Director - Neil Marshall

Writer - Neil Marshall

Starring - Rhona Mitra, Bob Hoskins, David O’Hara, Craig Conway, Malcolm McDowell

Review:

Doomsday, from writer/director Neil Marshall, is the kind of film that is there to simply fill up an empty slot pre-summer blockbuster season, a film that takes a well trodden story, adds nothing much new to it and throws in a big-budget and a course of ridiculous scenes resulting a mediocre and throwaway couple of hours.

27 years after a virus outbreak has taken over Scotland, the long-time quarantined area is found to contain survivors and a possible cure. The government then proceeds to send in a team of tactical officers to survey the area and find the cure to the virus which has threatened to take over the rest of the country.

Take Mad Max, 28 Days Later and add a dash of I Am Legend and you’ve pretty much got an idea of what Doomsday is aiming to be. Some would take all of these things as references where others will see them as simply trying to be those films. Marshall’s previous feature The Descent, which I think is one of the best horror films of the last 10 years or so, he had both critical and fan success with. But Doomsday just goes to prove that success in one finitely defined genre doesn’t mean you’ll have it in another, more genre-mashing work. Marshall’s usual gory mentality is still present in this film, predominantly in the scenes or moments in which the film works, but the flare seems to have been removed. This seems like the director’s attempt to break into true Hollywood action fodder and it’s sad to see his more independent roots disappear back into the soil. Hopefully just for now, anyway.

Once the introduction section of the film is over, which admittedly is really quite interesting because of the way they go about doing it, we arrive at the part which tries to tell two parallel storylines at once; one about the tactical team in Scotland trying to find the cure and one in England, a political-style storyline which involves trying to stop another outbreak of the virus from occuring. Although the storylines undoubtedly go hand in hand the attempt to tell them both works against the film rather than for it, it’s simply too much to tell in just the one movie and this makes the ending feel rushed and unsatisfying once the two storylines inevitably confront one another. We are never really quite sure who to root for; the finding of the cure and getting out of the zone safely within the time limit or the power-hungry man who wants to take over England. The film never allows us to pick a clear side because it’s too busy trying to make us care about both.

The film overall also isn’t sure what type of film it wants to be. Outwith the fact that it’s a genre mash-up of sorts it also aims to be both realistic and over-the-top at the same time. It asks the questions; what if? What if there was an actual virus outbreak and quarantine of an entire country occurred? And it’s an interesting question to ask, one which you would hope is tackled in as fitting a way possible. However it’s so ridiculous and so over the top to be taken even remotely serious so its ideals are kind of confused. There’s some fun to be had in those scenes, most of that from the scenes involving Marshall’s aforementioned skill at using gore, and there are a whole series of wild-and-wonderfully-different characters to watch as the hectic mayhem ensues.

A lot of what made Marshall’s The Descent so effective was its sense of intimacy with the characters. You actually cared about them in that film, caring what becomes of them by film’s end. Here the film doesn’t even have a whiff of that, despite an attempt by having the main character’s secret, true motive something to do with the mother she lost when she was a child, and rather it sacrifices that for dumb and ridiculous fight scenes and seizure-inducing editing. Although the action and more specifically the chase scenes are exciting in the basic sense that there’s the quick editing and an overbearing soundtrack, it’s nothing we haven’t seen a million times before.

Doomsday is loud and extremely in-your-face, the equivalent of the type of person who is the centre of attention at a party, performing tricks and telling jokes. The film is no better or no worse than the tons of other ones like it, it does nothing to make this “a must see”, it has none of the heart that the director’s previous work had and the doze of ridiculousness is far too high.

Director - John Favreau

Writer - Mark Fergus, Hawk Ostby, Art Maccum, Matt Holloway

Starring - Robert Downey Jr, Jeff Bridges, Terrence Howard, Gwyneth Paltrow

Review:

The calendar may still say it’s spring but the summer blockbuster season has officially kicked off with the latest from the Marvel Universe Iron Man. Similar to other films based on characters from that world it looked great, from it’s posters to it’s well put together trailers. But unlike those which have previously disappointed and generally sucked; Iron Man delivers, even if it’s not as you’d expect.

For anyone who may not know the general premise here goes; Tony Stark, an extremely wealthy industrialist, is forced to build a missile after he is captured in Afghanistan by terrorists. But unbeknownst to the capturers Stark takes this opportunity to build a prototype suit to break his way out of captivity. Once back home he decides to use his newly acquired technology to fight the forces of evil.

I am glad to see that the first official blockbuster of 2008 gets us off to a good start, more than good in fact. It was clear from even the very first film from summer of last year that it was going to be a catastrophe for the biggest money making season of 2007. If we are to roughly judge the quality ahead by looking at Iron Man alone then the blockbuster season of 2008 is gong to be an impressive one indeed.

What I was expecting from Iron Man was lots of action with big expensive looking set pieces but nothing much else. What we get is something quite different because although action is there, and there are big set pieces and CGI there is a lot more to it, most notably the script and how Robert Downey Jr delivers his lines. For anyone familiar with him as an actor you will know exactly what I’m talking about, he has this wit and charm about him that could make even the worst of scripts bearable. He employs his style with much gusto, injecting fresh life into the dramatic-actor-playing-a-superhero exercise.

What jumps off the posters for the film, besides the awe of seeing the suit, is the fantastic cast. They support Downey Jr very well, from Jeff Bridges creepy colleague to Terrence Howard’s sceptical but supportive army general. But what I was most pleasantly surprised about with regards to the cast is Gwyneth Paltrow. She provides her best performance in years and she and Downey Jr work so well together with the dialogue, playing off of one another and keeping each other on their toes. It’s this that’s one of the primary strengths of the film; the dialogue, even if it isn’t top-notch throughout, and the way Downey Jr handles it and how others play off of him makes for a extremely entertaining time when the action isn’t taking place.

What most die hard fans of either superhero movies or the title character (most probably those two will go hand in hand) will be looking for in this movie will be the joy of seeing the suit being put together and for some kick-ass action sequences. While it certainly delivers on the former, although people may be somewhat disappointed that it’s close to an hour before we even see the suit,  it’s the latter that I fear might not completely satisfy people. Director John Favreau isn’t the great action director in the world to say the least; his style I feel is more suited to the dialogue centric scenes or those involving the building of the suit. The action here, although decent enough and with some great little sections here and there, it isn’t the full-on, fantastic, blow-you-away action that a lot of people are expecting and hoping for. Throughout the action scenes it just felt like Favreau was a little out of his depth and it needed a more experienced director in this field to give it that extra push to the next level. I wasn’t irked with it all that much, as I found many other things other than the action in Iron Man to enjoy, but I am sure it will bother others.

My favourite aspect of the film was the dialogue and the delivery of it from everyone, most notably from Downey Jr. But outwith that the other biggest joy for me to be found was just the general idea of seeing the suit on-screen. I am not a huge fan of the character from the comic books but I admit it’s one of my favourite looking ones. Just the idea of seeing this suit being built from scratch using various gadgets and Mr Stark’s expertise had me drooling in my seat.

The movie is not without its flaws, however. As I said the action isn’t handled as well as it would have been with a more experienced director at the helm and some of the plot points are easy to see coming, for example it’s fairly obvious who the bad guy is going to be. But I am willing to forgive those flaws for the sake of everything else which is quite impressive.

It’s very clear that this is only the beginning of a huge money-making franchise and I, for one, welcome it with open arms. If they can keep the rest at least on par with how good this one is I will be very happy. Downey Jr is great at the title character, his handling of the dialogue and inclusion of his trademark wit and charm is an absolute joy to watch. Great supporting performances, a fun script and some decent action sequences make this worth checking out. Now let’s roll on the rest of the blockbuster season.

Director - Nicholas Stoller

Writer - Jason Segel

Starring - Jason Segel, Kristen Bell, Mila Kunis, Russell Brand, Jonah Hill, Bill Hader

Review:

The Apatow comedy train left the station with the absolutely hilarious The 40 Year Old Virgin, stopping at the good but nothing overly great Knocked Up, the disappointing Superbad and the throwaway Drillbit Taylor. The next stop is Forgetting Sarah Marshall, an improvement on the last three efforts but not quite reaching the same level as the initial one.

After being dumped by his TV star girlfriend, a devastated Peter decides to take a break in Hawaii to get over her. Little does he know that his ex is staying in the exact same hotel along with her new boyfriend.

It’s probably down to the fact that we’ve seen so many Apatow comedies now that it’s just not as funny as it used to be. The aforementioned The 40 Year Old Virgin was, and still is, one of the funniest films of the 21st century so far. It just exploded onto the big screen out of nowhere, taking everyone by surprise and it was a big hit. It seems like I’m the only one who wasn’t blown away by his next two efforts after that, Knocked Up and Superbad. Especially with the latter I still can’t think today why the hell that was received as well as it was, both by critics and fans. Forgetting Sarah Marshall, as I said, is at least an improvement in my comedy books. It’s got some great comedic dialogue, most of which come from an extended cameo appearance of which I will get to later, but it also is really smart at the same time. That’s something Apatow has managed to keep all the way through his films, even when he’s only producing them, is that combination of funny and smart.

The general premise of the film seems like it should be boring and clichéd. We’ve seen it quite a few times in a lot of different movies but the team behind this makes it funny, clever and all round enjoyable enough to make it feel fresh and new. The script, written by star Jason Segel, is not as hilarious as I’d hoped but when it’s on believe me it’s on. Segel times some of the dialogue so well that I literally burst out laughing inadvertently, even when it was something as ridiculous as, for example, Segel flashing full frontal male nudity. I was actually surprised those instances were allowed to be kept in, but we’re all glad they were as it makes for some of the most shockingly funny few seconds I’ve seen in the last year or so.

The film has a great mix of different actors, most, if not all,of which will be recognisable from other Apatow movies, playing lots of different characters that really provide great filler to support the main story when it happens to sag. Everyone from Jonah Hill’s restaurant waiter, Mila Kunis’ receptionist (she is someone we rarely see in movies, strangely, but she’s great here), Peter’s stepbrother played by Bill Hader and Paul Rudd’s stoner surf teacher. But the best character, not only supporting but overall and the funniest thing in the entire movie is Russell Brand’s Aldous Snow. Brand has set his sights on the world of film but he hasn’t quite found a movie that called for his…style, shall we say. Here the role is pitch-perfect for him, he gets to play a character which is basically what he’s like in real life. It’s then not really acting but who gives a damn when he’s this damn funny? I can’t tell if it was the script or him, probably a combination of both, but I just found myself laughing every time he was on-screen.

As with all of the Apatow pro-The 40 year Old Virgin movies I found there to be quite a few weaknesses. First off, and again like all of Apatow’s stuff, the film is far too long. He seems to stretch every film he has to round about the two hour mark when 90 to 100 minutes is all that’s called for. There were a few scenes that didn’t work and parts of the story that just weren’t necessary, extending the runtime needlessly to the point where I was looking at my watch for it to finish. Also I think in general it’s just the whole Apatow thing that’s beginning to wear thin, on me at least. Every one of the movies that he’s involved with has the same feel, and sometimes even the same look, and it just isn’t having the same intended effect that it first did.

This will probably be another big hit for the Apatow gang and kudos to them for still being able to draw the amount of people that the movies do. This is an improvement over some of his previous efforts, with some hilarious moments and great characters worthy of the time and money. It’s clear, however, that the Apatow train might not be speeding along for very much longer.

Director - Vincent Paronnaud, Marjane Satrapi

Writer - Vincent Paronnaud, Marjane Satrapi

Starring - (English version) Chiara Mastroianni, Catherine Deneuve, Sean Penn, Iggy Pop, Gena Rowlands

Review:

Who says you need a big budget, famous studio (such as Pixar) to make a quality piece of animated filmmaking? That seems to be what is accepted evidenced by the amount of them that we get in cinemas. Persepolis proves to be the opposite of that, a true example that simple can sometimes be better.

Based on the graphic novel by the same name, Persepolis tells the story of a young girl, Marjane Satrapi, who grows up in the midst of the revolution in 1970’s Iran.

From the opening few seconds of Persepolis it’s clear that this isn’t going to be your average animated film that we’re all used to. It’s done in stark black-and-white contrast which provides a fantastically unusually visual experience for the audience. It’s the kind of animation that anyone with a fair knowledge of a relevant computer program could conjure up if given the time and money to do so. It’s the simplicity of how the film is drawn and animated that gives it most of it’s charm. From it’s extremely simplified backdrops to the simple and little-detailed expressions of the characters. It’s amazing how such simply drawn expressions and facial features can so accurately and powerfully convey genuine human and emotions and make the viewer feel them along with the characters. After all it is just manipulation of shapes and colours on-screen but when in the right hands, as it clearly is here, that can be ever more effective then even a live action human face.

The films deals with all kinds of issues both personal and ones that affect an entire country such as politics and religion. The film is set amidst the Iranian revolution back in the 70’s and in that respect the film does tend to oversimplify things. It is here that the film’s primary weakness is contained; because we see everything pretty much from the perspective of a young girl things aren’t delved into as much as called for.

In it’s dealing with the more personal issues of growing up, not just among conditions that most don’t have to deal with but just as a human being, it’s very effective. It delves into everything from acceptance, rebellion, love, anger, rejection and above all trying to find the right place in the world for yourself. It’s all very endearing and charming, not least of all because of the lead character. She’s the kind of bright-eyed, curious and likeable little girl that’s a representation of the way we all would have liked to have been at that age.

There are two versions of the film available for audiences; in the UK and US it’s most likely the English language version that will be most readily available. In this version the voice casting defies the primary scepticism that I had by being pretty much perfect. There’s an unusual mix of voices from Sean Penn and Gene Rowlands to the very strange but very effective Iggy Pop. I usually can’t stand dubbed films but I make an exception for animation, that is if the casting is good and here it very much is.

I was quite surprised at some of the content of the film taking into account it’s only a 12A rating. It’s not only some of the moderate-to-strong language but some of the themes it deals with. I personally would have titled it a 15, perhaps if it was a live action film with the same content that would have been so.

I doubt if you will have seen anything quite like this before, not just in animation but film in general. It’s very creative with brilliantly original, simplistic animation and some great voice acting. It’s not perfect but it’s definitely one of the better films of 2008 so far.

Director - Martin McDonagh

Writer - Martin McDonagh

Starring - Colin Farrell, Bredan Gleeson, Ralph Fiennes, Jordan Prentice, Clemence Poesy

Review:

The awkward title of In Bruges kind of sums up the feel of the film itself. The film, as funny and entertaining as it is at times, just doesn’t seem to work as well as it should. Something which is mostly down to the mix of trying to be funny and deadly serious at the same time.

After a difficult assignment, two hit men are told to hide out in Bruges, Belgium. One wants to sightsee while the other just wants to go home but both must wait there and lie-low until they get instructions from their employer.

What struck me as being very odd and frankly left me disappointed about In Bruges was how much more serious the film is than it was made out to be in the advertisements. The trailer especially made it seem like a full-on crime/comedy caper where the humorous script would take fore-front to everything else. Instead, although the film is still very funny, we get a far more serious than anticipated crime/comedy/drama that deals with death, guilt and regret. Some may see that as a pleasant surprise whereas I felt as if, at times, it was another version of a movie I would rather be watching.

Now as I mentioned the film is funny. The script, penned by first time feature director Martin McDonagh, is filled with great one-liners, snappy timing and an overall original feel to it. I was quite surprised at how far they went to make some of the jokes they wanted to and I feel like there are quite a few different kinds of people who might take offence. These jokes mainly come from Farrell’s Ray, who is, according to Gleeson’s Ken, “the worst tourist in the whole world.” He is clearly having a ball being able to use his natural Irish accent as up until now he seems to have always had to fake an accent for his various roles. There are jokes about everything from midgets and overweight people to black people and Americans. I haven’t come across a film yet that has offended me personally but having said that I haven’t really came across any which makes a fool of what I am. In the end though no matter what type of person you are you have to take what is said in the film in the right way as it is,a fter all, just a film and they are only jokes.

The film overall doesn’t really gel together all that well. It seemed like there were different bits of different movies trying to be jammed together, kind of like trying to force the wrong pieces of jigsaw puzzle to fit together. It starts off quite serious, then jumps to being funny for a big chunk of time then cuts back to being serious. This happens all throughout the movie basically see-sawing between being serious and comedic and never quite getting the right balance of the two.

The story of the film I think contains some points that are a bit too outlandish, specifically the job that went wrong where Farrell accidentally shot a young alter boy, and therefore it’s a bit hard to believe. It is, however, nice to see a diverse location to the usual American or British one we get with crime films. Although one of the film’s long running jokes is the fact that Bruges is a boring place to be it still none the less is nice to have a change of setting.

My expectations of the film being less serious and more comedic led me to be let down by it. It’s way more serious than it ought to be and overall it feels like a guy Guy Ritchie film sans the high sense of insistence on the comedy.

Pretty much all of the cast are great here, in particular the three leads, Farrell, Gleeson and Fiennes, are a joy to watch. The latter I was quite surprised took on this kind of a role but in the end I have to give him credit; it shows how diverse he can be. Gleeson is, needless to say, great here, he brings a certain maturity and professionalism to the film. His character may play second fiddle to Farrell’s but it allows how to provide an effective backing to emphasize Farrell’s quick-witted, foul-mouthed bad tourist.

In Bruges isn’t as good as it could have been, mostly down to it’s uneven pace and tone. The whole thing doesn’t quite work and the plot points are a bit hard to believe and easy to see coming at times. However the dialogue is funny, the performances great and it’s generally a lot of fun. Fortunately the good out weighs the bad here even if the bad puts up a good fight.

Director - Mike Leigh

Writer - Mike Leigh

Starring - Sally Hawkins, Alexis Zegerman, Eddie Marsan, Kate O’Flynn, Samuel Roukin

Review:

I am struggling to think of a more accurately titled film in the last year so than Mike Leigh’s Happy-Go-Lucky. It’s a film that harbours one of the friendliest, most likeable and, that’s right you guessed it, happiest characters you are likely to see all year.

Happy-Go-Lucky follows Poppy, a lively and cheery 30-something woman who tries her best to make everyone around her as happy as she is. She works as a primary school teacher, lives with her sister and takes driving lessons taught by Scott, a man who is the polar opposite of her upbeat self.

I think it’s safe to say that Happy-Go-Lucky is going to be the film to cheer everyone up this year. I challenge anyone who’s having a bad day to go see this film and come out feeling the same as when they went in. It’s like a breath of fresh and happy air through the usual “look on the down side of life” films we get in cinemas. And that’s understandable that that’s what we get, because let’s face it; misery and death sells. But every once in a while we need films like this, films that remind us how good life can be, how to find happiness in the smallest of things even if we have to strive to see them.

The film’s effect on the viewer is precisely down to the character of Poppy, played to perfection by Sally Hawkins. Like I have mentioned she is one of, perhaps the, most likeable and upbeat characters of the 21st century so far. As she happily makes her way through the part of her life we have the good fortune to witness she tries her best to make everyone else around her feel the same as her. Most of the time she is met with surprised expressions at her behaviour or plain ignorance from the various people she meets. The character’s behaviour and general view on life could have been annoying but writer/director Mike Leigh and Hawkins herself play it just right to give the intended effect and to stop short of being irritating in any way. Everything from Poppy’s smile, her laugh and her look to her words, her behaviour and her general view on life triggers a smile on the audience’s faces. You don’t meet people like Poppy every day and at least this film gives us a couple of hours chance to do so.

This is a decisively big departure for filmmaker Mike Leigh from his usual tough-and-gritty approach to his films. Looking at films such as Secrets & Lies and Vera Drake it’s hard to see how the same guy could make such a happy and upbeat film as this. But at the same time you can see Leigh’s fingerprints all over this, most notably is his sustained sense honesty and realism. The central character here may be a bit larger than life and she certainly isn’t someone that you see all the time but she still is very much grounded in the real world. Throughout the entire film you can just feel that everything that happens is coming from a sincere and honest place even if it isn’t necessarily completely true. It feels like everything that happens could actually happen in real life and I think that’s what is used as an effective backdrop for Poppy to shine.

The script here is extremely well written. Particularly in the scenes involving Poppy having long conversations with another character, primarily one-on-one. The conversations just seem to flow as they would do in real life instead of feeling forced, which when you hear some of the dialogue could have very easily happened. I think how natural the conversations feel is down to the actors at hand, particularly Hawkins. Leigh has worked with her in a couple of his previous films and I think he felt that he needed to let her take centre stage and she does so will all her effort.

The film does have a few unusual scenes that break from the overall happy feel, including a perplexing scene involving a homeless man, and it’s a tad too long but it’s not enough to make it anything less than great. Sally Hawkins is fantastic as the infinitely likeable Poppy and she is supported very well, particularly by Eddie Marsan as her very troubled driving instructor. Happy-Go-Lucky is a film that reminds us to look for the good things in life and I will be very surprised if anyone leaves the cinema feeling anything less than what the title states.

Director -

Writer-

Starring -

Review:

It’s nice to see that even when actors hit the big time, in this case it’s Daniel Craig, that they still opt to try the smaller, more independent films every now and then.  Even when, in the case of Flashbacks of a Fool, the result isn’t all that great, it’s still nice to see.

Once successful now very much fading Hollywood star Joe Scot gets word of the death of a childhood friend. Before he heads back to his home town for his funeral he thinks back to his time as a child and teenager before he headed off to become a star.

The weaknesses of this film, in a very unusual fashion, are the beginning and ending segment. It takes far longer than needed to get to where it needs to go, about 40 minutes I should point out, and the ending left me feeling empty and looking back at the films as being impactless and rather pointless. But it’s the middle section that harbours the most interesting events, the titled “flashbacks”, just about saving the film from being a waste of time.

As I said the middle segment is definitely the most interesting and compelling part of the film. It shows Joe as a teenager, going out on dates, hanging out with friends and helping his mum around the house. That’s just the beginning of his tale in flashbacks as things soon get even more interesting as when the film gets to meatier part of the story he catches the attention of a married neighbour interested in Joe in a way she very much shouldn’t and a startling, and some would say quite unnecessary, incident involving the neighbours child. It’s baffling and almost incomprehensible that writer/director Baillie Walsh could start and end so poorly and yet have such an interesting part smack damn in the middle, I just wish the whole film was like it.

The film opens with an unnecessary and very out-of-focus sex scene involving Craig and two women. We see not only that but him and the women doing drugs and drinking copious amounts of alcohol. I guess this is to show the downward spiral Craig’s character is in and in that sense I guess it makes sense to have scenes such as that in there. But I just felt the way in which the director did this, and a few other related scenes, was a bit misjudged. Not unlike a lot of the film; misjudged. I kept thinking, “Why is this bit in here, why is that bit in here. Why’s this bit done like that…” etc, etc. It’s uneven for the most part and for the rest it just kind of makes you wonder why the rest isn’t as good.

The performances all round are one of the films few highlights. You would think one would praise Mr Craig when in fact, even though he isn’t bad in any way, it’s the performance of up-and-comer Harry Eden, who plays Craig as a teenager, who really shines. It’s actually him who has the most screen time and thus, arguably, is the “main actor”. For an actor as young as he is it was impressive to see him tackle such a complex role with such skill and conviction. Since the biggest thing he has been in to date is the 2003 version of Peter Pan he’s doing the right thing to tuck away as many of these kinds of roles while he’s young so that he has a good looking resume should anything bigger come his way, as I’m sure it now will.

Another particularly impressive performance comes from Jodhi May as the overly interested neighbour of Joe’s. The aforementioned startling incident involves her and it is in the following scenes to that incident that May really shows off some amazing acting talent. I can’t recall seeing  her in anything before this so from a pair of fresh eyes to her career I will definitely look out for her in other films from now on.

I think what left me empty and quite disappointed with Flashbacks was just how pointless it all felt. Annoyances with the overly long intro aside it was the ending which irked me the most. It just seemed to fizzle out without much of anything to keep you thinking about it as you leave the room. There are some fine performances at play and a compelling middle section but overall it falls short of being impactful and I will no doubt forget about it within just a few weeks.

Director - Marc Schoelermann

Writer - Mark Nevaldine, Brian Taylor

Starring - Milo Ventimiglia, Michael Weston, Alyssa Milano, Lauren Lee Smith, Johnny Whitworth

Review:

Coming off of their strong (at least) fan success with the insanely frantic Crank, filmmakers Mark Nevaldine and Brian Taylor have come up with an original and intriguing idea that executed with style and true conviction.

The idea or game is simple; a group of medical students pick a victim out of the millions in the city and kill them but in a way that the others won’t be able to figure out. Ted Grey, a new member of the pathology lab where the others work, gets quickly pulled into the game and in an inevitable fashion things start getting out of hand.

I had a lot of hope for this movie as I was a big fan of the makers mentioned movie Crank. I was thinking beforehand about where the hell these guys can go to after such a fu;;-on exercise as their previous movie. But after only 10 minutes of watching Pathology I realized that this wasn’t going to be what Crank was, aside from the fact that it’s not directed but only written and produced by the duo, and instead was going to be a insight into the nature of killing another human being and what it means not physically, as when you think about it the actual physical act of killing someone isn’t all that hard to do, but what it takes psychologically for a person to commit such a terrible act.

That’s pretty much what sold the movie to me right from the get-go. We have seen a million different films tackle the concept of murder but rarely have we seen it done in a way that makes us think about the actual; atrocity of doing such a thing as usually films are more preoccupied with getting the body count as high as possible and little else.

I wouldn’t exactly say that this film will please the squeamish viewers out there as there are quite a few scenes of dead bodies being cut open and the like but it’s not so full-on and graphic that it will make the casual viewer throw up. This isn’t Saw or Hostel, sure it has gore but it’s done so because the story demands it and not just for the sake of it. I am not a big fan of gory films so I admit I was quite apprehensive when I realized that some of the imagery I was going to endure wasn’t going to the most pleasant to say the least. But I didn’t once feel squeamish even when we get a full-screen shot of someone’s open chest cavity. I think there was a high amount of skill involved from everyone to make this so; showing gore but not being disgusting, I really didn’t think that was possible.

Pathology also sees the next career move for Heroes star Milo Ventimiglia. It’s amazing to think that an actor can be so known and so popular but there resume isn’t that plentiful. He has done work here and there, including a small but memorable role in Rocky Balboa as his son, but I think this film is possibly the starting pistol in his movie career. His role in this film fits him like a glove (pun certainly intended), he brings a certain charm and vulnerability to it and it’s no disadvantage to him that the camera absolutely loves him. I can him going very far from here on out and I personally can’t wait to see him pop up in more movie to come.

One of big highlights of the movie for me was the character of Jake Gallo, the psycho-like ‘rival’ pathologists who basically recruits Ventimiglia’s Ted Grey. You can tell right from the first time we see him that there’ something definitely not right in the brain department and it’s not very long before we find out what he’s capable of. He gives a nice contrast to Ventimiglia obviously more level headed character and  a lot of the movie’s finest moments come when the two of them are playing off of one another.

The movie overall has a nice mix of things; it’s fairly short in length, the writing is on the-ball almost all of the way through, the acting is great, the direction feels fresh and energetic and there’s some nice little twists to the story along the way. There are a few weak characters here and there and some unnecessary scenes but for the most part the basic idea is played out with great conviction and the end result is a taut, highly enjoyable thriller.

Director - Jaume Balagueró, Paco Plaza

Writer - Jaume Balagueró, Luis Berdejo

Starring - Manuela Velasco, Javier Botet, Manuel Bronchud, Martha Carbonell

Review:

The reason I am not a huge fan of the horror genre isn’t because I am easily scared but because there is rarely a horror film (especially nowadays) that is even remotely scary in any way to me. Usually it’s recycled crap that relies on the audience jumping because of loud noises alone. [REC] is not only decent it’s a legitimately scary and very effective 80 minute ride.

A news report crew decide to follow a team of fire-fighters as they respond to an emergency call in an apartment building. They expect everything to be routine but soon after arriving everyone realises that there’s a lot more to it and soon come across a few raging tenants who seem to be infected with some sort of virus.

[REC] is pretty much everything that a horror film should be. Firstly, and most importantly, it’s legitimately scary. I crave good quality and actually frightening horror films (especially since there is a draught of them in cinemas nowadays) that can keep me on the edge of my seat, breathing heavily and generally frightened from start to finish and [REC] does that in spades.

To accomplish being scary the film employs a number of crucial elements to make that so. It introduces us to likeable enough characters, when usually horror movie characters are annoying, makes us care about them as much as we possibly could and sets them on their way. If you didn’t know beforehand what was ahead, in a general sense anyway, you could possibly think you have walked into the wrong movie. The first ten minutes follows a news reporter as she wanders around a fire station seeing how it functions. Soon the fire-fighters get a call about a disturbance in an apartment building. Once we arrive everything isn’t so routine from then on and soon, once we go to investigate the disturbance of a screaming resident, the horror starts and boy does it work.

The film will no doubt be compared to the other films, recent or otherwise, that use the handheld camera technique. The Blair Witch Project started it off and from then on there was a whole siege of them, most recently is the mysterious Cloverfield and George A. Romero’s mediocre Diary of the Dead. In my opinion [REC] blows all of those out of the water in terms of its use and effectiveness of the in-camera technique. There are the automatically creepy long and dark corridors, lights turning off and on inexplicably and the general notion that anything could come out of any corner at any moment. That’s the main strength of the film; the fact that you don’t know where the next jump-scare is going to come from. The key to making a jump-scare effective, and not just relying on a natural reaction from the audience to jump back when they hear a loud noise, is to time it perfectly. [REC] not only just has jump-scares where it supposed to but it waits and waits and waits, lingering on something on-screen that the audience is just waiting to jump out at you. It hangs on so long that you let your guard down for just enough time that the film makes you jump out of your skin despite your best efforts to see it coming. I would need the hands of three or four people to count how many times I jumped throughout this film and for a film to “get me” in that way I give it major credit.

Something else that’s an important part of making a film scary is to have believable acting and more specifically that their sense of being scared is believable. It’s rare that the reactions and fear of a character in a horror film are anywhere near believable; they are usually whiny and annoying. [REC] also gets top marks for all the acting involved but especially of the lead actress who plays the news reporter. She does the heavy breathing, the screaming and the general scared-out-of-her-mind routine that the audience is feeling.

What I also loved about [REC], aside from the fantastic scares it provides, is the fact that it doesn’t explain everything to the audience and it doesn’t provide a safe or happy ending, nor does it provide a proper resolution. It doesn’t feel like a proper horror film in the traditional sense but rather it keeps its extreme sense of immediacy and therefore making it all the more frightening to the audience.

I am striving to think of anything I didn’t like about this film. When you’re in the zone of experiencing the film you pretty much forget any flaws that it might have. Thinking about it in retrospect I guess you could say it takes a little too long to get into the swing of things and for some it may be a little too much to take. But anyone who makes the effort and lays down the money to see it will be looking for as full-on of a horror film as possible and needless to say [REC] does that.

My first reaction when the end credits came up on-screen was, “Now that’s how you make a horror film.” As I have said it has pretty much everything a horror film should. It’s atmospheric, it holds your attention, it keeps you on the edge of your seat until the credits and above all it’s genuinely scary. And with a horror what more can you ask for?

Director - Robert Luketic

Writer - Peter Steinfield, Allan Loeb

Starring - Jim Sturgess, Kevin Spacey, Kate Bosworth, Aaron Yoo, Laurence Fishbourne

Review:

The name of 21’s game is not the presumed blackjack but the game of flashiness and little else. Sure the film’s nice to look at, as stylish to watch as Vegas itself, but beneath that there’s not much else other than less-than-believable characters and a story that wears thin.

21 tells the story of Ben Campbell, a smarter-than-smart MIT student who gets offered an opportunity he can’t refuse. That is to join a team of other students and a witty professor to count cards in Las Vegas to pay for his entrance into Harvard Med School.

21 is like one of those smartly packaged birthday presents you got when you were younger, one that looks fantastic on the outside but once opened up the content doesn’t live up to what you’d expected. The visuals of 21 are probably the reason to see it. Slick in that Ocean’s kind of way, it makes for a nice visual experience when compared to other less in-your-face films. Perhaps, for some, the visuals are enough to carry the film, along with the good looking actors and easy-to-digest script. For me, although I didn’t not like 21, I wanted a lot more from it and I’m sorry to say didn’t get it.

The film’s biggest problem is the amount of effort it takes for the viewer to actually believe what happens throughout. It starts out adequately but soon spirals into a pit of unbelievability in most, if not all, areas. We are just supposed to accept that this young man is as smart as he is, that he’s so much better than everyone else around him and that the counting cards situation would even arise let alone play out in any way. And even such a small thing as one Kate Bosworth even being part of a math club is really hard to take on-board without calling the film’s believability into question. Even in its most minute of details little about 21 rings true and therefore it lost me way before the end credits appeared.

There’s nothing overly wrong with the performances by everyone involved, it’s just that as an ensemble they didn’t really click. I don’t necessarily have a problem with the fact that the faces were all picked, to some degree, because of their magazine cover looks but what I did have a problem with was that they just didn’t work together. Sturgess holds his own as the extremely intelligent and ambitious Ben and a few of the supporting student characters do their job as they’re supposed to. It’s the addition of Laurence Fishburne and especially Kevin Spacey that stick out the most. Although it’s a role Spacey could play in his sleep there was just something inexplicable about the way he carried himself that just made him stick out like a black tooth in a set of otherwise white teeth. Since he also acts as producer on the film it’s obviously clear he believed in it but from where I’m sitting, for the man who was involved with such all-time greats as American Beauty and Se7en, I can’t imagine why. Like I said a few of the key players work fine but as a whole the cast just didn’t feel right to me.

I am possibly being a bit too harsh on 21. It’s not a bad film and there is fun to be had at various points throughout. The most enjoyable aspect being the various different techniques the director uses to capture the feeling of the game at hand. One of those techniques is CGI of blackjack being played with extreme close-ups of chips being counted and cards turning over. It does this, and many other quite clever camera tricks, in such a way that’s simple enough to grasp a hold of but still complicated enough not to feel force fed to the viewer. It does wear thin after a while, when you realize that it’s the most fun you’re going to have, but for what they are the various techniques make for a fun time.

As ludicrous as the story is to begin with you simply have to just suspend you’re disbelief if you want any chance of half enjoying it. It’s the twists in the storyline, which happen towards the end, which pushed me over the edge into complete disbelief. Reminiscent of the mentioned Ocean’s series, and in particular the first instalment, the twist attempts to make you smirk at it’s cleverness but at the same time feel a sense of, “Why didn’t figure that out?” Where Ocean’s Eleven succeeded in that area tremendously, 21 comes off as a desperate attempt to seem as clever as possible when in fact it’s idiotic and generally unimpressive.

As a whole the film plays it disappointingly safe. I could have seen it being an edgy, twist-ridden gem that would leave you feeling satisfied. 21 is far from that; flashy and in-your-face with little underneath to sustain interest for its overly long runtime. It’s not going to be in either of the worst or best of the year list but if anyone makes up such a thing; the mediocre list.

Director - Garth Jennings

Writer - Garth Jennings

Starring - Bill Milner, Will Poulter, Zofia Brooks, Neil Dudgeon, Tallulah Evans, Jessica Hynes

Review:

Sure to be one of the most charming movies of 2008, Son of Rambow is a tale that’s cute, loveable and just a general crowd pleaser. And it proves that home movies are sometimes world’s better than an actual ones. 

After seeing First Blood at a much too young age, new friends Will and Lee decide to make their own version of it using a home video camera and eventually with the help of the rest of their school.

Although throughout the film the script isn’t as fully written as it could and should be it still, none the less, fits together in an adequate fashion allowing plenty of room for the creativity and enthusiasm that’s injected by writer/director Garth Jennings. Since he’s the man who brought us the recent Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy film, creativity isn’t too hard for him to muster. There’s plenty of it on display here, predominantly in the scenes where the two boys make the home video. Similar to Michel Gondry’s recent above average Be Kind Rewind they use very creative and original ways of getting the desired effects, including a hilarious sequence involving a flying dog…don’t ask, see it for yourself. There are also some very creative and well done, in that home-made kind of style, of dream/imagination sequences. Even the older viewers should be inspired by these two little enthusiastic rascals.

The rest of the fun comes from the shenanigans of the two boys, in particular Lee, the renegade of the two. He gets thrown out of class almost every day of the week, steals from the local supermarket (including stealing a charity for the blind collection statue) and is just generally one of those misbehaving kids we all knew from school at one point or another. His attitude and actions are generally bad, and the audience obviously knows it from growing up, but the school kid in all of us can revel in this boy’s antics and think back to when they no doubt did the same things at one point.

Will, the more level-headed “good student” of the two, is naive and innocent but eager to learn and join in on Lee’s antics. As well as relating to the misbehaver we also relate very much to the nature of “the good one”. He is also the kind of student we all remember either being or seeing around school. Since his mother is a devout Christian he isn’t allowed to watch TV or hang around with people like Lee, thus he has been shielded from what the world truly has to offer. The film explores the relationship between the two, the ups and inevitable downs of their time together before, during and after making their own version of Rambo. It’s all round sweet and charming pretty much from start to finish and even at the worst of times there’s always something round the corner to put a smile back on your face.

Evidenced by the relationship between the two main characters and the enthusiasm on show it is very obvious that this is a very personal film to writer/director Jennings. In an interview he said that it’s an absolute true story as when he was younger he and his friends made versions of all kinds of films, including First Blood. This gives a lot of weight to the film that it otherwise might not have had. To know that this story is coming from such a sincere place is a very good element to have within the overall package.

What Jennings is able to capture is the essence of 1980’s England and school life in general. Despite all the fun you have at that age it still sucks and sucks even more having to go school. Getting up at the same time every morning, going to sit in boring classes and coming home at the same time. Doing the same thing everyday, day in-day out. Anyone presented at that age with the proposition of doing something creative like making your own version of a movie would jump at the chance.

Fans of films like Be Kind Rewind and Little Miss Sunshine will eat this one up with a huge smile on their face. It has a couple of problems, most noticeably is the underwritten script (and a strange sub-plot involving a French foreign exchange student) but it’s not enough to damage the film beyond repair. Charming, fun and just all round loveable, Son of Rambow is a real treat.

Director - Stefan Ruzowitzky

Writer - Stefan Ruzowitzky

Starring - Karl Markovics, August Diehl, Devid Striesow, Martin Brambach, August Zirner

Review:

To be awarded the Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film is a respectable thing indeed. And although there were a few others released in 2007 which deserved such an accolade more than this one (most notably 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days), The Counterfeiters is none the less a stellar piece of cinema that is worthy of the much sought after award it managed to pick up.

Based on a true story, The Counterfeiters tells the story of Salomon “Sally” Sorowitsch who is the dubbed “king of counterfeiters”. One day, in 1936, Sally is unfortunately caught and put into a concentration camp by the Nazis. Shortly after arriving he and a group of other similarly skilled men within the camp are forced by the Nazis to forge money for them.

What is, perhaps, most impressive about The Counterfeiters is the startling realism that it manages to convey. Everything is very dirty and gritty looking, from the clothes the prisoners where to the conditions surrounding them. The cinematography captures some sort of feeling of what it was like on a purely humanistic experience level of what it was like for these men. The film perfectly grasps not only the personal journeys Sally and the other prisoners have to go through but also the gravity of World War II in general. It is both an extremely personal film and one that deals with the bigger picture of the war and what it meant for so many people.

The film also captures the time period in which it’s set. Out with capturing the trials and tribulations of life inside a concentration camp it also grasps the essence of 1940’s Germany, with an amazing attention to detail in every area. As a result of both the accurate conveying of the time period and the gravity of the story the film tells it is, at times, fairly depressing stuff and thus isn’t necessarily an entertaining piece of cinema. But the story the film is dealing with is itself a depressing one and I say the truer the film can stay to the real life events the better and if that means it’s depressing then so be it.

Contrasting the very bleak edge the film has for the most part, it also has a strange comedic slant to it which surprisingly works very well in the films favour. It’s mostly down to the light-hearted, French-style score that it’s weirdly upbeat at times and also because of darkly funny moments involving the interaction between the prisoners. This provides some relief from the overall depressing mood of the film and I sense that without this element it may have been too depressing to take, just maybe.

Throughout the film there are a few very effective techniques employed, mostly regarding how the film puts across certain moments of fear, shock, comedy and sadness. The most notable of these techniques is the sudden zooming of the camera whenever emphasis is being put onto a certain person or object. It’s not the easiest thing to explain in simple words and without seeing it but I guess the simplest way would be to imagine the camera instead of just cutting straight away to a close-up (the most common technique) but it actually shows you it zooming all the way into it. This, and many other techniques, all make for an interesting viewing experience out with the story itself.

For most this film will convey information that is new and unknown. The situations within the film I certainly haven’t seen before and by the end I learned a lot I didn’t know before. So not only is this a compelling piece of filmmaking but also an exercise in information to anyone, like myself, who isn’t overly familiar with this specific storyline of WW2.

Despite the fact that we learn of the main characters’ fate within the first ten minutes of the film, and his story being told in flashback form, we still very much care what happens to him during his time beforehand at the concentration camp. By the middle of the film I even forgot that we had learned the outcome of his story, something which was a result how compelling and interesting his story actually was. Much of my interest was kept by the performances, specifically that of lead actor Karl Markovics. He is both a charming and crafty fellow (a criminal, let us not forget) but at the same time we feel a great amount of sympathy and admiration for him, which only increases as the film goes on. The film’s seemingly straightforward opening ten minutes by the end, once we come back to it after the story of the concentration camp has concluded, seems to resonate a thousand times more.

The Counterfeiters moves at a brisk pace and has a short runtime which, coupled with a slight edge of comedy, prevents it from being the sever depression inducing film it easily could have been. But at the same time it’s not the most fun of watches to say the least, and depressing it is fairly often. Excellent performances, a general sense of gritty realism and a satisfying ending make this an absolute must see.

Director - Juan Antonio Bayona

Writer - Sergio G. Sánchez

Starring - Belen Rueda, Fernando Cayo, Roger Princep, Mabel Rivera, Montserrat Carulla

Review:

Usually when a famous and well respected director, in this case Pan’s Labyrinth creator Guillermo Del Toro, attaches their name to another film under the title “presents” it will draw fans but ultimately disappoint. The Orphanage has broken that trend, at least for now, as it’s a creepy, skin-crawling and genuinely effective little horror film that should have you grabbing for the nearest thing to hide behind.

A woman moves her family into a house where she used to stay as an orphan and she decides to open it up again. Before long her son starts to communicate with some invisible new friends.

It’s not really apparent from the beginning that The Orphanage is going to be the scary ride it soon becomes. It starts off fairly slowly, concentrating very much on the story and the origins of things to come. It sets up things very well for the scares to come, using various techniques to lull us into a false sense of security. But at the same time everything has a creepy air about it, not least of all is the Shining-esque empty house with seemingly endless hallways and huge rooms. The aforementioned Kubrick masterpiece showed us that a huge and empty building can be terrifying in and of itself and The Orphanage has that same thing going for it.

Things soon take a turn for the scarier, and this isn’t really giving anything away since it happens fairly early on, when the main character’s son disappears at a party without a trace of who might have took him and where he might have gone. This, also, in and of itself is a creepy thing to watch. The disappearance of a person without a trace is an interesting plot device and it is sure to hold the viewers interest until the conclusion. Added to that the fact that you actually care about these characters and what happens to them, the ordeal they go through makes you feel for them.

What makes The Orphanage so effective is the carefully and precisely done moments of horror and big jump scares. I would need at least three hands to count the amount of times I jumped throughout the movie, in particular one in which I can safely say everyone in the cinema jumped out of their skin all at the same time, and for any horror film to get that reaction from me that many times I commend it thoroughly.

The film uses various different, effective techniques to create the jump scares and general horror tension. Most notably is the use of music, when and how it is employed. Usually in a horror film the music will either build up and up and culminate right when something jumps out at you or it will culminate then there will be a moment or two of silence and then something will jump out at you. The Orphanage builds the music for an extended period of time, culminates as you would expect and then nothing would come of it. This happens more towards the first part of the movie, the music becomes more and more few and far between as the movie goes on, and is used to great effect. This could possibly frustrate some viewers who are used to, want and expect the regular kind of jumps scares but it’s part of the reason it works so well. It plays on audience expectation, does things differently and then proceeds to make you jump regardless.

To accompany the horror element of the film there is also a great sense of humanity to it all. This is fairly unusual in horror films, especially nowadays, as we are used to seeing everything be in a film as an excuse to have the horror element. Here we have both; arguably the humanistic side actually takes president more than the horror does. But it doesn’t once ruin the movie, as it actually adds an extra layer than most, including myself, weren’t expecting to get from the film. This element helps the audience care for the characters and to actually give a damn what becomes of them.

I can’t quite say there was anything majorly wrong about the film, except, perhaps, that it’s a tad too long and the scares aren’t quite as frequent for any die hard horror film. Luckily I am not one of those devoted horror nuts who needs gore and/or terrifying moments for every minute of a film’s runtime. Therefore even though it was noticeable that it wasn’t scary at every moment it didn’t really bother me as it might some.

It’s wonderful to see a horror film that prays on fears of a more phsychological nature and that gets under your skin as opposed to the plethora of gory films we have had as of late. It’s effectiveness can surely be attributed to the skilfully done moments of skin crawling horror and huge jump scares inserted at exactly the right moments. This is most likely going to be wearing the crown of best horror of 2008 and I will be surprised if that’s proven otherwise.

Director - Roland Emmerich

Writer - Roland Emmerich, Harald Kloser

Starring - Steven Strait, Camilla Belle, Cliff Curtis, Joel Virgil, Affif Ben Badra, Mo Zinal

Review:

For the average movie goer 10,000 BC will probably have them shrugging at the film being just okay. But for anyone looking closer at the film, at its actual filmmaking, they will see the bad film it really is.

Set, yes you guessed it, in the year 10,000 BC the film tells the story of a young, brave mammoth hunter and his journey through uncharted territories to save his people.

The film is at an immediate disadvantage with me as I am not a fan of action/adventure films involving huge creatures, fantasy or otherwise, that people have to battle. It’s purely a thing of personal taste and not a thing I can hold against the film for the general public. I can, however, hold the sub-par action, historical inaccuracy and boring and plodding plot against it. You feel every minute of the film’s near two hour runtime, all the time aching for something exciting and attention grabbing to happen on-screen. Instead you get action scenes we have scene a million times before, not-so-special-special effects and unconvincing actors that look like they’ve just walked off a soap opera set. It’s all very hap-hazardly done in favour of what the makers think are stunning set pieces and visuals.

The special effects within the film would have been impressive a few years ago. But CGI has moved on this since then, and after such showcasing like Gollum in the Lord of the Rings trilogy and the recent bringing to life of the Transformers, and thus 10,000 BC’s aren’t bad in any way but just are nothing we haven’t seen before.

The film, above most other things, is blatantly historically inaccurate. Correct me if I’m wrong but people didn’t speak English as we speak it now back in those times. They attempt to tackle this by having the characters speak in broken, not fully formed English when actually it comes off as a foreigner trying to speak our language so that we, the audience, can understand. Obviously if the film was in the appropriate language, with accompanying subtitles, then it wouldn’t draw in the masses, which is a sad thing indeed. And also correct me if I’m wrong but they didn’t have good dental plans and make-up in those days either. So outwith the boring story and same-old action sequences we also have implausibility’s and inaccurate details that made me countless times roll my eyes in disbelief.

The acting in the film leaves something to be sorely desired. Apart from the actors being unconvincing that they would actually be in this time period and not in 21st century Los Angeles, their mannerisms, look, and actions are what irked me the most. Like I said, if I’m not mistaken, they didn’t speak English in those days and they also didn’t have the morals, values and ways of looking at things like we do now. It’s not only totally unconvincing on the actors parts but at points really embarrassing.

Despite my general less than enthusiastic interest in battle scenes involving huge fantastical creatures I was at least clinging onto that to carry away with me a vague sense of enjoyment. But those action sequences are not only the kind we have seen plenty of times before but they are also short lived. There is more boring dialogue and concentration on the plodding storyline than there is action and visuals.

10,000 BC is a disaster on virtually every intended level. The acting is bad, the special effects not so special, it’s very historically inaccurate and to top it all off I can’t even recommend it on a pure action-oriented level as it’s nothing we haven’t seen a million times before. It all amounts to a film you should completely avoid.

Director - Paul Andrew Williams

Writer - Paul Andrew Williams

Starring - Andy Serkis, Reece Shearsmith, Jennifer Ellison, Steve O’Donnell, Dave Legeno

Review:

It’s not particularly unfair to draw comparisons between The Cottage and Edgar Wright’s much loved Shaun of the Dead from a few years ago. This aims for the same thing; to both pay homage and even make a fool of the horror genre but at the same time be a solid entry into the genre on its own. But where the aforementioned Shaun of the Dead did this very successfully, The Cottage fails on pretty much every attempted level.

After two brothers kidnap the daughter of a local mobster and demand money to let her go, everything turns into a living nightmare when they cross paths with a psychopathic farmer.

It was very fitting that The League of Gentlemen star Reece Shearsmith should to do a film of this nature, as it’s got the same ingredients of that wonderfully creepy show had. It’s a shame, then, that Shearsmith didn’t bring his, and the rest of the Gentlemen’s, writing talent along with him to The Cottage as writer/director Paul Andrew Williams doesn’t really pull off what was intended here. The film starts off as a crime film about two brothers who kidnap a mobster’s daughter for money and on that front it doesn’t really work. It’s never really believable, despite decent performances from Shearsmith and Andy Serkis (who we see here in his rare human form), that these two men are actually brothers or that they would be in such a situation. Ellison plays the foul mouthed hostage, and I personally found her character, and more specifically her choice of words, shall we say, to be wholly unnecessary. We never really care about these characters, to be completely honest, and the audience is eagerly anticipating the inevitability of the plan going nastily wrong rather than rooting for anyone.

There are some decent dozes of humour here and there throughout but for the most part the jokes fall disappointingly flat leaving the air very uncomfortable before something else happens on-screen. It’s not a good thing to put forth an incentive to audiences before the film is released that it’s a full on comedy/horror when it doesn’t actually become that until almost an hour in. It takes it’s time with a kidnapping plot that never really strings together properly and instead just feels like filler until we get to the ultimate point of the film.

When we finally do get to the third act of gruesome comedy/horror it never really lives up to its promise. There are a few very nasty scenes in the film that should have fans of the over-the-top horror genre satisfied, including a scene where a character gets their spine pull out in between the farm sheds. It’s scene likes this that will make the film worth while for gore hounds but sine I am not part of that film crowd I can’t say I found just a few of these scenes enough for me to enjoy the film as a whole.

What makes it even worse is not only does the horror element not live up to expectations it also seems like it comes out of nowhere. Perhaps that was the point but I just can’t see it being that way. Instead I think its misjudged timing on the director’s part, leaving the horror element of the film seeming as if it was just thrown in half way through shooting instead of being planned from the beginning. Similarly there are a few plot threads and side characters that seem tacked onto the film instead of feeling integrally important to the story. Specifically it’s the mob boss element of the story that springs to mind. We see hints of it towards the beginning but it’s never tackled or even referred back to as the film progresses leaving that part utterly pointless to begin with.

It’s not a complete shambles, as admittedly the film is enjoyable occasionally with a few over-the-top fun and nasty kills and most of the performances are enjoyable enough. It’s just not even close to what it could have been, instead The Cottage is a huge disappointment.

Director - Pete Travis

Writer - Barry Levy

Starring - Dennis Quiad, Forest Whitaker, William Hurt, Sigourney Weaver, Matthew Fox, Edgar Ramirez

Review:

Throw a stick at new action thriller Vantage Point and you’re bound to hit a major name. And with the help of some great fast paced action, a challenging albeit ridiculous amount of different things going on at the one time and an interesting premise the film isn’t actually as bad as you might have heard.

In a Rashomon-style narrative, the assassination of a US president is seen from several different vantage points.

The key to keeping the audience guessing in a film like this is to keep major plot points hidden until they get into the cinema and proceed to watch it. The marketing team behind this film made some major mistakes when putting together the trailer for it, as at least one or two major, and I don’t use that word lightly, plot points are given away to audience even before they settle into their seats to see it. As a result of this I knew exactly what was coming at several points throughout, leaving little mystery left. Now in the film’s defence it does have some hidden tricks up its sleeve, with one other major plot point that left me pretty shocked. And the way in which the spoiled plot points are played out still have at least a whiff of intrigue left in them. But I hope that whoever did the marketing for this film learns a lesson here and hopefully it won’t happen again in the future.

The narrative style of the film, although not completely original, seems fresh and new, at least to a modern audience. I admire the film for taking a risk, as showing the same event over and over could have backfired drastically but luckily, at least in my eyes anyway, the film plays around with it in a way that holds your interest and at least attempts to keep you guessing. But even though I had no problem and actually really liked the concept of showing the same event over and over from different view points it is the way in which they do it throughout that really irked me. At the beginning of the movie we see the events from the perspective of a news report room, we see the president (played by William Hurt) walk up onto the podium, someone shoots him and then promptly the podium explodes. The film then stops and rewinds (literally) to just as the clock is hitting midday, we hear a clock bell ring and then we see the same event from another point of view. Now this was a fine and an almost necessary tactic for the director to employ but what really bugged me about it was the fact that they do this same exact thing every time we go to a different vantage point. It was fine the first time, and possibly the second, but by the third, fourth and so on I just thought, “Okay I get it, we are seeing the same event from a different point of view, you don’t have to keep rewinding back to the same point.” In doing this it is basically treating the audience like idiots as if we can’t work out that we are seeing the same thing from the same point in time but from a different viewpoint.

I think the one thing that has bothered most people about Vantage Point is the amount of absolutely ludicrous plot points. And I must concur with those complaints as yes the film has more moments than I can count where I just rolled my eyes in disbelief and embarrassment. I can’t believe such a high powered cast would agree to do a film like this after reading the ludicrous script, but hey; I guess money really does talk.

But when a movie is as fun and enjoyable as this one actually turns out to be I can forgive some of its wrong doings in favour of my enjoyment. So even though I lost count of the amount of times I rolled my eyes I forgave that in the name of entertainment, and I was far better off for it. Now some may never dream of doing such a thing, some will crush such a film for having such big fault and problems and I can understand that but luckily for the film I am a huge fan of this genre and I was able to overlook certain failings.

But even though I am ultimately going to forgive pretty much all the wrong doings of the film there was something that bothered me more than anything else and something I would be remiss if I failed to mention. I hate to say it but the ending is one of the stupidest, most ludicrous, most unbelievable endings to a film of this kind that I can remember in a good few years. I won’t say what it is obviously, but let’s just say after all the trouble that has happened within the course of the movie it is something that pales in comparison to the bigger picture that brings everything to a halt. Thankfully I got wind of the fact the ending was terrible, although not what actually happens, before I saw it so I was prepared but still I was left bemused and disappointed at the ridiculousness of it.

The cast of the film is probably the biggest reason to see it. Even though there wasn’t really any need to have such an amount of big names in the one film, it is none the less a movie goers dream to see them all in the one place.

So it may not be a film for the ages, one that will probably be forgotten in a matter of a couple of months but it’s got enough enjoyment and ridiculous intrigue to make it worth the price of admission. A mind blowing cast and fast paced action make up for the ridiculous plot points and terrible ending (jus barely but still). So in the end Vantage Point may be dumb but at least it’s on the right side of it.