Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues

Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues (2013)

Predicted Rating: 1 Star

Directed by: Adam McKay (The Campaign). Starring: Will Ferrell (Old School), Steve Carell (The Office), and Paul Rudd (Role Models)

After the events of the first film, legendary news anchor Ron Burgandy (Ferrell) is hosting the weekend news cast with his wife, Veronica Corningstone (Christina Applegate). They find out that the weekday reader is retiring so Ron assumes that he is getting the job, however, only his wife gets the gig. Ron then goes into a deep spiral of depression but is saved when he finds out a new 24-hour news channel. NEWS TEAM ASSEMBLE!

As you can see from my predicted rating, I expected this movie to be terrible. One reason for this is because the reason why the first film was so good was because it never tried. The jokes flowed smoothly, it never took itself seriously and became one of the most quotable movies ever. Anchorman could quite possibly be the most popular cult film ever. I feared for part 2 because I thought it would try too hard not to try hard. This makes the film feel like it is full of itself. A good example of of this is How I Met Your Mother, it realised it was popular and now struts around like it is the king of the roost. I think Anchorman 2 does the exact opposite of this. The jokes follow the same tone as in the first one but it doesn't feel like it is saying look, we made these jokes before, how good are we, which is the opposite of HIMYM, which has told the same 5 jokes for 197 episodes. Anchorman 2 continues the non stop fun because it again essentially has no story. It doesn't try to thrust on you a ridiculous story but just tells the joke and plays out more like a Saturday Night Live sketch.

Another reason why I thought this film would be awful was because really, has there been a good comedy sequel? I am going to sound like Jigsaw here but let's play a game, name a good comedy sequel... *crickets chirping. The only one I could think of was Home Alone 2 and even that is stretching it. There have been many classic comedies such as Ghostbusters, Men In Black and the Hangover that have absolutely terrible sequels. I think Anchorman 2 bucks this trend because it is thoroughly entertaining and a downright hoot.

A round of applause everyone for Kristen Wiig because she managed to move a few spots up on my favourite actresses list *woooo yeah. Well it is hard to move down from dead last but hey it is a step in the right direction. She has now leapfrogged Kat Dennings, Kathryn Heigl and Meryl Streep. I am in no way forgiving her for Bridesmaids but she was actually pretty funny in this film as the love interest of Steve Carell's Brick Tambland. I was actually thinking after the film, I wish there was more Kristen Wiig in this film, words I thought were impossible for me to say. Brick is really the glue in this film. He delivers the one liners at the optimum time and brings in by far the most laughs. As a result, it is only fitting that he gets a love interest and what better love interest that one who is essentially the female version of himself. Wiig Plays this role perfectly, maybe she is a decent actor, she just needs to be given a decent character.

Overall: In no way a good film but it is thoroughly entertaining, which is what you want in a mindless comedy. 4 Stars

Carrie

Carrie (2013)

Predicted Rating: 3.5 Stars

Directed by: Kimberly Pierce (Boys Don't Cry). Starring: Chloe Grace Moretz (Kick-Ass), Julianne Moore (Boogie Nights) and Judy Greer (Arrested Development)

A new adaption to the 1974 Stephen King novel and a re-make of the 1976 Brian De Palma film, Carrie tells the story of of teenage outcast Carrie White (Moretz). She has been raised by her radical christian mother, Margaret (Moore), who has sheltered her from any social interaction. After Carrie is teased by her fellow class mates after she gets her first period and does not know what it was, she discovers she has telekinetic powers. To punish the girls for their bullying of Carrie, Miss Desjardin (Greer) subjects them to a physical training session and anyone who does not complete it does not get to go to senior prom. Feeling sorry for her role in the attack, Sue Snell offers her spot in the prom so her boyfriend, Tommy Ross, can take Carrie to the prom.

I think the jury is still out on shot for shot remakes. Some can have their merits, whilst some, such as the abomination that is the Anne Heche/Vince Vaughn Psycho remake, can be down right awful. I was not expecting Carrie to be a shot for shot remake but in the end it wasn't half bad. However, the remake still needs to include something that distinguished it from the original. In Carrie it was the use of technology. This worked for 21 Jump Street but it was not as effective in Carrie. Granted the filming of the tampon attack and the subsequent online posting was a clever addition but far too often the use of technology would get shoved in your face with many shots of "look here is a mobile phone." In the end this is an admirable shot for shot remake because it would be difficult to differentiate from the original without essentially taking a huge dump on the book but you can't help reminisce about the 1976 version whilst watching the 2013 version.

I was a tad disappointed about some of the stuff that was left out of the remake. Most of the iconic moments such as the tampon scene and the bucket of pigs blood was included but a couple of important scenes where missing. One is not a scene but more of a technique, which is the use of split screen when Carrie destroys the prom. I can see how this may look lame by today's standard but I will have to admit it looked pretty cool in the original. The other thing was the ending. The original features one of the most iconic and shocking endings ever when Carrie's hand comes out to the grave grabbing the sole survivor of the attack, Sue Snell. I again understand that it was not included because you would see it coming, however I argue that many people would not expect it and I think it should have been added.

As this is a character driven story, the film relies heavily on the performances of the actors to truly make this a great film. The performance from Julianne Moore as Margaret White is nothing short of sensational. She seemed genuinely emotionally scarred and the addition of her self harm was chilling. Chloe Grace Moretz was good as Carrie but she often seemed to confident as she talked diminishing some of the vulnerability that Carrie is supposed to display. It is difficult to top the performance of Sissy Spacek, as she is almost perfect for the role and Chloe Grace Moretz is just a tad too attractive, but Moretz does do the best she can. Again Judy Greer as Miss Desjardin was great but not quite perfect. She is too "bubbly" for the role and she is also a tad too old. Despite some of the downfalls, all of the performances where fairly good and make the film what it is.

Overall: A decent shot for shot remake with some great performance but it does not live up to the expectations set by the original. 3 Stars

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

Predicted Rating: 3.5 Stars

Directed by: Francis Lawrence (Constantine). Starring: Jennifer Lawrence (Silver Linings Playbook), Josh Hutcherson (Red Dawn) and Liam Hemsworth (The Expendables 2)

Adapted from the best selling novel of the same name, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire takes place immediately after the events of the first film. After achieving an unlikely victory in the 74th Hunger Games, Katniss Everdeen (Lawrence) and Peeta Mellark (Hutcherson) embark on the victory tour to all 12 districts. Katniss is seen as a beacon of hope for the districts to rise up against the capitol. Growing weary, President Snow (Donald Sutherland as the 2nd best movie president ever) declares that the 75th Hunger Games be one featuring previous winners in order to eliminate them and squash any hope of a rebellion. In the arena Katniss and Peeta enlist the help of Finnick (Sam Clafin) and Johanna (Jenna Malone) to keep them safe from the career tributes.

This discussion was going to be inevitable so I might as well start with it, let's discuss the whole book to movie transition. As I am more of a watcher than a reader, my tactic is to watch the movie then read the book. The vast majority of the time, the book is better than the movie, mainly because the book can include a lot more detail that is difficult to capture on the screen. Hence, watching the movie first allows you to get an overall feel of what the story is like and then you pad out the rest reading the book. It also avoids the disappointment of developing a visual interpretation of the characters in the book and then being bitterly disappointed when the actors look nothing like you thought the character would. My tactic worked a treat for my favourite book, IT by Stephen King. The movie is downright terrifying, mainly due to a bone chilling performance from Tim Curry, however, the book is echelons better. This is mainly due to the inclusion of so many scenes that just wouldn't work on the screen and the fact that the two stories (past and present) intertwine so effortlessly in the book rather than having them as two separate entities in the TV movie. With the first Hunger Games, I think my tactic worked well again. The first film is probably one of the more faithful and accurate interpretations of the source material, whilst still leaving some gaps that need to be filled in by the book. A brilliant way to encourage kids to start reading! Will this work for Catching Fire? Only time will tell.

Now, this is going to sound incredibly stupid but hear me out here, The Hunger Games series is probably one of the most relatable pieces of literature for me. As a man who has been involved in a reality TV show, and in particular, been involved in an onscreen relationship, I can relate to some of the issues Katniss and Peeta have to deal with. In no way was our relationship fake like that of Katniss and Peeta and we were not forced to fake it for the value of entertainment once it ended but there was some manipulation involved. Everything you see on screen was legitimate, however we were forced into situations on occasions for the purpose of entertaining others, just as Katniss and Peeta were. All of this in pursuit of ratings. This made me think, what would of happened if Beauty and the Geek was like the Hunger Games. In someways it is, teams of two (male and female) battling it out to claim the final prize. Obviously there isn't a fight to the death but based on the first couple of nights camping, I would probably back myself in a survival situation.

In the end, this is actually a fantastic movie. At some stages, I was disappointed with the first film because it wasn't well directed, I wasn't a huge fan of the whole shaky cam during the games. However, the direction of Catching Fire was a huge improvement. The film also seems to be a lot more mature than the first. The Hunger Games does a fantastic job of dealing with the sensitive issue of children killing other children for sport but it felt a bit childish. In Catching Fire, you see the characters mature into adults and hence the film seems much more mature. It also doesn't suffer from to second instalment blues that many film series (Star Wars excepted) suffer from. The second film can sometimes feel just as a filler between the establishing story of the first film and the epic finale. Catching Fire does what many sequels fail to do, outshine the first.

Overall: As a tribute to Katniss' signature salute, I want to give Catching Fire 3 stars, however, it is way too good. 4.5 Stars



I volunteer as trib...
  

Insidious: Chapter 2

Insidious: Chapter 2

Predicted Rating: 4 Stars

Directed by: James Wan (Saw). Starring: Patrick Wilson (Watchmen) and Rose Byrne (X-Men: First Class)

Taking place immediately after the events of the first film, Insidious: Chapter 2 sees Josh (Wilson) return from the further not quite feeling himself. Renai (Byrne) is still on edge after discovering that Elise has been murdered, continues to see apparitions, this time at her mother-in-law's house. Josh, or should I say not-Josh, tries to convince her that she is making it all up but it is only their son Dalton who realises that there is something wrong with his dad.

In my opinion, Insidious is the scariest film I have ever seen. It perfectly mixes jump scares with tension building to leave you on the edge of your seat. Remember the scene when Darth Maul appeared behind Josh out of nowhere? Sorry for you not being able to sleep tonight now. It is also fantastically directed. That is why Insidious: Chapter 2 was such a let down for me. James Wan seemed to lose a bit of his touch when directing this film. This could probably be put down Wan having to rush this film and also being tied up with The Conjuring but it just doesn't seem to be as crisp as his previous efforts. It really took the genius of Wan to make Saw and Insidious as good as they were. Chapter 2 seems to just go through the motions and doesn't deliver anywhere near enough jump scares.

Chapter 2 also suffers from some scripting problems that were not present in Leigh Whannell's other films. It is apparent he watched the youtube video "Everything that is wrong with Insidious in 8 minutes or less" because it seems he blatantly tries to plug some plot holes from the first film here. However, in trying to cover up some, he creates some more blatant ones. For example, why didn't Renai realise that her mother-in-law was gone for the entire evening despite being woken several times? What happened to the police investigation? The officer specifically said on the phone that they will be investigating Elise's death further but then that plot line was completely disregarded. In no world, no matter what the circumstances, will a 10 year old hit his dad over the head with a baseball bat. Finally, what came of the guy with the duster in the further? The old man specifically said that he had Josh's baby. Here I was expecting some sort of Braindead style baby possession but nothing came of it. However, what I think disappointed me the most was that the main plot twist was stolen from my all time favourite ending! I won't say what it is because I will ruin two movies but watch (or if you are too lazy, read the wikipedia article) Sleepaway Camp. It is extremely cheesy but it has THE GREATEST ENDING OF ALL TIME! Even though the twist is not as critical in Chapter 2, I kind of sighed loudly and lost interest once I worked it out.

Horror movies, the vast majority of the time, rely on stupid white people being stupid white people. This stems back to the late 70's/early 80's slashers when, instead of using common sense, the "protagonist" will investigate that infamous noise completely unarmed and then ultimately meet their demise by the hands of the homicidal maniac. Chapter 2 is no exception to this rule. As usual, no one in this film has heard of adequate household lighting. Also why would you investigate the abandoned hospital and the old man's house IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT?! I know you guys are ghost hunters but at least regroup in the morning and make sure you have the proper equipment. A couple of handheld cameras and a set of dice with limited characters is not going to cut it. Ghosts do not abbreviate their speak like in text messages so bring more dice!

Despite all the downfalls, Chapter 2 can be entertaining on occasions. Patrick Wilson is my all time favourite actor and does a very good job in this. Rose Byrne sort of just cries the whole time but that is what the role asked for. Despite not being as scary as the first instalment, it does do a good job at building the tension. The comic relief of Whannell and Angus Sampson adds a certain humanity to the experience. Finally, even though it is not his best effort, James Wan is still a genius and it is still a well directed film.

Overall: Fairly disappointing in comparison to the first instalment but it still delivers the scares. 2.5 Stars
   

Thor: The Dark World

Thor: The Dark World

Predicted Rating: 3.5 Stars

Directed by: Aaron Taylor (The Emperor's New Clothes). Starring: Chris Hemsworth (Cabin in the Woods), Natalie Portman (V for Vendetta) and Anthony Hopkins (Silence of the Lambs)

Taking place in phase 2 of the Marvel Universe, set just after the events of The Avengers, Thor: The Dark World sees Asgard coming under threat from a doomsday weapon. Thousands of years after the Dark Elves were defeated by Thor's grandfather, they return lead by Malekith after their weapon, The Aether, is trapped in the body of Jane Foster (Portman). It is up to Thor (Hemsworth) to save the 9 realms from imminent destruction, but not before enlisting the help of his exiled brother, Loki.

There are essentially only three reasons why the stand alone Thor movies exist: 1. So Stan Lee can add another level to his house, 2. So 99% of the population will know who the hell Thor and Loki are before they watch The Avengers and 3. So women can oogle at Chris Hemsworth with no shirt on. However, I think the stand alone Thor movies are my favourites in the Avengers universe. Don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed Iron Man, Captain America and The Avengers but all in all I enjoyed Thor the most.

I think the reason why I like Thor is that it is the most science fictiony movie of the franchise. The plot would not be out of place in a Star Trek episode/film. The have flying cars and everything! This installment of Thor also tries to be the most comedic of the series as well (even though I thought Iron Man was supposed to provide the jokes for the Avengers). I don't think I am a fan of this, not just in this film, but in action films in general. I always feel very awkward laughing because a couple of minutes ago all those people got killed and now you are cracking jokes? There is also that one guy in the cinema that laughs way louder than everyone else and makes everyone feel uncomfortable. Maybe I don't like it in this film due to my severe dislike of Kat Dennings. She is supposed to be the comic relief but whenever she comes on screen I just want her to shut the hell up and leave. Some of the Loki jokes are funny, for example when he changes to Captain America to make Thor "feel more comfortable", but they only come in a short 3-4 minute burst.

Like most commercial films, it is very easy to nit-pick the errors. The hiding place for the Aether was not too well thought out. It was essentially found by accident by Natalie Portman acting like a stupid white girl from a 1980's horror film. She then claims that the reason why the world almost ended was her fault suggesting that she purposely found the Aether, we all know happened Natalie. Some better suggestions for hiding spots include in Kat Dennings cleavage, in the warehouse from Raiders of the Lost Ark, or as my friend suggested "They hid it in the title of the movie! No one will look in there". Since when did Thor's mum become a master of karate? And why didn't she use her skills previously? The technology of these supposed ancient societies also confuses me. For most battles, the Asgardians decide to use swords and shields. However, when the dark elves, or the Michael Myers fan club (not Austin Powers, but the main protagonist from the Halloween franchise. Interesting fact, the mask used in that series was originally supposed to be a William Shatner mask but John Carpenter found it in the shop and thought it looked creepy) turn up, the have freakin lasers despite being in exile for thousand of years! At this point I thought oh no! We are doomed. Then the Asgardians used their lasers! Where were these before?!

Overall: This is a very entertaining popcorn movie. However, the real reason I usually watch Marvel movies is to see the spoiler revealed during the credits and I was not disappointed this time. 4 stars

Gravity

Gravity (2013)

Predicted Rating: 4 Stars

Directed by: Alfonso Cuaron (Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban). Starring: Sandra Bullock (Speed) and George Clooney (Ocean's Eleven)

First timer Dr. Ryan Stone (Bullock) and experienced astronaut Matt Kowalski (Bullock) are on a routine space walk near the Hubble telescope when debris from a recently destroyed Russian spy satellite comes hurtling towards them, destroying the telescope, the space shuttle Discovery and killing their fellow team members. Stone is sent flying off into space with Kowalski hot one her heels. They must then make their way to the nearby International Space Station as it is there only chance of survival.

Wow... that was visually amazing. The cinematography is simply breath taking. From the opening sequence of silence as we are orbiting the Earth to seeing Bullock helplessly spinning through space, your jaw is on the floor the entire time. It is also great to see 3D as something other than a gimic to get butts on seats. 3D should be saved for films like these where it is integral to the viewing experience and almost feels like another character as opposed to something that is added in post production. I also applaud the production team's decision to film on green screen with wires used to create zero-g as opposed to using the vomit comet. For those who don't know, the vomit comet is a NASA training device and was used in the film Apollo 13 where a plane descends rapidly to actually create weightlessness. The problem with using this is that there is only a limited amount of time that the weightlessness can be filmed and approximately two thirds of people get violently ill doing it. Using wires to create zero-g allows for longer sequences and a less green faced Sandra Bullock to be shown. This is vitally important when 99% of the movie is set in space. From what I gather as well, the production crew do a fantastically accurate job of replicating zero-g. Replicating these conditions on film are notoriously hard (even though working in these conditions is essentially a theoretical physicist's wet dream). There are notably a few mistakes but these are more down to creating a dramatic effect as opposed to not knowing what to do.

I understand that many people may be turned off from this film because they are not a fan of sci-fi. I am going to say this now, Gravity is not a sci-fi film just because it is set in space. It is far more a picture about a person's will to survive no matter the situation. This is strengthened by the fantastic performance of the two lead actors, or should I say the only two actors. The whole premise sort of reminded me of a Simpsons episode when  Homer writes a screenplay before being Kim Basinger proclaims "without the talking pie it is just Alec Baldwin on screen for 90 minutes." Gravity sort of feels like this because without George Clooney, it would literally be Sandra Bullock on screen for 90 minutes. As a result, it takes a special performance to make this work and Bullock delivers. I highly anticipate an Oscar nomination for her, and at the moment, she is definitely the clubhouse leader.

Even though it is spectacular, I do have a few gripes about it. The Bullock zero gravity undressing scene isn't up to the standard set by Jane Fonda in the 1968 film Barbarella. That maybe because I find Fonda unbelievably attractive, however Bullock has some nice legs... There are also some scientific inaccuracies, like the orbital patterns of the satellites are all wrong and the director is obviously unaware of the surface tension of water. Finally the ending was a little standard. Even though there is no way this would happen, I would of loved to have seen it end as a tie in to another upcoming blockbuster. For example Bullock could make her way to her deserted landing spot, look up and see Raptors waiting for her on the beach followed by the title Jurassic World appearing on screen. Or she finds the Earth is inhabited by Apes and it is a lead into a remake of Planet of the Apes. However, alas, I am essentially nit-picking as this is a fantastic film.

Overall: Frontrunner for my Oscar of the best film of 2013 - 5 Stars

R.I.P.D.

R.I.P.D. (2013)

Predicted Rating: 3 Stars

Directed by: Robert Schwentke (Red). Starring: Jeff Bridges (The Big Lebowski), Ryan Reynolds (Every girl's dreams) and Kevin Bacon (Footloose).

Slightly dodgy, or maybe not, cop Nick Walker (Reynolds) is sent out on a drug bust with his long time partner Bobby Hayes (Bacon). During the bust, Walker is intentionally gunned down and killed by Hayes. In the afterlife, Walker is recruited to the Rest in Peace Department, a supernatural department consisting of dead police officers required to stop "Deados" or monstrous spirits roaming the Earth. Walker is teamed with Roy Pulsipher (Bridges), an old sheriff from the 1800's. After they discover that the Deados, led by Hayes, are attempting to reconstruct the Staff of Jericho to bring all the Deados to Earth to reek havoc, it is up to Pulsipher and Walker to save the day.

In the end, this film wasn't a bad piece of entertainment, it just suffered from an extremely weak script. The overall idea of having a deceased police force fighting supernatural forces is fairly inventive. Even the story of the reconstruction of the Staff of Jericho has its merits. However, it is the all important "padding" that is clearly absent. R.I.P.D. attempts to go down the path of action comedy but just doesn't execute it well. It tends to flog a dead horse by repeating the same jokes over and over. Yes we get it, Ryan Reynolds actually looks like an old Asian man and Jeff Bridges is an attractive woman, don't try and make the same joke 12 times during the film. Don't get me wrong, I admit I did chuckle a few times but the laughs are few and far in between.

I think the downfalls in the script are directly related to R.I.P.D. being a blatant knockoff of Ghostbusters, but more so, Men in Black. I truly believe that the writers sat down, wrote something and realised, oh crap, that was in Men in Black, oh well lets make the joke that Jeff Bridges was killed by coyotes again. The problems were further compounded by the fact that the two main characters are exactly the same as the two from Men in Black. Pulsipher is Agent K, the ageing, disgruntled, cynical veteran and Walker is Agent J, the enthusiastic but naive rookie. This script would have worked much better being titled Men in Black 4 as opposed to R.I.P.D.

Even with the poor script, the actors tried their hardest to save the film. Jeff Bridges was awesome even though you really couldn't understand what he said most of the time. Every time he came on screen you just wanted to yell "Jeff Bridges!". There were reports that Zach Galifianakas was intended for the role of Pulsipher but had to pull out due to a scheduling conflict. This would have been a very different film if he was in it, however I can quite tell whether it would have been better or worse. Mary Louise Parker was pretty funny and is looking damn fine for someone who is 49 and Kevin Bacon was well, Kevin Bacon. However, Ryan Reynolds was sort of just there, waiting for the scene to finish to pick up his pay check. The casting of his on screen wife was interesting too, mainly because he could probably do a lot better. I assume they got this actress because she was the only person who could have a shirtless Ryan Reynolds lying on top of her, looking into her eyes and still remember her lines.

Overall: A good idea but suffered from scripting problems. You are probably better off watching Men in Black again. 2 stars

Kick Ass 2

Kick Ass 2 (2013)

Predicted Rating: 4 Stars

Directed by: Jeff Wadlow (Never Back Down). Starring: Aaron Taylor-Johnson (The Illusionist), Chloe Grace Moretz (Hugo), and Christopher Mintz-Plasse (Superbad)

4 years after the events of Kick-Ass, Dave Lezewski (Taylor-Johnson) has retired his vigilante superhero, Kick-Ass. Not content with his normal life, Dave enlists the help of Mindy (Moretz), i.e. Hit Girl. After her guardian disapproves of her reprisal of Hit Girl, Mindy is forced back to school. Dave, along with some other vigilantes just like him, form the group Justice Forever. Meanwhile, after the death of his mother, Chris D'Amico (Mintz-Plasse), creates the character "The Motherfucker", a further incarnation of Red Mist. His overall aim is to exact revenge on Kick-Ass for murdering his father.

When will people learn that violence is not the answer. Wow, I sounded like a bit of a hippie then but far too often these days cinema relies heavily on violence to draw in the big crowds. Instead of making clever films, the director takes the easy way out and says, well lets just blow this up. Unfortunately Kick Ass 2 falls under this category. This is unfortunate because it means Kick Ass 2 is exactly the film Kick Ass 1 tried to avoid becoming. Yes, Kick-Ass is a violent film but it does it almost ironically by never taking it self seriously. Kick Ass 2 just tries too hard and fails miserably. In this instance I am pointing the finger squarely at the director. The uber-talented Matthew Vaughn decided to hand the reigns over to the inexperienced Jeff Wadlow and paid the price dearly. This film is just flat out poorly directed, which in turn negates the cinematic experience felt in Kick Ass 1.

Another thing that plagued this sequel is the poor choice of music in sometimes. One of the best scenes from the first instalment was towards then end when Hit Girl breaks into the building and proceeds to take down numerous henchman. What made this scene so great was it's ironic use of a bubbly pop song to accompany a copious amount of violence undertaken by an 11 year old girl. On paper it seemed destined for failure but in practice was a match made in heaven. A similar approach could have been taken in this film when Hit Girl attempts to save Kick-Ass from a speeding van. Instead the music director decided to use a more dramatic score. This theme seems to be constant throughout the film and denies it from some much needed light-hearted atmosphere. Granted, the Joan Jett song "I Hate Myself for Loving You" was included during Hit Girl's homage to Ferris Bueler when she needs to rush home but all that really did for me is make me want to watch some football. I expect no-one else will get this reference so look up NBC's Sunday Night Football Theme.

To go with the direction and music problems, there are also a few issues with the script and casting. Chloe Grace Moretz as Hit Girl was clearly the highlight of the film so I am not criticising the casting choice but I am well aware of the age difference between her and Aaron Taylor-Johnson (15 vs. 23). As a result, please do not end the movie with them kissing. The worst part of it was that I knew it was coming the whole film and it just made me feel super uncomfortable. Then there was the obvious moment when a contract dispute occurred with Lyndsy Fonseca who plays Dave's girlfriend, Katie. She appears for maybe 2 seconds at the start, slaps Dave fairly hard for talking with another girl then storms off. Then, for the rest of the film, she doesn't even crack a mention. There isn't even closure on whether they broke up. If you couldn't afford the actor at least try and write a more witty reason to exclude her from the film.

Overall: An unnecessarily violent film that becomes everything Kick Ass avoided being 2.5 Stars

Elysium

Elysium (2013)

Predicted Rating: 3 Stars

Directed by: Neill Blomkamp (District 9). Starring: Matt Damon (Good Will Hunting), Jodie Foster (The Silence of the Lambs) and Sharlto Copley (District 9).

In the year 2154, the human race has been split into two classes, the super rich who live on a custom built space station, Elysium, and the rest of the population stuck on Earth living in slums. Max de Costa (Damon), a convicted criminal, is working for a robot manufacturing company on Earth when he is subjected to a lethal dose of radiation, leaving him with five days to live. In order to get to Elysium and save his life, he must extract information from the mind of the CEO of the robotics company. It is revealed that this information is the code to Elysum, required by the Secretary of Defense, Jessica Delacourt (Foster), to initiate a coup and take over as president of Elysium. She hires the services of rogue agent C.M. Kruger (Copley) to hunt down Max before he makes it to Elysium and makes it accessible to the entire population.

Neill Blomkamp's first film, District 9, used a sci-fi back story to really explore the issue of racism in South Africa. With Elysium you would expect a similar approach to be taken, with Blomkamp this time exploring the issue of illegal immigration. From the very start it is obvious that he is specifically targeting the influx of Mexicans into the southern areas of the USA. However, it really isn't until the end of the film when Blomkamp's view on the issue is revealed, leaving the interpretation up to the viewer for most of the film. Depending on your ideology, you can interpret one of two ways. You can see that the influx of refugees into a better off area can drastically reduce the quality of life of the established occupants if the immigrants are not willing to fully integrate into society. This is made evident in the film as the Mexicans are the ones who are unemployed, essentially ridiculing the citizens who actually have jobs. On the other hand you see the selfishness of the rich and powerful, the 1% if you wish, as they essentially push the problem under the rug and flee to an area full of exclusivity and leaving the general population in disarray. In the end it becomes obvious that Blomkamp is of the opinion that everyone should get a fair go, no matter what their class or nationality, quite clearly the right answer. However, as most good films should be, it is up to the viewer the interpret the issues how they see fit and come up with their own conclusions.

As with the issue of illegal immigration, who is the protagonist and who is the antagonist is left entirely up to the interpretation of the viewer. The character of Wikus van der Merwe in District 9 is the perfect example of this, he is almost the quintessential anti-hero. His intentions are overall positive but the way he goes about it is somewhat unconventional so it is up to you to determine whether he is in fact a good guy or a bad guy. The same can be said for Max de Costa in Elysium. He is not your conventional good guy, he has a sketchy past and his intentions of bringing down Elysium are on a purely selfish basis. However, in the end he does essentially save humanity but he does it purely by coincidence. Is he a good guy or a bad guy? It is up to you to decide. The same goes for all the characters, they all have their moments where the can be loved or hated, just as most people have. This makes all the characters very realistic.

My fear for Elysium would that it would be way too commercial. The best part of District 9 was that it was so unique that it bordered on being an indie film. However, it didn't bear the pretentious quality that all indie films possess where they love to point out they are being different for the sake of it. I feared that the studio would recognise the success of District 9 and essentially make the same film and dumb it down so it would make money as opposed to being good. This was evident with the casting choice. Whilst Matt Damon and Jodie Foster are terrific actors, they were just there because their names would drag in viewers. I mean Jodie Foster didn't even have her signature accent that made her characters, such as Clarice Starling, so magical. In these type of films, I much prefer to see no name actors because they make the characters their own. The perfect example was Sharlto Copley's performance as Wikus in District 9. Whilst it is obvious that the studio had a big say in what happened in this film, Blomkamp had his fair share of a say in what occurred. This meant that Elysium will most likely be stuck in the middle of a commercial and critical success. This is a bad place to be as you will neither generate the money or get those prized Oscar nominations.

Overall: Not quite up to the standard of District 9 but still a thought provoking movie focusing on the issue of illegal immigration. 4 Stars

Drunk Review: Sharknado

So the intention here was to get fairly intoxicated then write my review still under the influence. What better movie to do this with than the instant cult sensation, Sharknado? However, it turns out I am fairly lazy when I am drunk so I only managed the first half of my goal. None the less, Sharknado was that ridiculous and surprisingly very entertaining it does deserve to be reviewed. Even though this review might lack the craziness that might have been achieved if I was still intoxicated, the drunk ideas will still remain.

Directed by: Anthony C. Ferrante. Starring: Cassie Scerbo, Ian Ziering and Tara Reid

Do I need to explain the plot? Sharks get caught in a tornado and start killing people

Well that could have been the greatest entertainment experience of all time. I mean it was so unbelievably ridiculous. First things first, where the hell did all those sharks come from? There are thousands of them just hanging around. I assume the scene at the start with the shark fin soup was supposed to explain it but still, there were thousands of them! Also they all of a sudden became ridiculously aggressive. Did I just witness a 2 m shark swallow a 1.8 m man whole? Yes yes I did. Oh and the biological inaccuracies don't stop there. Once again someone is swallowed whole and manages to move through about 70% of the shark's digestive tract in a matter of seconds, start a chainsaw, makes a surgeon like incision and escapes unharmed. Finally what makes generic shark number 5 more dangerous than generic shark number 7? EVERYTHING! You can tell that there are a few great whites and a couple of hammerheads but other than that all of the other sharks don't resemble a specific species. They appear to be the result of the special effects guy receiving the instructions "make me a computer generated shark."

What else can be wrong this movie you might be saying? Well I am just getting started. The technical difficulties are so abundant you can't keep up. There are more plot holes than a movie about Swiss cheese. The shark fin soup story went nowhere, there was no animosity shown by Tara Reid after the attractive girl hits on her ex-husband in front of her, and then the attractive girl all of a sudden loses all feelings for the main guy and gets amongst it with his son. Wait a minute, since when is Tara Reid old enough to be a mother of someone in their early 20's, man I feel old. Then there is the over zealous use of stock footage. I understand the use of establishing shots to show we are in LA but next time make sure you have the time of day and weather conditions. There are numerous occasions when 5pm during a hurricane turns into a warm sunny morning, c'mon this isn't Plan 9 from Out of Space. Then there are the almost humorous shark cut scenes. Cutting from a shark swimming in waist deep water though the street to a clearly different type of shark cruising though the open ocean is magical.

Tara, Tara, Tara, what has happened? You have appeared in American Pie and The Big Lebowski, two of the best movies from the late 90's, so I expect you to outshine the other actors with your pure talent. Oh how wrong was I. Somehow you manage to drag the acting quality down. I know your character gave you nothing to work with but at least put a little effort in. You sort of just mope around wondering what went wrong with your career. On that, none of the characters had any sort of defining quality, except one. What shark movie is complete without the wise cracking Aussie guy who doesn't care and is just there to fuck shit up. His defining moment comes immediately after someone is devoured by the sharks, of course turning the water red. Everyone else is visually upset so to lighten the mood (unsuccessfully I might add), he says, whilst off camera, "it must be that time of the month." I will leave it at that...

Overall Rating: This is not one movie I can use my normal star rating to rate. It has done what movies such as Troll 2 and Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus have done but so many others have failed, be so bad that it is good. Almost every movie made is better than this one but very few are as entertaining. My recommendation is to do exactly what I did, grab a few friends, crack a couple of beverages and sit back and enjoy 90 minutes of pure hilarity.  

The World's End

The World's End (2013)

Predicted Rating: 3 Stars

Directed by: Edgar Wright (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz). Starring: Simon Pegg (Star Trek), Nick Frost (Paul) and Martin Freeman (The Hobbit).

The third installment in the Cornetto trilogy sees the washed up Gary King (Pegg) contemplating what has gone wrong in his life. He decides that the best moment of his life occurred on a night when he and his four friends attempted the golden mile, 12 pubs in one night. Twenty years later Gary wants to recreate the night so he gathers his friends Peter, Oliver (Freeman), Steven and Andrew (Frost) and they head back to the small town of Newton Haven. After an initial resistance from the team, the realise that the town of Newton Haven is inhabited by what appear to be robots so they must work together to uncover the secrets and save each other.

Like the other two installments of the Cornetto Trilogy, Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, The World's End takes a unique and complex idea, i.e. a comedy about robots taking over the world, and makes it unbelievably simple. The characters are very solid. They are well established from the beginning, you know their good and bad qualities, who to hate and who to love, and eventually who will save the day. There is also substantial character development, something I value very highly but is often forgotten in modern cinema. There are also no plot holes, something that is very difficult to achieve. Each event in the movie is also spelled out as simply as possible so you always know what is going on and you are never left scratching your head thinking wait, I thought he was a robot. Often in American movies this means that everything seems like it is a big fat hamburger being shoved down your throat. However, in the Cornetto series, everything is done with that quaint British charm so the plot appears though it is a nice Sunday roast served on fine china with a pint of ale and a sprig of parsley on top to garnish.

Another thing that The World's end does well that a lot of other movies fail miserably at is drunk humour. In other films, the drunk characters seem too stereotypical, i.e. the stagger round, fall over and generally make an arse of themselves. This gives the appearance of the actors just acting like they are drunk. In the World's End, the actors genuinely appear drunk the entire film. This is because each character acts differently when they are drunk and there is a clear progression of drunkness for each drink, not just a black and white drunk/not drunk. The film also manages to include the character's being drunk as a clever plot device. You can tell whether they are a robot or not based on their drunk behaviour.

If there is one criticism I have of this film is that it drags out slightly too long. This is nothing new, many movies in the past have made the mistake of dragging the serious ending out for longer than it should. Whether this is because the writers have run out of ideas for jokes so they make the ending serious I am not sure. In my opinion, the difference between a good comedy and a brilliant one is to have you laughing to the end and it really never take itself seriously. Unfortunately the last 15 minutes of The World's end is too cliche and it masks the quality of the previous 95 minutes.

Final Rating: Not quite as good as Shaun of the Dead or Hot Fuzz but an enjoyable comedy none the less, 4 Stars

This is the End

This is the End (2013)

Predicted Rating: 2 Stars

Directed by: Seth Rogan and Evan Goldberg (Directorial Debut). Starring Seth Rogan (Pineapple Express), Jonah Hill (Superbad) and Jay Baruchel (She's Out of Your League)

During a party at James Franco's house that includes such celebrities as Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Michael Cera, Aziz Ansari, Emma Watson and Rihanna, the world unexpectedly ends causing most of the celebrities to be sucked into an abyss to hell. Remaining after the mayhem are Franco, Seth Rogen, Jay Baruchel, Craig Robinson and Jonah Hill. After deciding the best course of action is to remain inside Franco's house and ration out the food, including one very desirable Milky Way. When the group wakes up to finds that their supplies have been mostly consumed by an unaware Danny McBride, tensions build in the house.

Well, that was actually a pleasant surprise. The act of self parody is a very hard genre to pull off in cinema but it was done perfectly in This is the End. Most of the time movies that explore the self parody genre seem cocky. The lead actors usually act as if look at us, we are so famous we can play ourselves and the cameos are put in so the makers of the film can say look who we have got to appear and they are even playing themselves! This is the End is essentially the opposite. It makes proper fun of the actors playing themselves and it essentially feels like they are playing characters of themselves rather than themselves, if you catch my drift. A better way to put it would be that they are playing who they want to be rather than who they actually are. The other cameos are far from tacky either. This is probably due to how ridiculous they are. I mean come on, Michael Cera is surely not a sex crazed coke addict and I assume Emma Watson is the nicest person on the planet and would not hold you to ransom with an axe.

Once you get past the actors playing themselves, the story is very well written. The jokes are plentiful and don't dry up as the movie progresses, something that plagues many comedies. This is the film The Watch should have been. Rogen and Goldberg have written some good movies but also some very bad ones. I am going as far to say that it is the best Rogen/Goldberg movie since Superbad. It was also quite nostalgic to see the three main guys from Superbad chatting nicely then Michael Cera unexpectedly blow cocaine in Christopher Mintz-Plasse's face. This was definitely the funniest movie so far this year.

I am going to end with this (excuse the pun), the ending is one of the best in recent memory and will have people who grew up in the 90's frothing at the mouth

Final Rating: One of the funniest movies released over the last few years that manages to effectively nail the hard genre of self-parody. 4 stars