Man of Steel (IMAX 3D)

Man of Copper...

                                   Constantly turning around doesn't constitute as a performance

DIRECTOR: Christopher Nol- erm, no- I mean Zack Snyder

CAST: ME!, Micky Ward's girlfriend, that guy Eminem punched, The Postman, Russell Crowe fighting around the world, Paulette Goddard and the Silver Surfer...

PLOT: A reboot of one of the most universally famous superheroes, we go through the origins of Superman being Nolan-afied. 

I've never liked 'Superman'. It's difficult to begin as to why I don't. Firstly, how the fuck do we kill him? Not by shooting him in the eye, we know that much already. He's too... super. He hasn't got enough weaknesses, and thus we can't see ourselves in him. Bruce Wayne's parents are dead, Tony Stark's an alcoholic and prone to anxiety attacks and Peter Parker is a massive nerd. And all of them subsequently make far more interesting superheroes.

David S. Goyer also reminds us that he stands as a patriotic symbol to the US, especially with the ill-advised line "I grew up in Kansas, General. I'm about as American as it gets." So the US won't rest at westernising the Middle East? They can also westernise aliens as well; and end up using them as propaganda tools.

Oh, and I've always hated the disguise of a pair of glasses.

But due to impressive trailers, and Zack Snyder and Christopher Nolan being on board, of course I had to sit up and notice. It gave me high hopes that the good sides of 'Superman' could be embodied in the film. Such as the positive message that can be given to people - that we can all be a superman and act bravely, no matter how small said act may be. 

However, with having the directors of 'Watchmen' and 'TDK' trilogy as the creative force of the film, it's obvious that 'Man of Steel' was going to be a lot more serious and darker than what we're used to. And this ends up being one of the film's biggest failings. The whole ridiculous premise of 'Superman' could be half-forgiven with the Christopher Reeve movies because they were camp and light-hearted. They knew that it was ridiculous. 'Batman' could get away with being more realistic (at least in a comic book sense). Superman cannot. 

Thus, what we are given is a joyless, po-faced origins story that drags on for at least half an hour and takes itself way too seriously. It's not helped by a hammy Michael Shannon performance as 'General Zod', who seems to spend most of his time turning around into a close-up, looking menacing and snarling direlogue such as "either you die! Or I die!" The amount of exposition and explaining of his evil plans doesn't make him anymore villainous either. Instead he just seems a bit pathetic and moany; an age-old bad guy who tells everyone what he's going to do, which of course means that we already know the outcome.

On the plus side, at least Henry Cavill was a convincing enough 'Superman'. His chiselled jaw, perfect hair cut and herculean body will probably make sure that he is blue tacked to a lot of teenaged girls bedroom walls. Other than that, he's not given an awful lot to do as 'Clark Kent', and is instead spending the majority of his performance pulling determined faces as talented VFX teams make him fight in bloated video game-like action sequences that last for far too long.

                                  He'd had a bit too much to drink at the work-do's fancy dress party

Considering that this is supposed to be an origins story, we don't really receive any new information or any different angles to what we already know. The origin is skipped past, and we only get glimpses of his childhood that look like they have been shot using Instagram; all of which that we have already witnessed in the trailers. 

In fact, the whole film is like a two-and-a-half-hour trailer. It never takes a rest to settle down on a scene and give any of the characters a quiet moment to develop. And because of this you find yourself not giving a shit about anyone involved. Even the unlucky ones of 'Metropolis' (basically New York) who are blown up for about 40 minutes of the film - something 'The Avengers' did better.

The moments that are supposed to feel epic thanks to Hans Zimmer's ear-assaulting score subsequently fails to resonate on an emotional or thrilling level. When so much is fitted into one text, it's hard to care and you'll begin to think about what you're going to have to eat when you get home.

One thing that definitely is missing - a bit of slow motion. The action is so quick that it's often difficult to know what is happening. And the hectic, hand-held style doesn't compliment the third dimension either (if you're desperate to give it a go, see it in good old 2D!) You'd be forgiven for not knowing that 'Man of Steel' was in fact directed by Zack Snyder, even though it is visually brilliant, but not groundbreaking. If you want a superhero film for 2013, you're best off giving Robert Downey Jr. your attention. 'Man of Steel' unfortunately feels as if Nolan has tried to turn 'Superman' into 'Batman'. It wants to be 'Batman Begins'. But after trying so hard, 'Batman' is still conclusively the superman of the DC Universe. 

* *  ½

Star Trek: Into Darkness (IMAX 3D)

"So, shall we begin?"

            That's right, put the evil super genius in a glass prison, nothing bad is ever going to happen then...

DIRECTOR: J. J. Abrams

CAST: Jack Ryan, pointy eared hipster, that shit negotiator from 'Four Lions', William Burke, Judge Dredd, Neytiri, Harold, the Russian Kyle Reese and Mickey Smith...

PLOT: The crew of the USS Enterprise are back and seemingly a little bit more experienced. This outing sees an English villain (how original!) named 'John Harrison' (Benedict Cucumber-batch) who is out to settle a mysterious vendetta against Starfleet.


Ever since J. J. Abrams, the new Hollywood golden boy, took over the colossal 'Star Trek' franchise in 2009 with a reboot that was fantastic, doing everything that a reboot should do - it kept the huge and diverse fictional universe, it kept the politics as an important subject, it promoted diversity and tolerance and most importantly, it kept the characters that so many already know and love; and the strengths often come from the interaction between the wonderful 'Enterprise' crew, and all that come into contact with it. But it also added an abundance of action, fast-paced narratives, amazing special effects, an attractive, but no less talented, cast, and tonnes of popcorn for the disposal of your general cinema-goer. It was obvious that this wasn't going to be like any past renditions of 'Star Trek' that we were used to as we watched Chris Hemsworth get blown up in the opening scene. All of a sudden, 'Star Trek' was cool.

There has been many previous Trekkies grumbling on the internet or at the closest person who cares about how "it isn't Star Trek anymore". Yes, I'll be the first to admit that it is a lot more mainstream now, that much is obvious when the screening was more busy than 'Iron Man 3', and it's not a material that is only aimed at science-fiction nerds anymore, which in my opinion is the main thing that gets so many people's knickers in a twist, as it's now aimed at a much larger and wider audience. At the end of the day, if you're going to spend almost $200 million on a film, then common sense suggests that you cannot be aiming for a niche market.

Grumblers and keyboard warriors will constantly react in the same way, just as they always do for remakes, reboots and adaptations. Just as they do when their favourite novel is adapted into a film, or if an old film is remade. Just as they did for the prequel trilogy of 'Star Wars' (the only difference is, the 'Star Trek' reboot is actually good). What these people tend to forget is that the original sources still exist. J. J. Abrams' new take on the much-loved universe isn't going to wipe the former takes out of history. Your old DVDs will not cease to work. If you prefer the wonderful original series, then go watch it. Or if you just generally enjoy a mix of great things and face the fact that everything evolves, get down to the cinema now.

So, shall we actually begin this time?

As previously mentioned, the predecessor for 'Into Darkness' was a bloody good film - it was fresh, entertaining and exciting. 'Into Darkness' may not come as close to a pleasant surprise, but that's simply because we now know what to expect. It's nice to get away from the origins story of 'Kirk' and 'Spock', which was done very well, but it just means that we can sit back and watch them all interact with one another, as that is often where much of the joy comes from. The characters have always been brilliant, ever since the sixties, and still are over 40 years on. It just shows how the original series was way before it's time, such was the talent to craft characters who are still fascinating today. The cast is so varied, entertaining and interesting - every single actor gives it their all, and every single character gets their moment to shine. When a cast is this big, it's no wonder that 'Into Darkness' has to be a fast-paced film to ensure that everyone gets their moment.    

Karl Urban's 'Bones' and Simon Pegg's 'Scotty' are the two characters who are arguably given the biggest increase of screen time, much to the joy of many. All of the characters are written superbly, keeping in the same vein that makes all of them so lovable, 'Bones'' metaphors and voice of caution and 'Scotty''s wit and quick thinking especially.

Much of the best writing still comes from the relationship between Chris Pine's 'Kirk' and Zachary Quinto's 'Spock', though. Their relationship will always be an alluring one - the heart vs brain, instinct vs logic, wild passion vs caged intellect. These are the themes that are universal to all and most of us can see ourselves in both of them, preferring to be a mix of the two.

                                 The phrase 'bigger than Jesus' had gotten to Spock's head a bit

The biggest fault of 2009's 'Star Trek' was Eric Bana's 'Nero'. It wasn't a great performance and he never seemed as much of a threat or as interesting as Benedict Cum-in-my-snatch's 'John Harrison', almost the perfect being, the only person who gets under 'Kirk's' skin with alarming ease. What's most interesting is his anonymity, his moral ambiguity. Experienced Trekkies will most probably guess the big reveals and see some of the inciting incidents coming, but it still doesn't deter from the epic impact that the film brings us time and time again. His character is still drenched in mystery and Cupboard-latch plays on this, absolutely nailing the right notes and often making 'Harrison' terrifying. It's nothing new having an English villain - the accent does wonders, adding sinisterness and an air of intellect - but it's rarely done as well as this.

Away from the fantastic character studies that the film offers, it's impressive in every other aspect as well. Action scenes are at an epic scale, with large production values, frenetic pacing and expertly shot fight scenes on ground and in space. There will be many a time that you find yourself wanting to scream at the action on screen, cheering on your favourite crew member. Hairs on the back of necks will raise, edges of seats will be perched upon. A stand-out being 'Harrison' engaging in a battle against a certain alien race who will no doubt be heavily featured in the inevitable sequel.

The splendid special effects add to the visual beauty as the whole universe is realised, especially the planet in the opening sequence, which is almost a film-stealer. The 3D, despite being converted, does the film justice, and it also stopped Abrams from going overboard on the lens flares again, welcomed by all, as it would surely be assaulting to the eyes with an extra dimension. If you're close to a cinema that offers IMAX, get yourself there now, as the grand scale of it all is further highlighted.

Importantly, 'Into Darkness' took everything that made its predecessor good, and then just inflated those positives. There's more exhilarating action, more impressive effects, more character development, more comedy and more emotion to the point that I was almost moved to tears. The sequel does follow the Hollywood trend of going darker, even to the point that it's in the title, but that doesn't mean that there isn't any fun to be had here. There's an excellent balance between light-heartedness and engaging and serious darkness. Abrams is now the go-to guy for reinventing big franchises, but he still manages to keep the previously existing plus points and adds his own charms. I am now convinced that the future episodes of 'Star Wars' are in safe hands, to have Abrams at the helm to propel 'Star Wars' back to its former glory is only logical. But I would be lying if I said that I wasn't more excited for the sequel to 'Into Darkness.

It's very rare that I come out of a cinema speechless, struggling to put a film into words that justifies its entertainment. If I was to nit pick, I'd only complain that a bit more 'Uhura' would have been welcomed, and to show Alice Eve in her underwear was unnecessary - yes, we know the cast are all sexy and it's obvious beforehand that there's a mutual attraction between 'Dr. Marcus' and 'Kirk'. But those are two minor negatives in a movie of gigantic positives. All of the many remaining big-budget summer blockbusters definitely have a huge task to live up to this. Does a material that would have usually been exclusively aimed at a bunch of science-fiction nerds really have what it takes to become the biggest film of the summer? The answer is a resounding yes.

* * * * * 

Iron Man 3 (IMAX 3D)

And in the blue corner, hailing from Oz, theeeeee Tin Maaaaaaan!

                                             You came to the wrong neighbourhood, friend

DIRECTOR: Shane Black

CAST: Robert Downey, Jr. as himself, a woman who generally named her daughter 'Apple', Peter Weyland, Gandhi, Terrance Howard... wait what?, Happy Gilmore and Liverpool FC...

PLOT: The genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist is back for a 4th Marvel outing on the back of 'The Avengers', and now he's quite pissed off with terrorists (Ben Kingsley, et al.) attacking the country while he tries to get over his own demons due to his near-death experience via aliens and a wormhole. However, judging by the trailer (nice house, by the way), 'The Mandarin' might be an even bigger pain in the arse than 'Loki' was.

The third instalment in the 'Iron Man' series, now arguably the most popular superhero in cinema thanks to the ever-charismatic Mr Perfect known as Robert Downey, Jr., has an awful lot of hype to live up to. The first was brilliant, the second not quite as bad as people like to make out, it simply fares worse due to the fact that the first one was such a delightful surprise, and 'The Avengers' went on to become the highest grossing superhero movie ever made. But now Marvel's golden boy (not literally) is back on his own as the others go on holiday or do whatever demi-God's and super soldiers do in their down-time, and leave our dear 'Tony' to deal with his own problems. Just try and block out the fact that had one of 'The Avengers' had 'Stark's' back, let alone all of them, then the villains in this would have probably been vanquished so quickly that your shawarma would still be warm. By the way, I'd love it if someone could tell me how that tastes.

The writing, probably the weakest aspect of the second 'Iron Man', is returned to the top drawer, perhaps receiving a surge of inspiration from Joss Whedon's brilliant script for 'The Avengers'. Downey, Jr. does what he does best more than ever - throwing out zingers and cocky lines that would be agitating if recited by anyone else. Not many actors could get away with calling an eight-year-old boy a "pussy", but this is the same man who punched a child in the face in 'Due Date', so Downey, Jr.'s continued hatred for children shouldn't come as a surprise. It's rather become a quirky feature. It's reasons like these that often make 'Iron Man', in general, more fun in the 'talkie' scenes than when he's blowing shit up

The new narrative strand exploring anxiety in 'Stark' had myself worried that the makers would suffocate him of all of his light-hearted and effortless wit, and do what every sequel these days seems to do - make it unnecessarily darker. The decision actually works to the film's advantage though, and adds even more depth to 'Stark', reminding us all that underneath the suit lies a human being, albeit a very impressive one. 

Another thing that the second 'Iron Man' arguably lacked was a credible villain in 'Ivan Vanko' due to poor scriptwriting and character development, which is a crying shame even more so as Mickey Rourke's talent is heavily wasted. Also to follow on from Tom Hiddleston's exceptional 'Loki', it meant that there was a huge amount of pressure on Ben Kingsley, the legendary actor tasked with playing one of Marvel's most loved supervillains. We already knew that they were taking a slightly different route from the character in the comic books, for a start Kingsley neither looked nor sounded like he had been born in China - a decision made perhaps to prevent any critics claiming racism, as is sometimes the case with the character in the comic books. Also in the comics, 'The Mandarin' is built like a brick shit-house, something that Kingsley quickly proves that he doesn't need.

A lack of screen-time in the first half means that 'The Mandarin' never really feels like a threat to 'Iron Man'. He doesn't do anything as brash as slicing up his racing car with big energy whip things. We merely see him on dodgy camera recordings with over the top sets as he purrs threats against the US with a wonderful and idiosyncratic voice - the face of terrorism. He serves as a fantastic tool to offer this superhero film more than just an exploration of good vs evil, but also an exploration of the media's representation of terrorism that has made life difficult for a countless number of people living in the western world. Good and evil isn't simply a case of right and wrong, it's not coloured black and white. It's a welcome critique, maybe making 'Iron Man 3' the most political superhero movie ever made, and this is where Kingsley's character is given depth and becomes both interesting and important to the story. A brave choice by the writers, and one that may disengage some viewers partway through the film, who perhaps don't understand the message; but those people are probably simply content with being in Downey, Jr.'s company for over two hours, even if he was only reading them a story from a book.

Downey, Jr. is also given great assistance by his strong supporting cast. Series regular Gwyneth Paltrow is as lovable as ever and given even more to do in this instalment, at times given her time to shine in the spectacular action scenes. Don Cheadle is fun as the 'Iron Patriot', sharing some quality best-buddy chemistry with 'Stark'; a fun part with the two is when they share mockery towards the excessive patriotism of the suit formerly known as 'War Machine'. Ty Simpkins features as a bullied child who 'Stark' befriends, and is actually very likable and confident, one of the few child actors who you won't want to kick off a bridge. And Guy Pearce is a welcome addition to the franchise, taking over untrustworthy sleaze-ball duties from Sam Rockwell's 'Justin Hammer' - he's a good pick, with his doubtless acting ability and a face that is both handsome and a bit funny looking at the same time. Oh, and Stan Lee is given yet another fun cameo - hooray!

                                        "This furniture goes dashingly with my costume!"

The biggest criticism when it comes to character comes in the shape of the difficult-to-kill supersoldiers who are utilised by the film's villain. Like many thugs and cronies in cinema, their motivations for their actions are a bit shady, never fully realised. It's a small fault in the character set-up, and because of the extensive cast which is largely impressive, a small and excusable slip-up is to be expected, one that I'm more than happy to brush underneath the carpet.

Overall, 'Iron Man 3' is a true superhero spectacle, once again proving that 'Stark' doesn't need his team around him to carry a good film after the pot-hole of the second. His wit and charm takes front and centre, and the visual effects and action sequences that compliment the terrific script are magnificent as always. It's surprisingly not only intelligent in the immense script, raising media and political based questions on its treatment of the ideology of terrorism, but never prevents the film from being downright fun, despite combining with the new touchy character trait of post-traumatic stress disorder bestowed upon 'Tony'. In that respect there's something for everyone. This is a fine introduction to the summer blockbusters of the year, and if the rest follow in suit, then we're all in for some entertaining treats. Disney should be doing all they can to keep hold of Downey, Jr. for more Marvel movies, as he continues to show why he is a man marketing mountain. 

P.S. Wait until after the credits for a fun, 'Avengers'-esque post-credit scene.

* * * *

The Place Beyond the Pines

Apparently it's just as depressing as the place before the pines...

                                                 Apparently the wings tasted like shit

DIRECTOR: Derek Cianfrance

CAST: That actor who mumbles all of the time, 'Face', nipples, Henry Hill, the Australian guy who needs to wash his hands, 'Harry Osborn' and a 23-year-old teenager...

PLOT: Tattooed, blonde-haired thug (not Eminem, Ryan Gosling) is a motorcycle stuntman who travels with a fair, but when he finds out that an old fling (Eva Mendes) resulted in a child (Dane DeHaan later on) he decides to rob banks for a living instead, in an attempt to provide for his not-so-loving family... 

Well, that's the first 50 minutes or so, and then Bradley Cooper gets caught up in some police crooked police work, but more on that to come... 

If ever there was a film that moved me and infuriated me at the same time, it would be Derek Cianfrance's second feature-length Ryan Gosling starring film, 'The Place Beyond the Pines'. This is because the film is excruciatingly a film of two halves, with the first half being much stronger than the second. The narrative more or less changes completely, only keeping to the same themes of family, the relationships that father's hold with their son's and the skeletons in the closets of those attempting to live the American Dream. The pace is changed, and we see a transition from seething family drama with a pinch of crime to a seething crime drama with a pinch of family. 

The second half, which is brought about by a huge inciting incident, is by no means bad as a film or a story, and Bradley Cooper continues to win plaudits since his Academy Award nominated outing in 'Silver Linings Playbook', but when it's compared to the astonishing first half which has Ryan Gosling front and centre, who continues to display why he is one of the most sought out actors in the world right now, you just find your arse beginning to ache as the long running time begins to stretch and you wish you were reliving the beautiful opening hour.

Right from the get-go you instantly get the feeling that you are in for a special ride as a wonderful long-lasting tracking shot follows Gosling's 'Luke Glanton' playing with a butterfly knife in his trailer at the fair - the kind of fair that we all envision when we think of the forgotten US, away from all of the mansions and swimming pools - until he is called to perform and we then watch him walk through the fair from behind, only seeing his tattoos and the smoke of his one of many cigarettes being puffed out like a train until he reaches his motorcycle being cheered on by lots and lots of rednecks. It's an impressive shot and we're all reminded as to why Cianfrance is one of the most exciting directorial prospects in the US after his praised 2010 effort 'Blue Valentine'.

                                         A wonderful shot of Gosling struggling to count

But it's the acting that much of the film relies on as it is essentially a character study above all the exploration of society and crime, with a hugely popular and talented ensemble of attractive people showing their ugly sides in bare and brave performances. Cooper continues to show everyone that he can do more serious roles than films such as 'The Hangover' and its un-respective sequels, Eva Mendes shows that she's not just a pretty face, Dane DeHaan follows up on fantastic performances in both 'Chronicle' and 'Lawless', Ben Mendelsohn is brilliant as always as a sleazy but an apparently well-meaning partner in crime and Ray Liotta out-sleazes everyone. The only member of the cast who is questionable is Emory Cohen as Bradley Cooper's irritating son and pigmentation confused thug whose voice will make you want to get hit my a hammer to the temple. He doesn't come across as a poor actor, it's just a rare example of poor casting, as he's supposed to be playing a 17-year-old when in reality he's built like a brick shit house and looks as if he's pushing 30; plus he looks nothing like Cooper.

However, it's Ryan Gosling who will rightfully win over the majority of the critics, who is surely pushing for a well-deserved Academy Award nomination and only makes me more excited for his upcoming drama/thriller, 'Only God Forgives'. Surely the best at conveying emotions from a performance without the extensive use of dialogue, only adding to the seething tension and drama. His high-pitched shouting during robberies is expertly utilised to highlight the fish-out-of-water, the man who is desperate to be rich in a nightmarish America rather than a dreamy one, screeching orders to bank employees with fear and worry. A small touch, but an inspired one that digs deep down into the cracks of the cool and calm persona that has been attached to Gosling since 'Drive'. 

The performances and wonderful cinematography give 'The Place Beyond the Pines' its depth and grace, and lack of grace many a time. The themes are deep and welcomingly explored and the story is a realistic strum of the heart strings. It's just a shame that the best came first and the film rather fizzled out as it continued to plod along. If the film improved as it went along this review would be a lot different, perhaps even pushing five stars. It's never bad, it just feels forced at times, as Cianfrance tries to say too much and confusing the pacing with too many characters and inciting incidents. A story like this might have been better told in a TV drama series, but then we would suppose the ensemble cast, the main strength of the film, would have been near-impossible to obtain for a television programme. 

* * * ½ 

Evil Dead

The Feel good film of the year!

                                                 Have you had an accident at work?

DIRECTOR: Fede Alvarez

CAST: Just a bunch of young actors playing stupid kids, I've literally got nothing...

PLOT: More gory fun from the Evil Dead franchise, as a reboot shows a bunch of kids who go to a cabin in the woods to help their friend with a drug addiction. The nerdy one reads from a book covered in human skin, causing all sorts of shit to hit the fan!


Like every fan of the wacky delight of the original gore-fest 'Evil Dead' films of the 1980s, when I heard that a reboot, remake, re-imagining or whatever the hell you want to call it was in the pipeline, I had the sudden urge to lock myself in a basement until it had been and gone so that I could wait for it to pass away to the shitty horror revamp afterlife, joining the likes of 'Jason Voorhees', 'The Thing' and 'Freddie Krueger'. But before I could hastily reach a basement (they're not too common in the UK), I thankfully heard that Sam Raimi, Bruce Campbell and Robert Tapert were all on board to produce. Ok, I thought I'd at least attempt to keep an open mind then. Soon after I encountered the trailer and my mind was fully open to the possibilities to a good horror remake, instead being able to join the likes of Zack Snyder's 'Dawn of the Dead' and Breck Eisner's 'The Crazies' (some may argue against that one). 'Evil Dead' was suddenly my most anticipated horror film of the year.

Despite the makers choosing to give the young victims a reason to be in the woods - said reason being that 'Mia' is a drug addict and trying to go cold-turkey (even though putting purple bags underneath a hot woman's eyes does not make them look like they're addicted to heroin) - the characters are all still pretty stupid and poorly performed. That's until all hell breaks loose and we can begin to have some crazy fun with the most extreme gore that you are likely to see in a cinema for quite some time, involving knives, chainsaws and that infamous tree. Say what you like about the acting talent of young attractive people in horror films - they sure know how to run around screaming and get killed.

And what's not fun about watching that? Some may have criticised this version for lacking the zany comedy of previous 'Evil Dead' instalments. It sure isn't as funny and it takes itself very seriously, but there are still some moments that will make you laugh a whole of a lot more than any comedy film that has been released so far this year (which isn't really hard when you think about it). I dare anyone not to crack up during the best rendition of the line "SHE JUST CUT OFF HER FUCKING ARM!" in cinematic history.

It is also a breath of classic fresh air to see much of the effects for the gore being practical. Too many 21st century horror filmmakers rely on CGI blood and decapitations that look faker than using red food dye and horse piss, it just makes you wonder whether filmmakers have become lazy. However, with the amount of practical blood and limbs used in this, especially during the insane finale in which it literally comes from everywhere, there is no hint of laziness, not a sign of cutting corners. They said that this would push all boundaries for what censors would allow in the cinemas and they have fully backed it up with crimson, 'Evil Dead' certainly isn't for the faint hearted.

Not only that, but it is actually a well crafted film. Suspense and tension is built up at an impressive pace until breaking point, which then invokes chaos that will leave you exhausted. You barely have enough time to catch your breath and prepare yourself for the next batch of mayhem. You never really feel for the characters, but put yourself in their positions and you'll soon start to feel a little uncomfortable, and maybe even scared - the thing that modern horror films struggle the most with.

                                            She really did not want to see 'Scary Movie 5'

'Evil Dead' does something that I'm sure none of us thought possible, and that is simply the fact that it does the originals justice. They stick to the same fun, forcing you to writhe around in your seat and cringe at all of the gore and wild happenings and proving to be likable and full of character. Whether it has the same duration of life as the previous incarnations is yet to be seen, but you'd have to be a brave person to rule it out as young horror fans leave the screening around you, beaming either satisfaction or disgust.

With plans for more sequels and another 'Amy of Darkness' now in the works, I am both excited and positive, knowing that not all horror remakes are heartless attempts at building the same thing - an empty shell with no filling. This manages to keep in the same vain as the originals and also manages to offer us something fresh.

Surrounded by tonnes of horror films that are either supernatural and spiritual possessions, haunted houses or humourless torture porn, this will stab you like a blast from the past. An unashamedly fun and disgusting thrill-ride, easily the most fun that I have had in the cinema during a horror film for a long, long time.

P.S. Those of you who are familiar with the originals - stick around until the end credits have rolled. Those of you who aren't, it will be wasted on you.

* * * *                            

Oblivion (IMAX)

Science-fiction Cruise control

                            He didn't realise that he signed a contract for TWO 'Rock of Ages' films...

DIRECTOR: Joseph Kosinski

CAST: Ethan Hunt, Nelson Mandela, the Bond girl that didn't get laid, Jamie Lannister, Mark Wahlberg's and Christian Bale's mum and The Devil's Whore...

PLOT: A memory wiped 'JACK!' (Tom Cruise) is a tech stationed on Earth who fixes broken somewhat more violent 'R2-D2's' a few decades after the planet was invaded and by 'Scavs', meaning that humanity had to evacuate and live on some big spaceship thing. Him and his crazy, commando-braving lover (Andrea Riseborough) are extracting water for the survivors of Earth's invasion who are waiting to inhabit a new home. But not all is what it seems...

Jack. JACK! JAAAAAAACK!!!!! J-Jack! Jaaaa-aaaaack. Jack! JACK!!!! Jake!... erm, I mean, Jack!

Ohhhhh, Jack.

Such is the borrowing that goes on in Joseph Kosinski's second feature-length that he even gives his protagonist one of the most common male names in the western world. Not only that, but he also takes ideas from substantially better science-fiction films, such as '2001: A Space Odyssey', 'Planet of the Apes' and 'Moon', just to name a few. It plays like a remix of a remake of some of the best science-fiction films ever made. But in saying that, it's still damn entertaining.

'Jack!', whose name is said in the dialogue so many times that you'll forget that there's any other name in existence, is a man who believes that Earth is his home, for some weird reason, not looking forward to the day too soon when he has to leave to join the rest of humanity due to the Moon being destroyed by 'Scavs' and the use of nuclear weapons making much of Earth radiated. It looks like a more beautiful version of the 'Fallout' games, which isn't too surprising as Kosinski, famous for bringing us the stunningly visual, albeit style over substance, that is 'Tron: Legacy'.

And that is Kosinski's big problem. The story would be a cracking one if it wasn't a mixture of so many other sci-fi's. His use of SFX is wonderful, the bland colours still make the doomsday landscapes look gorgeous and the action sequences are shot impressively. When it comes to filmmaking, Kosinski is a treat. But when it comes to giving us fresh insight to a genre that has recently become cool thanks to perhaps J.J. Abrams' 'Star Trek' reboot and 'The Big Bang Theory', those of us who stood by science fiction before everyone else became interested still crave more. Style is important, but as Kubrick, Schaffner, and more recently Jones and Blomkamp have taught us, substance is valued higher by sic-fi nerds.

The performances are good for the most part. You know what you're getting with Tom Cruise - his charismatic mannerisms, confident voice and handsome demeanour have made it as if he's become a parody of himself, but fans of his won't be disappointed. As always, where he really excels is when it comes to the action scenes, completely throwing himself into it head first. Say what you want about Tom Cruise, nobody can doubt his optimism and enthusiasm.

Morgan Freeman is annoyingly under-used considering that he features on the poster and is fronted second-behind Tom Cruise in the marketing campaign. Still, it's not as much a kick in the teeth as Gary Oldman's lack of featuring in 'Lawless'. At least he still has something to do. 

Andrea Riseborough is probably the most pleasantly surprising of the impressive cast. She's annoying, overly defensive and lacks ambition and adventure for someone living so far above ground as 'Victoria'. She's wholly unlikable and certainly not the sort of person who you would want to be stranded on Earth with. I don't know if that's just the way Riseborough comes across, as an annoying bitch, but she does it well.

Olga Kurylenko is similar to much of the rest of the film - she's simply ok, simply adequate. The fact that she was probably cast for being extremely gorgeous, once again, much like the rest of the film, can't be overlooked. But at least we're treated to Jamie Lanniser jumping around shooting spherical floating hunks of metal with a bow and arrow.

  

                       "You have to do ANOTHER 'Rock of Ages'?! Kurylenko couldn't quite believe it either

One thing that definitely let the film down was the trailers. Anyone who watched any of the advertisements and paid the very least bit of attention will find the film painfully predictable. All of the drama and emotion laid into the revelations seems wasted as we sit on the cinema seats in smugness thinking 'yeah, I knew that'. Trailers seem to have become even more of an art form in itself lately, but when they begin to give away twists of the plot in a film that relies on 'who? what? where? and why?' then you know you have a big problem. 

There are plot holes galore, especially when it comes to the 'Scavs' and the way that they fucking dress which will probably make you want to tear your hair out. The writers of the film seem convinced that they have given you an elaborate and logical reason as to why things are the way they are, but after a minute of half-concentrated though you'll out-smart the characters on show. 

But where this review has come across as being exceedingly negative, it still remains as a very juicy piece of entertainment. The action sequences are superb and you'll struggle to find a more aesthetically pleasing film so far this year. You'll laugh at how serious it takes itself, trying to throw all of its intelligence and creativity at you despite the fact that said intelligence and creativity has been stolen. It comes across as being very camp popcorn fodder. And considering Kosinski has stated that this is a homage to science fiction films of the 70s, I suppose he got that part right.

* * *

Spring Breakers

Don't worry, this isn't another 'Project X'

                                           Walt would be turning in his cryogenic freezer 

DIRECTOR: Harmony Korine

CAST: New Goblin, Disney slut # 1, Disney slut # 2 and some other sluts...

PLOT: Some sluts (see above) rob some cash so that they can go to "Spring Break ya'll!" Cue antics such as sex, drugs and... Skrillex? Well, that's until they get arrested and then bailed out of jail by James  "look at my shit" Franco...

Seeing 'Spring Breakers' at the cinema last night was certainly interesting to say the least. The film has an awful lot to say about the themes that are on display, and it also says a lot about the majority of who pay to see it.

Judging by the sorts of people who were in the same screening as myself (I'm stereotyping here, but fuck it), most of the people, if not all, were there hoping for a sort of 'Project X' type film. Every time a pair of breasts were on the screen (which happened to be quite often) the hordes of young men would often nudge one another, I'd audibly hear them (pricks) proclaim how hot a girl is. They would laugh at James Franco constantly for his funny accent and mannerisms, for which I can't blame them. However, there never seemed to be a hint of nervous laughter from fellow audience members, which I found quite worrying.

Needless to say, most people who have made this small indie film a box office hit haven't paid to see a slightly experimental film that explores how the American Dream has evolved from people wanting a nice home, a nuclear family and stable, well-paying job into the lust for constant pre-marital sex, drugs and lots and lots of illegally earned cash or, how pop culture has made everyone of the iPod generation desperate to live a life similarly to how they perceive celebrities do.

In short, I'm guessing that most people who have contributed to 'Spring Breakers' $15 million gross (so far) is so that they could see boobs.

And I'm not going to jump on my high horse here; I will admit that the film was at times very, very sexy. Any red-blooded male of any sexual orientation would have probably found the film sexy. Any woman would have probably found the film sexy, they just won't admit it. And there were many a time in the first half of the film that I wish I could transport myself to the sunny shores of Florida state to engage in such activities, because lets face it - it looked like a whole lot of fun. But if you don't feel slightly ashamed of yourself afterwards, then you are the sort of person who this film is attacking. I doubt you even care...

But it is all fun and games until you begin to find yourself involved with someone like James Franco's 'Alien', an egotistical white 'G' who claims to be from another planet, with grills on his teeth, cornrows and bad rapping. He is living the new American Dream, as we watch him show off 'his shit' and boast about having 'Scarface' on repeat. The girls want a taste of that life, but at what cost? 

Shallowness, negative morals and no direction in life - exactly what they think they're doing away from Florida at college, which is only highlighted by Korine's wonderful craftwork, constantly repeating images and voiceover dialogue which drives home the point that no matter what life you choose, it will get bloody repetitive.

                                                  Aron Ralston before he cut off his arm

Away from all of the stinging social commentary and satire of 'Spring Breakers' - when it is provoking your morality and your seemingly not-so guilty pleasures; 'Spring Breakers' is an animal of a film, an assault on the senses.

The performances from the girls are good for the most part, all they really need to do is look sexy though. The only one of them who gets a good chunk of character development is Selena Gomez, as a church-going girl who is often cautious about the antics. She's annoying as fuck and she's meant to be, so hats off to her.

But the performance that steals it comes from James Franco, surely soon to be a cult favourite actor. He is hilarious, in a laugh at the way he speaks "your not black!" kind of way (which highlights the identity crises of almost every character in the film - the pigmentation confusion, if you will) but he's also funny in a nervous tone, almost darkly comic. You're never truly sure what his intentions are (if there are any) and you're just waiting for that big event that seems to take forever to come thanks to Korine's decision to burn the narrative along slowly. And when he begins having a gang war with 'Archie' (played by Gucci Mane, a rapper away from the films who is infamous for breaking the law and generally being a bit of a horrible bastard, who must have unknowingly been criticising his own lifestyle by acting in this film) that seems to be when the story progresses and moves away from character development and aesthetics for a little while.

'Spring Breakers' will rightly cause debate and split a lot of people down the middle. It will stick with you for days to come, whether you enjoyed it or not, and you will be ominously whispering "Spring breeeeaaaak" to yourself for days. Everyone who chooses to watch it will probably be doing so for a different reason than whoever is sat next to them in the cinema. Whatever you say about it, it is definitely no less than an experience, which will provoke you with cultural representations, aesthetic mind-fucks and the strangest mainstream surreality (just wait for Franco singing a Britney Spears song on a grand piano) imaginable.

Either that, or it will just give you a hard on...

* * * *