movieevangelist Reviews

Tamara Drewe (2010)

Review: Tamara Drew

[8/10 · 30 January 2011]

The Pitch: Close To The Maddening Crowd.

The Review: Comic book adaptations are two-a-penny these days, but comic strip adaptations are a harder nut to crack. Tamara Drewe was a launch strip for the resized Guardian newspaper in 2005 and ran for over 100 episodes, but it took its inspiration from a Thomas Hardy novel dating back all the way to the 1870s. At the centre of both stories are infidelities and strong women, although it's the modern trappings applied to The Guardian's version that seem to have appealed more to those adapting this tale.

Early on, though, this has the feel of a fairly traditional British adaptation, more in the mould of a Richard Curtis movie, with the many writers attending a country retreat all reading aloud from their varied stories, but the movie quickly takes on a different, but still British tone, with characters' lives quickly intertwining and stylised flashbacks setting up the existing relationships. From there, the initial tone is something of a romp, with lots of good-hearted, gentle comedy mixed with the typical trials and tribulations of modern relationships and flirtings.

Gemma Arterton may be the title character, but she's not the lead – in keeping with the source material, the story is told from shifting perspectives and we see a number of different, interweaving subplots, although Tamara's fingerprints are over most of them. Arterton herself is again on more interesting ground than most of the blockbusters she's appeared in recently, but is just as game as she was in this year's earlier "The Disappearance of Alice Creed", in more ways than one. The rest of the cast are also generally on good form, especially Tamsin Greig as the hard-working farm owner and Roger Allam as her philandering novelist husband. Sadly, Tamara's younger suitors, Dominic Cooper and Luke Evans leave slightly less of an impression.

Director Stephen Frears has been making interesting cinematic choices for over twenty years and is well versed in comedy, so is well at home setting the tone, flitting between frothy and bawdy, but there was more to the source material than that and thankfully Frears isn't afraid to explore some of these darker areas as well, bringing a more genuine sense of emotion in the process. While not quite as dark as the originals, there's enough here to give serious balance, and the result is a rather rewarding concoction that might leave you smiling or pondering, but should certainly leave you satisfied.

Why see it at the cinema: Not a popular choice, judging by the sparse crowd I saw this with on the opening Saturday evening, possibly put off by this very misleading and quite horrible trailer. Give it a chance and there's plenty to enjoy here, not least the cinematic expanses of the lush English countryside.

The Score: 8/10

The Social Network (2010)

Review: The Social Network

[10/10 · 30 January 2011]

The Pitch: A Few Good Rasho-men.

The Review: Every generation has one or more events that shape and define it, transforming the lives of those living through it and allowing those who look back on it in later years to understand it better. In the twentieth century we had two world wars, jazz and rock and roll transformed music, television and the cinema transformed the visual arts, and in the twenty-first century? We have a thing on your computer or your phone which allows you to play farm or jewel games, to stalk people you used to go to school with and to tell all your friends when you've had a bowel movement. It's easy to be sniffy about Facebook (really, it is – I just did it, try it if you don't believe me), but social media, of which Facebook is the pre-eminent form, have transformed the way that we interact with each other. My online friends range from their early teens to their late eighties and every demographic in between; but how do you capture such an abstract concept on screen? First, you hire Aaron Sorkin, responsible for one of the foremost small screen achievements (The West Wing) of the last ten years. Sorkin also scripted A Few Good Men, famous for its Cruise / Nicholson courtroom confrontations, which is handy, as this is where The Social Network spends most of its running time, for of course the more interesting story is not about Facebook itself, but about the men (or should that be boys?) who created it. Sorkin is a past master at getting the most out of static situations, because he knows how to write cracking dialogue, but he also knows how to structure a story, and so when the prospect of sitting through a succession of depositions where the finer details of the story of Facebook's creation gradually unfold feel too dry, Sorkin's solution is to interleave the court actions with the rest of the narrative, admitting a Rashomon influence in terms of the use of differing viewpoints, and we are actually left to work out for ourselves initially what's happening and when, as the time-line skips back and forth from past to present.

Then, you hire David Fincher. When he realises that Sorkin's script is fantastic, but is coming in at over two and a half hours, his simple solution is to crank up the pace of the dialogue. Relentless, straight from the off we're thrust into a scene with Mark Zuckerberg and his girlfriend Erica who isn't real but just a construct of Sorkin's to engage us in the narrative but she and Mark rattle through their conversation and in eight minutes they flirt with each other's attention and they talk and they fight and they grandstand and Erica tells Mark what she really thinks of him and she walks out and Mark's off and he's inspired and he makes Facemash and his friends get involved and his ideas get bigger and he's growing out and outgrowing them and we see where he was and where he is and how it comes together and how it moves so fast and never stops and you have to keep up but soon you adjust to the pace and the speeches burst out like a Marx brother on speed but it's exhilarating and it whips by so quick that by the time you realise Mark's out of his depth… The Social Network has you in its grip.

None of this would be possible without the quality of the cast that Fincher's then assembled. Jesse Eisenberg falls into that genre of young actors that causes regular comparisons to Michael Cera, but like the curly-haired Scott Pilgrim star, Eisenberg brings great subtlety and variety to the roles he plays, and his Mark Zuckerberg is multi-faceted, at once compelling but dislikeable, pathetic but powerful, driven by his ego and a walking contradiction in terms. Andrew Garfield has the less showy role as his closest, possibly only friend, Eduardo Saverin, who mirrors Mark in key ways and then proves the diametric opposite in others. Rounding out the headlining trio is the character of Sean Parker, who is probably the closest to a rock star that the internet generation's had; so who better to play him than Justin Timberlake, in a sort of life-imitates-art kind of way? Well, that would be fine if Timberlake could act, of course, but instead it's remarkable, Timberlake is a revelation and serves to add further momentum when he's introduced just when you thought that wasn't possible.

Everyone else is fantastic, including Arnie Hammer as the Winkevoss twins, which also serves to underline the depth of technical flair going on that you may not even notice. But crucially, the movie manages to stay impartial, using the varied viewpoints to explain actions without at any point sitting in judgment, although there are various inferences to Mark's similarity to a certain bolidy orifice but the overall attitude is more of pity than disdain towards him. Somehow, the talent assembled have taken what could have been a simple story of a trivial software development and made very much an epoch-defining movie which effectively explains Facebook's relevance to the social strata of today at the same time that it spins its classic tale of men seeking power and clashing egos. Fincher is now developing a long list of masterpieces and remains one of the most remarkable directing talents of the last twenty years; The Social Network sits very well in that company.

Why see it at the cinema: Because Fincher and Sorkin are masters of the art form, and this really does justify the praise and awards talk being heaped on it.

The Score: 10/10

Resident Evil: Afterlife (2010)

Review: Resident Evil: Afterlife 3D

[2/10 · 30 January 2011]

The Pitch: It's Not A Wonderful Afterlife. (Just setting my stall out early.) The Review: It's one of the most commonly held theories in movies that you can't make good cinematic adaptations of computer games. Don't believe me? Then look at this list. Not one live action movie based on a computer game has a Rotten Tomatoes score of over 40%, and the box office for that list is also generally pretty poor. But surely any movie based on a computer game that's managed to get to its third sequel, and has done big box office business quickly enough to ensure that the fourth sequel is already on its way, must be doing something right? Right? If it is, then it's gone over my head. There's an obvious appeal from Resident Evil: the series of computer games – zombies and other mutated creatures, and you get to dispatch them in various satisfying ways. The games themselves have always succeeded in creating atmosphere, but there's precious little of that on offer here. An opening sequence wraps up the cliffhanger from the previous entry, doing so with precious little in the way of wit, imagination or style. It does then kickstart the real plot, prompting Milla Jovovich to have to act briefly in a confession to camera sequence that manages to be both tedious (it's very short but doesn't feel it) and unbelievable.

Ah yes, Milla Jovovich. Just because you're married to the director, love, does it really mean you have to keep doing these? You've got a movie coming out with Edward Norton and Robert De Niro soon! Jovovich continues to fill the function of acting as your avatar in the movie world but adds very little else in the way of proceedings to anything. Those missing Ali Larter or Wentworth Miller from their canceled TV series might think they'll get a fix here, but other than the fact they're actually playing characters from the computer games (unlike most of the others here), they're not adding much either.

Paul WS Anderson is content to reference other action movies without ever coming up with anything especially original. Shots are poorly framed and have no weight in the action sequences, characters are picked off in uninteresting and undramatic ways (at least throw in a bit of gore if people we don't care about because of your poor plot and character exposition are dying?), and for a movie that should be full of zombies, this goes to great lengths to keep them fenced off and leave you purely in the company of the other insipid excuses for characters, which is completely inexcusable. The games themselves are renowned for their puzzles – the only puzzle here is why you'd want to watch it in the first place? * Why see it at the cinema: If you're a fan of the series, then seek help you'll be going anyway. If you're not, then you won't be going anyway – hopefully. Frankly, if you've read this, if you haven't been to one of these before and are still tempted, then I'd be checking that pulse – the zombies might have gotten you already.

Why see it in 3D: Nominally, because this is filmed with the same 3D camera set-up used for Avatar, so the 3D isn't applied in post-production. The effect they have achieved is not only that the 3D looks dark, but in some places it actually appears the movie is in black and white. Still, things will occasionally be thrown in your virtual face, if you like that sort of thing.

The Score: 2/10 * You may indeed be wondering why I watched it in the first place? Foolishly, I had eight hours while my wife was out on a volunteer assignment and I could fit in three movies, Cyrus and 'Tamara Drewe' being the first two, and this then being the only realistic possibility for a third. On reflection, sitting in the car for two hours staring at a hedge may have been preferable. Hey, it's not the worst movie I've seen this year, just the second worst. Thanks, Catherine Zeta Jones.

Buried (2010)

Review: Buried

[9/10 · 28 January 2011]

The Pitch: Saving Driver Ryan.

The Review: Ryan Reynolds is actually a pretty talented comic actor, but over the years he's struggled to find material to best fit his easy-going style. Probably best known for his wisecracking roles in movies like Blade: Trinity or his similar TV work, his profile may be about to get much bigger with the two comic book franchises he's got in the works – so if you wanted to take someone, possibly the most unlikely someone you could, and stick them in a coffin buried underground and basically torture them for an hour and a half, then Reynolds feels like the ideal candidate.

Normally at about this point in a review I might embark on a brief summation of the plot for those unfamiliar with the story, so here goes. It's Ryan Reynolds. He's a contracted truck driver working in Iraq. He's been kidnapped and buried alive in a coffin. He's got a mobile phone, and has to get out before he runs out of signal or air, or both. That's it. It's a concept so high it should have little flashing warning lights to ward off aeroplanes, and it's the kind of thing that Hitchcock in his heyday would have been proud of, for several reasons. While the great man was fond of a high concept himself, it wasn't just their mere nature that fascinated him, but the possibilities that they could lend themselves to.

You might think that just one man and the inside of a coffin would get a little dull after a while, but director Rodrigo Cortes has worked out all his angles, and there's not an inch of the coffin left unexplored over the course of the running time, including a few slightly artificial long shots that help to reinforce the isolation, but we are trapped down there for the duration in an admirable display of commitment to the concept, and Cortes uses that fact to start ratcheting the tension up to unbearable levels. We do hear other people, including the unmistakable tones of Steven Tobolowsky, as well as Robert Patterson and Samantha Mathis among others, as Reynolds' Paul Conroy attempts to attract a rescue before it's too late, but visually the only face we see is that of Reynolds.

He steps up manfully to the challenge, throwing his emotions at the screen and allowing you to share in the terror of his character's plight. The immersive nature of the cinematography will help you to feel trapped with him, and as his situation worsens, the movie exerts a vice-like grip around your nerves. I wouldn't confess to being too much of a claustrophobic, but by the end I was glad to see the wide open spaces outside the cinema, as what Cortes and Reynolds have achieved is incredibly effective. Taut, suspenseful and well structured, you even let it get away with the odd bit of cheekiness (one other thing ends up in the box at one point, which in other hands might have stretched disbelief, but you're happy to let them run with it), and somehow from the confines of this tiny prison it manages to work in social and political commentary among all the tension in a way that never feels forced and only enhances. It will make you amazed at what Reynolds is actually capable of given the right material, but it will also leave you clamouring to see what Cortes can do next.

Why see it at the cinema: It's almost a dare to see if you can cope with it. If you're especially claustrophobic, you may wish to sit close to the exit, just in case.

The Score: 9/10

The Girl Who Played with Fire (2009)

Review: The Girl Who Played With Fire

[6/10 · 28 January 2011]

The Pitch: The Girl Who Wouldn't Let It Lie.

The Review: Normally a movie these days will generate sequel expectations if the box office is strong enough, but it's rare that trilogies are presented in a ready-made form. Here, though, is the second part of the book sensation that has been the Millennium trilogy, originally intended for TV transmission but finding its way into cinemas, as will the final part in a few months. The first was the compelling tale of how two mismatched characters, Mikael Blomqvist and Lisbeth Salander, were brought together. So naturally, the second story does its best to keep them apart.

Remember Nils Bjurman from Dragon Tattoo? (Actually, if you don't, now is the time to dig out the DVD, as there's no recap and your knowledge of the original is heavily assumed.) The plot thread regarding Lisbeth's guardian felt resolved in the original, but is used here in a sensible fashion as a catalyst for the second chapter's events, which revolve around Lisbeth in ever decreasing circles. Despite being separated, there's still a strong sense of the two working towards a common goal, as Blomqvist has ties to some of the murder victims and Salander is implicated in the murders and works her usual unconventional methods in an attempt to clear her name.

Michael Nyqvist and Noomi Rapace are among the cast and crew returning from the first movie, and while familiarity doesn't exactly breed contempt, the central actors occasionally feel a little too easy in their roles this time around, without quite the same level of performances. How much of that can be put at the door of replacement director Daniel Alfredson, who replaces the original's Niels Arden Oplev in the only major production member change? There is no doubt that Oplev applied not only a cinematic sheen to Dragon Tattoo, but also made the most of the Swedish locations, and for whatever reason Alfredson has lost a lot of that feel, but also some of the dynamism and freshness that caused the first to stand out from the crowd. There's also slightly less subtlety with some of the staging; for example, the dragon tattoo itself gets more of an airing here than it ever did in the first, just in case you have for a few moments forgotten what you're watching.

It's Stieg Larsson's story that's at the heart of the movie, though, and for the most part the material keeps things going at a good lick. Despite his slight failings, Alfredson's pacing doesn't give you time to dwell too much on the plot, which is slightly simpler than the original and as such not quite as satisfying, although it does have the advantage of avoiding Dragon's extended coda at the end. Unfortunately, the final act is where the implausibilities of the story start to creep in and mount, with allusions to another middle-of-trilogy movie, not least in that the wrap up isn't as tidy here in an effort to draw you in for the final chapter. One can only hope that the conclusion is a little more cinematic and also returns to the feel of the beginning of the trilogy.

Why see it at the cinema: There's a nice shot of a barn on fire, but other than that it's painfully obvious this was intended for TV and not the big screen, unlike its predecessor which benefited extensively from a larger viewing area. But if you're a fan, it's worth the trip – just.

The Score: 6/10

Certified Copy (2010)

Review: Certified Copy (Copie Conforme)

[7/10 · 28 January 2011]

The Pitch: It's like looking in a mirror, only… not.

The Review: Juliette Binoche has had a career spanning nearly thirty years, and for much of that has jumped between roles in her natural language and English. You might think that, with the supposed paucity of good female roles in movies, that there's not much left for Binoche to cover that she hasn't before, but here she gets to explore some new territory to Cannes best actress award-winning effect. In the process, she gets to cover a range of languages, not only English and French but Italian, but in this case there is a specific purpose to the variances of the language.

The set-up is simple: William Shimell plays James Miller, an British author on a tour of Tuscany where his work on originality in art has been better received than in his homeland. Binoche is the woman who comes to hear his talk, and the two are then drawn together in a discussion of his work. Once the two meet again, the course of the movie charts their discussions over the course of an afternoon, taking in the Italian countryside and engaging with a number of characters along the way who cause them to reflect on their differing viewpoints on Miller's work.

There's a turning point as we approach the halfway mark where one of those characters seemingly mistakes the pair for a married couple. What starts as a role play, set off by the misunderstanding, takes on more and more aspects, and eventually both the pair and the audience are lost in the drama. The whole movie reveals itself to be an intricate construct on this concept, almost every aspect of the theme, the performances or the setting playing with the motif of originality versus imitation. Reflections in car windows sometimes obscure the actors themselves, POV shots ask us to engage directly in the drama almost as a participant and this even extends to the leading pair themselves – Shimell is a renowned baritone, not an actor, and there is a slight but noticeable difference between his performance and that of Binoche, which almost feels like a copy of acting rather than being fully immersed in the role.

While this reinforces the concept, it does prevent the audience from fully engaging, being kept slightly at arm's length by the constant artifice. That's not to say that there's not a lot to enjoy here, with the confusions and the tensions making this verge on a romantic comedy at times. Despite the differences in acting ability, Shimell and Binoche make an engaging couple at times and as time wears on, you find yourself more keen to believe that the beginning was the illusion and that their relationship is real and not the copy. Much of the credit for this must be placed at Binoche's door, using the language differences to vary mood effectively, but also adding colour and emotion in all of the languages she uses. The only one here who's on familiar ground is director Kiarostami, who's explored these themes before but never to such mainstream effect – worth checking out if you'd like to engage your mind and your heart.

Why see it at the cinema: There is a very literal aspect of the visuals which runs throughout the course of the movie, which the cinema screen will allow you to fully appreciate.

The score: 7/10

Restrepo (2010)

Review: Restrepo

[8/10 · 26 January 2011]

The Pitch: The real Hurt Locker.

The Review: We live in an age when rolling news channels give us constant, and sometimes live, feeds of footage from the front lines of conflict across the world, and where it's possible for movies to have made their way into cinemas while those conflicts are still taking place. We can be lulled into believing that we truly understand what it must be like to be on those front lines, but of course what we get are the heavily edited highlights. Restrepo follows the members of a platoon as they embark on a fifteen month deployment in Afghanistan's Korengal valley.

It's also easy to imagine how this is going to play out. We start with talking heads from the platoon members reflecting on their thoughts before they head out, but it's clear that there's a dose of reality already permeating among the members of the platoon. Directors Sebastian Junger and Tim Hetherington keep close to the platoon at all times, and an attack on the convoy early on immediately sets the stakes for both them and the platoon they're following. The fact that the name of the outpost they establish, Outpost Restrepo, is named for a fallen colleague also serves to underline the immediacy of the threat facing them.

What follows has a slightly conventional feel to it at times, with footage of the talking heads of the platoon, mostly taken after the fact, interspersed with the footage of them building and then defending their outpost, attempting to manage the locals and out on patrol. There are also occasions when the members of Second Platoon come over as slightly stereotypical, no doubt thanks to the heavy diet of war films that both they and we have consumed over the years, but that also serves to help familiarise and humanise them, and their plight becomes that much more immediate.

Restrepo is not an attempt to judge the rights or wrongs of the Afghan conflict, more to understand what compels men to fight for their country and to put themselves in a situation like this for fifteen months. Although there's no real sense of innovation in the presentation, the quality of the material speaks for itself, and both the frustrations and the terror are writ large across the screen. In particular, the last third of the movie sees the platoon deep in the action and the reality of their situation hits home hard. An undeniably moving and deliberately unglamorous documentary that captures both the best and worst of army life in Afghanistan.

Why see it at the cinema: Allowing yourself to be immersed in the footage helps to understand quite what these soldiers have gone through, and hopefully to make you more than a little relieved that you don't actually have to go through it.

The Score: 8/10

127 Hours (2010)

Review: 127 Hours

[8/10 · 26 January 2011]

The Pitch: Mostly Armless.

The Review: It's a fair question to anyone who's ever won a major award, especially something as high profile as the Best Director Oscar – what next? Looking back over the last decade of winners, it would be safe to say that, with the possible exception of the Coen brothers, every winner has either peaked when they won the award or sometime before it. Slumdog Millionaire might have been his Oscar winner, but Trainspotting had been his calling card for a decade before that, and try as he might, until the his trip to the slums he'd struggled to repeat the composed brilliance of that and his first feature, Shallow Grave. However, another common theme of those award winning directors is their desire and ability to swap between genres and styles as if it was almost compulsory, and in that respect Boyle is no different.

So after a sweeping epic with a touchstone of popular culture at its core, Boyle has decided to make a high concept true story. If you don't know by now, Aron Ralston was an experienced and cocky young canyoneer who ventured into the rocky wilderness of Utah in 2003, and didn't feel the need to tell anyone his whereabouts. Several hours later, Ralston came to be stuck at the bottom of a tiny crack in the rocks, miles from civilisation, his right arm pinned by an immovable boulder. Having explored his options, he eventually concludes that the only realistic option for his survival is to cut it off… If you were unaware of that particular development and are now about to complain strenuously about spoilers, then don't. Rather than the structure of a thriller, the hours counting down like a reverse Jack Bauer marathon, Boyle has fashioned a character piece, albeit one with hallucinations of a giant inflatable Scooby Doo and old girlfriends thrown in. The intention is to put you resolutely in Ralston's shoes, to feel what he feels, and to understand what you'd do in that hopeless position. In much the same way as Ryan Reynolds did in that coffin last year, James Franco gets to prove his acting chops with some varied challenges and acquits himself remarkably well. Which is a relief, for despite odd appearances from Kate Mara and Amber Tamblyn as the girls he meets on his way to the cavern, and Clémency Poésy as the apparitional ex, Franco is the only person on screen for the majority of the run time.

Boyle has a kinetic and restless visual style, so doesn't remain pinned down for a second; his visual shorthand seems odd at first, such as shots from the inside of a water bottle, but allows for reams of exposition without requiring a man to spend the best part of ninety minutes talking to himself (water refreshing, water lower, water running out, water… oh wait, that's not water); Ralston had a video camera and so we do get a little inner monologuing. But what we are doing to a certain extent is killing time until the third act, and it's the structure that is the only real drawback here, our hero (who is not seen as a totally reformed character by his experience, more fortunate to possess the necessary skills to execute the deed) stuck early on and the mere title causing us to keep checking our watches until the clock runs out and… Right, those of a nervous disposition needn't bother, for at this point Boyle cranks it up to the max, and you will feel every action to your very core. Boyle uses every trick in the book to help you truly understand what a man goes through when he has to remove a decent sized chunk of himself . But for the lopsided structure, this could have been another classic; instead, it's a worth watch and a wonderful tribute to man's endurance, but it just may test your endurance a little before it's all over.

Why see it at the cinema: If you want to test your mettle and don't feel up to torture porn, then 127 Hours has all of the gore and the anguish but comes with more character work and added street cred. Sorted. Wicked. Innit.

The Score: 8/10

Conviction (II) (2010)

Review: Conviction

[7/10 · 26 January 2011]

The Pitch: Oh my god, they falsely imprisoned Kenny! You bastards! The Review: True stories have always been a staple of cinema, and when it comes to recognition, either from audiences or their peers, then it's sometimes the sheer magnitude of the events that can determine how much attention you should give. So try this one for size: guy gets arrested, tried and imprisoned for murder but proclaims his innocence. OK, you're thinking, so far so typical, but then how about this: sister of imprisoned murderer believes his innocence but can't find a way to convince anyone, and their poor background means they can't afford fancy lawyers. So she decides to become a fancy lawyer herself, attempting to put herself through a degree, law school and then to attempt to overturn the conviction.

If it sounds like a TV movie of the week, then the material might well be a staple of that genre, but the acting talent here raises things up a level or two. Sam Rockwell is one of the most versatile actors of his generation, so manages to inhabit Kenny Waters successfully to the extent where he fully engages your sympathies, but that you still believe he might have been capable of the crime in question. Taking the other main role of his sister, and carrying the film for long stretches, is Hilary "I've got two Oscars me" Swank, portraying a naivety at first, then a grim determination to see her quest through, and at the same time rid herself of the giant Eighties hair she's portrayed with at the start of the film.

This is one of the side effects of the passage of time the film portrays; not only through a large chunk of adulthood, but the film also has a choppy narrative which allows it to cast back to the childhood of Kenny and Betty Anne, putting valuable context around their later situations and strengthening the bond between them, so we can understand exactly why Betty Anne gave up such a large part of her life on this quest. There's a few famous faces along the way, including Minne Driver as Betty Anne's best friend at law school and Juliette Lewis as a key witness at the original trial; Melissa Leo has also picked up a Golden Globe this year for her efforts in The Fighter, but she may be the only one from this cast to trouble the engravers at awards time and her role here is tiny.

The reason for that is not the strength of the acting, which is at least good across the board, or the story itself which is compelling, but the direction, from Tony Goldwyn. You might remember him from such films as Disney's Tarzan (he was Tarzan) or Ghost (he was the creepy bad guy), but you might not remember him from his other directorial efforts, which have been predominantly TV shows, and this TV background does show through, unfortunately. The story, despite its epic sweep through the characters' lives, does occasionally get bogged down; at the point when one crucial piece of evidence is missing, the characters spend so long looking I was tempted to offer to help myself. The movie also leaves out one crucial detail about the lives of the characters after the events of the movie that could have put an entirely different, and possibly more interesting, spin on the outcome. That said, if true stories with good acting are your thing, then I'm convinced you'll get something from Conviction.

Why see it at the cinema: It's the performances more than the visuals that will draw you in on this occasion, although there is the occasional well-framed image that deserves a big screen outing.

The Score: 7/10

Dark Souls (2010)

Review: Dark Souls (Mørke Sjeler)

[8/10 · 25 January 2011]

The Pitch: Oily Vomit Of The Living Dead.

The Review: I will be honest, this, in nearly 100 reviews I've written, has been one of if not the most difficult one line pitches to write. Part of that is down to how much is going on in this quiet little Norwegian chiller, which while running to only just over an hour and a half covers an awful lot of territory in that time. The one substance in abundance in this movie is oil, but it's not the only black entity around, as much of the humour is of the dark variety. Dark Souls attempts to put a smile on your face as it drills into your brain, and it succeeds to a large extent in that endeavour.

We start with a young girl, Johanna (Johanna Gustavson), who is attacked by a man in an orange boiler suit with an electric drill and left for dead, found face down in the mud by the police who pronounce her dead and have her taken to the mortuary. This comes as a surprise to her loving father, Morten (Morten Ruda), who's seen her walk in the door not moments earlier. But there's something not quite right about Johanna any more, and she's not alone. While detective Askestad (Kyrre H. Sydness) attempts to uncover the truth behind these mystery murders, and the local doctor (Jan Harstad) attempts to uncover the truth behind these rather lively corpses and their strange symptoms, Morten attempts to re-establish family life with Johanna as best as possible, but is slowly but surely drawn into the secret world behind it all.

Directors and writers Mathieu Petuel and César Ducasse obviously know their horror. There's a deliberate, unhurried pace from start to end and, as with so many other effective horror movies over the years, the pacing is used to build tension and to unsettle the viewer. This isn't your average American slasher, filled with jump cuts and loud bursts on the soundtrack in a vain attempt to summon up scares, everything here is designed more to pick at your nerves and unsettle, apart from the occasional head drilling, of course. The acting is generally fit for purpose, so while it won't win any awards, it does engage your sympathy in all the right ways, and Morten Ruda is the stand out, carrying more of the narrative as the movie progresses and allowing the mix of off-kilter laughs to blend perfectly with the feeling and the pain.

The use of oil is also an interesting motif, but its allegorical use pales in comparison to the body horror of watching it exude from every pore of its victims, and it gives them a distinctive and effective look. There are also a lot of references to other horror movies thrown into the mix (more than this casual horror fan could ever detect), but the overall narrative, while taking occasional tangents, hangs together very effectively, and the abiding impression is of a deliciously dark movie that will creep under your skin like the oil in its victims.

Why see it at the cinema: There's plenty of effective imagery, both subtle and in-your-face, and of course this is at its core a horror movie, so why not guarantee yourself a dark room with a large screen to make the most of the chills?

The Score: 8/10

Due Date (2010)

Review: Due Date

[5/10 · 25 January 2011]

The Pitch: No planes or trains but some automobiles.

The Review: Has Hollywood finally run out of ideas? For anyone around the same age as me, if you were to start describing a film where an odd couple are forced to engage in a road trip together, you'd probably think of Planes, Trains and Automobiles, the John Hughes movie from nearly twenty-five years ago. But this isn't a remake – or at least, it doesn't claim to be one – but conceptually it's so similar that the two would happily pass as related. So if we're not to get originality in concept, we could at least hope that execution would see us through.

So casting Robert Downey Jr. in the "straight" man role taken by Steve Martin would seem to be a wise choice. Downey Jr.'s star is as high as it's ever been right now, and if anyone can do the sardonic, oppressed narcissism required for such a role and still remain charming it's surely the Iron Man. Or at least, it should be. He's not helped out by a script which requires him to be graphically unpleasant on at least a couple of occasions, and while the moments in isolation are funny they go a very long way to undermining our sympathy for his plight.

Zach Galifianakis gets the John Candy role, although at times it feels as if he got a single card with the word "simpleton" on it in place of a script. He's slightly more affable than his co-star, but his rank stupidity begins to grate when it becomes clear that it's the only thing servicing the plot. Actually, that's not quite true; Downey Jr. gets his own share of stupid moments, not least in his jealousy over Jamie Foxx's character that strains credulity more than a little. Michelle Monaghan is in the movie as well, but has so little to actually do that I could have played the role in a wig with a cushion up my jumper, and you might well not have noticed.

Director Todd Philips, as well as throwing himself a cameo, keeps the action moving along, and when the script calls for actual action, the set pieces are efficient. It actually works marginally more effectively as a buddy action road movie than it does as a comedy, but it's not really working particularly well on any level. There's parts to enjoy, but there's just as much that will cause you to hope that the next close scrape for our dynamic duo turns out to be fatal, so we can all be put out of our misery. There's precious little feeling of development to cling to, either, more a sense from the characters that they're glad it's all over, and you may share a similar feeling. John Hughes' original remains the benchmark in cross-country curmudgeons for the time being.

Why see it at the cinema: Some nice views of the Grand Canyon to be fully appreciated and a few chuckles to share with your fellow audience, but sadly only a few. Although if you ever wanted to see America's highest rated sitcom on the big screen, the bizarre Two And A Half Men cameos will give you that chance.

The Score: 5/10

The Kids Are All Right (2010)

Review: The Kids Are All Right

[8/10 · 25 January 2011]

The Pitch: My Two Mums.

The Review: Whenever awards season rolls around, the trend in more recent years has been towards at least one movie which may as well have been called "For Your Consideration". The likes of Little Miss Sunshine and Juno, not to mention almost the entire output of Wes Anderson, seem to have a slot reserved for Oscar contention, into which this year's offering will slot. So this year's award magnet seems to be The Kids Are All Right, which has dipped into the bin of indie script ideas that produced dysfunctional family (Sunshine) and teenage pregnancy (Juno) and has now pulled out lesbian parents.

Often, the indie of the year will be an opportunity to finally recognise an older actor (Alan Arkin) or to give an up and coming their big break (Ellen Page). This year almost feels like an attempt to do both; Julianne Moore and Annette Bening have seven Oscar nominations between them and both get roles to get their teeth into, with both delivering characters that sit well in comparison with their previously nominated performances. Mark Ruffalo, one time MTV award nominee and soon to be third choice Hulk, might feel a little put out at being described as up and coming but his star is certainly on the rise, and it's actually Ruffalo who gives the most rounded and likable central performance, but is most likely to get lost in the more crowded male award categories come next year.

The narrative itself is also a little uncomfortable in places; a reference to straight actors in gay roles early on in proceedings couldn't be more knowing or self-referential if Julianne Moore turned to camera and winked, and that's not the only occasion on which the film is guilty of having its cake and trying to eat it. The actors invest plenty of emotional honesty into their performances, it's just a shame that there is the odd occasion where it all feels a bit forced. Stick with it, though, and eventually the drama feels earned and the good work of the whole cast starts to bear fruit.

In the pantheon of indie Oscar movies, it never reaches the heights of Sunshine or Juno, maybe because it is trying just a little too hard at points. It is generally positive and uplifting rather than cynical about the various forms that modern family life can be found in, and doesn't judge or preach. As long as you go in with the expectation of excellent actors elevating some decent if unspectacular material to a noticeably higher level but never reaching true greatness, then you shouldn't go far wrong.

Why see it at the cinema: Cholodenko's direction isn't hugely cinematic, but the drama will benefit from having space to breathe once the early self-consciousness is out of the way.

The Score: 8/10

Heartbreaker (2010)

Review: Heartbreaker (L'Arnacoeur)

[8/10 · 25 January 2011]

The Pitch: Breaking up is hard to do. Unless there's a €50,000 incentive, of course… The Review: Oxymoron is probably one of my favourite words in the English language. Not only for the fact that it sounds like a spot treatment for idiots, but that it also describes simply a contradiction in terms, for example "friendly fire" or "sweet sorrow". Some might argue that "romantic comedy" is also an oxymoron, yet movies over the years have successfully made light of one of life's most serious subjects. What has become the case over more recent years is that most makers of romantic comedies should probably be prosecuted under the Trade Descriptions Act – even in the last three years I've accompanied my wife to too many films with that description that were neither funny nor truly romantic.

So what a pleasure it is to find that the romantic comedy isn't a lost art after all. And who better to do romance than the French? This, though, is a very Anglicised French take on the modern rom-com – rights have already been snapped up, and it's easy to guess who might fill roles in the English version. Much of the English perspective comes from the main female character, Juliette – she likes Wham records and Dirty Dancing, and has even shackled herself to Egg off of This Life (Andrew Lincoln). a model of British decorum and class (and maybe a sly comment on how the French see the British as lacking passion).

So Romain Duris' Alex is tasked with bringing this relationship to an end, and there's a convenient ticking clock of a wedding at the end of the week. There are other stumbling blocks as well, including the reasons Alex has to take the job and Juliette's mysterious friend who turns up and throws several large spanners into the works. What this serves to do is to keep things moving along at a fair old rate, and also to keep the laughs coming. All the while, a believable relationship develops between Alex and Juliette, striking just the right balance between the comedic and romantic elements.

There's bits of physical comedy, bits of slapstick and farce, Julie Ferrier as Alex's sister gets about 100 costume changes and through all that, there's a clear line of sight to the objective of getting the two leads together. All in all, this is as light as a small soufflé and about as deep, but it fulfills its remit admirably and should be recommended for those who like their romances with a dash of the funnies. Now to sit back and wait for that remake to be horribly ruined… Why see it at the cinema: Lots of good laughs here that are better shared, and also lots of wonderful French scenery that you can take in at the same time.

The Score: 8/10

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (2010)

Review: Scott Pilgrim vs The World

[10/10 · 25 January 2011]

The Pitch: The Young Person's Guide to Love. (Insert 1 x 50p to play)

The Review: Cinema as a medium is threatened, if you believe the popular press. We now prefer to watch movies in our comfy home cinemas and IMAX and 3D are touted as the last hopes of cinema chains keeping people seeing movies where they were meant to be seen. But the thing that will actually keep people coming back is good storytelling, and what the great movies of 2010 are starting to show is that it's the layers of depth of storytelling, and indeed of many other facets of the production, that will get people engaged and keep them returning.

Edgar Wright's first two movies have had that feeling of layers, working so well at a broad level but also with the finest details polished and then joined together in often unexpected ways. Other than the obvious directorial touches, though, it's been difficult to tell exactly who contributed what in the two Edgar Wright-Simon Pegg collaborations, so seamless has the join been. What's now abundantly clear is that Wright can blend just as seamlessly with the right material of others as well, and has honed from Bryan Lee O'Malley's comics something that actually feels a level up (if you'll pardon the pun) from his first two movies, unlikely as that may seem. Wright's had a slightly ADD directorial style at times, but one that still fit the vast majority of the material at hand, but here the flourishes are subtle, and ramped up over the course of the running time.

What's truly inspiring about Scott Pilgrim is how many different cultural themes are composed into the greater structure. Where Shaun took references from the zombie / horror genres and Fuzz raided action movie lockers and thrillers (with a smidgen of horror thrown in), Pilgrim is a love story to video games, comic books and indie / rock music, among others. As Ang Lee's Hulk proved, translating the visual style of a comic book directly to the screen can go wrong in the best of hands, but the comic book sensibility is retained very effectively, on-screen writing and captions giving a well-structured feel. Somehow, the video game aspects of the comic books form the basis for a visual frame of reference on top of that; as anyone who's played them will know, keeping your interest is nigh on impossible if you can't follow what's happening, but the action is well staged, always clear and progresses effortlessly up through the gears.

Through it all, character development is weaved in effortlessly to the tightly plotted but flowing story, and of course O'Malley's titanic contributions should not be understated here, having provided much of the meat, but the central pairing characters get to work through as many relationship issues and combinations as a whole Friends box-set, but in a way that feels refreshingly honest and ultimately powerfully cathartic for anyone that's made any mistakes in the past – which, let's be honest, should be most of us. That Pilgrim the movie covers so much ground in storytelling terms while successfully mining so many layers of modern culture is nothing short of breathtaking.

The cast, meanwhile are all pitch perfect and uniformly brilliant, but Cera, Winstead and Culkin should all be proud of what they've done here. Much is always made of Cera's seemingly repetitive performances, but he continues the trend of Youth In Revolt of twisting that persona just a little further each time, to winning effect here. Of the exes, Brandon Routh is a twisted highlight but you'll wish nearly all of them had about three times the amount of screen time, so enjoyable is the company of the characters and the performances. But more than the acting, Wright and his production team have assembled an embarrassment of riches in the craft departments; from musical collaborators including Nigel Godrich and Beck, through Brad Allen's stunt coordination to Bill Pope's cinematography, everyone has raised their game and the final product somehow manages to exceed expectations, which started pretty high.

It's the emotional depth, though, that takes this all the way up to the classic level. By the end you'll find yourself rooting for the characters and their eventual fates, and there's a delicious irony that this movie is about growing up when the cultural fabric it's woven from wants us to remain young at heart for ever. Overall, this is just another affirmation that Edgar Wright, in his own way, ranks alongside Christopher Nolan as one of the finest British directors of our times. Continue? Yes, please.

Why see it at the cinema: Despite all the above, there is one reservation; as with Shaun and Fuzz, there is probably an entry level for required knowledge to get from it as much as I did, in that knowing nothing about video games or comic books that aren't Spider-Man could hamper your enjoyment here in the same way that not knowing something about zombies or action movie clichés may not allow you get the most from those other movies. But the game-mimicking aspect ratio shifts and extraordinary level of detail really do deserve to be seen on the big screen.

The Score: 10 / 10

Blue Valentine (2010)

Review: Blue Valentine

[8/10 · 25 January 2011]

The Pitch: Breaking up is hard to do. And to watch, for that matter… The Review: Love stories have been rich fodder for cinema over its entire history, with many of the most highly regarded films ever made boiling down to the simple story of how two people find love. Trying to pin down love is a little more elusive, however, and the nature and representation of romantic love is somewhat different to what it might have been in previous generations. Consequently, fewer films have trodden the path of what causes love or relationships to break down; Blue Valentine tackles both ends of the relationship spectrum, looking at a couple's initial coming together and the beginning of the end for their relationship.

The non-linear structure is initially only given away by the visual cues; different film (one digital, the other more old fashioned) used for the different times, but also the appearance of the two leads. Not only do Dean (Ryan Gosling) and Cindy (Michelle Williams) sport different clothes and hair to show up the difference, but their very mannerisms and demeanour serve to contrast the exuberance of their first exchanges and the world-weariness of their marriage after six years together, seemingly going through the motions. It's almost trivial to say that both are excellent, scattering their respective characters with little details which make them completely believable, albeit more than a little unsympathetic.

Now more than a third of marriages end in divorce, where once that statistic would have been much lower; the film juxtaposes the older characters and their relationships with the failing marriage, although it's hard to escape the underlying cynicism about both love and marriage, almost as if those couples that stay together do simply because they can't be honest with themselves, and that there is no such thing as love at all, only circumstance and a set of choices that present themselves over time. There's certainly mutual attraction at the beginning of this relationship, and the kind of flirting that often happens in indie and low budget films, but the cuts between the beginning and the end are done in such a way as to make the end inevitable and the film becomes almost a modern day tragedy, a parable of our times and a social commentary on generational differences but one still only reflective of the minority. The rampant symbolism in the settings, from doomed love songs to tacky motel rooms, all support the fatalistic attitude that Blue Valentine has towards Dean and Cindy.

Director Derek Gianfrance wants to make us hurt as much as the characters, so pushes us in close with the camera, even when the going gets tough, through both physical pain and the emotional endurance of the characters. There was much controversy over the sex scenes, but they're all an extension of the mood at that point in the narrative and there's nothing hugely gratuitous, serving only to ground the whole film firmly in the real world. The direction itself gives full weight to the acting, and there's a suitably doleful score that flits in and out of proceedings, but what you're left with is a very one sided argument about the nature of relationships, and the only thing that rewards are the beautifully nuanced performances. The almost complete lack of sympathetic characters means you may appreciate the quality of Blue Valentine while in its presence, and that quality does make it worth your time initially, but if you're anything but a hardened cynic you may not wish to make a long term commitment to it.

Why see it at the cinema: It's beautifully shot, extraordinarily well performed and the close in camera means the cinema will give you an absolute intimacy with the characters. If that's what you want, of course.

The Score: 8/10

Mr. Nice (2010)

Review: Mr. Nice

[7/10 · 25 January 2011]

The Pitch: Howard The Skunk.

The Review: I spent four years at University in Bath, getting a degree and starting to develop my love of movies. While I was there, I came into contact with two things for the first time in my life: drugs, and the Welsh. Not a combination that I, or indeed anyone else, would necessarily put together, but that combination was responsible for one of the biggest drug trafficking rings ever seen in this country, or indeed any other. That Welshness was contributed fairly effectively by one man, Howard Marks, described by the Daily Mail as "the most sophisticated drugs baron of all time." Not that you'd know that from watching Mr. Nice. Rhys Ifans comes across as a fairly reasonable approximation of the man himself, and this is the story of his passage from the small coal-mining village where he grew up to Oxford, and the pronounced influence that had on his future direction. Despite becoming a big fan of recreational drugs, if Mr. Nice is to be believed Marks fell into his career almost by accident, just happening to be in either the right or wrong place at the appropriate time. Slowly but surely, he expands his influence and his reach, and every time an opportunity comes up, he takes it.

In order to get what he needs, he begins to rope in a motley crew of accomplices, and ends up getting involved with the IRA (a manic David Thewlis) and eventually even expands into the Americas (via a bearded Crispin Glover), despite the protestations of his wife (Chloe Sevigny), seemingly the only person who can appreciate the potential cost of the risks that Howard's taking. Through the course of this, don't expect deep insights into why Marks is doing what he's doing, or passionate arguments for the legalisation of recreational drugs – those are only implied in the sense that this really isn't Trainspotting, and the downsides of Howard's habits are the run-ins with the law that he had, not from what he or any others ended up taking.

But freed from the weight of those expectations, this is an enjoyable romp. Bernard Rose has both adapted the screenplay and directed – his direction is unshowy, but there are little stylised touches (inserting Ifans into stock historical footage) and the occasional impressive image, but by and large he lets the story do the talking. Thewlis probably gets to have the most fun, raging around with his accent, while the only slight weak link is Sevigny, the accent wavering just occasionally and the performance also slightly shaky. There's nothing shaky about anyone else, though, they're all too tripped out on the material, so just sit back, revel in the absurdities of the story (all true, as long as you believe Marks), and have a good time, man.

Why see it at the cinema: There's a few shots, such as a car crash, that will benefit from the big screen, but by and large you'd be here more for the company than the impact of the visuals.

The Score: 7/10

Let Me In (I) (2010)

Review: Let Me In

[8/10 · 25 January 2011]

The Pitch: Haven't I seen you somewhere before? The Review: Hollywood does many things well, and one it seems to do extremely well is to make a complete Horlicks of remaking successful foreign films, either losing the essence of what made them so special in the first place or adding in element that don't work in context. There's a spate of high profile instances going through the production cycle at present, and it's two of the Scandinavian movies that have won widespread acclaim in the last couple of years that are currently getting the most attention. The first out of the box is Cloverfield director Matt Reeves with his re-imagining of the Swedish classic, Let The Right One In.

First of all, re-imagining may be too strong a word for what Reeves has done. Claims that he's returned to the source material prove unfounded and there is, in places, an almost slavish dedication to recapturing the look and feel of the predecessor, to the extent that you have to pinch yourself as a reminder that this is set in New Mexico, not Northern Europe. While Reeves has made a few attempts to distance himself from the original, at times this has the feel of a shot for shot remake in the style of Van Sant's Psycho or Haneke's English language Funny Games, and feels about as essential as either – in other words, not at all if you've any familiarity with the first film.

So to those areas where the differences come in, and this is still a story about a young boy who's isolated and ends up living next door to someone who gradually reveals their secret, except now they're called Owen and Abby instead of Oscar and Eli. There's one change, in the modus operandi of Abby's guardian, which leads to a stunning set piece seen from a fixed viewpoint at the back of a car that equals and, whisper it, possible even betters anything in the original. Additionally, we never see Owen's mother clearly, which serves to reinforce his sense of isolation. But apart from that, other than the casting, any other changes actually work against the overall feel, including some ill-advised CGI which serves to take you out of the scene rather than further into it.

The casting, though, is about as impeccable as you could possibly hope for in such a situation. Chloe Moretz, while occasionally less androgynous in appearance than her Swedish counterpart, still nails the role of the creature years beyond her young appearance, while Kodi Smit-McPhee, Richard Jenkins and Elias Koteas round out an excellent central cast. Michael Giacchino's score is also moodily effective and worth a mention. But other than that, this first film from the relaunched Hammer studios feels like the safest possible bet that they could have made. So let's be clear – it's a great film, but the original was outstanding, and is so recent that I bought it on Blu-ray as soon as it came out. Imagine having been given an orange flavoured, chocolate covered cake snack from a supermarket's own range when you already own a packet of Jaffa Cakes – why would you not just eat the Jaffa Cakes? Why see it at the cinema: The car set piece deserves a view on the big screen, and this is absolutely dripping in atmosphere. It's also a real thrill to see the Hammer logo on the big screen, and long may it remain. But if you've encountered the original, then move along, for there's nothing to see here.

The Score: 8/10 (Author's note: I was eating Jaffa Cakes at the time of writing.)

The Expendables (2010)

Review: The Expendables

[7/10 · 25 January 2011]

The Pitch: The Magnificent Four And A Half.

The Review: I think I was born at just the wrong age. I was two when Rocky came out, and still at primary school when Arnie was first flexing his biceps for the camera. I did grow up on a diet of action, but it was Die Hard and Robocop that helped shape my formative years. But as action movies, driven by those late Eighties classics, have evolved and grown more complex over the last thirty years, I've come to appreciate the dumber things in life. While I like to be intellectually challenged by some of my viewing, once in a while you just need to see stuff get blown up real good.

So thank goodness for Sylvester Stallone. He's managed to find ways to extend his Rambo and Rocky series well past their natural lifespans, but especially in Rocky's case he's tried to find a different perspective with age. There is a part of the audience for these movies though, in which I shamelessly include myself, that longs for the succession of cheesy one liners and men shooting things until they explode. Forget character development and intricate plot developments – and by and large Stallone has, in a return to old school action movie making.

The concept felt fairly high to start with – cram as many action movie stars, old and new, onto the screen and let them have fun. Sensibly, the central team isn't too numerous, with the big names evenly divided across the good, the bad and the morally ambivalent, but only a few get any real screen time. The highlights are Jason Statham for the good guys, who Stallone seems to have recognized uses his charisma to cover up his acting deficiencies, but who uses his particular Transporter-style fighting to the best effect in the many, many, many fights and brawls. For the bad guys, Eric Roberts chews the scenery and spits it in every direction, probably about the only one to find just the right tone. Mercifully, Stallone avoids the ageist navel-gazing that ultimately crippled the likes of the Lethal Weapon series, but there is still slightly too much contemplation at times. Come on, blow something up, will ya? Don't get me wrong, it's by no means perfect. The action scenes vary from the pretty good to the I- don't- understand- what- just- happened- because- you-can't- shoot- or- edit- properly, Stallone's attempts to add emotional resonance, mainly in scenes with Mickey Rourke, have all the depth of the shallow end of a paddling pool and are about as enjoyable, a joke about Jet Li's height wears so thin you can see through it and there isn't a truly iconic action sequence that will stand the test of time. But it does deliver just enough big muscles, big explosions and giant pulsating stupidity to be a guilty pleasure.

Why see it at the cinema: Actually, if you want an action movie to watch this summer, try The A Team. You can watch that any time. The Expendables should only be seen on a Friday or Saturday night, with a willing crowd who are as drunk as possible. That is a recommendation, in case you were wondering.

The Score: 7/10

The Green Hornet (2011)

Review: The Green Hornet

[7/10 · 25 January 2011]

The Pitch: To bee or not to bee a hero.

The Review: 2011 is shaping up to be a year of sequels, remakes and re-imaginings. There are half a dozen major comic book properties clogging up our multiplexes this summer, and the fact that this one is escaping in the middle of winter and was originally a radio serial is no obstacle to its box office aspirations. The Green Hornet is one of those properties that you may be aware of, rather than having an innate familiarity with, with the most famous incarnation being the TV series that gave Bruce Lee his first taste of fame. The principle is always pretty simple – masked vigilantes fight crime with unconventional methods and a cool black car. It's been in development for an astonishing seventeen years, and during that time George Clooney, Mark Wahlberg, Jake Gyllenhall, Jet Li and Stephen Chou were all considered to appear in front of the camera, and Kevin Smith, Christopher McQuarrie and Michel Gondry were all at one stage attached behind it. Gondry would have originally made this his feature film debut back in 1997, and the Hollywood merry-go-round was spinning so long that ten years later, he stepped on and ended up being the person to shepherd it to the screen.

Gondry's had a very varied career in that ten year gap; an all-time classic in the shape of Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind, but some of his other work could best be described as ramshackle, including the well-intentioned but terminally shabby Be Kind Rewind. He undoubtedly has an extensive visual box of tricks, which he's put to use over the past twenty years in a variety of formats, but he has proved that he's better with the visuals, and sometimes if the actors aren't of the highest caliber then he may struggle to get the best from them. But in all the other areas that counts, Gondry delivers in the Green Hornet – there's plenty of clean action sequences and Gondry uses his tricks to give many of them a unique spin, the pacing is well handled and Gondry handles the shifts in tone well.

Being a comic book movie in nature, The Green Hornet doesn't demand Shakespearean theatrics, but there is a good, talented cast here – in places. Christoph Waltz seems to have won himself a rent-a-bad-guy career following his Oscar winning turn for Tarantino, and does what he can with a neurotic bad guy role, but shows he can still flip between humour and malice at will. Jay Chou may not have been the first name on most people's lists of potential Katoes, and he does struggle with English in a few places (a fact that the script willingly acknowledges), but he's got just about enough winning charisma to see him through in the role; sadly I don't think it will have the same effect on his career as it did on Bruce Lee's. Which brings us to Cameron Diaz. You may read other reviews which feel that Diaz's role serves no purpose, although the script casts her as the criminologist unwittingly feeding ideas to the leads, but she does actually have a crucial role.

Y'see, whenever Seth Rogen isn't looking unbelievably gormless enough, or just comes over as a partially raging misogynist instead of a complete and total one, Diaz is there as a foil, allowing Rogen's Britt Reed to sink to yet another new low. Rogen has lifted a lot of comedies he's been in previously, but here he sucks the good will out like a vacuum, and the movie generally works better when he's not talking. The odd thing is that, given that he and writing partner Evan Goldberg wrote the script, he's pretty much done this to himself. The general story is in keeping with the Green Hornet mythology established since the original radio days, which calls for Reid to be at odds with both the good and the bad guys. The main problem is that Rogen and Goldberg have chosen to achieve this by making Britt Reid a complete and utter arse, who every time he's given a choice chooses to continue being an arse, and the only character traits he develops across the vast majority of the running time don't do him any favours. So there's a lead character who it's very hard to root for, but if you can find yourself at least tolerating him then you should actually have a pretty good time with this.

Why see it at the cinema: Satisfying action, Gondry's off the wall visual stylings and a decent amount of laughs make this a good package if you're looking for a Saturday night at the multiplex with a big bag of popcorn.

Why see it in 3D: Here the arguments are less compelling. It's a conversion job, and while it's not as bad as the execrable Clash Of The Titans remake from last year, it lacks the depth of field to look convincingly 3D for long periods or any real stand out in-your-face moments.

The Score: 7/10

The Crazies (2010)

Review: The Crazies

[5/10 · 25 January 2011]

The Pitch: Small Town In Iowa Of The Dead.

The Review: Ever since Shaun of the Dead and 28 Days Later, there's been a renaissance in zombie movies and other similar horror movies. So is there anything left to offer to the zombie-type horror movie? Well yes, but not a huge amount. Remaking movies that you've not heard of is probably better than a dodgy remake of a classic, but there's only glimmers of new ideas here – some of the best moments have not only been used in other recent movies, but sometimes get a repeat airing within the running time of this movie.

Most of the characters are cyphers, but you're still left occasionally guessing as to who will make it out alive. Sadly, some gaping holes in the logic undermine what momentum the movie has built up, and by the end some occasionally effective moments are all that linger, rather than the film itself.

Why see it at the cinema: Horror films are always better when they get the benefit of the collective shock experience, and this is no exception.

The Score: 5/10

RED (2010)

Review: Red

[7/10 · 25 January 2011]

The Pitch: C.I.A. vs. O.A.P.s.

The Review: There's been a trend over the last twenty years or so of action movie stars getting increasingly elderly. Maybe it's our ever increasing fondness for nostalgia, or perhaps the novelty of seeing old fogies with big guns appeals as much in theory as the opposite, extremely young end of the scale that Hit Girl and her friends occupy. But for whatever reason, action stars have kept making movies as they get older, and indeed movies are now taking this a step further and making action stars out of the bus pass generation.

Based on a Warren Ellis comic book, RED has compiled a cast list with varying familiarity with the action genre. Bruce Willis has the most extensive action CV, and although into his fifties is still deemed sufficiently cool to be leading man material. John Malkovich and Morgan Freeman both have history in this genre, but in both cases it's less auspicious in the relative terms of their previous works. Crucially, while all of them can normally be relied on to deliver good work, none of them is a reliable mark of quality when it comes to bullets and explosions. They are all at least serviceable here, although Willis especially is little more than that.

But they are just the tip of an iceberg that's made of acting quality so solid it would put a hole in your average battleship. Brian Cox, Richard Dreyfuss and even Ernest Borgnine, who was retired before I was in short trousers, all pop up, often far too briefly. Getting more screen time are Mary Louise Parker as Bruce's love interest, wandering through wide-eyed and screaming, and a rather stoic Karl Urban as the man sent to track down and round up this bunch of geriatric gunslingers. The biggest stunt of the casting is Helen Mirren, who gets a very big gun and smiles sweetly as she twists most of the male cast around her little finger.

So what do you make out of a comic book and a bunch of willing actors of generally advancing years? Director Robert Schwentke, whose previous form peaked with the Jodie Foster snoozefest Flightplan, manages to make a serviceable and lightly enjoyable action movie, with the odd entertaining set piece and a few mildly smirk-worthy lines, but it never really gets into top gear. It is worth saying, though, that the action is at least clean and generally well handled, and avoids the camera fitting and shaking so prevalent in today's action movies. It will take up an hour and a half of your time divertingly enough, but that's also about how long it will last in your memory – and, given the age of the cast, it's probably about how long it lasted in theirs as well.

Why see it at the cinema: Some solid, well handled action, a few decent laughs and an absolutely killer last scene which mixes both will all get benefit from a large screen and some company.

The Score: 7/10

Jackass 3D (2010)

Review: Jackass 3D

[9/10 · 25 January 2011]

The Pitch: Johnny Knoxville takes one step closer to not needing that old age make up… The Review: If the thought that it's more than ten years since Johnny Knoxville and his pals burst onto our screens, then have a thought for them. Could they have really imagined that after all this time, they'd still be attempting to find cruel and unusual ways to tease, torment and torture each other? There has, of course, been a long break since the last installment, even if you include the deleted scenes which escaped onto DVD under the pretence of being a separate movie, so it is it really worth the wait? For that matter, is it really worth the trouble? The excuse for this dip into the well of human depravity, of course, is the opportunity to affix a D to the 3 of the title. Always looking to do things properly where it counts, they've got some proper 3D kit, then set about finding ways to use it. This isn't to say that every stunt requires the use of 3D; indeed, more of them than not would be absolutely fine in 2D, but there are undoubtedly some memorable moments. What actually works better here is the other new innovation, the high speed camera used to capture the moments of heavily inflicted pain; watching the moment of impact in crystal clear slow motion adds to the feeling of awe and sense of fascination as you watch the slow-motion convulsions, and also to the empathy you'll feel for each one on the receiving end.

Of course, Jackass has never been about purely sadistic pleasures; the intent is to make us laugh, and a lot of that is dependent on the camaraderie and interplay between the various Jackasses. Most make a return, only Raab Himself and Brandon DiCamillo not present from the core cast and the rest might look a little more creased, but are still willing to give their all in both the physical and the just plain daft. Knoxville might be the figurehead, but the most telling contribution is that of Steve-O, who has discovered sobriety since the last movie and enters into most of the stunts with a new found sense of self-awareness, giving him much more of the expression of a rabbit in the headlights, about two seconds before it's about to connect with bumper.

It's not all about the physical, of course, and Jackass is as smart as ever in the execution of some of its high concepts, such as a bar fight played out by Wee-Man and a few of his friends. April and Phil, Bam's put upon parents, get put upon again although it's sometimes more of their own choosing now, and stalwarts of the series from Spike Jonze to Rip Taylor all pop up in their well-worn roles. So to answer those earlier questions, it was worth the wait; absence has made the heart grow fonder and the technical innovations add an element of freshness to the familiar. As to whether it's worth the trouble, that's one you can only answer if you've seen and enjoyed Jackass before; it's always gelled in a way that its contemporaries have struggled to do, and it remains consistently funny throughout. If Jackass is your (sick) bag, then there's little this year that will make you laugh as hard or as long.

Why see it at the cinema: For anyone even slightly inhibited, the company of others should allow you to truly enter into the spirit. (And by that, I don't mean you should urinate on the row in front. Just to be clear.) Why see it in 3D?: Where else can you expect to see a giant pink dildo being fired out of a cannon straight at your face? IN 3D?

The Score: 9/10