Zombieland TV pilot review

Tallahassee: Oh, I am this close to losing every last bit of my shit. 

Director: Eli Craig
(2013)

The original Zombieland (2009) was something of a surprise when I first watched it with some friends a few years back. At the time I expected a cheap cash in on the rising popularity of media that features the undead, but turned out to be a genuinely entertaining, funny film. While we all anticipate a sequel, Amazon have created a TV show Pilot following the films characters which has been airing around the net for free. Taking cues from Netflix, the internet superstore have produced 8 comedy pilots where viewers will get to vote on their favourite, with the most popular evolving into fully fledged shows, most likely for distribution through Amazon instant video and Lovefilm. While it’s almost a certainty that Zombieland is going to get green lit, this isn’t necessarily based on the quality of this first episode.

The most alarming aspect of Zombieland is how poor the plot is in this sometimes hilarious first outing. Following a disembodied voice on the other end of a radio, Columbus (Tyler Ross), Wichita (Maiara Walsh), Tallahassee (Kirk Ward) and Little Rock (Izabela Vidovic) search for survivors in a post-apocalyptic world, an act so tedious it almost incites boredom. If these names seem familiar to you, it’s because they are, as these are the same characters returning from the film. The major differentiation is that Jesse Eisenberg, Emma Stone, Woody Harrelson and Abigail Breslin don’t reprise their roles, so these much loved characters are embodied with almost total unknowns. While the new meat does a decent job of things, it’s most unfortunate that Ward’s Tallahassee is nothing like how Harrelson portrays him in the film, the gunslinging badass has been reduced to a bumbling fool. It baffles the mind why writers Rhet Reese and Paul Wernick didn’t just create a new group to centre the show around instead of the recycling of old characters.

Looking beyond such absurdity is something of a challenge, but Reese and Wernick’s humour is solid stuff. Columbus’s awkward, rambling attitude causes cringe worthy comedy, while Tallahassee makes lines about killing the elderly with a fire poker oddly side-splitting. The rules to surviving Zombieland as well as the ‘zombie kill of the week’ are retained from the film, and while Columbus constantly droning on about his precious guidelines is grating, the zombie murdering antics could suit the episodic nature of the show exceedingly well.

While it makes for a largely inoffensive 30 minute watch, Zombieland TV is still plagued with a myriad of issues that really need to be ironed out when the first season goes into production. The CGI is poor, the narration is overbearing and the driving force behind the characters actions has no semblance of weight. The new cast have some gigantic boots to fill, with many fans of the film writing them off before they are given a chance to prove themselves. The internet’s love of zombies coupled with the disappearance of The Walking Dead until October all but guarantees Amazon will put their weight behind this project, the real question to ponder is if it’ll actually be worth watching?

The Descent Part 2 review

Director: Jon Harris
(2009)

As a general rule, I despise sequels. From a business perspective they’re absolute gold and in some cases are actually superior products to the first film, but said examples are few and far between. When you narrow this down to horror films, the genre that seems to crank out the most sequels- direct to DVD or otherwise-than any other, the chances of a follow-up to a decent film are almost microscopic. While we all wished that the Descent Part 2 was the series ‘Aliens’, it fails miserably, both as a standalone feature and as a lazy follow-up to a solid British horror.

The Descent Part 2 even manages to damage the quality of the original film by completely undermining the first films crowd pleasing ending. Instead of the climactic dream sequence of the preferred UK cut, Part 2 follows the generic US version, in which Sarah (Shauna McDonald) escapes the cave system and finds safety at a nearby road. She’s suffering from amnesia, although this serious medical condition doesn’t stop the local Sheriff Vaines (Gavan O'Herlihy) from forcing her to take a rescue party back into the caves to search for her friends.

 As purveyors of the first film know, Sarah is the lone survivor of the gruesome ordeal, although any potential drama or tension is dispersed by her loss of memory. Little makes sense in the 15 brief minutes set above ground, right down to the sloppy writing and weak acting. The use of amnesia reduces Sarah’s character to a one dimensional mute, a choice almost as baffling as doctors allowing her to leave mere days after the trauma she has endured. The first film spent plenty of time developing its characters, even if they were mostly fodder for the beasts that lurk in the darkness, but at least their deaths held some degree of impact. The descent (this time by elevator) down into the cave fails to mount the tension in any way, a failing that reverberates throughout the entire feature.

Once firmly underground, the contrived amnesia plot device is mercifully discarded and the attempts at fear begin. Only that exactly what they are, attempts. Every impactful shock of Marshals film are replicated here to a far lesser degree, Director Jon Harris simply can’t give the audience a frightening payoff when the films build-up has been so lax. Expect scenes involving night vision cameras, glowsticks, pools of liquid and rockslides to happen, lazy déjà vu of the strong moments that made the original film so nerve shattering and intense. Special mention should go to the utterly idiotic characters however, the ones who fire guns in tight spaces and handcuff themselves to another survivor to prevent them from running off, even as the group is hounded by the monstrous crawlers that call the cave home. The first film ruined the horror of its monsters by showing too much of them, diminishing their effectiveness. Harris is once again content on emulating, and even shows one of them dive-bombing into a pool of shit (yes really) to chase its prey.

And then Harris tries to hit you with a shocker ending in the same vein as the original that, for a brief few moments, actually works. The intriguing ambiguity is soon shattered though, as it dawns on you that the final scene makes no sense whatsoever. This is the final memory I have of this sloppy horror flick, one that sums up not only the disappointment of an unwarranted sequel, but also a needless twist bolted on to the end to replicate the far superior first film. This is simply a film worth avoiding, rewatch the first film instead and pray that they don’t make a third.

Monsters Inc review

Mike: I think I have a plan here: using mainly spoons, we dig a tunnel under the city and release it into the wild.

Sulley: Spoons?

Mike: That's it, I'm out of ideas. We're closed. Hot air balloon? Too expensive. Giant slingshot? Too conspicuous. Enormous wooden horse? Too Greek.

Directors: Andrew Stanton, David Silverman, Lee Unkrich
(2001)

It’s an almost surreal experience being able to revisit Pixar films during their infancy after knowing just how successful the company’s streak would turn out. Almost singlehandedly responsible for the second golden age of animation with their pioneering piece of perfection that is Toy Story (1995) the studio has proliferated the use of computer animation to the point where no one does anything by hand anymore. Despite being universally adored by audiences of any age upon release, Monsters Inc critical reception was warm rather than blisteringly molten like Toy Story’s, and even to this day I find this baffling. In a near perfect run of films spanning more than a decade, Monsters Inc is one of the company’s absolute highlights.

Set in the monster populated Monstropolis, Monsters Inc follows Sully (John Goodman) and Mike (Billy Crystal), 2 best friends and employees at Monsters Inc, a factory that collects the scares from children in order to power everyday activities. The factory has doors that lead into children’s closets, allowing the monsters to infiltrate the human world to gather the required ‘scream’ energy that society has become so dependent upon. In a hilarious revelation, human children are considered to be poisonous, with a single touch being able to kill instantly. After a shift one day Sully finds a door left on the factories scare floor and accidently lets a human child called Boo (Mary Gibbs) into the monsters realm. This puts the duo on a crash course with the antagonistic Randall (Steve Buscemi) a malevolent camouflaged lizard who has bold ambitions about the future of the monsters world.

What makes the film work is its genius, high concept idea and precise, entertaining storytelling. The concept of another world inhabited solely by monsters whose way of life is powered by the screams of frightened children might sound like something out of an arthouse horror flick; the idea and its universe are developed sensationally by Pixar’s creative minds. The way the city of Monstropolis functions is so similar to ours, but is flipped on its head by the physical state of its creatively designed inhabitants. A janitor cleans up a trail of slime only to create another when he moves due to being a slug, a monsters tongue is so long it doubles up as a child’s skipping rope and deodorant is based upon foul smells (wet dog anyone?). These quirky aspects of an otherwise relatable society make for some tremendous laughs, as well as establishing just how original the film, and films in general, can truly be.

While both Toy Story’s and A Bugs Life are films that do an excellent job of catering to 2 broadly different audiences, it was with Monsters Inc that Pixar really began perfecting the art of pleasing such a varied audience. Mike and Celia go to a fancy restaurant called Harryhausens and Mike is put off by the idea of yellow snow cones (“they're lemon!”) while younger audiences will adore the slapstick humour and comedic violence. The written gags are razor sharp and are slanted more in favour of entertaining adults than they are of children, and this catering to such a diverse audience is executed flawlessly, making for a cohesive, well rounded feature.

Much like Toy Story 2, Pixar saves one of its strongest moments till last as Sully, Mike and Boo soar through the factory warehouse, using the door track line as a form of makeshift rollercoaster/getaway vehicle from the villainous Randall. Soon the characters are using the doors as portals, travelling to various locales around the world. The chase is visually stunning and totally exhilarating, culminating with an emotionally charged finale that could reduce a grown man to tears. The films flaws (obvious, cliché villain, the usual Pixar buddy comedy routine) are minor, the successes are astronomical. Watch it again on Blu Ray to remind yourself how the Cars films are minor lows in a company that’s only in the business of crafting phenomenal highs.

The Descent review

Sam: Where are we? 
Juno: It hasn't got a name. It's a new system. I wanted us all to discover it! No one's ever been down here before. 

Director: Neil Marshall
(2005)

Neil Marshall’s 2005 horror The Descent possesses such a basic story, yet its simplicity doesn’t detract from the fear that it can produce. After witnessing the horrific past of protagonist Sarah (Shauna Macdonald), the film resumes with the arrival at a cabin in the Appalachian Mountains with an aerial helicopter shot that isn’t dissimilar to Stanley Kubrick's The Shining. Sarah meets with fellow friends (Juno, Beth, Rebecca, Sam and Holly) as they plan to go cave exploring to rebuild the bonds of the group after Sarah’s tragedy. Disaster strikes while inside the cave system, an event made considerably worse when Juno informs the girls that they're actually exploring an unmarked cave. Their venture into the unknown is amplified considerably when they discover that they are trapped 2 miles underground, and that they aren’t alone...

In its simplest form, The Descent closely follows a basic 3 act structure for most of its duration. The uneasy set up to the expedition is in place, a log cabin in the woods; complete with sheep’s skulls and the eerie nothingness that surrounds them. While this can be accurately labelled as the most mundane part of the film, the small details that crop up do an excellent job of building tension. A dead deer, a cave that's situated in the middle of nowhere and what appear to be claw marks hint at the women’s impending doom. It’s a shame that this slow build up of dread is offset by some gimmicky jump scares lazily crammed in seemingly only to fulfil the films cliché quota. Bad dreams, false scares and a flock of bats are the primary offenders here, simply director Neil Marshall trying to cater the modern horror audience.

Soon the real horror rears its head however, and The Descent becomes an uncomfortable and uneasy film, slowly twisting the screws as the metal whines and builds towards a breaking point. Our group force themselves through tiny tunnels, a claustrophobia made worse by the tight and imposing camerawork. Coupled with the caves extreme darkness, it’s enough to make anyone uneasy. What’s most striking about this third of the film is the surprisingly strong lighting work that's on display. The searching torches and cavern illuminating flares exude just the correct amount of brightness, enough for the image to be clear, but still allows this alien location to keep its secrets well hidden.

Cranking up the tension once more, Marshall throws a series of obstacles at his leads each of which becomes more and more stifling the longer the films runs. Chasms to navigate, exits to find and cave ins to avoid are the name of the game, making the environment itself a downright scary antagonist. And then comes the payoff as Sarah’s torch locates someone (or something) standing at the end of tunnel, furthering the predicament they find themselves stuck in. It’s unfortunately a small reveal, Marshall's choice to show us the silhouette of a creature drooling just minutes earlier strips our first true sighting of its menace. Soon the onslaught begins as the group is outnumbered against the attacks of these viscous cave dwelling monsters, known only as Crawlers.

Marshall instantly shifts the film up a notch, killing characters and breaking the group into 2. As much as this change of pace raises pulses, events begin to become mundane. The creatures are initially an enigma, attacking quickly from the shadows as Marshall grapples with keeping their as appearance ambiguous as possible. But soon they get more screentime that some of the human cast and the terror of their appearance is sternly diminished. What makes matters worse is how feeble these new antagonists are, easily dispatched with a swing from a pickaxe. Their malevolence is soon lost as the film draws to its audience dividing conclusion.

There's no mistake that the descent is a good horror film, capably blending tension with rewarding scares. But it feels like a film made in 2 distinct parts that causing the film to feel juxtaposed. It’s great to see an almost all female cast, many of whom are strong, if simplistic characters, but they bring the films latter stages down to that of a gory action film. Marshall's attempt to appeal to a broad spectrum of horror lovers is a choice that is unfortunately a detrimental one.

Batman Begins review

Henri Ducard: No, no, no. A vigilante is just a man lost in the scramble for his own gratification. He can be destroyed, or locked up. But if you make yourself more than just a man, if you devote yourself to an ideal, and if they can't stop you, then you become something else entirely. 
Bruce Wayne: Which is? 
Henri Ducard: A legend, Mr. Wayne. 

Director: Christopher Nolan
(2005)

Batman Begins is one of those films that is far better than it should be. On paper it’s a recipe for disaster, a talented yet relatively unknown director working with a huge budget for the first time to create a film about Batman. After the mess that was Batman and Robin, everyone was sure the caped crusader would never star in a half decent Hollywood production ever again. Yet seemingly out of the blue comes Batman Begins, the first in director Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy and hands down the best superhero origin story ever made.

What's most surprising about Batman Begins is how Nolan has taken what we think we know about the character and moulded it into a fresher, more organic form. Gone are the ridiculous gadgets, corny lines and lazy attempts at comedy; all thrown away to make room for a more serious Batman. This is an origin story, so we don’t even start with our titular hero, but instead with Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale). Holed up half way around the world beating criminals while in the confines of a jail, he meets the enigmatic Henri Ducard (Liam Neeson). Ducard offers him training with the League of Shadows, a ground of vigilantes and assassins. Through flashbacks we learn of Bruce’s childhood and relationship with Rachel Dawes (Katie Holmes), his parent’s demise and his phobia of bats. Soon Bruce returns to Gotham to take power from Carmine Falcone (Tom Wilkinson) the mob boss who has a chokehold on the city.

Nolan's Batman works because of this extensive backstory and a lengthy portion of screentime is used to fully flesh out the man behind the cowl. The first half of the film is Bruce Wayne’s story, a choice that certainly pays dividends to this legendary character. By developing Bruce this extensively, Nolan has managed to make us truly care for Batman. The strength of this strong script is proliferated by Bales ace performance, quite easily the best representation of Bruce that has ever been committed to celluloid. The importance of well written characters extends to the whole cast too, a keep emphasis from Nolan seems to be bringing DC’s most famed universe alive. Bruce’s loyal butler Alfred (Michael Caine) gives the film a touch of comic relief, his wise observations and wisecracks are worked excellently by veteran actor Caine. The same applies to Wayne Enterprises employee Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) the genius behind Batman’s technologically advanced gear. While these roles may appear relatively minor in the grand scale of things, they nonetheless feel deep enough to augment Bruce- and therefore Batman- as a character.

While the primary focus of Batman Begins is on character and plot development, the action sequences are never neglected in favour of more drama. For the most part Batman’s brawls are shot and edited sharply, a clever trick to give the impression of his incredible speed and ability. While some fights descend into a blur of thugs falling to the ground, we’ve invested so much into the character that the messy editing doesn’t negate to severely from any enjoyment the film radiates. No such issues persist with the vehicle scenes though, which are blisteringly fast and exciting. With the newest iteration of the Batmobile (in this case named the ‘tumbler’) the film delivers an immense payoff with a chase through the streets of Gotham. Evasions, pile ups and stunts that rip the tiles off of roofs, Cinematographer Wally Pfister certainly knows how to craft an engaging, exhilarating scene.

While Batman Begins is a grounded film, it’s by no means completely immersed in realism. Villains and their usually absurd powers are either dropped or backed up by some vague yet consistent science. Batman’s cape allows him to glide by passes electric currents through it and the Tumbler has a rocket booster attached to the back. Yet because the narrative isn’t silly, these oddities can be overlooked at no expense of the films quality or how enjoyable it is. Even secondary villain Scarecrow (Cillian Murphy) has his reasons; the tattered mask is to intimidate his patients, an accessory that compliments his mind shredding fear gas.

For its strong writing from David S. Goyer and Jonathan and Chris Nolan, Begins does have its moments of audience patronising handholding. Close to the films stellar climax, exposition is lathered on not once but twice, both of which feel slightly unneeded. Still, it’s easy to poke holes in such minor issues when the rest of the film gets everything so very right. Batman Begins is the film that gave the world a fantastic new director and the rebirth of one of the world’s most famous superheroes. In this context, it’s unmissable.

Short review: The Simpsons Movie

Director: David Silverman
(2007)

The Simpsons Movie simply doesn’t have the right to be this good. Constant rewrites and the weight of expectation should have buried it under a landslide of disappointment. Yet this feature length episode does what we've come to expect from the series. After Homer poisons Lake Springfield, the government enclose the town in a giant dome causing the famous family to go on the run. While the plot is mediocre, the humour is the true core of the film; perfectly blending smart jokes with postmodern nudges. The snide jabs at the government mostly fall flat however, often causing the laughs to dry up. While The Simpsons boasts a wonderful cast of side characters, very few are utilised beyond the odd joke, a severe waste of potential. The tiny 75 minute running time damages the film too, making this an accurate example of quality over quantity.

Short review: John Carter

Director: Andrew Stanton
(2012)

In retrospect, it’s easy to see where Andrew Stanton’s John Carter went wrong. The budget was huge, the trailers drab and the name was totally unappealing. Yet even after the box office dust (or lack of) has settled, it’s become even more apparent that it’s simply a subpar film. Our titular hero John Carter (Taylor Kitsch) gets teleported to mars from civil war America and gets caught up in a Martian conflict while he tries to get back to earth. Despite a colossal budget and John’s ability to jump higher and throw farther (due to the different atmosphere) the action scenes are sorely lacking in both quality and quantity. Warships explode and soldiers die, but it’s all so very dull. The bloated running time, poor story, mediocre performances and special effects put the nails in the coffin of this underwhelming, muddled mess.

4

Short review: Alice in Wonderland (2010)

Director: Tim Burton
(2010)

From the kooky Tim Burton comes another take on the famous and beloved Book by Lewis Carroll. Yet despite his trademark artistic style, Alice in Wonderland lacks the enjoyment that has been so prevalent in his other works. The moment Alice (Mia Wasikowska) plunges into Wonderland an abundance of CGI takes over, making the entire film seem hollow and fake. This onslaught of visuals is constant, leaving Wasikowska and co to do their best acting with a green wall. What's worse is the film totally lacks any bite, dilemmas are resolved within minutes causing Alice’s trek through this alien world seem banal. Depp and Bonham Carter are lacklustre, with only Hathaway giving anything close to a solid performance. Throughout Alice says she wants to wake up form this dream, and for most of the 108 minutes I really wish she would.

Life of Pi review

Pi Patel: Above all: don't lose hope. 

Director: Ang Lee
(2012)

On paper, Life of Pi seems like a pretty ridiculous film that I was certain would flop under the weight of its own expectation. Even the project being helmed by the incredible Ang Lee-the man responsible for masterpieces such as Brokeback Mountain- couldn’t quell my fears. After all, Yann Martel’s book has been deemed unfilmable on numerous occasions with talented directors such as Alfonso Cuaron and Jean-Pierre Jeunet passing the film on after being attached. Making matters even grimmer was the choice to shoot in 3D; a factor that's usually a solid indication of an impending cash grab from naive filmgoers who think that viewing stuff pop out from the screen is worth the extra green. Yet these fears were never compounded throughout the 3D viewing that I attended, as Life of Pi feels like a pure piece of cinema, a blissful combination of entertainment and technical wizardry.

The story of Life of Pi is a relatively straightforward one for the most part, told using a framed narrative. Our writer (Rafe Spall) is having dinner with Pi (Irrfan Khan) after hearing that he has an amazing story to tell. We recount Pi’s childhood, from his families acquisition of a zoo to his frequent encounters with various religions and how they shape his life. Events transpire which force Pi and his family to leave India and take their zoo to Canada. It’s on this fateful voyage that a vicious storm hits, sinking the colossal vessel and leaving Pi stranded on a lifeboat with a zebra, hyena, monkey and primary co star Richard Parker, a ferocious Bengal tiger. While Life of Pi is undoubtedly a story told primarily in a visual way, the framed narrative allows intervention from both Pi and The Writer in elaborating on the films more obscure aspects. Lee takes extra care here; he sheds light on the tricky aspects of the plot without ever using a paternal tone, a small success that aids the films universal appeal.

While I often berate films for excessive use of CGI, Lee’s latest may actually be one of few films that incorporate said effects so intuitively that they augment the film in almost every aspect. While some scenes have shots of blatantly fake animals that feel slightly unwarranted, for the most part things mesh successfully with live action shots to make a gorgeous meld of beauty. The choice to incorporate real animals into shots pays dividends too, on many occasions the line between fake and real is seamlessly blurred. This strong technical design is enhanced by some flawless cinematography from Claudio Miranda. Even during the more frenetic scenes- the sinking of the cargo ship for instance- shots never descend into shaking cameras or poorly framed set pieces. This discipline is what stops Life of Pi from becoming a sloppy, expensive mess.

Despite my initial groans of disappointment, Lee’s choice to shoot the film in 3D is a surprisingly good one. Unlike lesser efforts (Transformers 3 I'm looking at you) the use of the additional dimension isn’t solely for cheap gimmicks and things popping out of the screen. For the majority of the film it adds depth to the image, successfully causing a notable distinction between foreground and background. As well as creating a deeper, richer image, it also augments the more intense scenes such as the school of flying fish that barrage Pi’s raft. It’s like Lee even acknowledges the formats weaknesses-most notably how a fast moving camera will make for a horrifically blurring image- and does his best to prevent such a hideous effect from occurring. If only every director put this much care and consideration into the use of the format, it might actually become a viable way of watching cinema.

An important part of the film is Pi’s religious belief, or rather beliefs. He is a supporter of many religions, most prominently Hindu, but also Christianity and Islam. Yet despite this, Lee doesn’t ram religion down the throats of his audience. While the many beliefs of Pi are a prominent part of the story, they merely represent faith in any and all of its forms. If, like me, you’re an atheist, Life of Pi’s religious content isn’t stifling or abrasive, but rather beautiful and inspiring. It’s not what or who you believe, it’s simply about believing in something in times of need. Lee’s handling of such a fragile subject is admirable.

What is undoubtedly Life of Pi’s biggest achievement is how Martel’s tricky novel is made into an enjoyable cinematic experience. Considering a large chunk of the film is a boy and a tiger on a boat, Life of Pi is never boring, and consistently engaging. Suraj Sharma’s performance is engaging and grounded, his commitment to what must have been a tough shoot is marvellous. While the film never rises to a level that can be described as truly spectacular, Life of Pi does what many films fail to achieve by possessing both visual beauty and strong storytelling. A fine showcase for both computer generated effects and that usually useless extra dimension.

Short review: How to Train Your Dragon

While I'm not a particularly big fan of DreamWorks films, How to Train Your Dragon was something of an improvement upon their usually middling standard. The film centres on Hiccup (Jay Baruchel) a young Viking boy whose village is stuck in a constant battle with a gang of fearsome dragons. Things turn around when he befriends one of the injured fire breathers and learns the secrets of these flying monstrosities. Voice acting is solid yet the characters are very one dimensional, many of which are dull stereotypes despite the Nordic setting. The animation and use of colours is an improvement by DreamWorks standards as well, both of which render the impressive flying and action sequences incredible. Yet both of these features are offset by a story that is completely predictable and horribly cliché. Still, HTTYD remains a fun, family friendly film.

The Hunger Games review

Katniss Everdeen: May the odds be ever in your favor. 

Director: Gary Ross
(2012)

Films that are adapted from popular novels always face certain challenges when they hit cinema screens. Fans must be catered to, there's nothing worse than the target audience of said adaptation feeling screwed over. Conversely, appeal to general moviegoers is essential in order to be a big enough box office success to warrant a sequel. For the most part, The Hunger Games has the necessary elements to both camps, and is an involving, entertaining picture for the masses.

Set in a dystopian future of Panem, a broken America that has survived the ravages of war after an uprising against the tyrannical Capitol has failed. In order to intimidate the 12 districts that remain in Panem, the Capitol hosts an event called ‘The Hunger Games’. This yearly event takes 1 boy and 1 girl from each district and forces them to fight to the death until only one remains. After her sister gets selected for the games, our heroine Katniss Everdeen volunteers herself to be entered in order to save her younger sibling.

Right off the bat its clear that director Gary Ross is happy to show us the broken squalor that Katniss has to suffer in her impoverished home in district 12. People live in huts and shacks, scavenge food and wash in tubs. When Katniss sneaks out of bounds to hunt for food the electric fence that barricades her in is without power, yet another sign that they struggle to survive each day. It’s strong stuff, and once we’re whisked off to the Capitol at the end of the opening 3^rd, the juxtaposition is a vast one. The emerald greens and thick browns are contrasted with clean whites and pastel shades that resonate from the quirky clothing of the Capitols residents. In terms of crafting a believable and interesting world, Ross is wholly successful.

While the concept of last-man-standing-deathmatch-with-kids isn’t the freshest idea in the world, The Hunger Games succeeds where others fail for a multitude of reasons. Firstly, we have some strong build-up before the games actually start; allowing Katniss to the get the character development required to be a likeable and fully fleshed out character. We also meet the other tributes and get some backstory on them, adding some small meaning to events that unfold in the arena. This can be accredited to both the strong script from Ross, Suzanne Collins (also the author of the novel) and Billy as well as Jennifer Lawrence’s excellent performance. Every emotion is cast on her face; every action feels grounded and real. She’s the driving force for a good portion of the film, due to her isolation inside the arena. It’s undeniable that with a lesser talent as the lead, The Hunger Games would simply be a weaker film.

After an interesting build up involving mentor Haymitch (Woody Harrelson) Presenter Caesar Flickerman (Stanley Tucci) and Gameswoman Effie Trinket (Elizabeth Banks), Katniss, fellow district 12 competitor Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) and the remaining children are thrown into the arena in a breathless sequence of violence and death. At least, that what I think happens, as Ross’ choice to violently jerk the camera around is crude and often incomprehensible. It’s an understandable decision (to keep the certificate at a fan friendly 12A) yet is ruins action scenes almost outright. What's worse is this erratic cinematography is used constantly in order to give a sense of first person perspective for the audience. When the camera is restless in filming 2 people conversing at a table, it’s clear that the execution of this style was horrendous. The total lack of technical proficiency doesn’t end there, and the editing is also unnecessarily choppy, with shots that don’t mesh together with any impression of cohesion.  ILM’s CGI work is also slack, with muddy textures and animals that merrily skip through the uncanny valley. Considering the 78 million dollar budget, The Hunger Games has a rough and sloppy feel to it.

The Games themselves make up the latter half of the film and are made all the more interesting thanks to the great work that adds weight to the demise of many of the characters. While half of the 24 tributes lack dialogue, the others get some semblance of development, and this causes the vicious murders to have a far greater impact. Some tributes form temporary alliances, teaming up to prey on the weak. Others work alone, staying alive thanks to honed survival skills or just pure luck. The potential monotony of the forest environment is alleviated by cuts to the control room, where the arena is modified to make the Games more exciting, and to Tucci’s commentator, used to inform the audience of events that are mysteries even to Katniss. Both break the films 1^st person perspective, but don’t feel tacked on and add to the overall desperation of Katniss’ situation.

Yet despite said imperfections, The Hunger games is something that is still quite rare in today’s age of cinema; a film aimed at young adults that doesn’t pander solely to its audience. The result is an enjoyable, entertaining feature that is accessible to a wide variety of audiences. It will also do wonders for Lawrence; undoubtedly one of the stars of tomorrow.

Home Alone review

Marv: Kids are scared of the dark. 
Harry: You're afraid of the dark, too, Marv. 

Director: Christopher Columbus
(1990)

Each year around Christmastime, I always try to catch as many films centred on the festive period as possible. And every year, it’s become almost tradition in my household to watch the 1990 family favourite, Home Alone.

This light-hearted film focuses on Kevin (Macaulay Culkin at the peak of his fame), an annoying know it all child who’s family accidently leaves him at home over the holidays as they fly to France on vacation. Mid flight his mother Kate (Catherine O’Hara) realises they've forgotten him and embarks on a quest to get home. Initially Kevin is beguiled by the disappearance of his entire family from the house, naively believing that his wish for them to disappear had come true. Regardless, he is enamoured with this newfound freedom that is so seldom to an 8 year old child with multiple siblings.

This lack of restrictions is an immense weight lifted off Kevin, and considering we’ve all been children once, we can relate to his happiness and relief of nagging parents and peers. The second third of the film does a solid job of emphasising this, and Kevin indulges in the finer aspects of childhood. No bedtimes? Check. Marshmallows and chocolate sauce for a meal? Check. The ability to pick the TV channel that he wants to watch? Check, check, check. All while Kevin wallows in his euphoric paradise, we learn of The Wet Bandits Harry and Marv (Joe Pesci and Daniel Stern respectively), 2 idiotic thieves who plan to hit Kevin’s Neighbourhood which is empty due to the residents leaving to see their families.

The final third of Home Alone is when events hit their zenith, and we’re given some absurd and often funny scenes. Knowing that the thieves are about to strike, Kevin sets up traps all around his house in anticipation for their arrival. Writer/Director Chris Columbus shows his talent at producing quirky and inventive comedy. From putting nails on the steps in the basement to setting tripwires attached to blowtorches, Columbus’ scenarios are full of ingenuity and generate laughter almost with ease.

Despite being tonally fluffy, Home alone has some issues that simply can’t be ignored. While Columbus’ script does exceedingly well at avoiding the use of contrived plot devices, it occasionally falls into such a frustrating pitfall. When Kevin’s mother calls the Chicago police from France to ask them to send an officer around to check on Kevin, the officer haphazardly knocks on the door, before turning away 5 seconds later and declaring that no one is home. While events such as this cause mild frustration, nothing compares to the annoyance of Culkin's performance.  He’s a bigmouthed precocious brat who spends the 2 thirds of the film whining and screaming when applying aftershave. His character becomes somewhat tolerable by the films conclusion, but still manages to be absolutely infuriating for the bigger part of the film.

Regardless of Culkin’s infuriating performance or some bad writing, Columbus has done a good job of delivering a solid Christmas film that has appeal to the whole family. While it pales in the shadow of something like it’s a Wonderful Life, Home Alone shouldn’t be overlooked when it comes to choosing the next festive film   

Close Encounters of the Third Kind review

Roy Neary: I know this sounds crazy, but ever since yesterday on the road, I've been seeing this shape. Shaving cream, pillows... Dammit! I know this. I know what this is! This means something. This is important. 

Director: Steven Spielberg
(1977)

When watching a Steven Spielberg film, there are certain expectations, no matter how open minded a viewer you are. He's made many great films in his time, and I was sure that Close Encounters was going to be another addition to his good list. While Close Encounters is a decent film, it doesn’t live up to the standard of this great director’s work, both before and after its 1977 release.

The film follows Roy Neary, a cable worker, husband and father of 3. After witnessing flying spaceships in the night sky, he begins his search to understand what he witnessed, at the neglect of his job and loved ones. Richard Dreyfuss is astonishing as Roy, a likable man, seemingly discontent with his drab suburban lifestyle. Soon after his first extra terrestrial experience, he becomes obsessed with a mountain, trying to understand what it symbolises. He isn’t alone with these experiences, we see Jillian Guiler (Melinda Dillon) drawing the mountain in her artwork; she also shared this bizarre experience with Roy and wants to find answers.

One thing that is a mainstay in Spielberg's films is his frequently excellent cinematography. He really frames his scenes fantastically, and it makes for some interesting visual storytelling. This is seamlessly coupled with some stunning visual effects from the brilliance that is Douglas Trumbull. The first view we get of the alien crafts is a sight to behold, and even in today’s world of CGI, this scene holds up remarkably well. But its nothing compared to what's in store for the climax. The reveal of the mothership is an incredible sight. Its typical Spielberg, every frame drips with magic and wonder, the very same he would apply to E.T just 5 years later.

Roy is a very irresponsible man, though giving him such a title might be pushing it. He’s a big kid at heart and his love for model trains and the film Pinocchio cement this representation. He has a compulsion to figure out the significance of the mountain and his drive to understand the seemingly impossible is certainly interesting, but to neglect his family and job lessens how much we can care about his struggle. What's worse is that his kids are annoying loudmouthed brats and his wife is a total bitch, a poor attempt at making us empathise with him. 

The film is at its best when we witness aspects of suburban life behaving in a strange manner. Record players and TV’s switch on randomly, battery powered torches stop and start erratically and toy cars spin into life. This anonymity gives the first half of Close Encounters a mysterious, almost unsettling vibe, and it’s absolutely engrossing. Events remain sufficiently interesting right up until the final 30 minutes, where we the story is concluded in a fractured and unsatisfying manner. While I admire ambiguity in films, Close Encounters offers plenty of questions, but we get far too little in terms of payoff by the time the credits roll around. For a director so inclined to beat his audience over the head with blatant symbolism and obvious meaning, Close Encounters is happy enough to be frustratingly vague.

By the end, close encounters of the third kind gave me a deflated feeling. It was a fantastic combination of intrigue, thrill and wonder. The answerless ending dulls the entire experience, and the whole experience begins to feel hollow as we stop caring for our protagonist. A film such as this shouldn’t spell everything out to its audience, but a few answers would have gone a long way.

The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn review

Tintin: There's a clue to another treasure. How's your thirst for adventure, Captain? 
Captain Haddock: Unquenchable, Tintin. 

Directors: Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson
(2011)

With Pixar failing to make a good film in 2011 and DreamWorks punching below their weight (again), masterful director Steven Spielberg has stepped up and delivered what could well be my favourite animation of the year, The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn.

Based on 3 of the original comics by Herge, Spielberg, Peter Jackson and their trio of writers and avid Tintin fans (Edgar Wright, Joe Cornish and Steven Moffat) has seamlessly blended these stories into one coherent narrative. After purchasing a model ship, our titular hero Tintin is pursued by the mysterious, yet threatening Sakharine (Daniel Craig). He teams up with Captain Haddock (Andy Serkis) to track down the clues to a long lost treasure. It’s not a particularly original or memorable story, but neither was Raiders of the Lost Ark. Its most definitely typical Spielberg, it’s all about the adventure and excitement of the journey between A to B rather than what the final destination actually is. In fact, it's a great deal like Raiders, only with gorgeous motion capture animation instead of dusty tombs and Harrison Ford.

And by gorgeous, I mean stunning, awe inspiring, face meltingly (see what I did there?) gorgeous. Textures are brimming with detail, sand and water effects are beautiful and the actual animation is lifelike. While motion capture technology has had its fair share of ups and downs (most notably characters with the cursed ‘dead eye’) Spielberg and Jackson have used it to what currently seems like its fullest potential. The performances are good too, with every actor donning the ball suits doing a solid job. Many don’t class motion capture as ‘true animation’,  and consider it cheating when live action performances are converted to digital characters, but when the results are as astounding as this, they really shouldn’t care as much as they do.

The highlight of Tintin is easily the delightful action scenes. Sword fights, shootouts and chases, Tintin is jammed full of action. The highlight, a motorbike chase through a desert city is done in one continuous take. The camera snakes through buildings and streets, effortlessly switching between different characters on the fly as explosions erupt and buildings crumble. Yet despite their visual splendour and ferocious tempo, the pacing of these scenes is poor. It takes almost half of the film until we get one of the great action scenes. Once the action does start, it doesn’t really stop, and at times it’s like Spielberg is trying to drown us in fights and the films climax suffers because it happens incredibly close to the aforementioned motorbike chase. There’s little to break these scenes up, and despite the climax being sensational, it feels like it overstays its welcome due to the lack of downtime beforehand.

The first 30 minutes also exhibit problems and are a little too focused on making events very black and white. Tintin constantly speaks to himself pointing out various, and obvious plot points. It’s as if Spielberg and Jackson don’t think we’ll understand the content in these scenes, despite the simple story and perfect camerawork that frames every detail. We’re shown what we’re needed to know; there’s no need to tell us as well. Humour is light in both quantity and quality in this opening 3^rd too, and we have half an hour of average scenes before we get too the good stuff.

If Tintin was directed by a director who starts as he means to go on, we would have had a distinctively average film on our hands. But Spielberg and Jackson just don’t make films that way. What we have are 2 fantastic directors using relatively new technology in ways that produce enjoyable content. The films conclusion may have been crafted for the sole purpose of setting up the inevitable sequel, but Tintin is a franchise that I would certainly love to see more of.

Skyfall review

Sévérine: What do you know? 
James Bond: Well, it takes a certain type of woman to wear a backless dress with a Beretta 70 strapped to her thigh. 

Director: Sam Mendes
(2012)

Let’s face facts; Daniel Craig’s last outing as the iconic James Bond was an utter disappointment. Coming after the incredible Casino Royale, Quantum of solace felt like a cheap imitation rather than a successor to Martin Campbell’s 2006 007 reinvention. After Bond studio MGM sorted out there financial troubles, we have been given something of a return to form in Skyfall, helmed by the ace Sam Mendes. Not only is Skyfall a fine film to commemorate the 50^th anniversary of the franchise, it’s also one of the best films of 2012.

Opening with a fast paced, if slightly underwhelming chase through the streets of Istanbul, its clear that Mendes’ Bond means business. After leaping between train carriages and then getting shot unintentionally by fellow field agent Eve (Naomi Harris), Bond is presumed dead. Resurfacing after a terrorist attack, Bond must track down the missing hard drive which possesses the names of all agents that are undercover in terrorist organisations. Thematically, there's much emphasis on technology, with the question of “how relevant are field agents in this day and age?” being asked on a frequent basis. From a pistol that only Bond can fire to a super villain who can control almost anything using his computer, it certainly makes for an interesting topic to explore. Hell, we even get the return of gadget master and computer whiz Q (Ben Whitshaw) to further cement the importance of technology in modern espionage.

In terms of style, Skyfall sits between the realism of Casino Royale and the unpredictability of Quantum of Solace. What we have is a grounded film that likes to add spice to proceedings with motorcycle races across rooftops and fights in Komodo dragon pit. Despite this occasional silliness, Skyfall boasts some impressive set pieces, placed perfectly to augment the storytelling. Shootouts, chases and hand to hand brawls feature prominently, and are mostly well shot and gripping affairs. The films standout set piece is easily a shootout in a courtroom, a perfect concoction of suspense and action, captured and edited perfectly. This is helped tremendously by the talents of cinematographer Roger Deakins who is easily one of the finest in his field of expertise. Skyfall is quite easily the best that a James Bond film has ever looked; the use of lighting being a particularly impressive feat that is worthy of all the praise that it deserves.

Much like Casino Royale, Skyfall also possesses some fine performances. Craig is still a fantastic Bond, and while not the best in the series history, he certainly does a fantastic job of portraying Bonds charm and brutality. Judi Dench reprises the role of M, once again giving a great performance, something that holds even more importance considering her important part in the story of the film. Our 2 bond girls, Eve (Harris) and Sévérine (Bérénice Marlohe) are something of a revelation. While Harris is solid and Marlohe is merely a pretty face, what Mendes does with them was intriguing and unexpected. But the real scene stealer goes to Silva (Javier Bardem), the villain of the piece. Making his grand entrance in a gorgeous, unbroken shot, he is utterly engrossing to watch. Armed with a camp accent and a terrible haircut, Bardem imbues him with such hidden malevolence, his feigned sexual desire towards Bond more threatening than its initial appearance. Bardem was exquisite in 2007’s No Country for Old Men, a level of quality that he almost equals once again in 2012.

Still, Mendes hasn’t got everything right in this instalment  While the action is good, the CGI is absolutely dire. Looking like it has been spat out from the 90’s, it’s an immersion shattering detraction from the high production values of the rest of the film. The plot is flimsy too, sending our protagonists from location to location based on half facts and unlikely outcomes. While some are more severe than others, they nonetheless reek of sloppy writing, though I doubt those Bond fans who’ve been waiting for the series to recover since Quantum of Solace will mind.