Reviews

With Shaun of the Dead, the Edgar Wright-Simon Pegg team created a wonderfully funny fantasy that was universally loved. The big question was, could they follow it up with another hit? And the answer is: of course they can. Hot Fuzz is extremely witty and action packed, and although it may not be quite as high as Shaun of the Dead in the realms of action-comedy, it is certainly not far off.

This time around Pegg plays Nicholas Angel, the antithesis of Shaun; a London policeman that is so good at his job it makes everyone else look bad. Because of this, his superiors decide to relocate him to the village of Sandford in Somerset. There he meets the bumbling but well-meaning Danny (Frost), and after a series of accidents, soon begins to suspect that the village is hiding something.

As always, the humour is in the writing instead of just in visual gags and, like Shaun, it is very well written. However, the buck has passed from Simon Pegg onto Nicholas Frost – this is because Angel is such a serious, straight-faced guy that the humour relies on other people to play off him, rather than let him be part of it. But Frost succeeds admirably, proving himself as a vital member of the creative trio. Danny is naïve but constantly trying to prove himself, his good nature often conflicting with Angel; he is always asking about the city life: "Have you ever fired two guns whilst jumping through the air?" he asks. "No" deadpans Angel. "Have you ever fired one gun whilst jumping through the air?" As such, Pegg has little to do other than be the butt of the jokes but, like any good buddy film, he lightens up soon enough to get back to the Pegg we all recognise.

The action scenes are well handled in the capable hands of Edgar Wright, but they do lack the sophistication of the best action films that really make you want to be there shooting the hell out of stuff along side the good guys. Also, when the action kicks in towards the end, the comedy gets sidelined, the laughter stemming from the extremes of action violence rather than the clever writing, and this makes the tone feel slightly uneven, the film unable to balance all its elements as effectively as we would hope.

Still, the reason why Hot Fuzz is so much better than most other parodies/homages is because it doesn't need to drill in any aspect of its references. Whilst it openly refers to action film such as Bad Boys II and Point Break (Danny shows these films to Angel during the film), the cleverness results in not heavy-handedly referencing its sources, instead making them a more subtle 'guess-the-movie' style of parody (notice the Tony Scott editing style during the processing of arresting youths, for example).

Some fine cameos from some of our best comedians and TV stars, along with a great pantomime performance from Timothy Dalton as the obvious bad guy, adds to the mix with great charm, and along with some great set pieces will ensure that Hot Fuzz, although not quite as creative as Shaun of the Dead, will still become one of the finest comedies of recent times.

Rated: 8/10

More reviews at: http://www.thelazylounge.net

The latest effort from Marvel and Daredevil director Mark Steven Johnson is a loud and messy film that, whilst it has some merit, has too many flaws that weigh it down. Nicholas Cage plays Johnny Storm, a stunt rider who, as a child, makes a deal with the devil (Fonda) to save his father's life. Later on in life he must uphold his end of the deal – he must become the next Ghost Rider, acting as the devil's bounty hunter to rid the world of Blackheart, the devil's son, who has just returned to take over the world.

Cage is clearly enjoying himself as the oddball Storm – laughing at chimpanzee kung-fu and drinking jelly beans from a cocktail glass is his natural way of life – as he should be given he is a life-long fan of the comic book this is based on. However, the other cast members don't quite fit in: Peter Fonda and Sam Elliott (as a graveyard caretaker who acts as a mentor to Storm) both seem to be acting in a far more serious film; Eva Mendes is obligingly cute but does nothing other than pose as background scenery as Storm's childhood girlfriend; Donal Logue provides comical side-kick responsibilities in the same way that Jon Favreau did for Daredevil; and Wes Bentley brings as much menace to the film as an Andrex puppy.

In fact, the villains are all non-threatening and highly non-entertaining. When they are on screen the film stalls, and given that Blackheart is the reason for the Ghost Rider's existence that means the film stalls too often. Blackheart just comes across as camp, whilst his potentially cool and evil henchmen merely provide more imaginative ways to die. The films best bits don't involve the villains – Ghost Rider outrunning the entire Boston police force on his flamed-out motorbike is a highlight – and when Cage gets to be cut loose the film picks up. Also on the plus side, the effect of Ghost Rider, with his flaming skull, looks amazing, and the effects of CGI flames have been pushed to a new level. Sadly though, the rest of the effects are lacking and, come the finale, are reaching into Van Helsing territory – too many effects that are not developed enough to convince. Storm's transformation in the Ghost Rider is meant to emulate the pain from An American Werewolf in London, and the first transformation does, but after that Storm changes instantly and without any effect on him; we are not given the rules that define the Ghost Rider's world, and a lack of consistency is clearly noticeable.

Designed to be simple popcorn entertainment, Ghost Rider simply isn't as much fun as it should be. It has too many elements that quite simply do not work, making it a loud noise of a film that does not belong with other Marvel films of far superior quality.

Rated: 5/10

More reviews at: http://www.thelazylounge.net

Jason Statham is fast becoming the new king of B-movie action films; the two Transporter films, Cellular, and now this, easily the best of the lot. Whereas The Transporter and its sequel were daft and tried to be serious, Crank relishes in its own preposterousness. And how could such a film actually be taken seriously? One look at the synopsis and you instinctively know that this is another popcorn flick. But it's a bloody one good at that.

Infected by a synthetic Chinese poison, awesomely named hit-man Chev Chelios must kill those responsible before the poison kills him. In order to slow the effects of the poison down, he must keep his adrenaline pumping, increasing his heart rate; slow down, and he dies. Thus begins the virtually non-stop action that keeps going right up until the end credits. Indeed, the film and its plot are intrinsically linked – just like Chelios slowing down will result in his death, the film itself would surely die if it were to slow down. We would start seeing plot holes, acting shortcomings, and start questioning all the crazy action sequences.

Then again, that's entirely the point. The film doesn't slow down, and the audience simply doesn't have the time to read into things too deeply before the film moves on and such moments are gone – and we're not supposed to question it, because that's exactly what makes the film so entertaining to watch. Switch off your brain and the chances are you'll enjoy this more than most popcorn films of recent times.

You know you are watching a popcorn flick when its protagonist spends twenty minutes running around the city in a hospital gown with a giant erection, before taunting a motorcycle cop and stealing his bike which he proceeds to ride by standing on the saddle with his arms outstretched. The lengths to which Chelios will go to keep his adrenalin pumping is where the film is at its funniest, and most inspirational. Robbing a store and clearing out all the Red Bulls, defibrillating himself, and having sex with his girlfriend in the middle of Chinatown are just some of the examples – and there are plenty more.

Jason Statham is perfect for the role of Chelios – he can certainly handle all the physical stuff the film throws at him, and he's just the right kind of person for the role, just going with it like a more 'serious' actor wouldn't. The rest of the cast are functional, but to analyse the acting and script is purely pointless. It's the action that Crank thrives on, and the fact that it embraces its ideas and does not chicken out half way through works to its credit.

First time directors Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor throw in some nifty effects and camera-work, though sometimes the editing can be a little too much. The humour is a perfect counterbalance to the brutal action, both taking the extreme route to audience pleasing. It doesn't pause to take breath, and neither will the audience. It's not long, so get the adrenaline rush while you can.

Rated: 8/10

More reviews at: http://www.thelazylounge.net

It's a bit of a catch-22 situation watching the new James Bond film. What keeps bringing us back to watch them are the combination of outlandish fantasy and a sense of comforting familiarity – the Bond films are basically the same theme with slight variations, but this is what makes them appealing. With Casino Royale the filmmakers have gone a different direction; in fact, references to Batman Begins are not too far off the mark as this new Bond, like the new Batman, is grounded in reality. What is lost is the sense of the familiarity – with the new direction comes a completely different feel for the film.

The fact that many of the old Bond-isms are gone is both good and bad. There are few gadgets here (a good thing – Bond was becoming too over-reliant on his get-out-of-any-situation gadgets) and no Moneypenny. In fact, anything that can be classed as a distraction from telling a grounded story has been cleared out. Even the glib one-liners have been toned down, though not lost – there is still a lot of laughs to be had from watching the film. The filmmakers have, perhaps, gone a little too far with it though. The absence of the Bond theme is frankly confusing, given its almost revered status amongst theme tunes. Indeed, with its emphasis on reality, Casino Royale has lost the fantasy element that, whilst ridiculous, was nonetheless ridiculously entertaining. Because of this, the film feels less like a Bond film than perhaps it should.

That said, Casino Royale is an excellent film. For all the naysayers, Daniel Craig is a brilliant lead, capturing Bond's growth from slightly naïve, arrogant and cocky new 00 agent through his descent to stone-cold killer, via heart-melted lover. His development is believable as he learns from his mistakes and, by the end of the film, has grown more like the character we already know and love. This is helped by the supporting cast who all bring to life their respective characters, but particular mention must be made to Eva Green, playing Vesper Lynd. Her chemistry with Craig is electric, the screen buzzing with energy when they are together, so that their initial power play that then turns to mutual love is a joy to watch. Without these two great actors, the film would have surely stalled.

The style of the film is also a new development for the re-energised franchise. Beginning with a black-and-white prologue where we see how Bond earns his 00 status (cleverly incorporating the moment where Bond turns and shoots towards the screen) the film is given a welcome darker atmosphere. It's also a lot more brutal than previous instalments – this Bond bleeds, and after a fight is next seen sporting bruised knuckles. Coupled with a leg-crossing torture scene makes this Bond seem less invincible than the others (after all, Bond always wins – we're just not so sure if everything will really turn out OK in this one). Another interesting angle is of the villain, Le Chiffre (played with cold menace by Mads Mikkelsen), who has as much to lose as Bond himself, thus making him both more vulnerable and more vicious. The stunts throughout are jaw dropping, especially a free running section in Madagascar, in which the comparison between the runner's skill and grace and Bond's practicality is both clever and amusing. All the stops have clearly been pulled out – the sequence at the airport could easily have been the climax to any other action film – and the result is a fast paced, if maybe a little overlong, and well conceived film; any filmmaker who can give a poker game plenty of tension must be doing something right!

Overall, this Bond film is in a different league than its predecessors. Any franchise that has been going for this long can only survive by reinvention, so in the long run this may be a good change. At the moment, Casino Royale is an excellent film, just maybe not the kind of Bond film we were expecting, though in a refreshing way (catch-22, remember?!). But in a world of films like The Bourne Identity and Mission: Impossible, Bond must grow and adapt. And he has done so with skill and style. It may not be the Bond we are used to seeing, but I get the feeling that this new Bond will not be difficult to get used to.

Rated: 8/10

More reviews at: http://www.thelazylounge.net

The latest offering from Pixar is at two different ends of the scale, as it is both a disappointment and a success. Firstly, the disappointment: Pixar has taken a well worn genre (the old dog and rookie upstart routine) and instead of breaking through the barriers that constrict the genre, they have merely allowed themselves to follow its guidelines to a tee. It has thoroughly predictable characters and plot line and, at least to start with, the character of Lightning McQueen (Owen Wilson) is annoying and cocky as hell. It's not a good start.

Yet the film still ends up being a success. Why? Well, mainly because it is Pixar – since when have they given us a bad film? – and they know how to make films that last. Cars succeeds because although it stays within its genre constrictions, it plays with them enough to stay entertained. Add in some genuinely funny jokes and the best animation and graphics yet made and it's clear why Pixar still lead the pack in the animated film stakes.

But whilst Cars is a good film, it's not quite up to Pixar's highest standards. Naturally, the animation is staggering and once again resets the bar (how many times has that phrase appeared in reviews this year?!). Yet the story telling is not as refined as you might like. For a start, at two hours long, there is some unnecessary padding that could easily be removed. Also, as mentioned, the storyline is predictable enough so that there are few surprises. This makes the film seem a little more like style over content, which is not what Pixar is about.

The voice cast are all suited to their roles – Owen Wilson does cocky young thing in his sleep, and the use of Paul Newman as grumpy ex-race car Doc Hudson is excellent. Bonnie Hunt is McQueen's love interest Sally, and does her job well, but the problem is none of them seem inspiring or inspired. They're good, and they create a comfortable atmosphere, but not a vocally thrilling one. Mater (Larry the Cable Guy) makes most of the jokes, and this adds a great deal to the otherwise straight laced story. The thrills come mostly from the visuals – the races are excellently done – and some neat touches are provided but sly alterations to real life (there are no humans in this world), such as a scene where McQueen and Mater go "tractor tipping".

The character of McQueen starts off as annoying, yet we know this is only because the more cocky he is, the greater his inevitable redemption will be. The story pans out as predicted but because of the magic of Pixar it remains thrilling throughout. So, by Pixar's standard, Cars is (hopefully) a minor glitch in their otherwise outstanding record. By the standards of the rest of the CGI films we have been given recently, it still stands at the top of the pile.

Rated: 7.5/10

More reviews at: http://www.thelazylounge.net

Writer Guillermo Arriaga likes non-linear stories. He wrote the excellent Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada, 21 Grams and Amores Perros, and now comes Babel, in his forth collaboration with director Alejandro González Iñárritu. Babel is the weakest of the aforementioned films, though not without its merits, and although it encompasses grand themes it can't quite keep up with itself, making the film feel forced and disjointed to the point of distraction.

Babel tells the story of four families across three continents: in Morocco, husband and wife Richard and Susan (Pitt and Blanchett) are holidaying when tragedy strikes and Susan is accidentally shot by the child (El Caid) of a local goat farmer. He and his brother have to keep their involvement secret as paranoia has hit hard enough to convince the police that it was a terrorist attack. Back in Amercia, Richard and Susan's children are taken across the border to Mexico by their illegal immigrant nanny Amelia (Barraza) for her son's wedding, but end up stranded in the Mexican desert. Finally, in Japan, deaf-mute Chieko (Kikuchi) tries to lose her virginity with anyone and everyone, including school kids, her dentist, and a cop investigating the involvement of her father with the Moroccan shooting.

As you can see, the four stories are all interlinked, but with varying degrees of success; although perhaps the strongest segment of the film, Chieko's story is the most tenuously linked. It really deserves its own film, and its inclusion in Babel feels a little at odds with the other stories. It is powerfully presented, drawing us in most successfully into Chieko's world – particularly of note during the nightclub scene, where we flick between the world's and Chieko's perspective, one moment feeling the atmosphere and noise in the club, then in total silence as we see the disorientation of Chieko's life without the ability to hear. Her simple need for human contact is excellently played by Kikuchi, and one feels that more should have been made of this segment, even at the expense of the others.

The other stories are in varying degrees of development – in Mexico, the story is rushed, and despite an Oscar worthy performance by Barraza as the nanny, we are left with too many loose ends that have not been tied up. In Morocco, Brad Pitt, certainly looking the part of a father and husband affected by tragedy (one before and during the film), has little more to do than look upset and cry, although his heart-to-heart with wife Susan when she is on the brink of death is certainly moving. Similarly, Blanchett's role consists of lying on the floor dying, hardly an expansive role for an actress of her calibre. Still, they both portray the required emotions effectively, but again we are left wishing more could have been made of the story. Finally, the goat herders involvement is wonderfully acted by the two child newcomers, who are torn between secrecy at the atrocity they have committed, and the responsibility to do what it right, the latter only becoming clear when their lives are put in danger by the heavy-handed police.

Babel is about (mis)communication and the universal causes of pain and grief across human civilisation, where nations may hold different values but react to stimuli in the same ways. Director Iñárritu does not give us answers, instead relying on his characters to damn or redeem themselves. Encompassing themes such as grief, prejudice, terrorism, and immigration, Babel certainly has something to say, but because of its style, cannot say all that is needed to be said. It feels disjointed when the point is to portray coherence in human reaction. It contains potentially excellent individual segments (as usual with Iñárritu, they are temporally mixed up) that do not quite gel well enough to create a rounded whole.

Rated: 7/10 More reviews at: http://www.thelazylounge.net

Part road trip movie, part satire, Little Miss Sunshine is an absolute gem of a comedy, rightly lauded at the Sundance Film Festival, combining the traditional elements of road trips with plenty of dysfunction, and more than a few surprises.

It focuses on the Hoover family and their stressed filled lives as they cross the country in their VW van to take the youngest child, Olive, to the Little Miss Sunshine beauty pageant. Firstly, there's Dad, who's a failed motivational speaker, obsessed with 'winners' to the point of driving the family insane with his mottoes. Then there's Mum, whose pent up emotion is hidden by her need to keep sane and her family together. Firstborn Dwayne has taken a vow of silence until he's old enough to go to the Air Force academy, having read Nietzsche extensively. Grandpa was thrown out of his retirement home for using heroin, and now mopes about being suitably cynical ("I can take heroin, I'm old"). Uncle Frank is a depressed, gay, failed-suicide who is drifting through his life no longer caring about anything or anyone. And finally there's little Olive, who wants so desperately to be in the pageant, despite not being shallow enough, or indeed pretty enough.

The whole cast are outstanding – none of them can be faulted or accused of scene-stealing given that this is perhaps one of the best screen ensemble casts in memory. Olive (Beslin) gives an especially wonderful performance, particularly in the pageant talent competition at the end, so staggeringly inappropriate.

The film is also heart-stoppingly funny. From one-liners through choice background details and embarrassing episodes, there is something memorable to see in every frame, and the cast pull off all comedic timing with such skill one wonders how a film can be both this funny whilst also being so moving, bringing us to truly care about what is probably the most dysfunctional family seen on screen.

The film is mostly set on the road, and all the episodes that come from it, keeping nicely with the tradition of road movie (leaving people behind, vehicles breaking down, diner stops) whilst surpassing them all in humour and characterisation. The beauty pageant itself is, quite frankly, a scary satire on the lengths parents will go to fulfil their children's dreams. We see heavily made-up kids supporting bad fake tans and inappropriate clothing doing acts that mums think are sweet but are a paedophile's dream (we actually see one at the pageant, who is funnier than he has any right to be). The irony being that Olive's act is the height of what the pageant is trying to be, and manages to disgust all the parents who can't see beyond their own hypocrisy.

There's not a lot else to say about Little Miss Sunshine other than to say that in an ideal world it would be seen by everyone. It's a small film that manages to leap out of the big screen because it is so well constructed, through the laughs, the pace and the tone, that it is a near faultless comedy, and probably the best of 2006.

Rated: 9/10

More reviews at: http://www.thelazylounge.net

Watching Smokin' Aces is like watching a film you loved from your childhood many years later – it's entertaining enough but it's just not as good as you remember. Maybe it's because you've seen it all before or maybe because it's been bettered by another film. The problem with Smokin' Aces is the former; we've seen it all before. And whilst it is entertaining, its lack of originality and the troublesome serious streak that runs through it ultimately lets it down.

The plot is fairly paper thin, and for the most part this is not a problem. Buddy 'Aces' Israel is a stage magician with ties to the mob. When he decides to turn informant for the FBI, head mobster Primo Sparazza puts a $1 million bounty to whoever brings back his heart. Several groups of assassins then decide that they all want a piece of that, leaving two federal agents (Ray Liotta and a surprisingly talented Ryan Reynolds) to try and protect Aces.

Smokin' Aces is clearly a film of style over substance. The beginning of the film is all exposition, giving each group of assassins a reason for wanting Aces dead, introducing each character with Guy Ritchie-esquire 'names in big letters' style. It's a bit too heavy to start off with, but soon eases itself into a far more entertaining run of mini shoot-outs and chance encounters, each group showing the audience what its capable of (a trio of neo-Nazis with chainsaws; a man who starts killing Aces' entourage and stealing their faces). A top scene features an excellent Alicia Keys as a hooker-dressed killer with sidekick wielding what can only be described as a sniper-cannon. This central section uses the most tricks to keep its audience engaged as it can: slo-mo, tracking shots, and a powerful soundtrack all work together to make the film look as stylish as any crime thriller to date.

However this is not sustained into the final act as, like Lucky Number Slevin before it, the film tries to become too serious as it introduces its twist ending. A bland Andy Garcia has the job of more last-minute exposition that, whilst resulting in an unexpected end, is fighting against the tone the film has just spent the last hour and a half creating. It's an uneasy shift and sadly the twist itself is not entirely unforeseen; pay attention enough and it'll be clear about half way through.

The references to Tarantino and Ritchie are clear, but there are enough of writer/director Joe Carnahan's own touches to at least give the film its own identity. The cast are all excellent but Smokin' Aces still doesn't live up to expectations because of a lack of originality – it has all been done before, though perhaps not as energetically as this. Entertaining, then, but not the fresh take on an overused genre that we were hoping for.

Rated: 7/10

More reviews at: http://www.thelazylounge.net

The Prestige is another example (as if one is needed) of director Christopher Nolan's talent behind the camera. Here he has crafted an intimate film that feels like a blockbuster with such a natural flair for solid storytelling that I would have no difficulties in saying that he is - despite only making a handful of films - one of, if not the, best British filmmaker around.

The film concerns two magicians in turn-of-the-century London. Alfred Borden (Bale) is on trial for the murder of Robert Angier (Jackman), and the film slowly unravels the story of Borden's and Angier's friendship that, after a tragic accident that leaves Angier's wife dead, turns into a bitter rivalry. When Angier sees a trick of Borden's that he describes as "the best magic trick I have ever seen", he becomes obsessed with discovering Borden's secret.

Of Nolan's' films, The Prestige is most like Memento, at least in terms of its narrative structure. It is chronologically mixed up, forcing the viewer to pay constant attention to what is going on, as it can take a while to work out exactly when a particular scene is set (there are no subtitle clues or such like). This can prove slightly disorientating at first, but it is just another way for Nolan to keep his audience guessing, and keep the suspense up. Indeed, the constant build up of suspense feels in many ways like a well crafted horror film, with the film drenched in period atmosphere and misdirection.

On the topic of period, The Prestige is also noticeable for not forcing the time period on the audience. There are no sweeping shots showing us the grandeur of Victorian London or any such thing; the camera is constantly focusing on the characters, not their surroundings, and this combined with the use of a hand-held camera gives the film a near-claustrophobic feel, accentuating the mood still further.

Performance-wise, both the main characters give the best performances of their careers – Jackman especially showing depth that his recent blockbuster films have not allowed him to do. His portrayal of Angier first evokes our sympathy, but his descent into obsession quickly makes us reconsider who our loyalties lie with. Borden, who seems to be the clear-cut villain of the film, begins to steal our sympathies away from Angier despite knowing that he is certainly no better a person than Angier becomes. Of the supporting cast, Michael Caine is as strong as ever, and David Bowie's odd choice of casting is let go by his steely characterisation of Nikola Tesla. Only Scarlett Johansson disappoints with a dodgy English accent failing to give her role any spark. But her role is small and thus not a great dent to the film.

The film seems so based in a fictional reality that the more fantastical scenes that crop up (involving the real life character of Tesla and his involvement in Borden's/Angier's tricks) seem to go a little too far; stick with it though, and the result is an incredibly well constructed tale with brilliant performances that really will keep you guessing right up until the end.

The bad points? Well, like any magic trick, once you know the secret, the trick becomes less special. In fairness to Nolan, the audience has to know the big secret for the film to make any sense. However, as if the film was a magic trick, the ending takes something away from the rest of the film. It's not that it cheapens the film – indeed, the ending is handled quite expertly – it's just that one wishes the trick could stay and wonder us for a long time to come, rather than be revealed. It's a shame that films can't do this like true magic can, because otherwise The Prestige would be on it's way to being the perfect ten.

Rated: 8.5/10

More reviews at: http://www.thelazylounge.net

From documentary director Kevin Macdonald comes a gripping thriller about a young Scottish doctor Nicholas Garrigan (McAvoy) who heads to Uganda to work at a small village hospital. Whilst there, he meets the general who has just taken control of the country, Idi Amin (Whittaker). They hit it off immediately, and Amin invites Garrigan to become his personal physician and adviser. Unable to resist the lure, Garrigan agrees, but soon learns that Amin, although high-spirited and funny, is also a violent dictator, and realises he cannot stay in Uganda anymore.

Much like Oliver Hirschbiegel's Downfall, The Last King of Scotland attempts to provide an unbiased portrayal of Idi Amin, showing both his good and bad sides in equal measure. It doesn't try to judge Amin, but it has no need – his dictatorship is obviously based on terror, but he is shown not just as a monster, but as a person; he is still a human being, after all. In fact, as the film is shown from Garrigan's perspective, Amin comes across at first as a thoroughly likable personality, and his violence is hidden from Garrigan for a long time, partly through design, but also through Garrigan's own naivety.

Forest Whittaker is truly a tour de force, and there is no finer person to play Amin than he. He is a riveting screen presence, and keeps the character of Amin fascinating to watch, and to follow his emotional breakdowns and outbursts is enthralling. His is arguably the finest performance by an actor to portray an historical figure, and he alone is what makes the film worth watching. However, the other cast members are not weak. Indeed, James McAvoy shows almost as much talent playing the arrogant, naïve but well-meaning Garrigan, and even as events spiral out of his control, his decisions are given an air of authenticity by an actor also at the top of his game. The entire film is lead by these two central performances, and there is not a moment where one of them is not on screen, which means the audience is gripped from start to finish.

These performances also have the power to allow the audience to ignore the ever exaggerated turns of events that control the film towards the end – the situations become harder to swallow, but these are minor niggles that can be easily overlooked. It is at times frustrating to see Garrigan behave as he does – he is hardly helping himself as he begins to learn of Amin's true nature before starting an affair with one of his wives (Washington). His punishment upon the discovery of this affair is brutal, fully playing on its 15 rating and making us feel Garrigan's pain. However his ignorance is a key part of his character – so much so that he refuses to spy on Amin for British intelligence – and frustration gives in to pity.

Director Macdonald uses his experience in documentaries to give the film an authentic feel, and he certainly knows how to present both sides of an argument. That he is capable of creating so much tension also proves that he is a talent to watch beyond the documentary circle. The Last King of Scotland is a fantastic watch, with the ability to absorb the audience into the experience. A great biopic, and an exciting thriller.

Rated: 9/10

More reviews at: http://www.thelazylounge.net

When watching The Fountain one realises that there really is nothing like it. The closest relative to Darren Aronofsky's latest film would probably be 2001: A Space Odyssey. But whereas 2001 deals with issues like technology, evolution, the universe, and pretty much everything, The Fountain feels more down to earth because it deals with more personal, though no less expansive, issues: death, and love. It's because it deals with these topics on an individual level that The Fountain is a more effective film at provoking emotions and truly makes you think about the nature of love and life, whereas 2001 distances itself because of it's scale; it tries too hard to be an all-encompassing epic. The Fountain is not as epic as it first appears, but is a very intense and personal film.

The film's cast is small, centring on the two leads in three time periods. A 15th century conquistador (Jackman) is on a mission for the Queen of Spain (Weisz) in the Mayan jungle, searching for the Tree of Life, as presented in a book that Izzi (still Weisz) is writing in the present day for her husband, Tommy (Jackman). Tommy is desperately trying to save Izzi from the cancer that is slowly killing her, just as in the future, Tom (Jackman again) is trying to save the Tree of Life by regenerating it in the heart of a dying star.

The film will raise debates as to its true meaning for a long while to come, each section being dissected as theories are put across – what is real? Are they the same people? – but to concern yourself too much with that during the film will make you miss the beauty of what you are watching. The three time periods are referenced nicely in the film's visual flair – the candles in the Queen's throne room looking like the stars outside the future Tom's bubble ship – and the film's cinematography is nothing short of outstanding. Using micro-photography of chemical reactions in Petri dishes as inspiration for the special effects produces some fantastic imagery, and combining this with another of Clint Mansell's beautiful scores allows the viewer to literally float through the film, allowing it to absorb into us.

Providing the performance of his career, Hugh Jackman is an unexpected though absolutely perfect choice to portray the obsession that all three Tom's go through, each on their mission to cheat death. Tearing through the first four stages of grief – denial, anger, bargaining, depression – whilst Izzi has already reached acceptance could potentially make Tom a character to dislike rather than support, but Jackman's performance instead makes us truly feel for him, trying obsessively to cheat death and find a way to keep Izzi alive. Rachel Weisz also proves a fine choice to bring out the seemingly one-dimensional character of Izzi/Isabel and gives her a life in death that centres the film. Together they gel so well, making the missions of all three Tom's both believable and necessary.

The Fountain does not provide us with all the answers – if indeed there are any answers to satisfy on the subjects of love and death – and that is absolutely the point; each viewer will get what they want out of it, whether they see the simple love story at its centre, or the larger picture that surrounds it. The Fountain is an experience, one that needs to be explored rather than explained, and in sheer power of emotion is easily one of the finest experiences that can be seen on the big screen – and it needs to be seen on the big screen, if only because it allows the viewer to absorb it fully, and be engrossed in the atmosphere. It's one of the most beautiful and thought provoking films one is likely to find this year.

Rated: 9/10

More reviews at: http://www.thelazylounge.net

One can't help feeling that the first film based on Anthony Horowitz's popular spy novels is meant to come off as either James Bond Jr, or maybe Jason Bourne Jr. It's all very well, but when the lead actor is a 16 year old playing a 14 year old spy, it's quite difficult to take seriously. This is a boy who can use his martial arts to defeat a group of (adult) enemies using only a length of rope, and survive through a special forces training course along with people (again, adults) who are twice as big and are worried they're going to fail. Sure, it looks cool, but even with a ton of suspension of belief, alarm bells start ringing.

Alex Rider (Pettyfer) is the hero in question, and after his uncle dies on duty for MI6 (telling his nephew he works in finance), he gets somewhat forcibly recruited and sent off to investigate Darius Sayle, an American businessman who is going to put a "Stormbreaker" computer in every school (but, of course, that's not a good thing). Things don't quite go to plan and soon Rider is fighting for his life, and the lives of everyone in England.

There are a number of things in the film that just don't work as they're supposed to. Firstly is Rider himself; whilst he is supposed to be forced into joining MI6 – and rather annoyed at it too, rightly so – he soon loses this feeling and gets on with it. It seems that his reluctance is meant to be a key aspect of the plot but is quickly forgotten, replaced by some attempted Bond style humour, which doesn't work. Also, Pettyfer himself lacks much charisma and, as always with these kinds of films, looks (and is) too old for the part. Secondly, it tries to be too funny for its own good. Bill Nighy plays the head of MI6, and comes off as trying to pull an Austin Powers type spoof, rather than a straight character. The jokes it includes are likewise either too weak or just too inappropriate. Thirdly, Mickey Rourke makes a terrible villain, and his motives for doing what he does is, when revealed, utterly laughable.

There are some good points. The directing is passable, though nothing spectacular, and the action sequences are fairly confident. It also has a few nice ideas and gadgets, and it is very obvious that it is trying hard to be the next British franchise. What is the nicest aspect of the film is that there is a group of British actors who are all trying to show that the British film industry can do what Hollywood does, and in many cases getting good results. What the film lacks is the confidence to push the boat out, and to be a bit surer with its writing, but what is clear is that there is potential, bucket loads of it. Perhaps with a little more care the next film can become something to be proud of, rather than give us another film which is only distinct in being distinctly average.

Rated: 6/10

More reviews at: http://www.thelazylounge.net

Samuel L Jackson took the role of Neville Flynn, a special agent who takes witness Sean Jones (Phillips) on a flight to LA during which a crate of the world's most venomous snakes are released in order to eliminate him, based solely on the title. He thought it sounded pretty cool. There's not much room for error here – the film is about snakes on a plane. With such a blatant B-movie title, expectations can be left at the door – it's hardly likely to be a deep, emotional picture, especially with the director of Final Destination 2 and Cellular at the helm. The hype surrounding Snakes on a Plane was enormous; it didn't just catch Jackson's eye but half the internet seemed obsessed with the film, mostly based on just the title. Therefore the question is: can the film live up to fan's expectations?

Well, of course it can. Because anyone going to see a film called Snakes on a Plane are going to want to see snakes, gore, and Samuel L Jackson being cool – all of which the film has in spades. It also has its fair share of humour, and the success of the film lies within its title –it's not a serious film, it's probably going to be quite clichéd, and yet it knows this and plays around with it. So you have all the glorious clichés laid bare (main character becomes reluctant hero; Spanish mother whose baby gets into jeopardy; the flight crew's last flight together; arrogant character gets come-uppance; the list is almost endless), but enjoys itself so much in using them that you almost forget that they're clichés, and instead just roll with it. It is clearly a film that has its tongue very firmly in its cheek.

There are a fair amount of scares – albeit of the jump at the screen with loud noises type, rather than the thick, close atmosphere type – which merely adds to the excitement. The snakes themselves are scary as hell, especially as they can move around the plane at will, whereas the passengers are trapped in certain parts. What really gets the cringes going is the places in which the passengers get bitten; it's just not as scary to be bitten on the hand/arm when instead you can be bitten anywhere on the face or groin. You name a place you really wouldn't want to be bitten, and the film will feature it in glorious close up. Tongues, eyes, nipples, asses – it's got them all. What keeps the film going is the relentless pace. There are no quiet, reflective moments here; once the snakes begin to move it's a constant fight for survival that does not let up until the final moment. The film thrives on adrenalin. Also going for it is the outrageously daft and hugely entertaining script – never have lines like "Get this snake off my ass!" or "My brother from another mother…" been so funny, or as immortal as Jackson's "I have had it with these motherfucking snakes on this motherfucking plane!" Quite simply, the film works, and probably would only work, with Jackson leading. He's just brilliant, and effortlessly cool.

Snakes on a Plane certainly won't change the face of film-making. It may be unprecedented in its fan's involvement in making it, but it is in essence a popcorn movie. Then again, it's the kind of film that "popcorn movie" was designed to describe. It does exactly what you want it to do, and does it unashamedly. And for that, no one should miss out in seeing it.

Rated: 8/10

More reviews at: http://www.thelazylounge.net

Zach Snyder, the director of the latest Frank Miller graphic novel adaptation, 300, is not under any illusion as to what kind of film he is creating. Taking the backdrop of a real battle, that of Thermopylae in 480 BC where a group of 300 Spartan soldiers held back the entire Persian invading force for three days allowing the rest of Greece to prepare themselves to fight back, he has decided not to go for an historical film, like Troy, but reverse that films' intentions. Whereas Troy took a mythological story and tries to base it in history, 300 takes an historical event and tries to mythologize it. And Snyder wants us to know that from the start: he says himself that he had no problems with changing material from Miller's graphic novel or from history in order to make the film "look cooler".

So we get giant elephants and rhinos, diseased priests, Persian Immortals who look more like ninjas, and the Persian god-king, Xerxes, who's a modest nine feet tall. History be damned, 300 is here to have fun.

The visuals are, of course, the films main selling point. Taking its cue from the other Frank Miller graphic novel recently come to our screens, Sin City, 300 is mostly effects work – indeed, all of the backgrounds are effects, and the film has been given an antique tone that fits with its style, making it look like a visualisation of a story that an ancient bard such as Homer might have told round a roaring fire (speaking of bards, there's one in 300 with a goat's head). The visuals are pretty faultless, staggering even, leaving the only criticisms to come from the story and direction.

The plot is thin, and will be known to most by now – the Persians invade and 300 Spartans, led by their King Leonidas (Butler) go to hold them off, whilst at home his wife Queen Gorgo (Heady) tries to get the corrupt Spartan council (headed by a slimy Dominic West) to send the rest of the army to help. The set up doesn't take too long so that the meat of the film, the actual battles themselves, take up the majority of the film. It's an absolutely storming middle act that impresses with its style and its excitement. One draw back is the overuse of slow motion, which can be great in small doses, but here is employed to excess. Still, it serves its purpose – to show how violent the film is. We see every sword thrust, every limb be carved off its owner, and there's no convenient close ups to distract from what we are meant to be seeing – death. It's comic book violence, and so is not violently shocking, but it's strong nonetheless.

Of the cast, Gerard Butler manages to convince as a leader, his face showing the conflicts running through his mind – bow to the Persians and live, or fight them and probably die. It's the Spartan way of life to be a soldier (as told in the first few minutes of the film) and his decision, though a hard one to do is an easy one to choose. The other Spartans are a little generic 'hard men', with six packs and eyes gleaming, but some attempt is made to inject some humanity – a son looking for his father's recognition for example. The other noteworthy character is the giant Xerxes (Santoro), a man who believes himself to be a god, and who actually isn't that much of a bad man – his offers to the Greeks are genuine (he doesn't want to fight if he doesn't have to) promising Leonidas power and riches if he were to bow before him. He is above normal rules for villains; despite his appearance, he is not a cartoon villain, he is a mix of menacing and kind, so it is hard to pin him down. It is a somewhat surprising angle to take, but works in the film's favour.

Overall 300 is a lot of fun, though not without its flaws. But it is a film that knows what is wants to be, and so in its intentions 300 is a success. It's a visual feast, and in this case it is enough to support the film; the plot is barely there, and most of it is based on real events anyway. The only surprises the film can throw at you are the liberties it takes with history, but these just serve to make the film most imaginative and more thrilling. By the time Leonidas has made good the promise he makes to Xerxes (we won't spoil it here for you), you'll be under no illusion as to how hard the Spartans are, and how cool it would be to be one of them. Don't think too much about it, and 300 will leave a good impression.

Rated: 8/10

More reviews at: http://www.thelazylounge.net

Unlike the recent Batman Begins, this is no reinvention of a superhero; it is instead more a continuation, or updating, of the franchise made great by the late Christopher Reeve. Set after Superman II, (thankfully assuming that instalments III and IV never happened, and were both results of very bad dreams) Superman Returns has taken the world that director Richard Donner created and has given it a 21st century sheen. And it works because it does feel like a genuine sequel to the Christopher Reeve films, whilst at the same time successfully updating the look of the film to give us one of the finest superhero films in memory.

Of course, no Superman film would work without the Man Of Steel himself putting in a noteworthy show, and newcomer Brandon Routh is no less than perfect. The moment you first see him, most notably as Clark Kent, you'll think you were looking back to the past – the resemblance is uncanny. Some critics have said that they think that Routh should create his own identity rather than merely copy the performance that Christopher Reeve gave, but this is misleading. Firstly, Routh does give the role his own identity; and secondly, seeing Routh being so much like Reeve is actually a good thing – it instantly makes us comfortable with the character; it is arguable that change here would have been a damaging move.

Routh is also clearly having fun as the kindly and clumsy Clark Kent, whilst switching instantly to the majestic power that embodies Superman. His reactions when he returns to earth after a five year trip to Krypton are made entirely believable (from finding out Lois is a mother to discovering Lex Luthor is out of prison) because we utterly believe in him. Also, the writers have done the character justice by not changing him – he is torn by emotions inside him, but the film never feels as dark as films like Hulk or Batman Begins. It has its moments, but Superman is still portrayed as the clean-cut hero that he is, and in a world where summer blockbusters are becoming ever more "gritty", it is a nice relief to see one that doesn't need to follow that trend.

The film is all about heart; whilst there are action sequences – and there are some staggering effects which create some frankly mind-blowing sequences – the majority of the story concerns Superman's and others' reactions to his return. However, even at over two and a half hours, it never feels too long (except maybe a little over-egged at the end), and the emotional scenes are well handled without become too soppy or clichéd. Of course, this eventually gives way to concentrate on Lex Luthor's plan to grow a new continent – using stolen technology from Superman's Fortress of Solitude – in his constant ploy to own real estate (and given that he is only human, this plot is actually understandable, despite many claims to the contrary). There is a brutal scene which pushes the limits of its 12A rating, and the whole segment is thrilling and gripping – finally the "invulnerable" superhero actually might be in for more than even he can handle.

Kevin Spacey seems to be relishing his role as Lex, giving Gene Hackman a run for his money. He retains a certain element of "camp", but he is also much more sinister than Hackman ever seemed. He also has some great interplay with Posey's Kitty, bringing back memories of Miss Teschmacher from Superman I, with more humour. The other supporting cast are all okay, though not given huge amounts of screen time. Lois Lane, as played by Kate Bosworth is good, but she's no Margot Kidder – she's not as feisty and seems too slight to truly capture the original Lois, but she portrays Lois' bitterness at Superman's departure well.

In the end, one wishes they had included more of Superman being super, but it is to Bryan Singer's credit that he doesn't need to fall back on another action sequence to keep our attention, unlike other blockbusters. Fans of the original films will enjoy the many nods to the franchise, from the same introduction title sequences, to that score integrated wonderfully with John Ottman's new score (it will give you goosebumps!), to the use of dialogue lifted from the Donner films. The action sequences are all extremely well done, from a bank robbery sequence to an amazing mid-air rescue of a stricken passenger plane, and they are combined nicely with the plot and emotional scenes.

Superman Returns sets itself up nicely for a sequel (which is currently being written), and one cannot help but wish that the time in between the two films would fly past ever more quickly. Superman Returns has reset the bar for superhero films, and is easily the best blockbuster of the year.

Rated: 9/10

More reviews at: http://www.thelazylounge.net

When Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl was released in the summer of 2003, it was a breath of fresh air in the world of blockbusters, managing to be light-hearted and fun, whilst adding a touch of horror and buckets of humour. Unfortunately, Dead Man's Chest has taken the route of many sequels; disguise the fact that it is not fresh anymore by making it look prettier. And that is probably the best way to sum Dead Man's Chest. It's not a bad film, but it's certainly not as good as the first.

Most of the cast have returned, and this is actually one of the films' problems. At the end of the first film the cast had all separated, and so the sequel needs to find ways to bring them all back together again, and this results in a plodding first half hour which mounts up as episodic and badly thought through plot devices. Even Commodore Norrington returns, and his entrance and role in the film, whilst is interesting in its own way, is (at least for the moment) needless. Also needless are the return of Ragetti and Pintel as the (unnecessary, given the fact that Jack Sparrow is the source of all the humour) comic relief, who really aren't that comic at all.

The point about Norrington brings up the next big fault. As it is the first part of the two sequel story, Dead Man's Chest is not a film that can stand up on its own; it is only half a story. This may mean that come May 2007, all the various plot points will make sense, but at the moment they are all too far-stretched to makes a whole lot of sense. There are also really too many different plot strands to last its two and a half hour running time (which is itself about half an hour too long).

There are good points about the film, of course. The effects are nothing short of staggering (although some of the fishy crew of the Flying Dutchman are not quite as good as the rest), especially Bill Nighy's Davy Jones who has a multi-tentacled beard. Nighy himself is good in the role, but Davy Jones never seems as menacing or, quite frankly, as good as Geoffrey Rush's Barbossa. Also good is Stellan Skarsgård as Bootstrap Bill, Will Turner's father. Will is a little darker but Orlando Bloom lacks the gravitas to pull off such a character turn. Knightley's Elizabeth Swann is also different, showing a more pirate side to her actions, at least making her a little more exciting even if Knightley herself doesn't entirely convince.

The star is once again Depp's Jack Sparrow; even though, like the whole film itself, his act is not as fresh, he is given enough to work with so that most of the humour he creates lands well. His entrance is another classic moment, and his ability to run away as well as he can swagger is often hilarious – he even manages to build on his role from the first film.

There is plenty of action, and although it can be thrilling, it feels a little too over-the-top to truly impress at times. However, much of it is well handled, and injects a little more fun into proceedings, just when the audience begins to think that the film has begun to take itself too seriously to be fully enjoyable. It is now down to film number three to see whether the franchise is strong enough to stay afloat; the last ten minutes of Dead Man's Chest has three plot twists that at least will make us come back for the answers next summer. Overall, whilst it is enjoyable enough, it is certainly not a patch on the first, and the third entry in the series has a lot of work to do to restore audience faith in it.

Rated: 7/10

More reviews at: http://www.thelazylounge.net

Animated films are being made ever more frequently, and, like any genre, the quality of the films have their ups and downs. Over The Hedge shows us not only how far CG animation has come, but also how potentially destructive the genre can be to itself. With expectations raised so high by quality films from Pixar, or films like Shrek, each time a new animated film comes along we once again expect that extra bit more. There has to come a point where the films can no longer match the hype we place upon them, and Over The Hedge feels like it could be the start of this.

That's not to say that Over The Hedge is a bad film – its not. It is good, and the audience's enjoyment of the film could possibly be measured by how engrossed in the CG animation scene they are – the more films of this kind they have seen, perhaps the less they'll enjoy it; this is not down to the quality of the film itself, but more because it is such a run-of-the-mill, seen-it-all-before kind of film.

I will reiterate though – it is not a bad film. It is mostly average though because, despite the charm of the characters and the attractive look of the film, the structure is so blatantly predictable; the mismatched group of animals, the climactic chase, all-star voice cast, even the character's themselves – the manic one, the cautious one, the cocky one – are all present and correct. And that is why, for me, the film didn't reach the peaks of other animated films. It seems to be playing the safe route, not taking any chances and just emulating (although, it must be said, sometimes improving) what has come before.

The cast do have considerable charm. Bruce Willis seems to have cut himself lose and really gone to town on making his character, problem-causing raccoon RJ, an enjoyable one. Other highlights include Steve Carell as manic squirrel Hammy (a total scene stealer) and Omid Djalili as a Persian Cat and the guardian to the suburban household that the animals are trying to steal the food from. However, other members of the cast are not really used to their full potential, but the focus is never on them for too long.

The animation is, as one would expect by this point, faultless – but there is really no excuse for it not to be – and the style is more riotous then other films, which at least gives the film a visual distinction from other CG films. The humour is good but the film really only starts picking up in the second half – the first half drags a bit and takes too long to get going, again making the film stall. However, there are some stand out scenes, such as the views from space (where we see the exaggerated effects the animals have on the suburb) and a hilarious scene featuring Hammy's caffeine-augmented speed, which is so fast time seems to stop for the rest of the world.

In short, the film should be perfectly enjoyable to children, but adults will be harder to please. Over The Hedge is not a bad film, but I feel that the producers need to make something more original, something that goes against – or at least plays with – our expectations. Making the same films with a different cast each time is beginning to get old, and it is a shame but I suppose it had to happen eventually.

Rated: 6.5/10

More reviews at: http://www.thelazylounge.net

When director Bryan Singer left the X-Men franchise to make Superman Returns (2006), he was replaced by Brett Ratner (Red Dragon, Rush Hour), much to fans' dismay. However, the result is easily as enjoyable as the first two in the series, and despite several flaws which were not as destructive as one might think they could be, Ratner has kept the spirit of the franchise to deliver an action filled and twisting conclusion to the trilogy.

This time around, humans have developed a mutant cure, and although not compulsory, many mutants want it. Magneto, however, believes this is the first step of the human-mutant war he is always preparing for, and so creates the Brotherhood in order to find the source of the cure (which is on Alcatraz Island) and destroy it. Meanwhile, Jean Grey has returned, this time as the worryingly powerful Phoenix who, torn between her two personalities, is talked into joining Magneto's army, which the X-Men must now help the humans defeat.

It sounds very action packed, and it is. It is these scenes that are the most competent and confident, and are the highlight of the series. Finally, we are shown the full potential of all the X-Men's powers in the mutant standoff on Alcatraz, and the X-Men are shown to be the real heroes they are. It is the best climax to a superhero film so far, and is inventive with its display of mutant powers and the humans adapting to Magneto – their weapons are plastic, for example.

On to the flaws and, whilst it may sound like I'm damning the film, it turns out that although some of these flaws are large, they didn't affect the overall enjoyment of the film as I thought they might. Firstly, the film is too short and contains too much. Both the Phoenix storyline and the cure storyline could have had a film each, but they are adequately combined, although it is the Phoenix storyline that suffers most from this – we never see enough of the Phoenix and her turmoil, and she is not as involved at the end as one would like. However, the scene at Jean's old house make up for this, and it has to be the most shocking and well-handled scene in the film.

Secondly, there are too many characters. Bryan Singer managed to juggle all the characters the most effectively, but The Last Stand doesn't; and this isn't helped by its shorter running time (1hr 45 compared to X2's 2hrs 15). Whilst we focus in on many new characters, the established characters miss out (Cyclops, Rogue, Mystique, even Jean Grey). Worse, the new characters aren't all that effective – Ben Foster's Angel is utterly irrelevant, and Vinnie Jones is an obscene casting choice for Juggernaut. Kelsey Grammar's Beast, though, is absolutely brilliant, perfectly fitting the role that calls for calm judgement and more than a dash of feral ferocity. It is a shame that Rogue is sidelined, as she is the only mutant we already know that feels the cure is a good thing, and more could have been made of her feelings towards it.

As said, The Last Stand is actually a very good film, and there is enough going on that the flaws pass by without affecting the overall result. The themes of terrorism, genetic engineering and stem cell research that the film makes links to makes it relevant to today's political world. The acting throughout is fine, the highlights still being Wolverine and Magneto (and so good are they that they are both getting their own spin-off films).

A point that struck well in this film was the deeper exploration of Xavier's and Magneto's relationship than the other two films allowed. It is interesting that they both essentially want the same thing, but want it in radically different ways. The moment where Magneto scorns Pyro for disrespecting Xavier was an especially nice touch.

Overall, one feels that The Last Stand was not quite as developed as it could have been, and it certainly needed to be longer to better juggle all the characters and sub-plots. But it is still an accomplished film with some stunning action scenes and is a fitting conclusion to the X-Men trilogy, if never quite reaching the peaks of X-Men 2.

Rated: 8/10

More reviews at: http://www.thelazylounge.net

Fearless has a similar structure to last years' Unleashed (2005), in that this is not just a martial arts extravaganza, but also a film with heart and proper acting on the part of Jet Li. This latest effort, despite flaws, is the much more accomplished of the two works; both contain exceptional and brutal fight scenes, and a central 'drama' section where Li's character learns about life and about who he is, and both of these aspects are handled better in Fearless.

Based on actual events, the story focuses on Li's Huo Yuanjin, martial arts master whose family is murdered and who flees his home, only to be taken in by simple farmers. Spending many years there, Huo learns to embrace peace and live out his simple life with the villagers. However, he is tempted back to his home town in an effort to show the foreign powers that are flooding China that the Chinese people are unified, and will not be suppressed by foreigners. He sets up a martial arts school and competes in a four-way tournament to prove that he is the greatest fighter in the world.

Make no mistake; the main appeal to the film is the fight sequences. Courtesy of the ever versatile Yuen Wo Ping, (The Matrix Trilogy, Crouching Tiger) the staggering fight choreography manages to combine the graceful moves of Hero (2002) with the brutality of Unleashed to create possibly the greatest action scenes put to film, aided by Jet Li's so-good-it-looks-easy martial arts capabilities. The film starts as it means to go on, and contains plenty of inventive action, the main highlights being a colossal one-on-one in a restaurant and of course the climactic four-way tournament.

The film is not all action though; at its centre is the time spent with the villagers where Huo 'finds himself'. This is perhaps the films weakest point, but it is held up by the fact that Jet Li, showing he's not only a martial arts expert, can actually act. However, the scenes are lacking, from a scripting and directing point of view, enough emotional depth to allow us to truly get involved. Being based on a true story the film had to play out as it did, but one feels that Huo could have gone anywhere to find himself, even stayed at home and become a recluse. Director Ronnie Yu lacks the directorial range to let these scenes flourish, so the section begins to bog itself down with unnecessary sentimentality. However, it is a more developed section than the comparable parts in Unleashed and although maybe is too short – it could have been developed into much more – it at least doesn't outstay its welcome. Jet Li is good though, and nicely moves from the arrogance of his early days to the wiser warrior in the second half.

Fearless shows us a moralistic China that is ruled by an honour that is now lost amongst the modern world, and its portrayal of upholding traditional values is a welcome move; it gives the film purpose, and not just an excuse to make good action scenes. Ironically, the films message is one of anti-violence, and if this is indeed to be Jet Li's last martial arts film, then he has gone out on a high.

Rated: 8/10

More reviews at: http://www.thelazylounge.net

Once again the Mission: Impossible franchise has got a new director, this time TV director JJ Abrams, and it has only improved matters. I've never been a huge fan of the second film, but love the first, especially as it really feels like a spy film – there's barely a shot fired throughout and it requires some effort of thought. What I don't like about the second film is the lack of a team, or at least a team that has some proper role instead of sitting on the sidelines.

This, fortunately, is one of the many things about the new Mission: Impossible that has been fixed. It has also been given a more human element – this time Ethan Hunt has a fiancé, and we get to see the non-IMF side of the character. Granted, these scenes are not numerous but they come in mostly later into the film, and it is a part of the franchise that thus far had been missing. Better still, JJ Abrams shows himself to be a very competent action director, and gives us some scenes that rank amongst the series' best. Particularly stunning is an air vs. ground assault set on a bridge, where Hunt and his team must fight off a plane and a helicopter full of troops from the ground.

The cast all excel themselves as well. Tom Cruise is as excellent as ever, showing both the spy side and the gentleman side of his character with conviction. Also good are Hunts' team (comprising, Ving Rhames, Maggie Q and Jonathan Rhys Meyers), who have more to do this time round and are always on hand to back Ethan up. There's also a scene stealing Simon Pegg, who plays the office computer geek, and adds plenty of fine humour to proceedings. The standout has to be Philip Seymour Hoffman's character, Owen Davian. He is genuinely creepy and utterly ruthless; when he threatens Hunt's fiancé, we feel like he really means it – he is definitely one of the more memorable villains we have seen for a long time.

Another bonus is the relation to the title. Unlike the first two films, this one really does seem like an impossible mission – Davian is always one step ahead, and even when you think things are heading in IMF's favour they're not. It makes you wonder just how they're going to succeed when they are up against such odds, and keeps the tension high.

There are, however, some niggles which after a while begin to really bug the viewer. First up is the camera, which utilises the increasingly popular 'shaky cam'. This is OK to an extent, if used clever and liberally, but the whole film seems shot with it, even the more dramatic scenes, which could really do with a more static camera. It's a problem because it becomes very noticeable, and thus infuriating. It also means the action scenes can at times look muddled, which is a shame because they really are good. The locations, spanning Rome, Shanghai, and Berlin, are exciting but don't serve the story – each sequence could be substituted for anywhere else with no loss to the overall plot, and this seems odd. Why set a scene in the Vatican when it is really unnecessary?

My final negative is the introduction scene. I won't give anything away, but it's one of those 'flash forward' scenes that show you what is coming up. It is annoying because the viewer is left waiting for that scene to come around. All scenes such as this annoy me though, so it's down to personal taste.

I still can't decide whether it is the best of the trilogy or not. Whilst the action is great, it feels so distant from what Mission: Impossible used to be that it is more of a generic action film than a true spy film. It is a good film, and shows us what is possible from the franchise, but it's not quite there yet. Hopefully, if there is a number 4, it will get it all right.

Rated: 7.5/10

More reviews at: http://www.thelazylounge.net

The controversy surrounding The Da Vinci Code hardly needs to be introduced. It seemed that very few people were actually going to give the film the benefit of the doubt, while most would criticize it before seeing it. Of course, many more of these critics had not read the book either, and so were pleasantly ignored by the 60 million and more people who went out and bought the book.

When I read the book, I accepted it for what it was – a pulp novel. The kind of book you take on holiday to read while you're at the airport. It wasn't wholly convincing, but I thought it was great fun to read, and very cinematic in style. The writing wasn't classic, but the pace of the novel was such that these points could be overlooked. It wasn't surprising that a film would be made given the book's success and despite initial critical reaction what we are given is, while not perfect, a solid adaptation of the book that will at least give the audience plenty of food for thought.

This is no National Treasure though. If you're looking for adventure and daring action then look to that film. This is a different beast, instead preferring the slow build up approach to story-telling - it is to the mystery/thriller genre what V for Vendetta is to the action genre. Most of the important parts of the book are when the characters are sat around a table talking. This immediately doesn't sound like it could translate to the screen that effectively, but there are enough nice touches to keep the audience interested.

First of all, the story itself, whilst not necessarily historically accurate, it is still absorbing and it genuinely makes you wonder about the truth behind the religion. There are also some nice visual flairs, including some well shot flashbacks, and the way Robert Langdon (Hanks) visualises the unscrambling of the codes is a great way to show the inner workings of is mind. At first it may seem silly but there is very little choice as to how to portray someone thinking. Hanks himself is passable in the role, but is not really given anything meaty to do. However, the same can be said of a lot of the cast, and this is purely down to the fact that the plot is moving too fast, and giving out too much information, to be able to dive into character exposition. Ian McKellen as Leigh Teabing is wonderful as a slightly eccentric English Grail expert, and gives a lively performance, which helps considerably given that most of his role is to explain everything to Langdon and Sophie Neveu (Tautou). Paul Bettany plays against type to play the murderous monk Silas, and he will make you wince with his self-flagellation scenes. The other cast members are all satisfactory but nothing special, again because of the speed of the story.

There are a couple of chase scenes which are supposed to be tense, but they turn out rather lacklustre, and one scene near the end comes off as daft (no spoilers, but people get saved by a pigeon, of all things!). The plot may be hard to follow at times, especially if you haven't read the book, so full attention will be needed; however, if you have read the book, the film sticks very closely to the story, omitting some parts for timing reasons, and it is now that we realise why the Da Vinci Code is how it is – the film-makers couldn't do much else with it, as the tone and content of the book has to be retained for it to be a faithful translation: what suffers in the book suffers in the film.

Overall, The Da Vinci Code is worth seeing, if only to see what all the fuss was about. If I was the Catholic Church, though, I would be more concerned with the religious violence portrayed in the film than with the outcome of the plot, which can try all it likes to challenge established dogma but most likely won't succeed because people know the book and film are fiction. Keep that it mind when you see it – don't take it literally and chances are you will enjoy it that much more. At two and a half hours it is a tad too long, and can be confusing to first time viewers, but it is definitely thought provoking, and a mostly worthy adaptation of the book.

Rated: 7/10

More reviews at: http://www.thelazylounge.net

A note for the uninitiated: this is not Braveheart (1995) in a different guise. Instead, this is a far more sophisticated piece of art, a film that makes history a subject well worth investigating further. With the Last Samurai, director Edward Zwick has created a film perfectly showcasing heroism at its fullest.

Tom Cruise stars in (arguably) his finest role to date, as the American Captain Nathan Algren, who is captured by the samurai warriors he is training the Japanese army to defeat. At first reluctant to explore the new world he has been pulled into, Algren slowly begins to see that perhaps these samurai are not the "barbarians" that he has been led to believe they are. Usually when you see a Tom Cruise film, the mega-star status shines through instead of the character he is playing, but in the Last Samurai Cruise has presented himself admirably, as the viewer is sucked into the samurai world with him. He at once shows strength and bravery, but also compassion and a weakness of spirit, not to mention a fine sense of humour, usually directed at his samurai guard, "Bob". Algren's development from a drunken waste to a samurai himself is utterly compelling, and comes through at its best when the samurai village is attacked by ninja's, and Algren instantly decides to side with his captor's leader, Katsumoto.

The film wastes no time getting to the point of Algren's capture, but when he gets to the samurai's village, the film takes its time showing the samurai's way of life, and many people may think that this is where the film begins to drag, but this is not the case. Throughout much of his time in the village Cruise says very little, but his silent wonderment at the samurai life gives off a dramatic effect unreachable by many effects-driven blockbusters, and it is this part of the film that Zwick shows off his talents as a director.

However, the real star of the show is Ken Watanabe's samurai leader, Katsumoto. He is the perfect actor to play a character driven by the need to keep up the ways of his ancestors, and to stop Japan being pulled into an industrial revolution, however futile this may be. He is the true embodiment of the samurai code, never giving up, and sticking to his principles even in the face of certain defeat. Watanabe is a hugely convincing actor, making you want to root for him all the way, despite the fact that the samurai are actually fighting against the emperor.

This film is an action film, though. Whilst there is plenty of drama, Zwick proves himself to be an admirable action-director, whether handling the large battles of the samurai versus Japan's army, or the more intimate one-on-one fights that Algren is involved in during his time in the samurai village.

The screenplay is very well written; not surprising as it was co-written by John Logan, the writer for the immensely popular Gladiator. Cruise is well backed up by the supporting actors, including Billy Connelly and Timothy Spall, in a film that has been carefully crafted rather than slapped together, producing a film that, despite its relatively unimpressive box office success, is still one of the finest mainstream films that has come out of America for a long time.

Rated: 9/10

More reviews at: http://www.thelazylounge.net

Hype is a film-makers worst enemy. As showcased by the disappointing The Phantom Menace, hype can seriously damage a film's, or a series', reputation. Such is the case with The Matrix Reloaded. After the truly inspired Matrix sprung up out of nowhere in 1999, the sequels had such a huge expectation placed on them, in no small part by the films producer, Joel Silver, that it was naïve to believe that they could turn out a film as fantastic as was promised. And that's exactly what happened, because the Matrix Reloaded, despite several excellent moments, just does not have the originality or style that the original did.

Keanu Reeves, Lawrence Fishbourne, and Carrie-Ann Moss have reprised their roles as Neo, Morpheus and Trinity, but whereas last time they all seemed so human, now they seem to have had their humanity taken away, particularly in the case of Neo, who seems just as soulless as the machines he is fighting against. It's a real shame, as it was Neo's humanity that made him such a fascinating character in the first film.

The beginning of the film does not help matters either. We start off very promisingly with a dream sequence, which shows off the extraordinary bullet-time effects that made the first film such a breakthrough. But within five minutes it's over, and we are left with an overlong introduction to Zion, the last human city, and to the increasingly complicated plot. The Zion section has to be the real low-point of the film, and as it is at the beginning of the film, that sense of disappointment seems to run through the whole two and a half hour running time. Once it is over, though, the film really starts to shine, and the enormous budget can be seen taking effect. Here we have everything that made the first film great magnified ten times, as Neo unleashes his Agent-stopping powers on 100 Agent Smiths, and a hall full of vampires, not to mention one of the longest and most impressive freeway chases currently on film. This middle hour is the films' saving grace; it is a magnificently choreographed kung-fu-fest, showcasing the great combination of computer effects and live action that few films have utilised successfully. On top of this is a rip-roaring powerhouse of a soundtrack that keeps the atmosphere strong throughout the film, being both a fine example of a rock soundtrack and giving more mellow pieces, keeping the mood without being melodramatic.

Once the final chapters come in, however, we end up back where we started – disappointed, and this time utterly confused. Repeated viewings are necessary to understand all of what the Architect says in his (now infamous) thesaurus-straining speech, and it does not help that we will not find out the answers to all the questions posed until the final instalment, released a full six months later. It's a real shame that the Wachowski brothers seemed to miss what made the original so great, and throw in too much philosophical nonsense to try and pad things out, as if they were making the script up as they went along. Whilst the centre of the film is a stunning achievement, the beginning and end just shows how much work will be needed for Revolutions to redeem the Matrix name.

Rated: 8/10

More reviews at: http://www.thelazylounge.net

Second opinion/Re-viewing:

Having seen this many more times now, the flaws are more obvious. Sure, it looks good - stunning, even - but because this is a sequel it necessitates comparison with the original; and it is simply not as good. The original had a great idea that sat so well on its own, but the sequels complicate matters needlessly. Also, the first time I saw the film the effects looked great, but now with more time to evaluate them some already look dated and fake. The freeway chase, which seemed so cool the first time, has been surpassed many times, even by the likes of films like Bad Boys II (2003). It all looks like a well designed video game (ironic, I know) but it just does not immerse the audience like the original film did. It's still very stylish; it's not all bad, really, it does have some truly excellent parts, but it's also not a patch on the original. Could have been more, and should have been more.

Re-rated: 7/10

With The Matrix Reloaded considered a general disappointment, Revolutions certainly had its work cut out for it to bring the trilogy back up to the heights of greatness. Unfortunately, it fails. Whilst not a catastrophe of a film that it was first made out to be, it is nevertheless the lesser of the three films.

The story picks up straight after Reloaded ends, being as it is one story cut in half. We learn that the Zion fleet has been destroyed, and that the machines have resumed their tunnelling towards the last human city, while Neo's mind is trapped in a place between the machine world and the Matrix, his body lying in a coma on board the Hammer. This time, the Wachowskis have opted for a basic war film - without much of the philosophical banter that threatened to stall the second film - the centre of which is the machine attack on Zion, whilst Neo and Trinity go off on a mission of their own. The main problem with the film is the sidelining of major characters, particularly Morpheus, who spends the film sitting in Niobe's shadow, as they rush towards Zion. To relegate the best character in the series to such a small part is just asking for trouble – and the film does suffer for it.

The actual battle in Zion is well done, however. It is one of the most impressive sci-fi battles made, and yet not a single major character is involved, which makes the whole sequence seem a little shallow. It is also far too long, so whilst it is visually stunning, it starts to get a little monotonous in the end, which is a shame considering the amount of time and money that must have gone into making it.

Neo this time, particularly in the real world, seems more human than he did in the last film, especially when he is viciously blinded, in a clever little twist, by the real-world Smith. As he and Trinity fight their way through to the machine city, he shows us a vulnerability not seen since the first Matrix, which is a welcome break from the soulless Neo he was last time. Another change in the film is the oracle, played this time by Mary Alice. She still gives out her usual cryptic responses, but it is never explained (in film terms – the original actress died before filming was completed) why she has changed. Herein lies Revolutions' biggest fault – unless you have seen the Animatrix and have played the video game Enter the Matrix, much of what you see on screen is not explained in full. Only when you have experienced the full range of the Matrix brand will you be able to understand the film in its entirety. It is a perplexing decision that the Wachowskis made a film to such a specific audience, without a thought to those fans who didn't go out and do all the research into the other mediums.

But what of Agent Smith? By this time, he has managed to assimilate the majority of people in the Matrix, and has polluted the system so that it literally starts falling apart. Only Neo now has the power to stop him, and come the final confrontation, the audience is rewarded by a kung-fu mega-fight that is everything we hoped for after so much build up. Unfortunately, it is too late to save the day, as the film ends leaving us with more questions, and a sense of overwhelming incoherence in the film's quality; at once it is both visually stunning yet physically empty. We are left with a war film that is just too full of clichés, and has an ego too big to be justified. As a film, it just about stands up on its own, but as a sequel to the best action film of the 90s, it is the biggest let down of the year.

Rated: 6.5/10

More reviews at: http://www.thelazylounge.net

Ronald Emmerich returns after a 4 year hiatus to bring us his next disaster movie, The Day After Tomorrow, a CGI marvel but, like his other films, too clichéd and thin to be taken seriously enough. Now we all know that films such as Independence Day (1996) and Godzilla (1998) aren't designed to be taken seriously – they are the ultimate in "popcorn" movies – but audiences are generally not content with a blockbuster anymore unless it shows a little character, or a little plot to pad the film out a bit. Sadly, this is exactly what The Day After Tomorrow lacks.

The film starts with Dennis Quaid trying to persuade the world that, unless kept in check, global warming will make the polar ice caps melt and the world would be struck by "superstorms" all over. This, needless to say, would be bad. He says it could happen as soon as in 100 years, except he miscalculated somewhat - it'll actually happen in a few days. Just before it all starts his slightly estranged son (Jake Gyllenhaal) flies to New York for a school competition where, unbeknownst to him, is where the centre of one of these superstorms will end up. Then the storms start, and after a quick "up yours!" and a "told you so!" to the American government, Quaid sets off to New York to get his son out of there. Meanwhile, his son is trapped in the New York Public Library, trying to stay alive long enough for his dad to reach him.

And that's it – the plot in, just about, it's entirety. I've summed it up in 150 words. Yet Emmerich has made a 2 hour film stretching this story as far as possible. It's not exactly a bad story or script, and certainly not as clichéd as Independence Day (although it does have its moments, especially where some wolves escape from their cages – guess when they turn up? Just as Jake Gyllenhaal leaves the library and is completely defenceless, of course...), it's just that there's not enough story/plot to fill the time. Of course, this is where the special effects come in, and they certainly do hit you like a tornado hitting LA (wait a sec…). There are 3 major set pieces for these effects: the aforementioned LA tornadoes, the flooding of New York, and then the "superfreeze" which we see affect both New York and England. And what special effects they are! They may not always be photorealistic, but they are close enough to the real thing to begin worrying when it starts to rain when you leave the cinema. The film has set a new standard for disaster movie effects, and Emmerich has once again proved that he is more than capable of destroying the world whenever he wants to, and in any way he wants to. He is definitely more confident in his destruction than in his characterisation scenes, which to be honest feel heavy and forced, although all the actors do pull off a good job with the script they are given.

The best part for me was actually what was lacking – a single man who could save the day. Not even Bill Pullman or Bruce Willis can stop this apocalypse, and this is shown when Dennis Quaid draws a line through the middle of a map of the USA and tells the government quite plainly that no one north of that line (which includes New York) can be saved, and that every one else must be evacuated south, towards Mexico. The film does have an optimistic ending (we see lots of New Yorkers coming out of the buildings they took refuge in when the rescue helicopters arrive), but the implied off-screen death toll is catastrophic, which makes this film feel a tad more real than Emmerich's others, as if this really could happen. The effects are fantastic, the plot spread too thin, but it is still a worthwhile piece of entertainment, and recommended to be seen, even if only once.

Rated: 7.5/10

More reviews at: http://www.thelazylounge.net