale of personal justice, and a horrifically funny look at the every-man, melting together to form a rather obscure and perversely convoluted masterpiece of independent cinema.

Destined to be likened to the recent features of late such as Matthew Vaughn's 'Kick-Ass', 'SUPER' stands alone, successful in its conquest to both alienate the viewer, and twist their perceptions of justice and doing the right thing. Whereas 'Kick-Ass' longed to be gritty and satanic in its approach, it only appeared so through the hazy goggles of Hollywood, never fully commanding the realistic ambiance that sits so gracefully at the centre of 'SUPER'. Gunn's unique and devoutly crooked approach is so confident and gracious in its presentation, every-shot though tremendously rough, settles calmly into the film, reflecting Darbo's genuine feelings that he's not actually doing anything wrong. The film, although simple in its set-up, truly digs in under the skin of what is right and wrong and who decides, toying with religion and depression and other serious affairs along the way; whilst also juggling sociopathic violent outbursts and superbly perverted comedy.

Although fantastically scripted, the heart of 'SUPER' belongs to the frankly outstanding cast. Rainn Wilson's astounding central performance as mopey Frank and his demented alter-ego frantically shakes the viewer throughout, tearing the words directly from the page with emotional and personal flair, allowing him to be both despondently bitter and broken, as well as painfully hilarious at exactly the same time. Strong support is held up by Kevin Bacon's "interesting" villain Jacques, as suavely bold and sophisticated as modern drug dealers come, with his team of bumbling accomplices making troublingly comic targets. Liv Tyler drifts sweetly and innocently into the backdrop of Frank's crusade as his angelic wife Sarah, but the show-stealing Ellen Page dives straight in front as the sadistically adorable Libby, later becoming Darbo's sidekick Boltie. Her fearlessly pushy and exaggerated enthusiasm for bloody violence is both utterly hysterical and painfully sinister, although never drifting to the dark-side of the audience's perception, despite her adversely psychotic attacks on "crime". Even the cameos from the likes of 'Slither' star Nathan Fillion (among others) are marvellously acted and well placed, providing constant hilarity for Gunn fans and others alike.

Due to the tiny budget (roughly $2 million) and limited shooting schedule, visually 'SUPER' can be noticed to be rather dim in places, luckily salvaged by the hauntingly humorous use of onomatopoeic graphics (Bam, Boom, Splat, etc.) and truly fragrant soundtrack, in particular Tyler Bates' chirpy yet thoughtful scoring.

Viciously funny, sadistically adorable and hilariously heart-felt, 'SUPER' is bound to be one of the most original, unique and darkly comic films you will ever have the privilege to lay eyes on. It won't be to everybody's taste, some welcoming the extreme violence and sickening comedy, others not, but it will certainly open up your mind to look beyond the face value of justice and is sure to blur your perceptions of right and wrong beyond recognition.

What exists beyond the colourful spandex and bloody smears is a truly heart-wrenching and unpredictably grim portrait of the 21st century peppered with love and laughter, making 'SUPER' the most beautifully honest and ambitiously passionate vigilante tale to ever grace the eyes of the public. Treat it with care and a thoughtful mind, this is not your average gore- fest, 'SUPER' is an engrossingly real and overlooked gem, so original yet commemorative in its approach. Rubbing shoulders with the heavy-weight blockbusters of 2011 won't allow it to fare well financially, but 'SUPER' is a fresh and poignant escape from the dark depths of the Hollywood explosion-fest and should be endured by all those who seek excellent filmmaking. Shut up, crime!

In late 2008, the rumour mills were clogged with tales of the retirement of world renowned star and critics' favourite Joaquin Phoenix. The news was made even more bizarre by his announcement that he would be "focusing on his music" and that his brother-in-law, the rather gifted Casey Affleck, would be documenting it all on camera. In the February of 2009, Phoenix appeared on 'The Late Show With David Letterman' to much attention from the press. His clearly vacant attitude and unshaven appearance lead to a media uproar, commanding the airwaves, all claiming that the once-pure and outstanding actor had completely lost the plot. The heavily publicised product of Phoenix's madness entitled 'I'm Still Here' premiered at the Venice Film Festival in September of 2010 to much upheaval and confusion. A month later, Casey Affleck announced that it was indeed an elaborate hoax.

The 'mockumentary' itself is a very ambitious and unique piece of filmmaking, completely unexpected and mistakenly arty. During it's early moments as we're introduced to the new Joaquin, constantly referred to as "JP" by his friends and assistants, it's clear that either Phoenix has completely lost the plot, or it is indeed a hoax. His bizarre lunacy is so un- diluted within the fabric of the "story" that it becomes very clear, very suddenly that Phoenix and Affleck are definitely having us on; making me truly wonder how such a film could confuse and irritate so many wondering viewers as to its truth. As time ticks by and JP has partied with hookers and pestered Sean 'P-Diddy' Combs to produce his album, Phoenix slowly begins to relax and shift into the character of JP much more believably, finally grasping his alternate-self firmly by the beard, an action which produces some rather humorous scenes.

There are however, plenty of unnecessary and disgusting parts thrown in for what looks like no good reason at all, peppering the drama with random clips of full-frontal nudity (mostly male) and even a scene in which JP's "oldest friend" attempts to defecate on his face whilst asleep. It's these avoidably silly and senseless sections which ruin the more touching and complacent elements and steer the burning-wreckage of Phoenix's career straight towards the cliff's edge, making the film more of a joke than a portrait.

When firmly placed in the second half of the feature, Phoenix moves best, silently tripping through the Letterman interview with carefully designed, but well-played awkwardness and bolting from the premiere of his "final" movie 'Two Lovers' only to commit to his feelings that he has generally made a hug mistake. It is this very moment, as Phoenix lies an emotional foetal wreck in a horde of overgrowing nettles and weeds that is the most truthful and touching. His flamboyant hysterics suddenly begin to register as genuine emotion, brushing aside the mockumentary for a single scene to suddenly reveal the broken life of a troubled star, hinting at a brief glimpse of what this picture could have been. The end is brought forth with perfect timing, bringing the almost tiresome charade to a well-thought-out conclusion, only to remove any questions of reality with a rather lazy set of credits, revealing the use of actors in key roles (such as Joaquin's father being briefly portrayed by Casey Affleck's own father).

Overall, 'I'm Still Here' first existed as a clever idea, twisting itself into a demonically ballsy film which simply carries too much weight to be believable. It's ambitiously fresh and certainly deserves your time, but falls far short of the rather distorted message Phoenix and Affleck originally wished to convey. The events shown will certainly be remembered, but the film will most likely not. However, Phoenix alone must be praised for his daringly thoughtful performance, his most complex role yet, carefully treading the thin line between self-parody and self-fulfilment almost flawlessly.

Teenage angst is a theme covered by many and conquered by none within the cinematic landscape of the 21st century. Modern teenage "romances" exist only as pixelated words darting between computers and phones and never as emotional connections between human beings, their brief lives just a fleeting memory to the tortured souls of the two in question. So when a modern film comes forth, fronting a hauntingly real take on life co-existing with romance, many would usually run a mile. This is why Submarine is so unique and un- flinching in its presentation, it was made not to dictate but to reminisce, to inspire, to harness belief.

As previously said, this is not a romance film, nor is it a love story, it's a charming tale of a young boy's brush with its radiant thorns and the repercussions it has within his mentally aged mind. A charming tale brought to life by former sitcom-star Richard Ayoade, an unexpected triumph both on paper and behind the camera. His light-yet-real approach to Joe Dunthorne's novel is simply majestic to watch, his artful touches shining through the lens and his playful British humour echoing through the words.

It is both the fantastic performances and Dunthorne's sweet, sincere characters that the film rests upon, like an unmovable block of unbroken laughter, dramatically and comedically they are perfect. Craig Roberts' portrayal of the odd and pretentious teen Oliver Tate will surely never melt the hearts of the audience (his creepy involvement with his parents' relationship giving him eerie edge) but will capture their thoughts in a state of nostalgia and inspiration. His heartfelt voice-overs fill the picture with truth and his exaggerated weirdness is a sign of humanity and in-difference among the many, highlighting his alienation and truly bringing him into the centre of the entire story, allowing him to never be over-taken by Sally Hawkins' emotionally forgiving mother or Paddy Considine's deluded dancer.

There are no heroes within the piece, but a horde of under-appreciated and rarely recognised talent that fit so beautifully together like an artfully complacent jigsaw. Dunthorne's material is so firmly polished and his characters so lovably believable and Ayoade's distinct, artistic style (although owing to the likes of Mike Nichols and Woody Allen, as well as the French new-wave scene) is a giant leap into cinematic originality. He truly has created something wonderful.

Submarine is a unique and telling tale of teenage life, possibly the most truthful ever filmed, and Ayoade's fitting involvement allows it to be carefully broadcast into the minds of the many, un-spoilt and emotionally aware in its presentation. It's appeal will spread from similarly precocious teenagers to nostalgic seniors thanks to the not-to-distant-past setting, yanking away the technological nightmares that lay within modern romance and leaving behind the bare-bones of true life with love.

In short, it's a triumphantly humorous and truthful take on young life with artful touches and is the best, most honest British film for a long, long time.

TRON: Legacy

In 1982, Jeff Bridges starred in a special-effects heavy sci-fi thriller called 'TRON', a movie which changed the way audiences looked at Computer Generated Effects, pretty much creating the 'tent-pole movie'. Now, 28 years on, Disney are back with the long-awaited sequel, 'TRON: Legacy', a movie which, visually, does exactly as its predecessor did all those years ago.

To start, the director of this movie, Joseph Kosinski, is void of a resumé, and the film's star, Garrett Hedlund is also very inexperienced in the business meaning it was almost plagued from day one. And on an estimated budget of $300,000,000, it's not like they didn't have the cash to splash. Jeff Bridges returns, thankfully, putting in an aged turn as Kevin Flynn, the creator of TRON and The Grid (the fictional game where the movie takes place). Most of the budget was obviously spent on the stunning visuals and set-pieces, but it does make you wonder how such an in-experienced director such as Kosinski can nab such a high-profile job?

The movie itself is a mirage of epileptic light shows and poundingly brilliant techno-music (contributed by Daft Punk) feeding from an, at times, hilariously bad and cheesy script. Former 'Lost' scribes, Edward Kitsis and Adam Horowitz provide the pretty much blank pages of groundbreaking action sequences. It's almost like the two sat, worked up a basic plot then gave the script to a monkey to write. The dialogue is clunky and generic, but does move the story on nicely and Jeff Bridges and Michael Sheen in particular especially milk their roles. Olivia Wilde (in one of the first of her many Hollywood appearances in the coming year) is above-average but nothing special, providing no link with the audience and no genuine sex- appeal.

The thing that steals the film overall, and its U.S.P. is the connection between the game and the Earth, how a video-game can be as unstable as our cruel world (the films villain 'Clu', a digital clone of Jeff Bridge's Kevin Flynn, is strangely similar to Hitler). It's this metaphor which is most important to the underlying structure of the movie, but is sadly barely used. Kosinski instead decides to present the movie in the classic blockbuster style, blowing stuffing up and keeping dialogue short and sweet, which luckily works for this picture. The special effects are so ground-breaking and amazing they truly steal the show and although the action sequences are sometimes elongated and frightfully similar, they always serve a purpose. I also highly recommend seeing the movie in full 3D, as it is supposed to be seen. The biggest screen possible too, as the fact that the movie was mostly shot in 3D and for IMAX really helps amplify the terrific score and brain-busting CGI. However, a small note, whoever's idea it was to digitally age Jeff Bridges to create a younger-version of him should be shot, it almost single-handedly ruined the otherwise flawless visuals.

Overall, the film fulfils it's wishes to entertain, but is held back from doing anything more by the lame dialogue and undeniably awful choice of lead actor. The visuals are truly stunning and the use of 3D is justified and tremendously approached. It is, visually, one of the films of the year, but overall just a well thought-out and (mostly) poorly acted blockbuster. If you're up for a technically amazing light-show that will really knock you off your feet this Christmas then definitely buy a ticket, otherwise don't even wait for the DVD, it won't be worth it.

7/10

In 1990 a young inexperienced Quentin Tarantino set out to make a dent in the movie- business. The year before he had sat and watched in tears as the majority of his debut feature entitled 'My Best-Friend's Birthday' went up in smoke (quite literally, an editing fire). A broken man, Tarantino was destined to learn from his mistakes and so, he set out to make a movie people would talk about. 'Natural Born Killers' was scripted and after a failed attempt to shoot the movie himself (on a lean budget of $500,000), Tarantino gave up and instead opted to make a more realistic first feature, which eventually became the cult-classic 'Reservoir Dogs'. As for his 'Natural Born Killers' script, Tarantino optioned it with a studio and used the cash to help fund his movie.

In 1993, Oliver Stone set upon said script with the intention of making a movie which was easier to shoot than his previous effort 'Heaven & Earth'. Stone set to work re-working Tarantino's original script with his two friends and what came out of that exists today as his blood-soaked epiphany 'Natural Born Killers', easily Stone's most controversial work.

The final product is a gross, butchered version of the original script (available in most good book-stores as a published book) leaving little resemblance to the intentional crime piece Tarantino had wished it to be. Whereas the original script focused heavily on the character of Wayne Gayle and the media-coverage of the murderous rampage by Mickey and Mallory Knox (in an obvious attempt to liberate Tarantino's feelings towards murder in the media) Stone instead focused on the psychotic duo at the heart of the story. He mixes in text-book filming with film-school style 16mm shots and random nature footage, weaving together an obsessively broken tale. The cuts are so frantic and ridiculously placed, it is difficult to find meaning within them and ends up wounding a possibly brilliant movie.

The tale of Mickey and Mallory Knox, two star-crossed lovers hell-bent on the destruction of man-kind is almost justified by Stone with his, at times, sensitive direction. His presentation of the law is hideously twisted, forcing them into the villain's seat and pushing Mickey and Mallory forward as the anti-heroes. He almost justifies their wrong-doing by emphasising Mallory's painful past and writing in lines detailing their obvious dis-regard for the modern world.

The performances are mostly, much like the editing style, frantic and un-called for, with the few exceptions being Woody Harrelson and Juliette Lewis in the two lead roles. Tommy Lee- Jones' possibly superb turn as a prison warden is sliced down by idiotic scripting and painfully O.T.T. direction and Robert Downey JR.'s early role as journalist Wayne Gayle is butchered by a horrifically camp and silly Australian accent. Harrelson is the true star however, sitting atop a mound of ambitious, talentless half-wits all attempting to make their mark, instead overstepping their boundaries and vomiting unidentifiable garbage onto the screen. It is he and only he who presents his psychotic counter-part with the wisdom and thought he deserved, playing him as a calm and reasonably well-mannered psychopath but with enough menace and fear to make the character truly unlikeable. I feel the other performances could have definitely matched up to this, had they been reading from the original script.

Overall I believe Oliver Stone's 'Natural Born Killers' is, on its own, a decent re-working of a common crime tale. However, the frantic cuts and pointless exploitation of useless footage does not work and mostly just fractures the possibly-great movie. The film waits a good hour before truly hitting its stride and even then has its moments of unbearable pretentiousness. Personally, I believe Quentin Tarantino's initial script would have worked much better than Stone's and really would have given this gruesomely controversial story of love and death the movie it deserved. Sadly, this is not the case and so we can only look back at would could have been and hope that one day, Tarantino decides to dig out his old scribblings and give it another go. I doubt that will ever happen (he said himself that it is no longer his movie to mess with) but we can live and hope.

7/10

Following a modernised remake of a horror classic is never easy, so it begs the question why Rob Zombie even bothered. His re-imagining of the brutal tale of Michael Myers was passable at most, at least featuring some mildly horrifying imagery. The sequel however, 'H2' is nothing of the sorts, with no story to feed off of resulting in a symposium of hysterical nothingness.

Scout Taylor-Compton's performance in the first movie was arguably decent, her portrayal of 'scream-queen' Lori Strode was never going to beat Jamie Lee-Curtis but she at least took well to the part, making a convincing high-school sweetheart. Her performance in the sequel is truly awful though, partly due to the bare-bones script and absent dialogue. Any interactions she has with anybody, alive or dead, always results in a monotonous spew of unidentifiable garbage, either laughing or crying so hard its impossible to make out a single word. She does indeed scream a lot however, something which gradually becomes incredibly irritating, never registering as genuine terror and instead like it is forced. Her hollow character allows no real connection and the difference in life-style separates her being from her previous self, meaning even if you have sat through the first movie, there's still no chance you'll feel even the least bit sorry for her. The other characters too are dull and annoying, and are barely featured at all, used as merely pawns by Zombie to give his crazed killer something to slay meaning there is no space for the young Miss Strode to grow, giving her character no depth at all. The inclusion of Dr. Loomis also feels like a joke, his character almost completely flipped from the caring and incestuous psychologist we know from the original. McDowell's display of torturous stereotyping is almost insulting and the character's lack of impact on the story as a whole truly makes you wonder what the point of his screen time is.

A large proportion of what made the first film decent was the back-story to Michael Myers, and his portrayal by the young Daeg Faerch who was truly excellent. However, due to growing issues, Faerch was not cast in the sequel, a problem easily fixed by cutting out his part, I mean, we know the back-story, no need for more of young Michael is there? Wrong, well in Rob Zombie's mind anyway. He forces in Chase Vanek, an untalented and inexperienced child to take his place (who also looks nothing like Faerch's Myers) into a part which is not needed and generally gets in the way. The presence of the Young Michael and his rather odd looking mother (in Gothic white) merely adds screen-time and confuses the rather dim-witted viewer-ship. Zombie clearly has no idea of how to approach a sequel, and in this case, attempts to force his slasher movie into a spiritually complex psycho-thriller which it clearly is not. Michael Myers is far from human (even if it is his physical form) and it is clear from footage present in both this film and it's predecessor (he eats a dog's intestines) so by attempting to give him human emotions, Zombie over-steps the boundary, which wouldn't be so bad if he'd done it right. Instead he constantly slices in random thought bubbles between the mindless slayings resulting in absolutely no enlightenment what so ever, and instead just complicates things.

When the slayings do occur however, and they are rather frequent, they are brutally horrific, even more so than the first. The use of sound must be praised and a few instances of Myers' appearance from thin-air mixes in a some occurrences of genuine terror. However, it is this which is the movie's eventual downfall, as every-time Myers appears on the screen he just suddenly jumps out of a hidden crevice, making the movie devoid of tension and extremely predictable after a mere 15-20 minutes of viewing. As horror movies go, this is a lame excuse for a slasher flick as it attempts to be something it really isn't. The Halloween series is a beloved vessel of dark slayings and although there are plenty within this one, Rob Zombie mis-uses the legendary back-story and the characters known by all, creating a disastrously sickening gore-fest which is neither horrifying nor funny or anything other than terrible.

Full of in-consistences, H2 is a cruel attempt at shaping the franchise into something it truly isn't, which is anything but a high-profile slasher flick. Sit back and wait for a hurried and blood-soaked sequel to keep the cash rolling in for the doomed rock-star Zombie, as with this tripe under his belt, he won't be doing anything else any time soon.

2.5/10

Gangs of New York is a movie felt by many to be a turn in the career of legendary filmmaker Martin Scorsese. It's dark and threatening tone paints a glum portrait of 19th century New York, drawing forth a pre-emptive revenge tale at the heart of the broken city.

Leonardo DiCaprio generates a career changing performance as Amsterdam, a distraught Irish orphan, plagued by the loss of his war-lord father (Liam Neeson) at the hands of the truly menacing William Cutting, or known by his 'street' alias, "Bill the Butcher" (an unforgettable Daniel Day-Lewis in his most iconic role). It is of course Day-Lewis who truly steals the show, ripping the shards of emotional drama from under the squelching shoes of an older, maturer DiCaprio than seen previously. This outing, boiling the former child-actor in bloodied fury, forcing his supposed unsalvageable career into a whole new league of adult- orientated entertainment.

Scorsese slices open the heart of American history, heaving its nasty past onto the screen in all its glory for all to see, unflinching in his presentation. The opening scene alone is a shower of gore and uncensored warfare, setting up the generic tale of "keep your friends close but your enemies closer" which takes place 16 years later. Having watched his father butchered by the leader of the gang known as the "Natives", a now older, tougher Amsterdam forces himself into the hands of controlling mob-boss Cutting who playfully jests with the vengeful soul. At 160 minutes, the film twists this story with inserts detailing the corruption and hardships of post-modern America, with focus particularly on the Civil War. This is Scorsese's unfortunate downfall, forcing an unrelated history lesson down the throats of the viewer when what he really should be doing is featuring more of the demented villain in all his unrelenting power. From the first glimpse of his curled moustache, William Cutting is an instant bad-ass, his menacing grace projected into the thoughts of the viewers at all times, his looming spirit ever-present. He is the true saviour of this, at times, sour tale of generic redemption.

By the time the Third Act final rolls in, boredom has spread and Scorsese's raw desire to leave nothing out becomes a hideous nuisance. So it was truthfully very wise for the master to leave the best for last. The final part of the film ditches the previous tripe at the road side, striking up a new angle on the tale of revenge (which frankly, he should have used from the start and made the movie an hour shorter) and fronting the finale with a war to end all wars. It is here when the film truly hits its stride, shamefully a mere 40 minutes before the end leaving this writer questioning the story-boarding skills of one Jay Cocks. An epic closure to the tale does however ensue, although the final battle more anti-climactic than expected, the departure of one character disappointingly average.

Overall, Scorsese's bloodied mirage of a forgotten New York City is an intense but emotionally forgettable experience. Overly long and full of tiresome historical pieces, the film lacks the gruelling and torturous finale it deserved and presented too many careless loose ends (Cameron Diaz becoming a non-essential lump of furniture within the tale). By no means a masterpiece but still a fantastic turn for the legendary director and a career-high for both Day-Lewis and DiCaprio, even if they did lack the powerful, crazed scenes which were hinted at several times throughout the script. The un-forgiving violence never lets up, providing a truthful take on an unknown story, pushing forth an original picture. Don't be fooled by the awards binge, this is no Oscar worthy delight, but an easily watchable and gruesomely memorable thriller.

8/10

Saying 'Bug' is one of the weirdest movies I've seen in a while would be accrediting it with something, which it really doesn't deserve. It's a very pointless movie, a very lazy movie with literally no point and very few enjoyable features. It feels as if the writer wanted us, the audience, to think about the meaning and the events which un-fold in front of us, but there's generally nothing to think about.

The plot revolves around a rather unlike-able divorcée, played by Ashley Judd, and her experiences with her violent ex and her new friend, an ex-soldier named Peter (played by Michael Shannon). The two leads interact well at first, playing it awkward and gingerly progressing each conversation until it reaches something significant about one or t'other's past, thus progressing our idea of the characters as well. Unfortunately, this 'honey-moon period' lasts all of about half an hour and the film instantly switches, curving in on itself into a very odd and quite disturbing, psychological drama. The supporting cast of roughly 2, is very weak, leaving absolutely nothing left for any of the plot to lean on and it really shows. Within seconds of it's change of pace, the characters are completely different, their dialogue, body-language, interactions with each other, all off.

The movies title, 'Bug' comes from what begins in the 2nd Act and is the dominant story of the entire charade. This being the revelation from Michael Shannon that Ashley Judd's apartment is infested with tiny bugs. But are the bugs really there? Or is he insane? Is he who he says he is? Is she? Do I care? No. I really don't. I have no desire to figure any of this out. Michael Shannon's well-built character transforms into a moronic creature as it ditches all hope, struggling to drag itself into the very motionless, dimly lit Third Act. It's here where the movie really becomes unbearable, the entire cast knocking it into overdrive, confusing insanity with ridiculous over-acting. Ashley Judd in particular becomes unwatchable, pretty much screaming her lines monotonously at a dishevelled Shannon, who, surprisingly, actually gets better as the film gets worse.

It's difficult to comment on the end without revealing too much, but I can say one thing. Although it is not particularly climactic, the way in which it is approached saps any life or drama away from the conclusion and generally leaves you feeling like you've just been pushed to the floor and stamped on for an hour and a half. William Friedkin appears to have put more thought into how to eat a plum then make an effective head-scratcher, which is what this movie so wanted to be.

'Bug' falls down in almost every department, the few slithers of hope coming from Mr Shannon's crazed manic performance in the final scenes and the peculiar, yet strangely absorbing choice of lighting for the dying moments. However, overall this is generally a pretty terrible movie. Long, drawn out and pointless chunks of dialogue are twisted into longer, even more drawn out and even more pointless conversations between two characters. At times (in particular, the end) it becomes difficult to actually realise that what you're watching was considered good enough to be caught on film. One engagement in particular is just Ashley Judd screaming nonsense at her co-star, churning the lines and lines of utter crap round and round in circles, getting no-where.

Stay away from this mess of a picture at all costs. It really doesn't deserve your dime, and even if you have the chance to watch it for free, it doesn't deserve your time. You might as well skip to the end and laugh as Michael Shannon screeches with madness, you'll be in exactly the same place you would be if you had watched the rest of the movie anyway.

3/10

Made on a budget of $15,000, Monsters is a prime example of Guerilla-style film making. Shot with 2 actors, 2 crew members (Director/camera-man and the sound-guy) and 2 cameras, with all the special-effects done on Adobe software which anyone can pick up for a few hundred pounds/dollars, I just had to see this movie to see how it turned out and boy was I surprised. To anyone un-knowing of the shoe-string budget, you'd believe it was at least a few million.

Monsters is a truly great movie, but NOT an alien/monster movie. It's a road movie, a study of 2 lost souls entwining whilst journeying through harsh terrain with some giant creatures thrown in. Sure the title may be a little mis-leading, but if you expect nothing, you will be pleasantly surprised. The two actors work insanely well together, their real-life chemistry showing (the 2 married shortly after filming wrapped) and this leads the centre of the movie to be about these two lost and wondering souls caught together for a matter of days on a beautifully dangerous journey. It captures their longing emotion brilliantly, their trapped moods finally set free.

To conclude, Monsters is an under-appreciated treat, watch with ease and a watchful eye and don't expect action or giant monster battles. It's more an observation of life than an action piece.

Most people overlook this brutal masterpiece based on the torture element of the plot which is a big shame. Compared to the 'torture porn' movies of late, 'Hostel', or the 'Saw' franchise for example, this is nothing. What makes this movie what it is is in fact the terrific acting and the way the film has been so beautifully shot with the blue-ish/grey tint making the colour red stand out so perfectly. Although this isn't the sort of movie to watch with young children, it's not one to be afraid of either as the intense content is handled not exactly cautiously, but artistically and tastefully.

Ellen Page puts in my favourite performance of all time as Hayley Stark, and Patrick Wilson is also insanely good as Jeff the photographer. The simplicity of the setting and the sheer intensity of some of the events and the way they have been scripted go hand-in-hand to produce a movie which is not only nail-biting and in some places, shocking, but also a movie which is positively refreshing to the frankly exhausted horror/thriller genre.

To conclude, watch this movie. It's no where near as gory or sickening as most people say it is, just the setting and plot alone force most to avoid it. The sheer talent put forward by the amazing Ellen Page and Patrick Wilson and Director David Slade make this possibly the most underrated movie of all time and up there with the best. This is what modern cinema is about, because I doubt you will ever see another movie like 'Hard Candy', ever.

Having not made a feature length movie in 7 years, and with writing credits of nothing but the explicit and darkly comic television show 'Jackass', Spike Jonze would be the last person on earth anybody would pick to adapt the beloved children's book 'Where the Wild Things Are' and in places, they would be right, but overall, Mr Jonze shines.

A well known children's book such as this was always going to be made into a movie, but whereas most similar projects play it safe and dumb, 'Where the WIld Things Are' embraces the similarities between children and adults and connects the two greatly, making a movie which is not only a pleasure to watch for kids, but also brilliant for the adults who have been dragged along to see it. Do be warned however, although this is based on a children's book, considering that book was a mere 48 pages long, this movie attempts to fill in a lot of the blanks and so, there are some quite dark segments which may upset some very young children.

The movie largely takes place in the mind of young Max, played by Max Records who definitely embraces the roll greatly, putting in an inspiring performance. Max runs away from home after an argument with his mother (the great Catherine Keener) and seeks solitude in the land of the wild things. The wild things themselves can be quite startling at first, each a bloated and giant sized version of a well known animal, but these are key characters and we soon see how nice they genuinely are. The dialogue structure and chain of events is definitely made for a young audience, with few complicated terms or situations, but there are however, plenty of hidden analogies which adults can freely and easily pick up on.

The voice acting is tremendous as each of the relatively big stars (James Gandolfini, Forest Whitaker, etc) take to their characters with startling enthusiasm and we really feel at home with the wild things. Also, what's nice to see is Spike Jonze doesn't let the subject matter or the target audience hold him back, he very much does his own thing with this project and uses tints and contrasts well at different points in the story, bringing the ambitious and fantasy-driven tale to life with great enthusiasm. Jonze definitely threw his heart and soul into this movie and it shows as the finished product is not only unique in the world of children's movies, but also classifiable in the realms of more grown up and serious films too meaning this is a pleasure to watch for almost all ages.

To conclude, 'Where the Wild Things Are' is a treat for everyone and whilst satisfying it's target audience well, it will not disappoint Jonze's current followers either as it maintains the look and feel of an indie film.

8/10

To begin, I want to make it absolutely clear no matter what you read in the following article, go and see Inception.

Christopher Nolan has been polluting the airwaves for over 10 years now with fantastic movies such as 'The Dark Knight' for action fans, 'Insomnia' for fans of psychological thrillers, and 'Memento' for those who like to think about a movie, a lot. But then steps forward Inception, Nolan's true masterpiece. It's nothing less than perfect. Like a combination of all his life's work, like everything up to this point have been mere obstacles he had to manoeuvre in order to make this fantastic piece of work.

The plot is so difficult to explain that it would take an entire page just to make a dent, so lets say there's a man called Cobb (Leo DiCaprio) who steals things, he's a thief. Now lets say he can some how go into people's dreams and there thoughts. But in order to make a more engrossing and action packed story, lets say this time, he has to plant an idea. That's the very basics of what can only be described as, the most complicated, but monumentally brilliant story every created. The entire mythology Nolan has created around the dreamscape can only be compared to what other film makers did with the rules of time and space. The amazing amounts of thought and creativity that has gone into every little detail is incredible on it's own, but when you plan to make a movie based AROUND this idea, not ABOUT it, then you cross the border into pure Godliness.

The only flaw that you can possibly spot within this labyrinth of a movie is however, the characters and their complete lack of story and depth. All apart from the main character, Cobb, they share equal amounts of restricted screen time as Nolan rightfully realised that in order to harness the story's true power, you need to focus on the story itself, rather than split it off into tangents every 5 seconds. Characters such as Ellen Page's curious architecture student Ariadne and Tom Hardy's truly magnificent Eames are used merely as pawns by Nolan to tell this epic and infatuating tale of sub-conscious dreaming, and so, they receive very little to no back story what so ever, leaving us the audience to work this out for ourselves. A very ballsy but spot on move from Nolan as we do start to generate feelings for these bare-bones projections and any back stories apart from Cobb's (which is the key to the entire plot) would have crippled the excitingly fast pace of the movie.

There's barely a moment in the entire 148 minutes when something wasn't being explained or dreams weren't being explored meaning Incepion is a movie you have to keep both eyes on at all times. Miss one thing, even a little tiny explanation of a very small section of the dreamscape, and you could end up completely lost. It is because of this (the incredibly engaging plot) that when the credits roll and you are now forced the peel your eyes from the screen, the previous 148 minutes seems so real and so engaging, that the movie in itself felt like a dream. And an outstanding one at that.

Inception manages to make Nolan's previous work look like a children's cartoon as far as complexity is concerned and acting-wise, it's pretty much on the same level. DiCaprio's leading performance is a very emotionally aware and painfully focused one and Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ellen Page, Tom Hardy and Cillian Murphy all put in fantastic performances also, but the fact is, they didn't have to. Their believable acting is just another satisfying tick on the clipboard, not a requirement as the story takes over the entire audience's attention. Sure if they had been really bad it would be noticeable, but they could have portrayed their roles in a more Hollywood-style fashion and nobody would have realised. It is for this reason that I believe the actors are the hidden gem of this complicated maze of a picture.

To conclude, Inception may be the most complex and engaging films you see all year, and if you focus purely on the movie itself and don't get distracted, it should be the best too. To me, Inception is Nolan's masterpiece and serves as a much needed kick-up-the-arse to the likes of Michael Bay and Roland Emmerich. This is how you make a movie boys... start taking notes!

10/10