Film Review: Moneyball

To be brutally honest, if there were a film about a hardcore group of people who liked to sit and watch paint dry whilst discussing the diameters of their fridge freezer written by Aaron Sorkin, I would be the first in line to see it.

Sorkin is, in my opinion, the greatest writer we have in the medium of TV and cinema. Everyone should know at least one of his TV shows - Sports Night, The West Wing, and the short-lived Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip (incidentally, he returns to TV with a still unnamed show on HBO next year), and his film scripts speak for themselves - A Few Good Men (which was based on a play he wrote), The American President (which was almost a dry run for The West Wing) and the one that won him an Oscar, The Social Network.

So next up is Moneyball, a true story about a baseball General Manager, Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) who along with newly hired assistant GM, economics expert Peter Brand (Jonah Hill) formulate a method using statistics and computer analysis to form a winning team.

This meets with a lot of opposition along the way of course, the Oakland A's (the team in question, I should add at this point) scouts want to stick to the tried and tested methods, and the teams manager Art Howe (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) also tries to stand in the way of the new way of doing things.

Moneyball is a fascinating watch, and is only made better with the fantastic script. Co-written with Steven Zaillian (no slouch himself, he wrote Schindler's List, Gangs Of New York and American Gangster), it does seem more like a Zaillian script with a sprinkling of Sorkin, so if you were expecting a scintillating Sorkin script in the vein of The West Wing, or The Social Network, Moneyball isn't quite there.

Which isn't to knock the script, because it is fantastic, and as I write this has already won an award from the New York Critics Circle, which bodes well for Oscar season. Also fantastic is the performance from Brad Pitt, who along with The Tree Of Life (review coming soon), has had a hell of a year. Pitt really gets inside the character, and after 2 hours you really get where Beane was coming from (or not, more on that in a bit.)

Also worthy of mention is Jonah Hill, who I had never actually seen in a straight role. He probably had the most of the comedy moments in the film (this is a script co-written by Aaron Sorkin, there's always going to be brilliantly amusing moments), but he really impressed me. Hopefully he won't be typecast in comedy roles in the future.

I was hoping for a bit more Phillip Seymour Hoffman though, considering how good he was in the last Sorkin-scripted film I saw with him in, Charlie Wilson's War. He didn't really have much to do in the film, but it was an important character so you could see the need for it.

All this talk of the writing shouldn't take anything away from the direction, it's just I'm a Sorkin nut. There is some great direction from Bennett Miller, especially considering this is only his second feature film (Capote, with Seymour Hoffman was his first.)

Of course, the great writing and direction doesn't always work on people. The screening I saw Moneyball in wasn't very busy, but there was still room for a complete idiot. At the end of the film we are left with Beane agonizing over a decision he has to make, and in the pre-credits coda, we find out what that decision was.

Now, we have spent over 2 hours with the character, and thanks to Pitt's superb performance, we know what makes Beane tick, and how he operates, making the decision he has to make quite easy, and obvious. We should all know what he's going to do, and indeed he does.

That didn't sink in for one member of the audience, who after discovering what the choice was, bellowed out "What a dickhead!" Good to see he was able to follow the events of the film. But I know you are all a discerning bunch, just one look at what blog you are reading should prove that!

****
Even if you have no interest or knowledge of baseball, there's still a lot to get out of Moneyball. A fascinating true story, great acting and a brilliant script. Highly recommended.

Film Review: The Thing (2011)

Being a massive fan of John Carpenter's 1982 classic, I was unsure that I really wanted to sit and watch a prequel that fills in the gaps of what exactly happened in the Norwegian camp running up to the start of that film, but nonetheless, I gave it a go. And while it wasn't as terrible as I thought it was going to be, the whole thing was a waste of time, pretty much.

Paleontologist Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) is recruited by a team of Norwegian scientists, who have discovered an alien spaceship under the ice in Antarctica. Unearthing the body of one of the aliens, the team set about discovering what it is, until they find out it's still alive, can kill, and replicate human and animal form.

So far, so 1982 right? And that's the way it stays really. Pretty much the same stuff happens to them, that happened to Kurt Russell and company almost 30 years ago. There's some nice nods to the Carpenter film (which was a remake, of course) but that and the samey plot all tended to remind me of the superior movie.

Then, of course, there's the CGI. It's pretty bad. When a film released in 1982 can still top the special effects than one released in 2011, you know it's going to be bad. Some of it is horrendous, and really blunts some moments that had the potential to be quite good. Some models are used, and even they are worse!

A lot of time has been taken to recreate everything from the scene in Carpenter's film where the Norwegian camp is explored, that much is certain, and the film makers themselves refused to remake the 1982 version, likening it to "painting a mustache on the Mona Lisa", so I guess it all comes down to whether you want to know what happened beforehand, or would you rather just let your imagination do the work for you. I know I'd rather have left it all open, and I don't think there were any online petitions asking for these 'secrets' to be revealed somehow.

The very end of the film is very good though, and does segue perfectly into Carpenter's, even the iconic theme by Ennio Morricone plays, which is a very nice touch and is probably the best moment in the entire film because it works perfectly. You could easily put the 'original' on immediately after. If you had gotten anything else from the new movie, that is.

The performances are solid throughout, Winstead is fine, and Joel Edgerton is perfectly watchable as the helicopter pilot (American, obviously), but when it came to the Norwegian crew, they are all blatantly 'Thing fodder', except, of course, for the one who can't speak English. We all should know what happens to him.

In the end, The Thing is another in a long line of reboots or prequels or remakes no one asked for, and will soon be forgotten. And it didn't exactly do the business at the U.S. box office, which is just as well, because I can just imagine some bonehead cinema goer asking for a sequel.

**
Not the absolute disaster I was expecting, and with a very good ending, post credits. Other than that, you may as well put the 1982 classic on, and not worry about what happened at the Norwegian camp, we've all managed not knowing for 29 years!

Meeting Mark Kermode

As any reader of Thom's House Of Words will know, I love films. But not even my love of film can match that of Mark Kermode. Best known for being the BBC's premiere film critic (apologies to whoever is hosting Film 2011 these days, but it's a fact), Kermode has recently brought out his second book 'The Good, The Bad, And The Multiplex: What's Wrong With Modern Movies?', and came to Cinema City in Norwich last night to promote with a talk/Q&A/book signing.

The evening started with the talk, where the good doctor covered a variety of subjects in his usual entertaining and amusing style, but not before he said a few words about the great Ken Russell, a friend of his, who sadly passed away earlier in the day.

After that Kermode delivered a great talk about what was wrong with cinema today, from the films like Transformers 3 and Sex And The City 2 (the latter of which he really went to town on), to the modern day multiplex, where the film itself is no longer as important as the sweet counter at the front of the house, and projectionists, once a revered and skilled role, are now deemed pointless, and laid off left, right and center.

It's all true of course, as some of you may know, my Summer at the cinema this year was nigh on depressing. The 'blockbusters' were mostly terrible, and it did start to get me down a bit. These films get made, and people go to see them, and a lot of people hate them, but they still went to see them. Another great point Kermode made was that we get sequels that no-one really wanted!

And of course, there was also time to slate Danny Dyer a bit. Which should be par for the course really.

After the talk, the floor was opened up for questions, and apart from one very confusing one about films that mirror the country's current economic and governmental position, there were some real good ones. Independent cinemas, what makes a multiplex a multiplex, Pixar, horror movies and opinions on the outpouring of quality television shows (mostly American) provided some really interesting answers.

It was the Pixar question that led to a short debate on what was the best trilogy. Mark suggested that it had to be Toy Story, and the room did struggle to come up with anything that could top that. Suggestions such as The Godfather (doesn't anyone remember III?), Back To The Future and the first three Alien films (which almost ostracized my friend, and the entire row we were sat in!) were all shot down in his inimitable style. And the guy has a great point, I can't think of another trilogy of films that good!

Also mentioned in the Q&A was the role of internet bloggers, which is a subject that interested me, of course. Mark had a lot to say about them, and I like to think I'm staying on the right side of the line about what makes a good critic. Would be nice to have an editor though, I have to concur there.

After that was the book signing, and unlike so many other signings I've attended, it was a chance to have a nice chat with the man himself. A friend Michael, who along with his other half Mel we met up with after the talk, argued the merits of 2001 over Silent Running, a debate he was always going to lose, but it did end up with an amusing photo being taken. And sorry Michael, Silent Running is better!

When I met him, I asked something that just popped into my head. I'd heard many a time that Kermode's favourite movie, of course, was The Exorcist, and his least favourite was The Exorcist II, but I had never heard what he thought of the third film, which I think has a great film in there, but with a heap of crap dumped on top of it.

To my surprise, Mark agreed and said that he was convinced that the studio was sitting on enough footage to release a proper version of Legion, and one day he and William Peter Blatty would be able to get to it (I sincerely hope so!), but in the meantime he recommended a book that contained the the screenplay for the original Exorcist, and the original screenplay for Legion, so as soon as I got home I found and ordered that!

It was just a great night, and it was just so good to be able to listen to him talk about films, then be able to have a conversation with him about them. A thoroughly engaging speaker, and if the new book is half as good as the evening was, I'll be in for a treat.

The Good, The Bad, And The Multiplex by Mark Kermode is out now in paperback, from all good bookstores. 

Gig Review: Pure Reason Revolution. Norwich Arts Centre. 26/11/11

It's hard to believe it's been almost 5 years since I've seen Pure Reason Revolution live. The first (and only) time was back in February 2007, where they supported Blackfield at the Astoria 2 in London. Since then, they've released another couple of albums, but sadly are calling it a day and embarking on one final tour around the country, including a stop at the Norwich Arts Centre.

I actually had a ticket to see them at the Arts Centre when they last played in Norwich, but due to double booking on a friends birthday, I was unable to attend. So when they announced a date on the farewell tour at the same venue, I jumped at the chance.

I'd never been to a gig at the Arts Centre before, and it's quite a cool little venue. I was shocked about how close to the stage you could get, though. No barriers at all, it felt like I was almost on the stage. It made for a nice intimate gig, you could even hear the tapping of the effects pedals between songs! The place was about three quarters full on the night, I'd say. Hard to gauge when I'd never been in there before, though.

The set from PRR would be split into two parts, with no support acts. The first part would be debut LP 'The Dark Third' played in it's entirety for the first and last time, then the second part would be material from their other two albums 'Amor Vincit Omnia' and 'Hammer And Anvil'.

The first album was a very progressive album indeed (in the more classic sense), and that was reflected in the playing, with pretty much no breaks (except for an amusing mess up during 'Bullitts Dominae' that caused the song to be restarted from the top) throughout the hour long performance. They're aren't the chattiest band I've seen live, but they did all seem to loosen up as the gig progressed.

It was good to hear the album played out in full, though, even if I had heard quite a bit of it live before back in 2007. But it was the second act I was more interested in...

The second two albums (and obviously, the second part of the show) moved to a more industrial, electronic sound, and got heavier, but still retained the harmonic vocals from bassist Chloe Alper and guitarist/keyboard player Jon Courtney. 

While good on record, the live presentation of such songs as 'Les Malheurs' and 'Deus Ex Machina' were absolutely thumping live. Big industrial beats, bigger guitar riffs, it was a joy to witness live at last, and it's a massive shame that this will be the last time I'll be able to do so.

Pure Reason Revolution were a fantastic band, with such a diverse back catalogue, especially considering they only released 3 albums and a couple of EP's. I always remember the first time I heard 'Fight Fire' from the 'Hammer And Anvil' album, and I was convinced I had put the wrong album on! But at least we have the music to look back on, if not the fantastic live performances like this one.

****

At this point, I'd normally recommend you go see a band live, but unless you are reading this in the 3 days that remain that they are still playing together, that probably won't happen. But, it was a great performance from a great band, who will be missed. If you haven't heard their albums before, go find them.

Film Review: Hall Pass

Of all the people that piqued my interest in seeing Hall Pass, it was legendary author Bret Easton Ellis. Proclaiming it the funniest movie of the year on his Twitter account was probably an exaggeration, and while it comes over like a Hangover wannabe, it does walk all over the sequel to that film.

Fed up by their husbands increasingly erratic and sex obsessed behaviour, Maggie (Jenna Fischer) and Grace (Christina Applegate) decide to give Rick (Owen Wilson) and Fred (Jason Sudeikis) a 'Hall Pass', which is essentially a week off from marriage so they can get everything out of their systems, with zero guilt. The wives leave to see relatives, and while they start to have a blast, the guys are struggling to recapture their youth...

Directed by The Farrelly Brothers, known for hits like Dumb And Dumber and There's Something About Mary, you can expect some gross out moments and some heart, which is what Hall Pass delivers, even though it's nowhere near as good.

The cast are all likable enough, and there are some good (albeit unlikely) appearances from Richard Jenkins as a hardened partying god, and Stephen Merchant as one of Rick and Fred's buddies. Merchant also gets one of the more amusing moments in the film, during a bizarre post credits sequence, which is almost at odds with the rest of the movie!

The film does start to drag unfortunately, as it drifts past the 90 minute mark, it does struggle to hold the interest, and even for a Farrelly Brothers film, it does get, well...dumb and dumber. And not in a good way, just in a really silly way, which didn't really do it for me. It seemed to be trying to hard to be out there and wacky.

Overall though, Hall Pass is a decent enough watch, and while it doesn't reach the heights of...well anything the cast and film makers have done before, it's all watchable enough and has just enough laughs to get you through the films slightly bloated running time.

***
A mildly amusing comedy, with some heart too. But it's nothing amazing, and it's a bit too long. Worth a rental, perhaps.

Film Review: God Bless Ozzy Osbourne

Even the casual passer-by will know a lot about Ozzy Osbourne these days. The early years with Black Sabbath, the riotous 80's with it's dove/bad biting and Alamo pissing, the latter day mess that was MTV's The Osbourne's...so does everyone really need a 90 minute documentary looking at his life?

The answer, predictably, is not really. God Bless Ozzy Osbourne just retreads the same old ground we all know about. Don't get me wrong, it's an entertaining enough watch, and there are some different talking heads for once, people we haven't normally seen talk about Ozzy.

His kids from his first marriage have a bit of pop about what a bad father he was during the Sabbath heyday, his brother has a few childhood tales, and even his daughter Aimee (who wanted no part of the Osbourne's TV show) adds some input.

The film is co-produced by his son Jack, so that's probably the reason we get to see some different people, but it's just the same old stories. In fact, if you've seen the Don't Blame Me documentary from 1992, there really isn't much new here, other than the reality TV show.

Of course, The Osbournes is how a lot of people first heard of Ozzy and his family, but what they didn't know is that pretty much everyone was off their faces on alcohol and drugs at the time, so MTV's 'wacky' fly on the wall documentary was more a disturbing look at how alcoholism tears a family apart, but made for idiots to laugh at. In fact, one of the few revelations in the documentary tells of how Ozzy's drinking and drug intake was at an all time high during the course of the show, even topping the chaos of the 80's.

The 80's stories are always morbidly fascinating to me, particularly the tour with Motley Crue. Tommy Lee is on hand to retail the piss licking and ant hill snorting, but does add a story I hadn't heard before (or can't remember hearing, at least) involving a 'messy' encounter in a hotel room, not one for the queasy.

And for the fans, it's a bit worse. Hardly any of the music is touched upon. While there's some time devoted to the tragic loss of Randy Rhoads, we don't really here anyone talk about any particular songs, or albums. Not even the old story of how quickly 'Paranoid' was written is brought up. And on a similar note, the documentary footage of Ozzy on the road must be pushing 2 years old already, as it still shows Zakk Wylde in the band, and he left/was replaced by Gus G well over 18 months ago.

While it gives us nothing new, God Bless Ozzy Osbourne at least shows the world that the stumbling drunk seen on The Osbournes was exactly that. How many people thought that was how he was all the time? This new documentary shows the real man, articulate, amusing and an artistic side as well. And it's about time the world saw that.

***
While it does show everyone what Ozzy is like now he's clean and sober, and talks to some new people, it really is the same thing rehashed. If you've seen Don't Blame Me, or read any books by the family, there's not going to be much here for you. A entertaining if disposable watch.

Film Review: The Ides Of March

The Ides Of March is one of those films where it's hard to level any real criticism at. But at the same time, it's annoying, because it's also one of those films where a huge amount is given away in the trailer. You know when you're watching something, and you know 'something' will happen because you saw it in the ad? That knowing blighted my viewing, but fortunately the road getting to what was spoiled was very unpredictable.

It's also the best film George Clooney has directed to date (including the fantastic Good Night, and Good Luck), and further eradicates his status as 'the handsome doctor in E.R.' (swooning women's words, not mine) or even worse, of course, 'the shit Batman'.

The fact The Ides Of March is about American politics also furthered my enjoyment. After repeated viewings of all seven seasons of The West Wing, I know more about the Government of the USA than I do my own country, so when the script threw all the political jargon out there I was well on board.

Clooney also co-stars in the film (and co-writes it for good measure) as Mike Morris, the Governor of Pennsylvania, and prospective Democratic candidate for the President Of The United States, along with man of the moment Ryan Gosling, who plays Morris' Junior campaign manager Stephen Meyers.

After Meyers takes a phone call from the Democratic oppositions campaign manager Tom Duffy (Paul Giamatti), things get serious, and nasty and sets in motion a turbulent chain of events involving Morris, Duffy, Meyers, his boss Paul Zara (Phillip Seymour Hoffman), an intern (Evan Rachel Wood), a newspaper writer (Marisa Tomei) and a Senator (Jeffrey Wright.)

It's all a story of how far one person is willing to go to win, essentially. And even with the spoiler-tastic trailer looming, it's a gripping one. Just one look at the talent involved indicates this was never going to be a bad film.

Indeed, it's hard to fault any of the performances, but as good as everyone is, there's never a standout. I can't see any acting nominations being dished out come Oscar season.

But that, and the aforementioned trailer, are the only bad things I can say about The Ides Of March. Great acting, a great story, great direction. And if you're into your American politics, you'll love it. If not, it's very accessible and just a real pleasure to watch.

****
A fantastic political thriller, with great (but not showstopping) performances all round. Notch up another great role for Ryan Gosling, and another great film directed by George Clooney. Just avoid the trailer if you can!

Film Review: Larry Crowne

First off, I feel like I should offer some form of explanation as to why I actually watched Larry Crowne. You don't even need to know me that well to know that I'm not exactly drawn to films with tag lines on the front of the case like 'Find Life and Love', which is the case of this. I'm not one for inspirational messages on my DVD case, thanks.

The reason I wanted to watch it was the fact that Bryan Cranston was in it. After the one-two punch of the sensational Breaking Bad (which may end up being one of the greatest TV shows of all time) and his supporting turn in potential film of the year, Drive. To put it mildly, I wanted more Cranston, in any way, shape or form.

But Cranston aside, I found a film I was mildly surprised by, and found quite enjoyable, and if it wasn't for a few problems, I'd highly recommend it.

Larry Crowne is all about Tom Hanks (a man everyone loves, and if you don't, you have no soul), he stars, directs and co-writes (along with Nia Vardalos, best known for My Big Fat Greek Wedding) and his likability carries the film nicely.

Hanks plays the titular Larry Crowne, a middle aged divorcee who has just lost his job as a team leader at a big superstore, and decides to go back to college, where he falls in with an unlikely gang of students, mostly scooter fans. He also starts to fall in love with on his tutors, the miserable, and very married Mercedes Tainot (Juila Roberts.)

The supporting players almost seem like stunt casting. Dale Dye has a small role as one of the superstore executives letting Larry go, George Takei plays another tutor at the college, Cedric The Entertainer plays Larry's next door neighbour who is a permanent state of yard sale. It's a motley bunch, but they all are quite likable.

The aforementioned Cranston has about 4 scenes, after all that, but has a great role as Mercedes' husband, Dean - a college professor turned internet blogger. Which means he just sits online looking at porn. He's an unbelievable dickhead, and Cranston is brilliant in the role. It's a shame he wasn't in it more.

The comedy is really silly, but I warmed to it for some reason. Some subplots involve George Takei's tutor being annoyed Larry keeps using a phone in class, and the running joke of one of his college buddies being annoyed at the attention his girlfriend shows Larry. It sounds rubbish, but I actually quite enjoyed it.

For all its charm, the side is seriously let down when it gets to character development, though. Mercedes' character jumps from the unhappy wife, bringing her misery to work to all sunshine and rainbows so quickly, you barely have time to blink. And even if that wasn't the case, I just couldn't buy into the romantic side of the plot at all.

I just couldn't see what would attract Larry to Mercedes, all she does was come off as quite unpleasant for the longest while, and a lot of the time, he doesn't even seem to be that interested in her. It's almost as if it was decided that the film better have Hanks and Roberts kissing a bit, seeing that they're in it.

If watching the film, I do advise that it goes off the very moment the credits start rolling, as it involves a horrifically embarrassing sequence, set to green screen. To make a comparison, it reminded me of the music video to David Hasselhoff's version of 'Hooked On A Feeling'. Yeah, that bad.

It's all a game of two halves though. It's undemanding, sweet and mildly amusing where it needs to be, but there's no way you'll buy into the love story aspect.

**1/2
An OK film let down by a lazy romantic subplot, and possibly the worst post credits sequence I have ever seen. Try renting it.

Film Review: The Hangover Part Two

Whilst I didn't mind the original Hangover movie, I didn't think it was as funny as everyone else seemed to at the time. I actually saw a review crowning it the "funniest movie of all time". That reviewer obviously hadn't seen Airplane. Or insert one of the thousands of other funnier films here.

But The Hangover was amusing, and original. Neither can be said for the sequel, which has to be one of the more shameless money making exercises of recent times.

Two years after the eventful bachelor party in Vegas, things have settled down for the 'Wolf Pack'. Stu (Ed Helms) is about to get married now, and is going to have the ceremony in Thailand. After a lot of convincing from Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu is persuaded to allow Alan (Zach Galifianakis) to come along, but once they hit Thailand they have another big night, resulting in another hangover and no memory of the night before.

Told you it was the same damn thing again? What was original about the first movie is obviously long gone, and just none of the humour worked for me. I could see where it was trying to be offensive (monkey smoking, full frontal shot of a ladyboy) but it all just seemed utterly puerile. And this is coming from someone who can dig offensive or immature stuff. But only if it's done correctly.

And the main plot isn't the only thing recycled. The deeply annoying Chow returns (played by the equally annoying Ken Jeong) for no real reason, other than to bring back someone recognizable from the first one to pacify the idiot public.

As the film nears it's end it goes into repetitive overdrive. Remember when Stu had his character building rant at his fiance in the first film? Same thing happens, but this time with his soon to be father-in-law. Remember when Mike Tyson showed up in the first one for no real reason? Guess who's back? For even less of a reason. And the "oh look here are some photos from the night" sequence to end the film? Oh hi, welcome back.

I can only assume that the filmmakers thought that a lot of the people who enjoyed the first film so much were absolute bone headed morons, because that's exactly who this sequel is aimed at. Just shovel the exact same film at the public, and watch them eat it up. And they did! I really do worry about the sort of person who enjoyed the sequel. I honestly think you could have put the first film on again and it would have prompted zero arguments.

I realise that there has to be some kind of similarity with the original, it has to involve some form of 'hangover', but there are plenty of ways they could have taken it, rather than just rehash the first film, but just in another country. It's such laziness, and insulting laziness at that.

Not even an appearance from Paul Giamatti can make things interesting, quite how he got involved in this is beyond me, but he does feature in the only scene that got a chuckle out of me though (the line "K as in knight", if anyone was wondering.)

I'm sure a third film in the series will be churned out in due course, but I can only hope that something different is attempted. Underneath all the failed jokes and performances (and that includes Galifianakis as the bumbling man-child Alan, even he wasn't that amusing) the talent is there. But it would take a hell of a lot to get me to watch it.

*
A dreadful humour desert. Trying to be offensive and just coming back like a 9 year old kid finding out about nob jokes, but on the big screen. A massive waste of time and talent, and almost the exact same film as the original. 

Film Review: The Killer Elite (2011)

It's funny how a trailer can make a film look like something completely different to what it is. The trailer for The Killer Elite portrayed a wham-bam Hollywood blockbuster, with it's quick editing and thumping 'Rock You Like A Hurricane' soundtrack, but in reality it's an early 1980's England set (mostly) action film based on a true story and while there's nothing wrong with that at all, after the exciting trailer, I was left slightly let down.

Jason Statham plays Danny, a former SAS agent whose mentor Hunter (Robert De Niro) has been taken captive. To secure Hunters freedom, Danny has to kill another 3 former SAS agents. As this is happening, an elite group of former SAS operatives is alerted, and dispatches their head enforcer, Spike (Clive Owen) to find out what's been going on, leading the inevitable face-off with Danny.

And what a face-off, just over 40 minutes into the film we are treated to a dream match of action stars, as Statham has a bruising battle with Owen, one of the many high octane moments in the film. Problem is, weighing in at nearly two hours long, the film does tend to drag in places.

But that isn't to say there's nothing to keep the viewer occupied. Statham, Owen and De Niro are all good in their roles, it's especially satisfying to see De Niro kick some ass throughout for some reason. Also entertaining was Dominic Purcell (from Prison Break) as one of Danny's colleagues, Davies. I had absolutely no idea Purcell was English, having only seen him in Prison Break, and he sports some heroic facial hair, even beating Owen's challenging mustache.

One cast member I was let down by was Danny's love interest Anne Frazier (Yvonne Strahovski), the character was so bland an non-dimensional, that anyone could have played it, which is quite the waste of a talented actress like Strahovski.

For Statham, it seems like another step up, working with the likes of De Niro (although I imagine some people regard it as a step down for De Niro...), but it's another solid Statham film, but like other period pieces he does like the Italian Job, he just seems frozen in time. Whether it's the 60's or the 80's he always looks Statham!

The Killer Elite (no relation to the 1975 film, by the way) is a solid enough slab of action entertainment, but it's slightly dingier and slowly paced than the epic trailer promised. Worth a watch for fans of the cast.

***
A slight let down, and about twenty minutes too long, but other than that, The Killer Elite is sufficient action film entertainment for anyone, and highlighted by a fantastic fight between the two hardnuts.

Film Review: 30 Minutes Or Less

After the success of director Ruben Fleischer's Zombieland, I was quite looking forward to his follow up, 30 Minutes Or Less, especially as it reunited him with Zombieland star Jesse Eisenberg, and also featured the brilliant Danny McBride. Sadly, I was disappointed.

Eisenberg plays Nick, a pizza delivery guy, who is kidnapped by two idiotic criminals, Dwayne and Travis (McBride and Nick Swardson) who attach a bomb to his chest, and order him to rob a bank for him, so they can pay for a hit on Dwayne's Father (Fred Ward.) Nick ropes in his best friend Chet (Aziz Ansari) to help him make the big score at the bank.

The main problem with 30 Minutes Or Less is that it's not half as funny as it thinks it is. The amount of times I've seen the whole 'potty mouthed caper' in films now is ridiculous. I don't know if it's me getting old, but swearing every other word is only done by kids who have just discovered how to.

That's not to say the film doesn't have it's amusing moments. McBride, although he is playing the exact same character he ALWAYS plays, is good value at times, and Ansari has a few good comedy moments too. And there's a great car chase sequence set to the classic song 'The Heat Is On'. But other than that, not much hit the target for me.

Luckily, at least, the film is just over 80 minutes long so never really outstays its welcome, and because of that fact it's rarely dull, but it is just a immature throwaway jaunt.

Oddly, Fleischer's next movie is huge sounding period drama Gangster Squad, starring such serious names as Ryan Gosling, Sean Penn, Josh Brolin, Nick Nolte and Robert Patrick. Here's hoping he has better material to work with than he did here.

**
Occasionally amusing and exciting, but it's written like a bunch of kids found out how to swear at times, and it's nothing particularly original. Least it's nice and short though.

Film Review: 11-11-11

Seeing as yesterday was the eleventh day of the eleventh month of the eleventh year, I thought it only right that I watch the film of the same name, 11-11-11, the new film from Darren Lynn Bousman (Saw's 2-4, Repo! The Genetic Opera.) It's synopsis of bizarre events occurring on dates and times with the number 11 in sounded appealing, but in the end I was left rather bored by the film.

Joseph Crone (Timothy Gibbs) is an author struggling to come to terms with the death of his wife and child, when he is told that his dying Father doesn't have much time left, so he travels to Barcelona to visit him and his estranged brother Samuel (Michael Landes.)

Once there, Joseph discovers more and more evidence to support a mounting theory that recent events are all occurring at dates and times containing the number 11, all leading up to the upcoming 11th November 2011...

Usually this is the kind of thing that really interests me, as the film started discussing demonology and the number 11 in history and things like that, but I just failed to click with any of it, and found the whole thing a rather tedious chore, if I'm brutally honest.

That's not to say the film doesn't have it's moments. There's plenty of jump moments, and unsettling moments with demon faces lurking in the background, but the whole thing is for nothing as when the demons actual show up in full form at the end, it just looks like GWAR showed up for a gig. It just gets sillier and sillier after that.

There's nothing wrong with the acting of direction, and you may get more out of it than this reviewer did, but I found the whole thing to be quite uninspired.

*1/2
A harsher score than I first thought, but I really didn't get on with this. There's the odd unsettling moment, but things are quite dull, until the silly ending rears it's ugly head. The whole thing seems like a missed opportunity that for obvious reasons, won't get a do-over

Film Review: Trespass

Most filmmakers have peaks and troughs throughout their work, and no better example of this would be Joel Schumacer. The guy has directed some brilliant films like St. Elmo's Fire, The Lost Boys, Flatliners and Falling Down. But on the flip side, he has also helmed Bad Company, The Number 23 and most horrifically of all, Batman and Robin.

His latest film, Trespass, starring Nicolas Cage and Nicole Kidman is sadly a film that definitely falls into the trough category. And not only is it a woeful film, it was a disaster of the most epic proportions. Costing $35,000,000 to make, it raked in a dire $24,094 in its first ten days in cinemas in the States, where it was then pulled out, only to surface on DVD a mere 8 days later (making it the quickest cinema to DVD wait ever.) It is an astounding example of a flop.

And the trouble didn't even start there. Cage decided he wanted to change roles near the start of the shoot, from the husband to a kidnapper, and filmmakers even went so far as to contact Liev Schreiber to take on the role, until Cage returned the next day...playing the husband again.

The husband Cage plays is Kyle Miller, whose business is diamonds. He's married to Sarah (Kidman) and they have a rebellious teenage daughter (Liana Liberato.) One evening, they become a victim of a home invasion, but as the evening goes on, secrets are revealed and their situation gets worse and worse.

The immediate problem is that I could under no circumstances buy Cage (who is looking very paunchy in the film) and Kidman as man and wife. I just couldn't make that stretch. And matters are made worse as ridiculous plot twist follows ridiculous plot twist. It resembles a particularly bad soap opera most of the time.

The performances are diabolical across the board, also. Cage you can expect, his recent output has been increasingly bizarre, but he just phones it in, there's not even a lot there to mock after a while, and I like mocking his inferior films.

Kidman just shrieks and screams her way through the film, and the kidnappers are all pretty terrible, with a' special' note for Jordano Spiro, who was embarrassingly bad as the deranged stripper female intruder Petal (Yeah, really.) It's truly a face palm performance there. The others? Well, I have to make the soap opera comparison again as that's the level of acting we are dealing with here.

Trespass seemed liked the longest 2 hours of my life, till I finally saw it was over and had only run 85 minutes. The whole thing is an amateurish, poorly acted, boring mess. Let's just hope Joel Schumacer gets another peak soon. And as for Cage? The films so bad, he refuses to watch the finished product. Let that be the warning to heed.

*
One of the worst films of the year. There's nothing worth recommending here. Even fans of mocking Nicolas Cage's OTT style and crazy wigs will get bored after the first half hour. Absolute dreck.

Death Of The Dead?

Out of all the different types of Horror movie that there are, zombie films have always been my favourite. Films like the groundbreaking '...of the Dead' films by George A. Romero showed that it didn't have to be all flesh munching carnage, a political or social commentary could be covered too, without compromising any zombie action.

And we all could have a laugh too, thanks to films like Return Of The Living Dead, and later films like Shaun Of The Dead and Zombieland (although I do contest that these aren't strictly zombie films, more comedies - and very good comedies at that - that happen to have zombies in them.)

But recently, nothing has inspired me. Romero's most recent picture, Survival Of The Dead was decidedly average to put it mildly, and before that Diary Of The Dead took several viewings for me to enjoy. And if the master of the sub-genre can't get it right, shouldn't everyone else take a step back?

The main reason I'm writing this piece is because of The Walking Dead. The first season started well enough, a solid story and some great zombie carnage, but things started to crumble near the end. But this second season for me has been so melodramatic and slow, I'm one episode away from throwing in the towel. It's akin to an episode of Eastenders, but with the undead showing up to eat some faces off now and again.

I'd waited so long for a zombie TV show to appear. And when it did, all it gave us was a cast that got more unlikable by the episode (I honestly didn't mind them at first, but now I can barely even stand to look at them) and storylines like "Where did the little girl vanish to?" and "Oh no this little kid got shot". Now, I can barely tolerate the main cast, but the kids who barely got any dialogue? And it's been dragged out for 3 episodes at the start of the season? Argh! And I'm not even mentioning the fact they don't even call them zombies!

But it's stuff like that, and the fact that no really good zombie film has come along recently (with the possible exception of French film La Horde, which was fun but totally unoriginal) that makes me wonder whether people should just take a very un-zombie like breath and...well, just not make any zombie films for a while?

This will never happen, of course. Not now. Zombies are up there with Justin Bieber and whoever is popular on X Factor this year in the cultural coolness stakes. Zombies are "in". Any scumbag lad can roll into his favourite club in fancy dress as a zombie, regardless of the fact that they have passed their creative high point.

Just one look on Google images for 'zombie', shows bunches of utter morons doing zombie flashmobs (possibly the worst thing to happen to civilization since World War II), artwork of people being zombies, or stills from 'ironic' zombie films and not a sign of any of the undead from Romero's films (nor anyone elses for that matter.)

And The Walking Dead, for all it's soap opera moments, and occasional zombies, is currently insanely popular, with a third season awarded, and other TV networks scrambling for ideas (such as a mooted Zombieland TV show at Fox, which will be shitcanned when the fad has passed) to jump on the bandwagon.

All we can do is just cling onto the fact that audiences are fickle. Today it's zombies, tomorrow it will be a different creature feature altogether. Maybe vampires!

No wait, the Twilight books have already ruined them, never mind.

Film Review: Tactical Force

Is it just me or is Steve Austin turning into THE action star of this generation? Whilst not exactly setting the world on fire at the cinemas (with The exception of stuff like The Expendables and The Longest Yard), he has been making consistently good action films ever since he stopped wrestling. And for some reason, and it was never intentional, I own all of them (yet to watch The Stranger, Damage or Knockout yet though.)

Yeah, not everyone may like stuff like The Condemned and Hunt To Kill, but I found them both to be fantastic little action films and great vehicles for the artist formerly known as 'Stone Cold'. Hell, he's even done a 'training a kid to fight' film in Knockout (or Born To Fight as it's known over here, review soon), but he's never stepped foot into Disney films, shoddy comedies or Uwe Boll films (Dwayne Johnson, Vin Diesel and Jason Statham I'm looking at you all respectively here.)

While the names above look and act the 'action hero' part most of the time (although I don't rate Diesel much), they have compromised their position with the sort of thing I mention above. Didn't work for Arnie, Sly, Bruce or Chuck, branching out, and the story remains the same still.

Tactical Force is the latest in quality (albeit low budget) action films that Austin is getting a real name for. He plays Tate, the captain of a SWAT team who are ordered to go on a training mission in a disused hangar after a brutal grocery store takedown. Unknown to the team, though, two rival gangs are having a large disagreement in the same hangar. Armed with nothing but blanks, and with no back-up, the team must battle their way out.

It's not the most original storyline, but I was hooked from the moment it started. Helpful, that was well as Austin the rest of his team contain familiar faces in Michael Jai White as Hunt, and Lexa Doig (Stargate) as Jannard. The team are immediately likable, and all the cheesy banter between them is totally plausible.

The film does feel like a Stargate reunion (not a fan personally), with Michael Shanks playing lead villain Demetrius, as well as cast members Steve Bacic and Adrian Holmes having also appeared in the show. UFC fighter Keith Jardine also features, and has quite the bruising brawl with Austin near the films end.

A problem I did have with the film, however, was the editing. Continual 'side swipes' with added sound effects were used throughout to change scene, and they did get quite annoying after a while. I guess I should be glad the films editors didn't find the 'star wipe' button.

Tactical Force, overall though, is a violent, fun blast which harkens back to the OTT days of 80s action movies, albeit on a much smaller budget. And as long as Steve Austin keeps making films like this - and his next two projects feature Danny Trejo and Dolph Lundgren - I'll be watching them.

***
While it never re-invents the wheel, Tactical Force is a high octane blast filled to the brim with cheesy one liners and some great action. Check it out.