Tropic Thunder

What’s It About?
Ben Stiller, Robert Downy Jr, and Jack Black are all shooting a terrible war film in Vietnam. In a bid to make the film work, the director takes them into the jungle to shoot guerilla-style.

But they go too far and encroach on a drug lord's territory. They're lives are in danger and the actors just think it's all a film. Hilarity ensues.

My Thoughts Going In…
With a cast of Downey Jr, Stiller, Black, Coogan and Cruise, who wouldn't be excited by this film? No-one, that's who. You know, if you couldn't guess the answer.

Looks Like…
Since it is never in the film rulebook that comedies have to look good, it's quite refreshing to see one that does. No expense has been spared and we're treated to big explosions and some nice filmic shots.

Some ropey CGI let the film down every now and then, but only in brief blip form.

Sounds Like…
Like the visuals, the music here was BIG. War movie big. Epic, even.

Actual songs fit well into the plot, interweaving the story well. At least, until a certain song and a certain celebrity dressed on a fat suit dancing. Then the music is ill-advised. In fact, the whole scene is.

Feels Like…
Night at the Museum should have been funnier. With a cast of Stiller, Wilson, Coogan, Williams and Dick Van Dyke(!), comedy gold should have been pouring out of the screen and into your eye sockets.

And since the review is about Tropic Thunder, that film should have been funnier too. Ben Stiller is playing Zoolander again, which means playing the same jokes. Jack Black, and actor who relies mostly on charisma, is lacking that very charm for most of the film. Steve Coogan is removed, rather forcefully, too soon to have any real comedic impact.

So it should have been funnier, but doesn't mean there aren't laughs to be have.

Robert Downey Jr proves once again that he could play any role ever created by playing an Austrailian who is playing a black sergant. Any scene with him is guarenteed to put a smile on your face. His banter with the other black actor is a highlight.

Danny McBride, the comedy face-to-watch, gets the same kind of role as he had in Pineapple Express. Basically, he gets beat up and plays stupid for laughs.

Matthew McConaughey pulls an amazing comedy talent out of the bag. His tough agent, with an innocent view of friendship, is the films second best character. And he only loses out because Downey is awesome.

And Ben Stiller, even when repeating himself, is still one of the best comedic talents we have.

So yes, it's still funny. The plot is smarter than it lets on, with subtle references to the film industry that flew over a lot of heads. It also sails perilously close to some offensive material, so credit has to be given for getting away with it.

I feel that if the film was looser, and the actors able to riff more, the whole thing would be funnier. But maybe I'm just tainted by Judd Apatow films now.

Verdict…
Good, but not as good as it could have been. Funny, but not as funny as it could have been. Almost a wasted opportunity, saved by the strength of the performers and a wonderfully funny cameo by Tobey Maguire.

Pineapple Express

What’s It About?
A stoner witnesses a corrupt cop and a drug lord shoot a guy. The corrupt cop and the drug lord witness him fleeing the scene.

The stoner, with his drug-dealer friend, try really hard not to get killed or get arrested, and instead get high.

My Thoughts Going In…
Knocked Up fights in my head for best film of 2007, so another film starring Seth Rogan has a lot to live up too.

Looks Like…
Oh come on! As if anyone is watching this film for cinematic beauty. Sharing a philosophy with Kevin Smith films, Pineapple Express pushes the comedy into the spotlight and hope nobody is looking closely at the visuals.

When it is need, things work. Wounds look suitably realistic and explosions go bang with explosive style. Just don't be expecting Oscars.

Sounds Like…
The film is laced with old cult songs, playing on car radios or in apartments. They're fun tunes, and add a nice atmosphere to the film. And when the heroic music kicks in at the end, it is epic!

Feels Like…
Seth Rogan is funny. This is fact. Put him in a room and let him riff, you get gold, my friend. Gold! James Franco is also funny, which comes as a surprise to those who know him as angsty Harry Osbourne. Put the two guys together in a room, you get something better than gold. Diamonds maybe?

When these two are allowed to riff, we get the funniest scenes. They bounce off one another with ease; setting up jokes and batting them for six (or 'out of the park' if you're American). They are the core of the film, and the reason you'll keep watching.

This is good because, I'll be honest, the film isn't that good. Subplots aren't wrapped up or properly delved into, and the main plot soon falls into an excuse to just push the characters from one comedy situation to the next. It doesn't flow, but stumbles like the drugged-up protagonists.

You won't realise though. I certainly didn't until I truly looked at it. You're laughing too much to care. Like the visuals, the plot is pushed to the back of the stage, to give the comedy room to tap-dance away.

And what a dance it is. When it is slapstick, the falls and punches hit the mark nearly every time. The dialogue slips jokes in that won't be caught until a second, third, or tenth viewing. The film isn't even trying; comedy comes naturally.

The film won't be remembered as the best film of the year, or even the best comedy, but it is hugely enjoyable. You'll laugh. You'll cry with laughter. You just might not think. It isn't that type of film.

Verdict…
Knocked Up's little stoner brother. Bit more simple, likely to fall over a lot, but still cut from the same cloth and worthy of your time.

Hellboy 2: The Golden Army

What’s It About?
The elves, long ago, built lots of clockwork soldiers. These soldiers were ruthless and indestructible. But then the king became all angsty over the deaths of humans, locked the army away and separated the crown into three pieces.

At some point in the future, the elf prince is stealing the crown pieces in a bid to raise the army and purge human kind. It’s up to Hellboy, a girl who can set herself on fire, a really smart fish-type thing, and a German scientist made up of gas and voice by Peter Griffin, to save the day!

My Thoughts Going In…
I was one of the few people that didn’t mind the first film. Sure, it was a little-scattershot with its story-telling, and the ending dragged to infinity, but it had style and heart that many superhero films seem to lack.

Also, Del Toro had commercial and critical success with Pan’s Labyrinth (Good, but overrated) and this film was being made at a different studio, so surely the director would have more freedom with the sequel. Right?

Looks Like…
This was the first film’s strong point, and in the sequel it remains top of the list. The film is a marvelous combination of costumes and CGI. We’re introduced to so many odd creatures so seamlessly that they just seem like they’ve always belonged.

Seriously, look for the stitches here. Point to the screen and say conclusively “That’s CGI!”. Because, barring the obvious (e.g. the tooth fairies), I’d say you’d have quite a game in front of you.

Some of the creatures are truly majestic. The angel of death creature, with eyes in its wings and none on its face, was terrifying. And Hellboy is still as perfect a creature as he was in the first film. The young Hellboy, not so much.

Colour, creatures and the real world combine wonderfully to make this one of the best looking films of 2008.

Sounds Like…
Here I’m at an impasse. On one hand, the music suits the moment, underpinning the emotions going on and improving the scene. I’m thinking of the falling from the window, the ‘Beautiful Freak’ montage and a rather funny scene involving Hellboy and Abe singing.

The score, however, is loud and obnoxious. It plays its beats without tact or subtlety, and takes away from the action happening.

Feels Like…
I’ll answer the important question first: Yes, it is better than the first film, but only just. It hasn’t become a whole new film. The plot is more linear, but this time out the film introduces too many themes, leaving most of them hanging.

And again, the ending is drawn out, with a scene interrupting the big finale purely to set up a sequel.

But things have improved. The characters are more drawn out this time. Liz gets to be funnier and feistier, a vast improvement on the whiney emo Liz from film one. Abe gets a sub-plot too, falling in love with the elf princess.

It’s a shame to see Hellboy and the FBI chief (Maybe. I forget his actual role) hate each other once again, after the conclusion to Hellboy, but it provided nice comic relief. And Hellboy gets some nice moments too, especially following his “Public perception story”.

The fights are the highlight though. Rich and kinetic, I haven’t seen fights this energized since…well, ‘Wanted’. They are the reason the finale worked better than the first. This time we get a whirlwind battle between demon and elf, instead of the pulling of a grenade pin.

Luke Goss, and I hate myself for saying this considering his boy-band background, makes a good villain. He stands with authority and fights with skill. Its just a shame about the American accent.

The film deals more with the demon world too, which was a strong move for a director that finds his strength in demons and clockwork. The troll market is a visual feat, the tooth fairies both cute and horrifying.

Here’s hoping he can bring the same magic to ‘The Hobbit’

Verdict…
A slight, but crucial, improvement to the first film. In any other year, this would be the superhero film of the year, but a certain Dark Knight and a womanizing billionaire stop Hellboy reaching greatness.

Forbidden Kingdom

What's it all about?
A kid, who looks remarkably like a second-rate Shia LaBeouf, finds a magical staff that teleports him to a kingdom far away.

There he meets a drunk immortal, a monk and a beautiful girl, who help him on a quest to return the staff to its rightful owner, the Monkey King.

Looks Like...
Nothing special.

At no point does the film look bad but it mostly just gets along doing average. Colours are colourful and darks are dark (occasionally TOO dark). The CGI was passable. That is all.

Special mention does have to go to the costume design however, who managed to crystallize each of the characters with the costume they wear.

Sounds Like...
Despite having quite the famous composer (A Mr. Gregson Williams, I'll have you know), the music itself was generic and just got the job done, without flash or brilliance.

Feels Like...
Now I must repeat myself again. The story was nothing special, just merely passable.

We've all seen these type of stories enough times to quote them off by heart. Kid has trouble in real world, travels to mystical realm, defeats great evil and then uses the things learnt to sort out their real life. All it is is "The Neverending Story" all over again, with a Chinese twist.

But the film knows what it is, and also knows why people are coming to see it. The reason is right up there on the film poster. Jet Li and Jackie Chan. This is the first, and possibly only time, we can come and see two great film martial artists fight in the same film. It's the most important day for these types of film for the foreseeable future. It'll sit high until a certain Mr. Lee rise from the dead.

And it is here that the film rise past passable and into kickass territory. When they fight inside the temple, it is like watching masters at play. It can be argued that neither is in their prime, but the kick, punch, tumble and fall better than any of these new pretenders to their throne.

It is when these two are on screen that the film hits its stride. They have chemistry and seem to be enjoying themselves in a way that almost breaks the forth wall. They look like they're enjoying their first chance to work together.

It is just a shame they have to choose this film to do it in. As mentioned, the story is predictable and cliche, yet still full of plot holes. The hammy plot is complimented by pretty hammy dialogue and acting. There are laughs, but not enough considering the material. At times it takes itself WAY too seriously. And characters aren't fully developed or properly explained (Why exactly does the girl refer to herself in the third person?).

Despite all this, it IS watchable. The tone is childish and simplistic, but also fun. And it also never patronises, which earns it bonus points.

And if anything, it should be seen for one of the pivotal fight scenes in movie history.

Verdict...
Not great, but not terrible either. If you're a fan of either Chan or Li, their fight is worth the ticket price alone.

Wall-E

What's it all about?
Earth has been abandoned by humans because of pollution, and they've all taken refuge in a giant space-station.

Wall-E (Waste Allocation Load Lifter Earth-Class) is the last of the robots left to clean up. Because he's been left so many years, he has developed the glitch of curiosity.

When EVE, a robot in search of any signs of life left on Earth, arrives, Wall-E falls in love and so his adventure begins.

Looks Like...
Your eyes have been sprayed with pure beauty.

Every year we get legions and legions of CGI cartoons from the good (Shrek), the bad (Madagascar) and the ugly (The Reef). Yet, in sheer animation quality, Pixar top them all, as easy as an Olympic runner at a school sports day.

But every year I worry, because these films ARE getting better, and I'm always unsure whether Pixar can pull it off again. But they did, and then some.

When it is good, it is perfection. Both Wall-E and EVE seem like Pixar found a wasteland and shoved two real, working robots into it. It was that good.

Even at its low points (the humans) it is as good as the best of its competition. So nothing to complain about on that score.

Sounds Like...
It is always amazing that Wall-E and EVE could be understood despite they say about ten words between them. To pull off over half an hour of silent film is something to be applauded in this age, and so props are given and hard work recognized.

The voice acting, like most Pixar films, is good without being celebrity driven. There is no Mike Myers/Cameron Diaz/Eddie Murphy combination here to draw the crowds, just the correct voices for the characters.

Feels Like...

Okay. Let me get the negative out of the way first. This is NOT the best Pixar film ever. This is a studio that delivers amazing films, time after time. I would argue that they have never made a bad film. So to not be the best is not such a negative thing.

It plays its green message a little strong, occasionally letting preaching slip in, although I never found it too distracting. When the story focuses on the humans, the story slips from awesome to good. And...that's it. Negative stuff out of the way, now I can be a fanboy.

I loved this film. I was always going to love it, unless the exception that it pulls a 'Crystal Skulls' type disappointment out of the bag. I was going to love it because I love Pixar.

This is a company that values story over big names and fancy gimmicks, who always deliver something new and creative. Wall-E was there biggest leap of faith, a film in which the lead characters hardly speak. I've said it before here, but the fact that this film even got made in this ADD-riddled children's market is a testament to the faith that Pixar put in story over "what the kids want". Even if I hadn't loved the film, I would have loved the gesture.

Wall-E, himself, is an expertly drawn character. He is pure robot, and yet the animation team has made him more emotive than the best of human actors. He hums and blunders through the film; part Johnny 5, part Buster Keaton. He feels real and therefore we feel for him. The film is not Pixar's best, I've already said that, but Wall-E ranks up there as the best character they have created (Standing side by side with Boo from 'Monsters Inc')

EVE, the design opposite of Wall-E, is the perfect partner for him. Whilst he tumbles, she glides. He explores, whilst her mind is set on one goal: finding life.

Their relationship is the core of the film, and the best bit. The way they interact, in a melody of beeps and hums and half-pronounced words, is fascinating to watch. We see Wall-E fall in love instantly and know why. Through his actions we see how much he cares for EVE. When she ends up falling for him, we care because he cares.

The film contains more romantic moments than most real-life romantic films. Their first "kiss" is the most touching, sweet moments you'll see this year. That is until you see their second one, which tops even their first. It is a moment that should bring tears to the eyes of all who have hearts.

The only reason the human element in the second half feels slightly disappointing is that it has to be compared to the fabulous scenes with these robots. Ironically enough, Wall-E and EVE are more human than any of the actual human characters that we meet.

Verdict...
If it was all Wall-E and EVE, it would be guaranteed two thumbs up and every word of praise I could give it. If it was all human, it would get one thumb, and a few words on the heavy-handed green message.

The film sits somewhere in between, but I sway higher because of everything it tried to do.

The Dark Knight

What's it all about?
Batman and new DA Harvey Dent are working to clean the streets of Gotham City; one with the law and the other with gadgets and fighting.

The Joker wants the world to see that the world is like him, and starts a crime spree in a bid to reveal that Batman is just like him.

Awesomeness follows.

Looks Like...
Whilst 'Batman Begins' relied on darkness and shadow, more of this film is set during the day. This time around it is penthouses and warehouses and police stations that set the scene, and yet just as frightening.

The Joker is there, standing out in the daylight and yet always one step ahead of the good guys. There is nothing hidden with this guy, and that is itself is a little creepy.

The film also plays very little with CGI, especially for a comic book film (<-- This is the one and only time I will use this term to describe the film. Sure, it is one, but it is SO much more). We're dealing with real people, in almost everyday circumstances, instead of watch a virtual Batman leaping off a virtual building into the pixelated Gotham night. And for this I salute the film.

Sounds Like...
In a bid to distance itself from the previous franchise, the actual Batman theme is played very little. This Batman doesn't have a theme song, or anything as comforting as that. Instead we get haunting songs, subtly reinforcing the action.

Also, Batman's voice seemed a whole lot less comically deep this time around. Or maybe I'd just got used to it.

Tastes Like...
Sweet vengeance.

Feels Like...
I expected a lot from this film, there is no denying that. Christopher Nolan is one of my favorite directors (along with Bryan Singer and Joss Whedon). In my opinion, he has never made a bad film and he made the ONLY decent Batman film. So yeah, the sequel had to be something I've never seen before, something amazing. He had to pull something amazing out of his bag of tricks.
And he did. And more.

Everything I was expecting this film to be, it exceeded.

I'd expected Heath Ledger to be the wild card casting choice and play the Joker in a much more sinister way than Jack Nicholson ever did. What the film delivered was the performance of the year so far, with Ledger playing the role so well that I forgot it was ever him.

Instead, he WAS the Joker, chaotic and intelligent and chillingly confident. It was all in the little nuances: the licking of the lips, the tidying of the hair, that smile. From the moment he enters and pulls his 'Magic disappearing pencil' trick, he was screen gold.

I expected Christian Bale to be good, since he always is, but he plays the two roles of Batman and Bruce Wayne superbly. When costumed-up, he gets to be all noble and heroic, and as Bruce Wayne he is expertly sleazy. Best Batman ever.

Aaron Eckhart is the anti-Bruce Wayne (He's the white knight to Batman's dark knight. Geddit?), and is suitably noble. And when the inevitable happens (And it IS inevitable, even for those who don't know the mythos!) Eckhart's performance means that the change makes sense, even earning him a little sympathy.

The rest of the cast are all acting at the top of their game, with special mention going to Gary Oldman as (the eventual) Commissioner Gordon. In any other film, they'd be praised highly, but here they are over-shadowed by Bale, Ledger and Eckhart.

The story is complex and lined with themes throughout. 'Batman Begins' was about fear. This is about good and evil, dark and light, order and chaos and the duel nature of everyone. There's Batman and Bruce Wayne, different sides to the same man. There's the Joker and the police, chaos and order battling for the streets of Gotham.

And then there is Two-Face, the kick in the teeth if you haven't been getting the themes for the first two hours of the film. You can think of Harvey Dent's coin as the object that sums the film up; everyone has two sides.

And yet these themes never get in the way. I can describe them now only because I've thought back at what was being said, analysed what I was shown. In the cinema though, I was enjoying every minute. And this is rare for me, as I tend to pick the film apart whether I like to or not. It's a flaw.

But on this day, for this film, I was engrossed. Absolutely captivated. And there is no higher compliment from me.

Yet, I feel obliged to pick a flaw, just one thing that stops this film being perfect. A lot of people have claimed that the film is too long, which it could easily be said to be. Yet, to shorten it would mean getting rid of a scene, or a moment, and that is something I would ever want them to do.

So for me the flaw was Rachel Dawes, the love interest. Whilst I think Maggie Gyllenhaal's portrayal was great, and a marked improvement on Katie Holmes is, I just didn't feel she was in the film enough. Sure, neither were Micheal Caine or Morgan Freeman, but Rachel played an important role in many of the main character's fates that she needed to be there more.

But it's a small point, and one everyone should overlook.

Because I cannot say enough good things about this film. Without raiding a thesaurus, I'm lost for words. It's just really, really good.

Verdict...
It is dark and gripping and smart and awesome. Whilst I'm not at all original for saying this, 'The Dark Knight' is, and will probably remain, the best film of the year.

Mamma Mia!

What's it all about?
Some girl (She was on 'House' once) is getting married and decides to invite three men who might be her father to the wedding.

James Bond, Mr. Darcy and Orlando Bloom's dad promptly turn up, only for her to figure out that without extensive DNA testing, she has no idea which one her real father is.

So she sings ABBA songs.

Looks Like...
A really sunny Greek holiday. It's all very bright and sunny, an image of what the world would look like if ABBA ruled it.

Seriously, the "run-down" hotel has a magnificent courtyard, the sea is crystal clear and even the servants dance around and smile ALL the time. The boys run around topless, to show off their fabulous beach bodies. Sadly, the girls don't.

Sounds Like...
ABBA songs. Lots and lots of ABBA songs. So if you are a huge fan of ABBA, go you! See the film, sing along, enjoy yourself. If, however, you don't particularly care for them, you may find it a little grating.

The songs don't always match. Unlike a traditional musical, in which the songs are written for the story, this story is written for the music. So you'll often find that maybe one or two lines in the song are relevant, whilst the others sit out of place, or kinda, sorta work if you think about it really hard and abstractly.

Also, ABBA wrote these songs over several years and each song reflects the mood they were in at the time. So whilst they might have been melancholy writing 'Money Money Money' for example, they could quite easily me happy whilst writing 'Mamma Mia', something they could have done days, weeks, months afterwards.

In the film however, if you have the two songs playing one after the other, you must somehow create a story device that has the character in the right mood for the song. Usually in about five minutes. This just leaves the characters switching emotions like some freak combination of a menopausal, pregnant woman hitting puberty.

And this would all be excusable if the cast could sing. Unfortunately, that's asking too much of them. They can screech horribly, and dance a merry jig, but it all falls down when they open their mouths.

Meryl Streep can hold a tune, sure. But it's in the same way as that girl whose family tells her how much they like her singing, who'll only have her heart broken when she auditions for X-factor (Or American Idol) and doesn't even get through to see the judges because she is neither phenomenal, nor bad enough for a nation of TV viewers to mock. She's just meh.

Piece Brosnan is terrible, but at least he provides entertainment with the faces that he pulls. Julie Walters sounds like a tyre screech and everyone else either doesn't get a chance to sing, is pleasantly average, or is a Greek peasant who, judging by their acting performances, are all trained singers.

Tastes Like...
Sickly sweet, with a hint of cheese.

Feels Like...
The overriding feeling I got from this film was embarrassment. You remember at that New Years party that one year, when your mum, your aunt and your granny all got REALLY drunk, put on an ABBA song, climbed on a table, and proceeded to screech vaguely in tune whilst swaying side-to-side in what they must have considered a dance? Well, this film feels like that, magnified by a hundred and set on a Greek island.

Whenever the film gets round to telling more of the story, an interesting premise is turned predictable and people expositionalize like they've all had their 'subtext' buttons switched off.

The young couple argue in every scene they're in, making it hard to believe that they were ever in love. The girls screech too much and the boys can't sing. It is all too perfect enough to make it horribly cheesy.

And you know what?

Everything I've said above completely misses the point of this film. It isn't going to win any Oscars, but it was never made to do that. I'd argue that it wasn't even made to be a film. It was made to be an experience.

It was made so that our older generation have a reason to visit the cinema. They can go and enjoy the ABBA music, Meryl Streep and Colin Firth with his top off, because these are all things that older people like (It's been researched and everything).

They're not after a complicated plot line, or the best acting in the world. They just want to go out and enjoy the show and the music.

And it's not ALL bad. The potential dads pull some pretty funny material out of the bag when necessary, as do the older women when they aren't screeching loudly. The songs are never bad and the storyline works in a workmanlike way. Sure, you can figure out where everyone will be at the climax (Except for Colin Firth, who's ending came out of nowhere!) but you can enjoy the journey getting there.

It wasn't my kind of film. I like being a film student and having things to mull over and analyse. But I can't hold that against it.

Verdict...
Simplistic, but fun if you like that sort of thing.

Politics = Fun

Oh dear. Last night I dreamt of producing. I don't think that's a good sign.

Anyhow, because my brain is fried and I'm stressed and the world was coming down oh-so-slowly on my shoulders, I decided to treat myself to the cinema. Not sure that a political drama was the best choice, but off I went to see Charlie Wilson's War anyway.

It entertained me. I'm always rubbish at these review type things, but I'll try. The film managed the rare feat of making politics fun and funny and understandable.

Tom Hanks was very good, but Tom Hanks is always very good. A character in the film describes Charlie as 'easy to like' and this sums up Tom Hanks for me. He comes across as a nice guy and he is in some of my favourite films, but the guy doesn't have 'edge'. He needs to play a villain. Or a drug addict.

Also, I still think his best performance was in a little-known film called 'Punchline' which I brought for £2.50. He plays a stand-up comedian that breaks down on stage. Acting genius!

I don't like Julia Roberts but she was barely in the film and she was playing a character that we aren't meant to like, so I guess it's alright. I'll give this to her though; she looks good in a bikini for a forty year old.

And Philip Seymour Hoffman is just amazingly funny at playing angry people. He stole the film with his tiny angry role!

Oh, the film also had my new favourite actress, after I saw her in Enchanted, in it. Amy Adams! I like her. She is pretty.

The writing was spot-on (What you'd expect from the writer of 'The West Wing') and the directing was passable. I was slightly concerned that they played the shooting down of Russian helicopters as a slapstick scene, but maybe that was what they were going for.

It also had a real downer ending, but it is based on a true story, so I guess you can't expect butterflies and roses.

Well, anyway, I left a little bit more educated about political history and in a real mood to watch so more fast-talking political drama. So I rented the West Wing, having only seen a few episodes before.

The show is great. It is exactly the way the the world of politics should be run. People should walk quickly down a corridor, make decisions, share a quick quip and continue on their merry way. No sitting around in Parliament, arguing your case. If you want to argue, you better have a razor wit and argue in that person's office.

But once again, life isn't like the world I see on my TV. Things aren't neatly wrapped up in forty minutes.

And politics is boring.

:)