musanna-ahmed Reviews

Ice Age: Continental Drift (2012)

An entertaining addition to the 'age'-ing series.

[7/10 · 30 June 2012]

To start with - the technical side of filmmaking. The Ice Age series has always excelled in providing amazing visuals and this one doesn't disappoint. The use of 3D is brilliant, almost enough to restore my faith in the dire format, with credit going to the blocking choices for the characters (if that exists in animation) - they are often propelled into situations where the camera angle would turn to have them move towards the camera, creating the intended three-dimensional 'pop out' illusion. To add to the enjoyment of the visual side of the film, the new animals have been pleasingly designed by the animators.

And on an artistic level of filmmaking, the screenplay is unfortunately missing the wit and subtle humour that made the original film hilarious. The comedy is powered by visual gags instead. Some may find this disappointing but with the state of comedy films this modern day that manage to sell, it seems visual gags are what cater nicely to the target audience which is children. However, I give credit to one of the screenwriters, Jason Fuchs, who has helped script a feature film that does manage to entertain at only 24 years old. But when a film works with visual jokes rather than a script for comedy, it doesn't make one too excited about the prospects of the people behind the camera. Maybe the reception of Continental Drift can help Fuchs work on his next piece though.

Satisfying voice acting is featured in the film, I was in fact surprised that Drake and Nicki Minaj performed decently. The show-stealer was Wanda Sykes who voiced Sid's granny - she was an exception to the aforementioned visual/verbal joke argument as her greater comedy asset was undoubtedly her voice. For the record, it was ironic how Peter Dinklage voiced one of the largest pirates.

It's inevitable that the question "Is it better than it's predecessor(s)?" will be asked about Continental Drift. Well, whilst none of the sequels have been of the same quality of the original, I choose to only compare this one to the last one and the answer is yes, mainly due to the subtext of the story.

It revolves around the animals getting captured by pirate animals and doing their best to turn the tables on them. This could be interpreted as a message about how us humans, represented here as the animals, are capturing animals for our own self interest without any real sympathy. I'm no animal activist but I can safely say this is a relative approach for the filmmakers to go for - also considering as number three was about dinosaurs which have no relevance this present day - because the amount of environmental groups wanting for us to save these animals is of a large amount and ever-growing animals are becoming abused, unwanted, and abandoned by some of us. So on the socio-political level of filmmaking, Ice Age 4 has a good reason to exist.

All in all, Ice Age: Continental Drift is an entertaining addition to the series. Whilst it still proves that the series could have only gone downhill from the first one, it has a sufficient amount of reasons to be recommended to the target audience, children and fans of the series alike. Plus Scrat is still as entertaining a character as ever.

I will not spoil the ending but can say that it could be looked at as sequel bait but arguably, the series has gone long enough and I predict that a fifth film will really take its toll on it but time shall tell.

Haywire (2011)

A smart action flick that doesn't opt to be literally Haywire.

[7/10 · 18 January 2012]

It has more brutal action scenes than Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol. It has a female lead hotter than the one of Battle: LA (in fact, Michelle Rodriguez is probably the best actress who Gina Carano can be reasonably compared to) who provides a better leading performance than Zoe Saldana in Colombiana. And it is boasting a better cast than Cowboys and Aliens - Haywire is arguably the best piece of filmmaking in the action genre in recent memory.

This could obviously be expected by Steven Soderbergh, still one of America's most consistent directors. His film has a brain and utilises it and this experimentation of the action genre is a unique one, especially in the superbly engineered action scenes. He has avoided to use background music as an intensifier and it works, giving the action scenes a very high level of brutality as every fist impacting the human body is heard. And he has avoided the shaky cam technique as an intensifier simply because there's no need. It's brutal enough without the standard exhilarating background music.

The stellar cast of this action picture have rewarded his direction with brilliant performances, Gina Carano in particular as aforementioned. They empower the story of a gutsy, fearless, ass-kicking woman determined to avenge herself even with a loss of trust for anyone willing to take her side after the double-crossing and the small amount of genuine help.

The plot itself is told in a disjointed way which is honestly a criticism to be made of the film because I believe that it will leave several people scratching their heads for some time during their viewing experience. But if you can get your head around it, and should really be able to once you complete the pieces of the puzzle, you will have experienced an intelligent action thriller from an intelligent director. A great start to the new year.

Watch it if: you like new takes on genres; willing to view something with a brain (especially if you just saw something stupid like New Years Eve recently); are a fan of Steven Soderbergh and his smart direction; looking to begin your 2012 cinema experience with something good. Don't watch it if: you expect something on the same scale of blockbuster action as MI4/Sherlock Holmes 2.

My Week with Marilyn (2011)

Simon Curtis' 'My Week With Marilyn'. Or, Michelle Williams' 'My Time as Marilyn'

[8/10 · 21 December 2011]

There is a good reason for why My Week with Marilyn exists except for to document the making of The Prince and the Showgirl in cinematic quality. I've seen a lot of females 'like' a page on Facebook which is titled a quote from the star herself – "I'm selfish, impatient and a little insecure. I make mistakes, I am out of control and at times hard to handle. But if you can't handle me at my worst, then you sure as hell don't deserve my best." In the land of Hollywood where, as some say, relationships are portrayed unrealistically in the motion pictures because they create unrealistic expectations for men to expect in women (and perhaps vice versa), it's refreshing to watch a love story that has a chance of being calamitous because of the character of Marilyn Monroe. She was known for her many affairs and this film offers the audience to visually view one. The story was first written in print – we are told that the source of the film is Colin Clark's memoir The Prince, The Showgirl and Me, unread by me but a man sat in the same theatre stated to me after the film that this adaptation is very faithful to Clark's memoir. So those of you who have also read it, I believe you will be in for a treat.

And of course, this isn't just a story of one of Marilyn's many affairs. It is a riveting look at the experience of working in a different environment in Britain, alongside Sir Laurence Olivier, undertaken by her. This is a story which is empowered by the intriguing binary opposition created in the narrative, the classic binary opposition of love versus hate, where tensions boil and relationships sour. Good dialogue is crucial to make this work and screenwriter Adrian Hodges achieves this by writing a good screenplay, which, as aforementioned, is faithful to the source material too.

Another aspect of the filmmaking which proves to be powerful in helping achieve the universal aim of being a good film for My Week with Marilyn is the acting on display. It is very likely that the word "Oscar"/ the term "Academy Award" will be included in a lot of movie reviews this season and mine here is no exception – Michelle Williams is well worth of an Oscar nomination for her bravura turn-in here as Marilyn Monroe. She embodies the many sides of the icon's persona, from her singing talents to her desire to her problems with anxiety and self esteem to her attitude towards love when in a relationship. For all the screen time she gets, Williams basically becomes Marilyn Monroe.

The rest of the cast deliver solid performances too in their respective roles as other real figures. Those who have been watching Branagh's career would have expectations pre-seeing the film that he is an ideal actor for portraying a historical figure and he doesn't disappoint as the legendary Sir Laurence Olivier here. Eddie Redmayne deserves credit for his portrayal of Colin Clark – the same man who told me about the film's faithfulness of the book also commented on Redmayne's performance when speaking to me, stating that Redmayne was very much like the Colin Clark in the memoir.

Although in the first 20-30 minutes, which is the long equilibrium where each character begins to become familiar with each other for the movie they're about to work on, Redmayne's character doesn't look to have enough depth to last the full 99 minutes, as he is mainly seen just standing in scenes as the others bring The Prince and the Showgirl and simply eavesdropping on the what the actors have to say for each other after each shoot. Gradually, Clark becomes more and more involved in the story as the characters' personal and professional lives begin to intertwine.

The first 20 minutes of a film are long enough to have a spectator either stay in their seat and relish the rest of the film or walk out of the theatre due to boredom or a lack of interest generated from the film. Although the first 20 minutes here are slow in driving the narrative forward and focus on introducing the characters if anything, it is wonderful to watch how it actually seems to mirror Redmayne's own experience. Colin Clark is being introduced to the biggest stars of that generation – Sir Laurence Olivier, Marilyn Monroe, Vivian Leigh – and simultaneously Redmayne is taking the opportunity to work with the experienced actors of today, such as Kenneth Branagh and Judi Dench. There is one character that doesn't 'work'. Lucy, played by Emma Watson, is Clark's love interest early in the film, until she is abandoned by him for Marilyn Monroe. This character is not really a necessity for the film and it could have worked without her – we could still be able to comprehend the deep love for Monroe felt by Clark. My guess for why she is included is clearly for historical accuracy.

And historical accuracy is achieved in technical ways too. Playing like a period piece by having been filmed against a backdrop of a 50's- looking London, the costumes and the director's manipulation of the mise-en-scene contribute in adding to the verisimilitude. Maybe the director could have opted to film in hand-held to give the more of a documentary feel for that extra touch of realism. Yet it must be said, the most realistic thing has to be Williams's embodiment of the highly celebrated actress, which deserves to be lauded. As the man who the film could never have been established without, Eddie Redmayne is the spine of the film, but Michelle Williams is the star of the film.

Moneyball (2011)

If only I was American

[7/10 · 21 December 2011]

After I watched the film, I realised that Moneyball did not appeal to me, and I doubt it will appeal to other British audiences either. The screenwriters here have written a witty and very intelligent script for the film, adapting it from the general manager's book of the same name. And much of the dialogue requires a baseball head to understand. I do not have one and don't suspect many British people to have one either.

Those who are exceptions of this will be in for a delight. My personal response may have been that I found it to be difficult to be gripped by the subject matter but the American audience, the ones that are obviously the target demographic, will be in for this year's The Social Network. Two reasons why: number one – one of the screenwriters of Moneyball is Aaron Sorkin, who wrote The Social Network and has written something of similar quality here, and number two – director Bennett Miller has managed to take a simple subject matter and undeniably transform it into something far more interesting. This is a sports film that is not cliché-ridden. There's no sudden conflict that is a turning point in the narrative. In fact, there's a lack of equilibrium, just showing how chaotic and troubled Billy Beane is at this point in his career. And in fact, this isn't as much of a film about the sport as it is about the business of it all. Moneyball is a very talkative picture (which is why I don't recommend it to tweens or the frat house, because this is more artistic than entertaining) yet it manages to be somewhat intriguing when watching Billy Beane managed the Oakland A's just as they were hitting the lowest of lows.

The main reason for this was the Billy Beane played by Brad Pitt, who now looks to be a real contender for an Oscar nomination. This is a different role for Brad Pitt, he's taking authority – yes, he played a leader in Inglorious Basterds but this is better acting displayed by him. As well as delivering lines pitch perfectly (it's expected of any actor playing a 'formal' figure to act realistically when speaking), he brings a lot of humanity in the role, the key scenes being the ones where he is the only character in the frame and his facial expressions speak for him. The opening and closing shots, especially, of him are effective.

Jonah Hill, as Peter Brand, the Yale graduate with a major in Economics who assists Beane, turns-in terrifically as long as the expectations on him aren't for him to be the funnyman of the film. He is showing he has a broad range in this role, taking on a serious role as comic actors have done before him and done very well – Jim Carrey in Eternal Sunshine, Adam Sandler in Punch-Drunk Love, etc.

All in all, the direction is superb. The acting is excellent. The writing is sharp. The editing is splendid, especially in the baseball match scenes where the film cleverly combines real time with archive footage. Moneyball is undeniably an incredible piece of filmmaking and smarter than most Hollywood films this year. Yet it can only be enjoyed thoroughly if you know about baseball. And alas, I'm British and don't know much more about baseball than the team names. I'd perfectly understand it if a similar film was released where the subject matter was football, and I saw an American reviewer writing about the same problem he had when listening to actors speak about "the banter bus" and the team's best "holding midfielder", like we heard of "ugly girlfriend" or a "switch hitter".

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (2011)

Should you choose to accept this? Oh yes

[9/10 · 21 December 2011]

The Mission Impossible series is one of the very few series' I have ever seen in which each film is better than the last. So the latest is the best in the series yet, and it's up there with Fast Five as the one of the year's best action films. Any skeptics who thought Brad Bird couldn't do so good of a transition from animation to live-action have been proved utterly wrong. The direction of the actors is first rate and the star-studded cast reward Bird with super performances, Tom Cruise in particular, who is repeatedly confirming with each film that he's one of the best movie stars and still has the ability to inevitably draw large crowds. And that is for 25 years now.

On the other hand, the technical side of the film, as predicted, is incredible. Especially the Burj Khalifa sequence, which looks to have been a literal Mission Impossible to have created accurately, but the filmmakers did it. The sound is piercing, shots of the several countries in the film are mightily impressive, and the set pieces have been superbly engineered.

The bad bits? Bird has ditched heart (the romantic subplot from the last film) for adrenaline – although this has managed to be a satisfying and invisible change. It's hardly a spoiler but it would have been cliché if Paula Patton's Jane and Ethan Hunt fell in love. The major bad point has to be the villain, Hendricks, portrayed by the Millennium trilogy's Michael Nyqvist. It is likely that if there is another sequel and the talk about the series becomes loud again, Hendricks will be a forgotten villain. It is a virtually impossible mission to solely focus on Hendricks throughout the film because the story's transition from country to country sees more than one threat to the IMF team and the task for the audience is to divert their attention to each one, which results in subtracting interest in Hendricks. In comparison, Owen Davies (I remembered his name in this review, wonder if I remember who Hendricks is in the likely-to-happen MI5) is a much more memorable and menacing villain than Hendricks.

Thankfully, the IMF team win our attention and garner the most interest as we see Tom Cruise scaling the Burj Khalifa, Paula Patton sexily strutting around an Indian palace, Jeremy Renner tackle another complex character – Brandt, the IMF Secretary's Chief Analyst – and Simon Pegg, as in every film, provide the humour. From the teams Ethan Hunt has been prepared for in the past, this is the most exciting to watch. And this is the most exciting film to watch, especially in IMAX, even if only for the Burj Khalifa scene because it is a much more spectacular sequence on a very large screen. A recommended film to watch, thinking of any better entertainment in cinemas right now (or in the past 6 months) is a Mission: Impossible.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (2011)

Oh, how we've missed you Holmes.

[8/10 · 21 December 2011]

Sherlock Holmes is back; this time he is pit into a game of shadows against Professor Moriarty, admirably underplayed by Jared Harris. En route to locating Moriarty, Holmes and Watson are launched into a number of dangerous missions, from fighting Moriarty's men on a train to tracking the factory in Germany from which Moriarty had bought a large number of shares. All of the missions come complete with thrilling set pieces done the Guy Ritchie way – camera-work putting his effective overcranking and high speed photography on display with the bonus comic moments (the outfits Holmes has on, especially the one in the train fight sequence) as well as humorous dialogue. In a way, the comparison between this and the first film is similar to a comparison between Ritchie's earlier films Lock Stock and Snatch – because it worked the first time, Ritchie follows the same formula but the second time he attempts to give more of the humour and the action to the audience. That perfectly works in Sherlock Holmes 2, this is seriously good entertainment. I have read a lot of comments over the web where people are complaining that Ritchie's hasn't made something faithful to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's classic work. Yes. A more faithful adaptation for Doyle fans is the BBC series Sherlock, starring Benedict Cumberbatch. That should be seen for the die-hard fans of the great English detective, but for anyone looking for entertainment, which is the real purpose of this film, Sherlock Holmes 2 is one to watch.

Puss in Boots (2011)

Dreamworks have Booted the series back into the right direction

[8/10 · 21 December 2011]

DreamWorks Animation – continuing to cash out by releasing sequels and spin-offs to their higher grossing films, Puss in Boots being their second one of the year.

Is this a bad thing? Well as long as they are consistent, of course not. Kung Fu Panda 2 was one of those; it was a fantastic sequel that was a success both financially and critically. The reason for this was despite the unoriginal, familiar narrative, it was gorgeous to look at every scene in Kung Fu Panda 2 with the 3D incorporated plus there was more than enough charm in the characters and wit in the dialogue for it to conclude satisfyingly. Puss in Boots is just the same, except it has an advantage.

That advantage being that it is a significant improvement on the latter half of the Shrek films. So how is this advantageous? Because Kung Fu Panda 2 may have had high expectations for some and therefore left those ones disappointed that it didn't reach the heights the original one did, but Puss in Boots restores faith in the quality-diminishing Shrek series.

For one, it replenishes the energy in the scenes that vibrated the first two Shrek films and comes complete with the sharp, funny dialogue. Again, this instalment in the series is pop culture potshot galore. For the younger target audience that are unlikely to understand the humour in some of the dialogue, there is plenty of physical humour in the film provided. My personal favourite intertextual reference had to be at the beginning of the friendship between Humpty Dumpty (voice of Zach Galifianakis) and Puss (Antonio Banderas) when Humpty tells him about his bean collecting – "First rule of bean club, you do not talk about bean club." It gives many nods to classic Westerns – as well as taking their clichés and utilising them for its own story.

Puss in Boots is an outlaw, this being established in the pre-title sequence as he enters the bar and gets into some trouble as every protagonist in a Western has done. He is then set on his own mission to escape his town, named El Ricardo, as a fugitive and along the way bumps into what he refers to as a "baaad kitty" – Kitty (voice of Salma Hayek), a female sword-fighting cat along with Humpty whom Puss already knew. The storyline then shifts into a quest for the three to steal magic beans from the local notorious criminals Jack (voice of Billy Bob Thornton) and Jill (voice of Amy Sedaris) and use them to grow a beanstalk leading to Giant's castle and grab the golden goose, which should somewhat eventually erase Puss' status as an outlaw. I found this movie to be reminiscent of The Mask of Zorro, and not just because Antonio Banderas is the lead.

The voice acting is good as it always has been in the Shrek series. The casting department has seemed to have newfound talent in Billy Bob Thornton and Zach Galifianakis, who had not had previous voice credits under their names bar, the English version of Princess Monokoke for Bob Thornton. They bring their characters to life as much as possible but that leads me to state a criticism. Character development is lacking in this film. Who each of these characters start with is really how they end up too, with the odd moment here and there where they deliver some philosophical line that they believe in, which is typical in virtually every Hollywood film. However, the each of the characters' character has enough charm and wit to keep the film entertaining for the full 90 minutes and conclude satisfyingly. That last comment was similar to what I stated about Kung Fu Panda 2. And for that same reason, plus the fact that low expectations generated after the failures of Shrek the Third and Forever After will be fulfilled, Puss in Boots is recommended. Plus it's gorgeous to look at every scene in 3D here too. DreamWorks Animation has done it again, hitting two home runs with the same bat, labelled Sequel/Spin-offs, this year.

Hugo (2011)

Marty's once-a-decennial masterpiece already?

[8/10 · 21 December 2011]

Martin Scorsese is back. This time the director has taken a new direction by bringing The Invention of Hugo Cabret to life, making a film for all ages instead of the usual adult target demographic. So if you're under 18 and have been looking forward to his next project for a while, fearing it may fall into the 18-rated category, like his previous masterpieces have, so you cannot get into the cinema, well there's no need to. But after looking to have been accustomed to creating brilliant gangster flicks, does Scorsese's attempt at making a kid's film succeed?

Well to begin with, his recreation of a 30's Paris is an ambitious and a realistic one, with the inspiration clearly coming from classic French comedy Under the Roofs of Paris. This Paris is a wonderful sight to see straight from the beginning of the film as Scorsese utilises his signature long tracking shot to take the audience through the subject train station and finish on a focus of our lead character Hugo's face. On a further note, Scorsese noticeably uses the long tracking shot in the film twice more, once subsequent to the one aforementioned where it follows Hugo travelling down the clock (effective because Scorsese is taking the audience on the adventure with Hugo) and once near the end, taking the audience around one room (I won't spoil by describing what happens, because this shot is the conclusion of everyone's story in the film) – this timelessly impressive technique and the cinematography in general is beautiful, it's part of why Hugo is enjoyable. Back to where I was - the bonus of the opening shot is the glorious 3D.

And the glory of the 3D isn't just in the opening shot. Continuously throughout the film Scorsese reminds us that he has literally already mastered the use of 3D in just only one motion picture – if it is not exactly perfect, it is certainly the best since Avatar. Look out for the amazing shot of Sacha Baron Cohen's station inspector's face peering towards the left of the frame, leaning towards the frame as he questions Hugo when the boy is questioned about the trouble caused at the beginning of the narrative. I believe Scorsese has a more than likely chance of succeeding in future attempts at using 3D. I mean, he's arguably America's greatest filmmaker right now and has been for a long time.

Going back to Sacha Baron Cohen – as well as placing us spectators in an uncomfortable position by leaning his face towards us (a nod to the uncomfortable finale of The Great Train Robbery), he provides plenty of humour in the film, like he would be expected to. He does an amazing job performing as the Station Inspector, breaking his comedy barrier by displaying heart in this role too. Joining him is a wonderful cast featuring Asa Butterfield as Hugo, turning in fantastically; Chloë Grace Moretz as Hugo's new-found friend Isabella, utilising the talent in acting she has been blessed with at a young age; Ben Kingsley as the legendary Georges Méliès, entirely convincing and three-dimensional, this is possibly one of the year's Supporting Actor nominees.

It is an ideology of the film that Georges Méliès is a forgotten legend. A large part of the story revolves around him and his movie-making past (this film is set at a time where his filmmaking career is over, financially he is out of his luck and resorting to running a toy store). This film tells us that his revolutionary filmmaking techniques are responsible for the magic we see on the big screen today – he discovered substitution, multiple exposures, cross fading and dissolves.

I'm going to stop analysing further now and conclude that Hugo is a masterpiece, without a doubt, it excels in every aspect of filmmaking and even though it is completely different to almost any children's film you will see this year, Scorsese has created something marvellous for all the ages. It is also Scorsese's (very fitting) tribute to cinema and the reason I've concluded abruptly is because I believe this fascinating article should be read – thefilmstage.com/features/10-classic-films-you- must-watch-before-seeing-martin-scorseses-hugo/. This article explains how Scorsese's Hugo is a fitting tribute to cinema, in particular Méliès, who changed cinema forever. Watching the ten films on the list will enhance your viewing experience and make Hugo more enjoyable to watch as you point out the classic film references to the person next to you

Verdict: Scorsese has made a masterpiece every decade: 70's - Taxi Driver, 80's - Raging Bull, 90's - Goodfellas, 00's - The Departed. Hugo may already just be his masterpiece for this decade.

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 1 (2011)

How does one enjoy this?

[3/10 · 18 November 2011]

For another month in the fourth consecutive year the world is thrust into the dull world of Twilight, where some enjoy the eye candy, some are looking for a faithful adaptation of Stephanie Meyers' novels, and I'm thinking "How on Earth does one describe these films as 'good'?"

Yet again, I see no ultimate redeeming factor in this latest film of the series. The acting is better than ever, but that honestly does not say much when looking back at how bad the performances were in the predecessors. The second half of the film managed to hold my interest, but then I realized I was staring into a screen. The only real conflict is whether Bella is able to conceive her baby or not. Charming.

Then there's the birth scene, which has gone through media magnification. It's not as bloodcurdling as it has stated to be in my opinion. Nor are the much-talked-about sex scenes.

The undercurrent of the film continues to be the "why it's important to have a boyfriend" message which honestly cannot be cared for anymore, especially when it's in a story that struggles to identify with an audience - do any women out there have a vampire of a boyfriend, literally?

I'm not saying that the vampire/human relationship makes for a pointless narrative, because we've witnessed the amount of conflict happened in the story over the past three films. On a further note - the conflict has happened very late into the films, since the plot is driven so damn slowly every time, taking an hour to fully settle and engage us spectators.

Breaking Dawn Pt 1 is strictly for fans of the series who will enjoy it as much as they have enjoyed the last three films. I've never read the books but have read from sources that Melissa Rosenberg's screenplay faithfully adapts the first half of the novel onto the big screen, so there's a bonus for die-hard fans.

It's obviously up to those who aren't fans to decide themselves if they wish to see it or not but take my word - ask yourselves, how do I enjoy a film about a woman getting married to a vampire and watch their life as a couple for the first hour, then attempt to enjoy the second hour where the thrill of the drama is centered on whether a woman can give birth or not?

Extra note - I do admit that the last shot of the film is spectacular and creates many enigma's on what is to happen in part 2.

Fast Five (2011)

The fastest and most furious ride yet.

[9/10 · 21 April 2011]

Making a sequel to a film is never normally a good thing. They excite all the fans of the previous film(s) and then disappoint them with a production that is not better than the original. The same goes for a remake. Some films turn into a series where each film becomes worse – this has been the case with the Fast and Furious series. However this fifth film is one that outclasses its predecessors, read on to see why. Fast Five continues where Fast and Furious left off, with Dominic sentenced to 25 years in jail and the bus chase that was seen at the end involving Mia and Brian. The aftermath of their interception was that they managed to break Dom out of custody, dodged every authority, and have fled to Rio de Janeiro (where every Brazilian seems to be portrayed as a gun-toting thug). In order to break free, they attempt to pull off a 100 million dollar heist. It isn't long before they all become a few of the most wanted criminals. Their mission that rips through Brazil sees two on their tail – federal agent Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson), who never lets anyone escape and corrupt drug lord Reyes (Joaquim de Almeida) who wants them dead. That's not really a witty plot. And there aren't great performances guided by a witty script either so rule out suspenseful conversations and memorable dialogue. A merit goes to the Dwayne Johnson though – he was perfectly cast for his role and shows a lot more of his talky WWE side unlike his last film Faster where he was virtually on mute. But Fast and Furious has never been known for excelling in those aspects of filmmaking. It's known for the action scenes. And what spectacular action scenes there are in Fast Five. It takes it turn to be more of The Expendables instead of the previous films of the series by having a 'men on a mission' plot element and emphasising more on fighting than racing. There's more road rage in here than street racing, and for the record there's even an ex-wrestler versus action hero fight like there was when Stone Cold fist fought Sly Stallone. The first act of the film is fast and furious. It quickly takes the audience on a relentless train ride where we see a train robbery in process. This act quickly builds up a background for the story so the audience knows who, what, when, how and why the team are in Brazil. The second act revolves around the main plot element of the $100 million heist. The film decelerates slightly here when we see the crew plotting. Anyone who would have seen the details of the film beforehand would realise why – this lasts over 2 hours, longer than all of the previous films. The 10 minutes after a full two hours weren't really necessary but show us the aftermath of the third act, the hugely thrilling act. Any who feel frustrated at the pace of the second act – stay for the climactic scene in the third act. Think of Fast Five as the cinematic equivalent of a mindless muscular athlete. Can't talk a good game but can surely play a good game. We have all met that person, that guy who failed his exams but took the football pitch by storm at high school. Fast Five is as absent minded – plain characters and clunky dialogue. But the 'physical' side is where it amazes – the action scenes of course. It's like the men behind the camera decided to perfect the action scenes, the plot was secondary. Looking at this year's earlier films The Mechanic and The Green Hornet, it's safe to say that Fast Five has the best action sequences of the year yet, and is the best action film overall so far. Verdict: Forgive the simplicity of the script and get ready for the fastest and most furious ride yet.

Killing Bono (2011)

Killing Bono

[7/10 · 4 April 2011]

I was surprised…

Release: 1st April 2011 The best scene in Killing Bono has to be the opening scene where we see Ben Barnes, in his character Neil McCormick, narrates a brief of what the story of Killing Bono is about without directly looking at the camera. At another point in the film, it proves significant and you would figure out why I thought it was the best scene.

The coming-of-age story features brothers Neil and Ivan McCormick (Robert Sheehan) who attempt to break into the music industry and when attempting, they look up to their secondary school friends U2 as they become an extremely popular band.

The good bits: • This perspective of U2, one of the most successful bands ever, from brothers that are unheard of is one that U2 fans are recommended to view as they'll learn some more about their favourite band's history. • The acting from Sheehan and Barnes is convincing, particularly from Barnes who possesses a strong Irish accent in this film despite being an English actor. • This story is very intriguing. It grips you, especially in the scenes where there's a conflict, so it doesn't make sure that you'll be heading for the exits at any time. • There are no useless scenes – the film contains a lot in the two hours that it spans in, and all the scenes fill in the time rather than waste it. • The late Pete Postlethwaite made his last appearance in this film. • The film has some messages in life that the characters come to realise. Life's too short to be dreaming about success, go ahead and go for it. • Compared to Hamm's last film, Godsend, this is a superior effort from the director.

The bad bits: • It'll appeal to U2 fans but it does not have any of their music as the film mainly focuses on the McCormick's so that may disappoint some. • The film strikes an uneven balance between comedy and drama. One moment makes the audience laugh and the next changes the tone completely. A lot of the second half is serious drama. • It doesn't have an emotional core. There's a character that, thanks to his actions, would be more likely to be looked at with pity rather than sympathy during his bad times. • Unlike most bio-pics, don't expect to be inspired by the end. • Making a film revolved around unknown real life figures will probably not grab many people's attention so Killing Bono is unlikely to be successful.

Verdict: It doesn't go without its flaws and isn't anything outstanding but Killing Bono is an interesting, entertaining, and sometimes funny film. I was surprised to see that it was actually a good film.

Check out more of Musanna's Film Reviews @ musannaahmed.blogspot.com

West Is West (2010)

Very good as itself instead of the sequel to Brit hit East is East.

[7/10 · 25 February 2011]

The plot of West is West is the cinematic equivalent of a car ride – it drives quickly (to Pakistan), runs out of petrol upon reaching its number one destination, and then the characters refill it for the rest of the journey. In other terms – the film picks up pace very quickly at the start, almost as if deliberately rushing Sajid off to Pakistan. When at Pakistan, it's about 15-20 minutes into the film and an hour and a half remains so the whole plot (which is primarily Sajid's issue in England that apparently will be fixed by his father's tyrannical insistence of adapting to the environment in the Punjab) has to be stretched over that time. That is when it begins to lack the lustre it began with as it moves a lot slower than the time in England. Then the characters and a subplot of the brother Maneer in an engagement/marriage situation uplift the film mightily and the overall result is positive.

It's a positive result but not the best. There are blemishes in the camel coloured land. Obviously not literal ones (in the sense of blemishes on appearances) which are visible to the naked eye because the location choice is brilliant; Pakistan is recreated in a realistic landscape even though it is reported that it was filmed in India.

The faults of the film can be detected when observing the pace of the film. One was, like stated in the second paragraph, the pace of the plot when the family reach Pakistan. Another was Sajid. Newcomer Aqib Khan is a great substitute for Jordan Routledge as the runt of the Khan litter. But he is infected with a flaw that is his abrupt shifting between scenes. For example, we first see him heavily insult the character Zaid and mere seconds later we see him listening to his command of following him as if they have bonded as friends instantaneously. And the third was the editing decisions. The film strikes a good balance between emotion and humour but it's erratic. One – the cross cutting between Sajid and George alters between funny and serious. Two – there's a pivotal scene where both Mrs Khan's are involved in a conversation that turn their relations from heated to cordial, but it's one of the best scenes in the film.

They are the main negatives of the film, as a standalone, that come into mind. Yes, it can be classed as a standalone – it isn't necessary to have seen East is East in order to grasp the story because the past events aren't recapped or looked at again but having seen East is East will enlighten the experience and an understanding of the marriage theme and the characters from that film will be on hand. West is West has a completely different story that arguably qualifies it as a standalone. It's accepted as a sequel as a bonus because of some of the recurring characters, screenwriter, and producer that were BAFTA nominated and therefore made their names in the British film industry for East is East and hence reprised their roles in West in West to create something of that great standard.

West is West unfortunately isn't of the great standard set eleven years ago but that doesn't mean it isn't an enjoyable film. Whilst East is East is the more lively film, West is West is the one carried a lot more sentimentally. Despite his quick mood changes, Aqib Khan is terrific as Sajid. The classic one-liners – "Not old enough to get married so don't ask!" – have been upgraded to ones that would just be of a teenage kid's and are nailed by Khan such as "You can f*ck off and all, Mowgli!" By saying that they're of a teenage kid's, expect heavy use of swearing and not just from Sajid. The rest of the cast is brilliant, especially Om Puri as the seriously funny (oxymoron intended) George Khan. Unlike in East is East, his character develops throughout the film culminating in someone who could look back and notice a great change in himself. There is also a definite development in Sajid as he steadily learns to adapt to the Pakistani culture. The themes of the film are excellent. This time, it isn't just about marriage – it also has the themes of culture. West is West tells a story that demonstrates how we should be tolerant to the environment in the sense that we live in a multi-cultural society. People from different cultures live together and if not deeply, we should at least broadly learn to appreciate our cultural differences. An underlying theme of the film is respect – how we should respect the other cultures and people, on the whole. The dominant reason for Sajid being sent to Pakistan is to learn to respect his progenitor.

Whilst it won't have the same replay value nor be as big of a word-of-mouth hit as East is East, West is West has very enjoyable content on offer that might not fulfil the expectations of those willing for it to raise the bar that East is East set for future films of the same kind, but can satisfy an audience and leave the impression of it being a good film if not great. With a heart and sheer amusement, it's certainly not a sequel flop.

Verdict: "The original is always better" has become a common remark in the film industry when comparing a sequel or a remake. In this case, that is true but as a fresh film, West is West is a delight to watch. And because the original is always better, don't go in to see something on par or criticise because of the inferiority. Think of the overall film as the cinematic equivalent of a baby – it has roots but it's something new.

Big Mommas: Like Father, Like Son (2011)

Charmaine's House

[4/10 · 16 February 2011]

It's funny how an FBI agent goes under the guise of a fat woman (or more precisely, a Big Momma) and uses it as his modus operandi during the bigger missions. The second time on doing so was inconsequential and by the end of the unendurable, unnecessary stay in Big Momma's House, he gave the family a farewell letter which was a dreadful debacle made worse by the promise on it – 'Keep a lookout. You never know when Big Momma might be back." So Big Momma is back but the subject is changed to plural.

Big Mommas: Like Father Like Son is exactly what it says on the title. Brandon T. Jackson, Alpa Chino from Tropic Thunder, supersedes Jascha Washington as the teenage stepson Trent, alias Charmaine Daisy Pierce when undercover who is Big Momma's great niece. The film, as well as sequel, is a reboot to the series by initiating Trent as the lead character and opting to appeal to a teenage audience instead of a mature or family-friendly one like the predecessors. Trent predominates on-screen time here hence gives some room for character development, seeing Malcolm is at it for the third time and his antics have become predictable.

The hindrance that Charmaine suffers from is his romantic susceptibility with his irresistible urge to enunciate a sound in such a way that shows his impression of the lady. Unable to adapt to a lady without having sexual desires, this state of affairs sets up the film's subplot of him dating school colleague Haley – like Malcolm and Sherry in the first film hence this film's title. Over the course of the film, Trent develops from conceited rapper to a more mature man comprehending and appreciating women in a greater manner. The side of Trent that isn't established as well as it should have been is his goal of becoming a rapper. It becomes sceptical to an audience when Trent transfers his identity that he wants to become a rapper. No fighting back with Malcolm to prevent himself from entering undercover mode nor an attitude showing commitment to achieving his aspiration. After that, several references are scattered throughout that he already is his own rapper despite a record label contract pending from the start and all throughout. The idea that I got was that being a rapper was just a background to quickly import his character into the story and as something to identify him.

Brandon T. Jackson is literally indistinguishable as his female alter ego. The wardrobe team went to town on make up with the character like they did with Big Momma. It's ludicrous how the father and son manage to dress and undress as their other half with an outrageous amount of fully body prosthetics in a terribly short amount of time when they're on the run. Often it could be wondered, are they undercover FBI agents or lame superheroes? Not even Mrs Doubtfire could prepare so quickly, and Robin Williams didn't spawn any sequels to wreck his amiable disguised character.

If credit is due for any character in this film, it belongs to Kurtis Kool, played by Faizon Love (video game buffs must remember Sweet from GTA: San Andreas whom Love voiced). By far the most entertaining character in the film, the only character sustaining the comedy the film intended for, even if its just the way he says "Momma said knock you out!" The character's crazy crush on Big Momma makes for a hilarious little sub-plot that is perhaps the best bit of the film, ranging from his funny feelings for her to an amusing game of Twister between the two.

This is the third time unlucky for Martin Lawrence as a single character. The first was merely decent, second went down like a lead balloon, and this part definitely shows signs of a universal panning. The injury added to the insult that this film is that there was no positive production changes - no new director and more importantly, there is still not a good screenplay which was a calamity in the previous films. On the other hand, the first two rocketed in grossing at the box office. Judging from the financial success of the first two, Big Mommas: Like Father Like Son may be another surprise hit but in this dead zone of cinema, there are far better alternates to view.

Verdict: Martin Lawrence should seriously stop. For Brandon T. Jackson, if there's another instalment, the production will need to be fixed a lot before the crimes are looked into. And I guess you were hoping for a positive review but sorry, I'm only being honest.

Paul (2011)

After lampooning the cop-buddy and zombie flick genre, Pegg and Frost take their turn to meet E.T and do the same.

[8/10 · 15 February 2011]

Shaun of the Dead – great. Hot Fuzz – brilliant. Paul, The third collaboration between the two best friends Simon Pegg and Nick Frost is another action-packed comedy featuring an alien, guns, and Jason Bateman. Unlike the previous films the pair starred in, Paul still has the strong bromance between the two but takes a turn to be more of what Scott Pilgrim Vs the World was instead of Hot Fuzz.

Scott Pilgrim – directed by Edgar Wright who also directed the first two films mentioned – was a geek-friendly action comedy. Paul is more of a geek-friendly comedy. It's crude, so think Superbad (Greg Mottola had directed that too) instead of Shaun. Then add the whole 'comic' tone of Scott Pilgrim – the great action scenes but less violent and amusing ones instead, and two geeks who are into comics rather than in the comic like Scott Pilgrim was. And add E.T gone comedy with the voice of Seth Rogen. Plus add a cameo from Sigourney Weaver. Then you have Paul, a geeky, clever, and very funny film but simultaneously you then have its problem.

As you could probably figure from the description above, the problem being said is that Paul tries to pack too much in during the encounter with the alien itself. The running time is a perfect 104 minutes. But by the end of those 104 minutes, there are several suggested sub- plots and alternate directions that could have been taken to reach the destination. One sub-plot involves Paul shattering Ruth's (Kristen Wiig) faith. It's an odd film to have a religious subtext in and it will maybe have questions thrown at in terms of what message is trying to be said. Nevertheless, those 104 minutes are brimmed with pure entertainment and the plot is established enough to make sense and not take a wrong turn.

With an ensemble cast, what makes Paul especially hilarious is how every character in the film has a moment of comedy gold. That includes Adam Stevenson – famous writer whom they meet at a Comic-Con festival and simply has five on-screen minutes. Five amusing on-screen minutes. Pegg and Frost are as funny as they were before, fizzing chemistry over Area 51, still the brilliant duo that work better than Pegg and Andy Serkis did in Pegg's last film Burke and Hare. They're buddies with mutual buddy-love that are better together than most odd pairings. It's (probably) guaranteed that they will stay as the best British duo even off-screen as Thomson and Thompson in the upcoming Tintin film which is to be directed by veteran sci-fi director Steven Spielberg. It's reported that Pegg and Frost said that Paul was a love letter to Spielberg – it sure is an amusing one, and is certainly the best Valentine-themed film this Valentine's Day.

The pair wrote the screenplay for this film – so expect many contemporary references – plenty of sci-fi ones – and clever gags. At times, the jokes can feel a little self indulgent; inside jokes that would probably confuse most and only careful listeners can interpret the clever jokes. The majority of the script, however, is a laugh-a-minute ride with some recurring jokes that become funnier and funnier throughout. Paul's part of the script gives a big L to The Green Hornet; Seth Rogen was much funnier off screen. The actor was miscast as the green superhero so there were dreads of him being miscast as this green amiable alien but kudos to Pegg and Frost because this was the perfect script for Rogen to show that The Green Hornet's failed hilarity wasn't detrimental. Looking at another view, if Rogen was the screenwriter for Paul, then maybe it would have been of the dull standard of the Hornet unless he can still write something on par with Superbad. Imagine that.

Paul may be a funnier film for the more clever/geeky viewer. If that's the case, the words 'Cult Following' can be seen written all over it. For all other audience, Pegg and Frost haven't diminished in their comedy quality from their previous films even though Paul may be broader than either of them. If Scott Pilgrim was the geekiest film of last year, Paul definitely wins that title for this year. It may not be an Out of This World film (pun partially intended) but lays claim to the most hilarious film of 2011 yet.

Verdict: Your money's worth – Paul is the funniest film there has been in ages.

Gnomeo & Juliet (2011)

The Royal Shakespeare Company didn't present this one.

[6/10 · 13 February 2011]

Intro - Gnomeo and Juliet, quite clearly (judging from the title), is based on William Shakespeare's tragedy Romeo and Juliet, which focuses on two star-crossed lovers, except it doesn't stay completely faithful to the play. And it's a lot less tragic.

Act 1 – The voices of Gnomeo and Juliet consist of a popular cast mostly made up of Britons – James McAvoy as Gnomeo, Emily Blunt as Juliet, Michael Caine as Lord Redbrick, Matt Lucas as Benny, and Jason Statham as Tybalt plus the voices of Hulk Hogan, Ozzy Osborne, and Maggie Smith.

Act 2 – Also quite clearly as an animation, this film was created for a young target audience. Perhaps to give a basic understanding of Romeo and Juliet to the children if they were to ever study Shakespeare. If that was the purpose of this film, then it fails as most of its content is filled up with the content needed for a children's film instead of what was needed for an animated re-enactment. It gives a rather remote understanding of the play by occasionally sprinkling references throughout (not following it point by point), keeping the theme of rivalry between the families (represented as Reds versus Blues) and of course, by keeping some of the original names – well precisely, it only keeps two names, Juliet and Tybalt. Any viewer that already has studied Shakespeare's play in one way or another (whether having seen the 1996 film or seen a stage production) would often wonder during Gnomeo and Juliet why it took the original name almost wholly, giving the impression to all who would go into the theatre thinking that they would be in for an animated take of the revered play.

Act 3 - On the other hand, if the purpose of the filmmaking was to provide entertainment, which is what an animated film needs to satisfy its child audience, then Gnomeo and Juliet succeeds. This world powered by warring indoor and outdoor gnomes with its playful way of depicting a feud between the Montagues and the Capulets is a delight for children to watch, especially with a few belly laughs in for them. As for the adult audience, it's interesting to see that this is a unique animated twist of the story but the entertainment is limited, as the comedy is intended for the audience. The gnomes in the film come to life when out of the way of humans, like the toys did in Toy Story. This is exciting for those who enjoyed Toy Story, to see similar characters but certainly not as likable (alas), but to others it may just be considered a B grade rip-off.

The final Act - Either one of two reactions could be predicted from everyone going to see Gnomeo and Juliet. The first would be "This is broken Shakespeare" which is most likely to come from adults disappointed of the outcome (likely because of their incorrect first thoughts of the title). The second one is "Wow, I want to see that again!" which would obviously come from anyone who enjoyed it. Judging from the reactions of the children in the same theatre, the latter reaction is the more likely one, and in that case Gnomeo and Juliet is actually a good film for the kids, which is honestly what it intended to be.

Verdict: It isn't really Shakespeare, but does the young target audience care if it isn't?

Just Go with It (2011)

The dumb version of Love and Other Drugs

[5/10 · 13 February 2011]

There's a scene in Just Go With It where Katherine (Jennifer Aniston) answers a phone call and speaks in a high pitched voice. Once the phone call ends, Danny (Adam Sandler) mocks her high pitch. In the theatre, a roar of high pitched laughter went up. Basically, it was comedy gold for children. In fact, it appeared that there were plenty of moments of comedy gold for children.

Yet a lot of those jokes are sexual. Fair enough that they would need parental guidance but it honestly can be said that this is an inappropriate film for youngsters. However, simultaneously it could be considered as harmless fun and perhaps the film of choice for any families wanting to see a film on Valentine's Day.

What makes Just Go With It actually funny is its stupidity. The Dennis Dugan plus Adam Sandler formula which has been going on for years is at work once again in Just Go With It. Unfortunately that means Sandler is yet again a limited, witless, character, staying as a crass plastic surgeon from the beginning to the end that doesn't have half the brain of Jake Gyllenhall's pharmaceutical rep in Love and Other Drugs. As for Nick Swardson and Jennifer Aniston who embody a different persona to go with the great lie, their alternate persona's – Dolph Lundgren and Devlin – are amusing in a ridiculous manner. One has a dire German accent and the other delivers lines that get no better than "Oh, I forgot, you're 15" in retaliation to a question asked by Palmer (Brooklyn Decker).

The romantic side of the film proved to be a tear jerker in the same theatre as teenage girls broke down about the same time as Katherine, even though the non-developing characters don't build a great sense of sentimentality in the film. The plot on the whole feels like a first draft – it isn't really established as well as it could have been and the childish jokes were probably because of the first rule of improv that was listened to by the screenwriters – accept what they say and just go along with it. The title of this film certainly shows that.

Considering the content of Just Go With It, it may just be THE film of choice for families this Valentine's Day. Whether there are members in the family who are looking for a simple film driven by a simple plot, jokes and characters, one with many sex-related jokes, or if they are avid Adam Sandler fans, there is something on offer here. However for those looking for an 'important' film, then don't Go With It.

Verdict: Just Go With It if you're looking for a guilty pleasure or the kids want to visit the pictures.

Faster (2010)

Finally, The Rock has come back...to starring in action films.

[6/10 · 17 January 2011]

That's right. Just when he was beginning to be internationally known as a Disney character after starring in some of their worst flicks like Tooth Fairy. He's back in action in Faster and it appears that this isn't just a one-course meal he's offering us; he's in the upcoming sequel of the Fast and Furious franchise.

Oh I almost forgot about his role in The Other Guys, but should that even be considered his action film return? Faster is a simple ambitious action film. It revolves around one man out to avenge the murder of his brother after they were set-up several years ago. He goes for the fastest route possible (well, obviously, the title suggests so) and that has him revving sports cars at insane speeds, mercilessly pointing a snub rose revolver at his targets and instantly firing, and then contacting one of their associates anonymously to try and get the message across that their main man is dead and leave them wondering on the other side of the line who the hell this guy is. Meet Driver, silent-but-deadly ex-con and champion prankster.

Dwayne Johnson aka The Rock – although he is officially not known as that anymore – takes the role of Driver. Driver is a subtle action hero. What we have here is a man who is quiet on the outside but is roaring on the inside. He speaks a lot less frequently than The American so expect pure shooting on sight. You know what that means? There are bound to be thrills when Driver appears on the scene and divulges his Ruger 2.5" barrel, ready to lay the smackdown on any jabroni that crosses his line or he has his eyes set on. Add the tension from the breakneck speeds he travels at in his cool cars when escaping from pursuing antagonists into the atmosphere and there's some buzzes that an action film needs. Such an insane Driver, he is. Inspired by the good ol' PSOne days of car-chasing in Driver (the namesake!) and the classic shooter films like Mad Max.

There are two other major characters in the film – Billy Bob Thornton as Cop and Oliver Jackson-Cohen as Killer. Cop is well, obviously a cop. He's actually the partner of a cop named Cicero (Carla Gugino). Killer is well, obviously a killer, a self-made millionaire killing for fun and hired to do so by Cop, the target being Driver. It was Billy Bob Thornton himself who stated that this was an awful period for Hollywood. I personally think that if he's right, well he is no exception from all contributing to the crap there is in cinema these days. This one dimensional character of here is the tangible evidence of this; he seems to have gone downhill since the critical and commercially successful, laugh-out-loud, featuring Everybody Loves Tony Cox, screwball black comedy, Bad Santa.

Simple names, simple characters, simple plot. I doubt there was much work done in the characterisation of the film. If the film was flipped around and set in the past, there wouldn't be a problem with Driver's permanent mute mode. Narration added to that and film-noir and here you would have a hard-edged criminal that could lay the smackdown in Sin City. Otherwise this film has a clichéd storyline and scenes. There's a comatose part which really reminded me of the resurrection of The Bride from her unconscious state in Kill Bill and, try to avoid spoilers, towards the conclusion of the film there was a Dirty Harry-style threat scene.

However the action side of the film thrilled like I said before. Here's for everyone looking for an action film where you see the most electrifying man (Statham wins that part of the title with Crank 2 and the full-on hardcore action in there) in sports entertainment relentlessly pursue his targets allowing zero obstacles block him and dish out damage like The Punisher – no mercy and no injury first, straight for the kill. You just sense somebody's gonna die when Driver looks them eye for an eye. There's a scene in the film where he enters a church and you know somethings about to go down when he coldly stares at the target man and prepares to reveal his revolver. By God.

Justice is swift, vengeance is faster. That's the primary message in Driver's head during the mission to eliminate everyone responsible for his brother's murder. However the film delivers two positive messages by the end. Actually I'll reiterate that sentence – good luck with avoiding spoilers – the film delivers two positive messages at the end, redemption and forgiveness. It is NOT what you would expect though, so please don't have the perception of me as a jerk for spoiling the film for you if I suggested a happy ending with the two positive notes. But is it a happy ending? Is it a sad ending? Reader, have your own take on it, no spoilers.

The Rock gladly knows his role is as an action star and finally he has returned to the genre. Despite its flaws, this was a decent film with the action and blood any shooter fan has been waiting for – he certainly raced ahead of fellow co-worker John Cena critically and drove to the right side of town unlike his other fellow co-workers Batista and Rob Van Dam. I personally think that Faster is superior to Rogen's current rubbish release The Green Hornet.

I can't smell what The Rock is cooking yet (apart from Fast Five), but lets hope for more hard-boiled action flicks.

Gulliver's Travels (2010)

Gulliver's Travles are enjoyable...if you're aged 8 or under.

[5/10 · 30 December 2010]

You know when those adverts and trailers start playing during the first fifteen minutes or so when watching a film at the cinema? Well since the end of August, at every film I saw, during the trailers sequence there was always the Orange spoof trailer for Gulliver's Travels. It was something I eventually couldn't bear to see but it had to be done because of the message it delivered, telling us to turn our mobile phones off. About a month or two later, the official trailers rolled out and the movie didn't look bad. Then finally, it was released. Was it worth the wait some people might have had if they were intrigued by the little information first given by the spoof trailer or what the promising official trailers had? Read on to see.

Gulliver's Travels is a third take on the classic novel of the same written by Jonathon Swift in the early 18th century. The first was a 1939 animation film, second was a 1977 part-live action part-animation film, and this is a full on live action film that, as well as being an adventure, is a comedy. Like the other two, this version mainly focuses on the first part of Gulliver's travels in the book – the voyage to Lilliput. The film opens in Manhattan with Lemuel Gulliver (Jack Black) working as a travel writer on an assignment to the Bermuda Triangle and upon reaching there is swept away into the land of Lilliput. Lilliput is an island that has an olden day theme to it with all the clothing, kings/queens, speaking with "eth", etc. We then follow him in an adventure around an island where he towers over the citizens, all approximately twelve times smaller than him, starting off on the wrong foot then discovering that they are a solid group of dudes.

This film is directed by Rob Letterman, this is only his third time directing a major film, and with the first two being animated films Monsters vs. Aliens and Shark Tale, a live action film was something new for him. The cast of the film has Jack Black as Gulliver; Jason Segel as Horatio, a Lilliputian that becomes a loyal friend of Gulliver's; Emily Blunt as Princess Mary, the princess of Lilliput and the woman of Horatio's dreams; Amanda Peet as Darcy Silverman, the woman giving the task to Gulliver back in Manhattan and the one Gulliver has a crush on and Chris O' Dowd as the envious General Edward. Other actors in the film include popular Britons Catherine Tate and James Corden. The film has references to other films such as Titanic and "Gavatar" which you could probably guess the imitation of. In here is a Jack Black which as a fan you could expect a lot better from. Jack Black is an actor everyone loves, especially after having impressed everyone with comedies such as School of Rock, and in here he still becomes a lovable character but without the enthusiasm and character he possessed in past films.

The film makes use of a lot of long shots with almost all the scenes in the film presented showing everything in the area at one point, especially when in Lilliput, where the long shots really show how Gulliver dominates the land with his height. Speaking of Lilliput, the land looks unrealistic and anyone observing carefully can identify that the film was entirely shot in green screen excluding the Manhattan scenes. Note that I never saw in the film in 3D so I cannot say if the 3D effects make up for this. The beginning of the film has long shots of Manhattan that again don't look realistic but neatly picture a fast moving city.

The target audience this film is aimed at is children quite clearly. Perhaps they wouldn't be bothered by the heavy use of green screen that critics would be appalled at. It has all the codes and conventions that a typical children's film would have: a hero, a villain, some twists in the plot which make everyone gasp, moments that make you cheer, and most of all, the humour. I was sat in the back of a theatre with many kids all in front laughing at several points of the film that the adults in the audience (including me) weren't laughing at. Gulliver's Travels succeeds in making a funny film for children. On top of that, there are messages in the film which could be really helpful to children if listened to: teamwork is important – the Lilliputians achieve their goals with speed and efficiency when working together, honesty is the way forward – Gulliver's outrageous lies have negative consequences, and how everyone has potential – Horatio believes in Gulliver more than just a mail man when calling him to save a certain someone. Gulliver also states to the monarchs of Lilliput how war is wrong. On the other hand, there are some inappropriate moments for kids such as visibly showing half of Gulliver's butt and the use of the word "lame-ass".

Answering the question from the beginning – this film didn't quite live up to the promising trailers. This new adaption of the novel is one which children would enjoy but the older audience and Jack Black fans alike won't remember for long. It is a great treat for children this Christmas/Boxing Day but another film is best for everyone else, perhaps Little Fockers may contain the right comedy for you.

Little Fockers (2010)

The series has nosedived.

[5/10 · 22 December 2010]

The tension between Gaylord Greg Focker and Jack Byrnes first started when Greg proposed to his girlfriend Pam (Jack's daughter) and caused havoc in the Byrnes' home in the classic high grossing comedy Meet the Parents. Four years later in the high grossing sequel Meet the Fockers, it was time to meet the Focker parents and it was chaos for Jack as he realised his daughter had a partner with a weird heritage. Jack observed Greg carefully with his actions without knowing that his daughter was pregnant with Greg. This time, in Little Fockers, the tension rises up again but this time with more authority, Greg is watching Jack - watching him.

Little Fockers has Greg and Pam with five year old twins meaning Greg has to have more responsibility being a father. Jack has a cardiac arrest and survives but he feels he needs to appoint a successor in case he passes out for good. With his mind set on appointing Greg, we follow Greg go through a number of suspicious events and characters and simultaneously prepare a party for his twins to see if can prove to Jack that he has what it takes to be…the Godfocker.

Ben Stiller returns as Greg Focker playing the same old character not having changed much except that he stands up a little more for himself against Jack. Robert De Niro, Blythe Danner and Teri Polo revisit their roles as the Byrnes family with De Niro stealing the show as the most convincing character. He was selected for the role at the start of the series due to his success in comedy films but judging from the films he has starred in during his respective career, he is far better playing a character in a serious film. Barbara Streisand barely appears in the film as Roz Focker and Dustin Hoffman plays the role of Gone in Fifteen Minutes which is a real let down considering it was the Focker parents stealing the show in the last film. On a further disappointing note, Dustin Hoffman was just about cast into the film therefore he was hardly in. Owen Wilson's minor role as Kevin from the predecessors is major in this film and there is the introduction of Harvey Keitel as a hired contractor called Randy, Jessica Alba as Andi Garcia (the ex nurse who is very attracted to Greg and always appears excited around him when they're on their own, seemingly demanding for sex or something), and Colin Baiocchi and Daisy Tahan as the funny Little Fockers, Henry and Samantha.

I found the film to relate to some of the following recent releases: Firstly – Fred: The Movie and Machete. Pixie Lott being a sex symbol to many starred in Fred with pitiful acting. This is what we see here in Little Fockers with Jessica Alba. Jessica Alba plays a sexy character that some men would just travel to the theatre just to see, especially with her appearing semi-naked at a time in the film. However her acting is abysmal with her overreacting when with Greg and this is what brings us to Machete. Sartana was a serious character which was played convincingly by Alba and it was looking as if she would be another settled character in here (from the trailers) but no. She's the opposite and exaggerates as much as the majority of the characters in Fred.

Secondly – the new Narnia film. The third Narnia film underwent changes in production which included a new director and new characters. The many changes all resulted in a marvellous sequel which is arguably the best in the series yet. On the other hand, the changes in the production of Little Fockers failed to produce a sequel as the best in the series. Paul Weitz taking over as director was a bad move and fell short of being the standard Jay Roach set of the prequels. Character wise, this must have been responses of the casting crew to the following questions:

So why isn't Barbra Streisand significant anymore? – "Well there's Jessica Alba who is a suitable replacement. Why isn't Dustin Hoffman in as much? – "Owen Wilson is a satisfying replacement anyway." The two should be incorporated more as they were the funniest in Meet the Fockers – "There's still Robert De Niro so critics will love it. Ultimately, the decision of not involving the two Oscar winners as much was a major let down for the film. Particularly for me when I found myself laughing out loud at Bernard Focker last time and Kevin failing to even make me smile this time. I believe the director being replaced was also a great let down as the first two were directed impressively and this one falling short of being their standard.

And thirdly – The Tourist. In The Tourist, two of Hollywood's biggest names Angelina Jolie and Johnny Depp were given a script poor in terms of comedy quality on which it had aimed to be good at but ended up mediocre as said. Little Fockers suffers from the same problem with perhaps the best line being the Godfocker pun that any regular cinema goer must have heard a lot (from the trailer). Plus the trailer showed just about every funny part so not seeing the film, you won't miss much more other than what was covered in the trailer. There were some outrageous, crude, memorable lines from the kids in the film which did have the theatre chuckling but even they weren't enough to suffice the script entirely. The entire film had crude dialogue with several sexual references that were not suitable for a young audience.

Little Fockers, despite its low points, might just be satisfying for anyone looking for a comedy filled with sex-related jokes. In my opinion, it flawed the series and is the worst of the three thanks to the reveal-all trailer and not much of the elder Fockers.

Burlesque (I) (2010)

A musical that hits the wrong notes mainly

[4/10 · 19 December 2010]

Christina Aguilera is the second singer to make her big screen debut this month. The first being Pixie Lott with her futile effort as Judy in a contender for the worst film of the year, Fred: The Movie. As we saw in Fred, Pixie occasionally sang in some parts of the film to demonstrate the talent and Aguilera does the same but only a lot more considering Burlesque is a musical. So is this the same case scenario as Fred? Better, but certainly nothing great.

Aguilera plays Ali, a small town girl leaving her home to depart to Los Angeles (because of the hard time living with her parents) in order to live her dream as a singer/dancer. She comes across The Burlesque Lounge, which is managed by Tess, who is played by music icon Cher. Starting off as a waiter in the place, she becomes enthusiastic to showcase her singing talent to Tess and her performance eventually convinces Tess, who then allows her to perform on the shows. In the background of it all, the characters in the club face problems – Tess' club faces bankruptcy and despite putting one obstacle out of the way by refusing an entrepreneur called Marcus Gerber's (Eric Dane) offer to buy the club, she still fears that she will lose the club. And for Ali, her problems lie with a fellow dancer who despises her called Nikki (Kristen Bell) as they clash for who the main star of the club is and an engaged bartender called Jack (Cam Gigandet) who has a desire to develop a relationship with Ali despite having a fiancée.

The characterisation is heavily flawed in Burlesque. Let's begin with Ali. Christina Aguilera was suitable for the role but not suitable. She has the skill to act as a good singer and a role like this can display it but playing a young dancer doesn't work, she looks a bit old for the role. Her character alters in the film: starting off as an unknown waitress keen to perform, and saying to the first man met at the club that it reminded her of a strip club to a star performer racking up the cash for the club with the popularity she gains and reiterating her opinion of the club as "I've never seen anything like this". From the time it takes for her to go from rock bottom to the most confident singer in the club, she evolves into a pompous arse. And that time is very quick. Rome wasn't built in one day, but the character of Ali was.

Cher as Tess is the opposite. She starts off as 'it' until the club's financial problem hits her, then she becomes the character Ali started off with, a woman with problems that need to be sorted. It takes two to make a thing go right, but not when they contrast heavily even when they change. Not to miss the fact that her looks are incredibly ludicrous. To sum it up, the word "plastic" defines how she looks in this. From the dancers in the club, only two have significance in the film, Kristen Bell's jealous character Nikki and Julianne Hough's Georgia, a dancer whom Ali befriends. Have I mentioned Coco yet? Coco (Chelsea Traille) is a black female dancer who occasionally grins at Ali in a manner which you would expect something fishy going on between them but it turns out meaningless. Stanley Tucci plays a bent stage manager called Sean. Not much to say about him. Cam Gigandet plays the bartender Jack who first appears gay with his eyeliner but turns out to actually be straight. Oh and the man that I mentioned at the start whom Ali describes the club as having the looks of a strip club to? He doesn't have significance either apart from reappearing in a dance scene which has a lot of sexual interaction between him and the two dancers participating with him.

The script writer of this film did a bad job. The dialogue spoken by the characters was very repetitive – when one character said something, the other retaliated by saying exactly the same thing but just worded SLIGHTLY differently. I also must say that some of these lines are really corny, with the corniness making the bad film so bad that it's good.

This is a musical that features a club which is actually similar to a strip club. It contains voluptuous women wearing skimpy apparel and wiggling their butts every so often during their dances. Add a small sex scene which comes out of nowhere (starting from a cheesy scene which turns into something mature) – which also involves the male completely nude apart from a cookie box covering his mid-section – as well as the dance mentioned previously which imitates sex positions yet here is a film rated 12A. Scandalous. Maybe it is because of nothing like pole dancing, stripteases and full nudity. At the same time, with content like that, anyone under 12 going to watch the film would be viewing this. C'mon Steve Antin, did you forget about the young audience or was your aim to stimulate sexual activity in youngsters?

On the musical side, Burlesque has positives. In here, the songs aren't suddenly broken into like you'd normally see thanks to it being set in a club where the stage is where everything happens. There are one or two exceptions though. Aguilera and Cher being two experienced singers worked and the songs were enjoyable with all the song scenes looking like music videos rather than part of a film.

Burlesque, with its cheesiness, is a film so bad that it's good. Yes, I repeated that sentence in this review just like the dialogue in the film. It's a musical that mainly hits the wrong notes, with the only right note being the music itself. Well done to Christina Aguilera and…erm, that's about it.

Tron: Legacy (2010)

Storyline not the best, but a technically outstanding achievement

[8/10 · 17 December 2010]

28 years it has been since the cult classic sci-fi TRON. Now Disney has released the sequel which should have been titled TR2N. The original film saw computer hacker and employee for a company named ENCOM Kevin Flynn downgraded to running a video game arcade and ending up being teleported into the digital world he created himself and being forced to be challenged in the games that again he created himself and with the help of a program, his self placed task was to defeat the MCP (Master Control Program) who was dominating the digital world with the help of a program called Tron. For anyone that never saw the first Tron, note that the people inside are known as the 'programs' and anyone abducted into the world, Kevin for instance, are unidentified as programs and simply called 'users'. The film received a cult following and was well received by critics despite the storyline being criticised. Now after 28 years, the amount of work they probably put in that amount of time (or could have) should result in something spectacular. Read on to see if it does.

TRON: Legacy follows the son of Kevin, Sam (Garrett Hedlund) out on a search for his father. It opens with a scene set in the time roughly when the first film was set and has Kevin telling Sam a story about the Grid – the digital world that Kevin entered – and he promises to take Sam to the Grid. After leaving the house for work one day, news reports start claiming that Kevin has disappeared and that is when Sam's search begins for his father. We are then took to the future where a grown up Sam is driving to his father's company ENCOM and upon arriving there, uploads a virus to the company's mainframe before getting arrested. This doesn't prove to be a significant scene in the film though as we are never taken back to ENCOM. That's minus points for plot. Alan Bradley (Bruce Boxleitner), the close friend of Kevin, returns (a lot older obviously) and sends Sam to investigate a page that was originally from Kevin's relinquished arcade. Sam travels to the arcade and discovers Kevin's office at the bottom of some stairs concealed behind the arcade machine. He then tries to investigate the page via the computer Kevin used to hack with and is pulled into the Grid himself. Equipped by female warriors with a disc and attire that users possess in the Grid, he encounters the survival challenges himself and encounters another female warrior called Quorra (Olivia Wilde). With her aid, together they set out to seek Kevin in the Grid and bump into Clu 2onto the way – the duplicate Kevin had created which turned against him.

Jeff Bridges and Bruce Boxleitner reprise their roles from the original film. As well as Kevin, Bridges is also the face of Clu 2 with CGI used to de-age. Critics hailed the first film for its acting and this is delivered again here. Bridges is as convincing as ever as the two characters he plays however the computer generated face of Clu 2 becomes a lot less convincing as you see more of the character, ends up looking like a permanently straight-faced face with thick make-up poured upon. Garrett Hedlund shined in his role as Sam, Olivia Wilde was wonderful as Quorra and Michael Sheen who was rather unrecognisable did a fabulous job as Castor, the program running a club at the top of a tower.

Talking visually, this is one of the best films of the year, beats just about every real world 3D picture of this year. When the trailers were first shown, the CGI looked promising and it sure impressed mightily. The film defines how a 3D film should be made; it wouldn't be a surprise if the next 3D sci-fi picture borrows a thing or two from this. The start of the film has a notice which tells us that several scenes are intentionally done in 2D and the majority are the ones outside in the real world. In the Grid is where the magnificent 3D action takes place. Plenty of moments that are 'in your face' show why the film should be watched in 3D. With the film being set many years later, it makes sense to why everything is revolutionised, from the neon lights to the sound to the upgraded vehicles. Talking about the sound, the musical score in the film is incredible. The entire film feels alive and you can just sense the incredible atmosphere in the theatre when sat watching this film.

TRON: Legacy has taken a massive step forward technically from the last film and in 28 years with modern day technology, it is a visual masterpiece. However, just like the last film, the storyline is a let down with the film showing scenes that could turn significant but then take a different direction to where they could have possibly gone and it all becomes subtle but then forgotten, such as the coin given at the start and the aforementioned ENCOM scene. Overall, Disney has provided a spectacular eye candy 3D experience to end 2010 off with despite the lacklustre plot. Worth watching but only in 3D.

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (2010)

The Voyage of the Dawn Treader - a rough one, beautifully complete.

[7/10 · 12 December 2010]

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader is the third instalment in the book to film adaptation of C.S Lewis' novels. It took a different approach in production: a new director (Michael Apted replacing Andrew Adamson), a new distributor (20th Century Fox replacing Walt Disney Pictures), Simon Pegg replacing Bill Nighy who had replaced Eddie Izzard before dropping out as the voice of Reepicheep, and a 3D conversion for the film. The first two in the series were astounding films so my question was – do the changes in production prevent The Voyage of the Dawn Treader from being another great film?

Continuing from Prince Caspian, at the end where Caspian was left the king of Narnia and the Pevensie siblings travelled back to their world, the movie begins with Lucy and Edmund living in England during a war and we are introduced to a new character. Their cousin Eustace – an annoying brat who despises the talks of Narnia that Lucy and Edmund have. Not so long into the film, Lucy observes a painting in the house of a ship on water and discusses to Edmund how it looks very "Narnia". Eustace loathes this idea and the three engage in an altercation until Lucy notices that the picture is animating, the water comes out slowly until it crashes out completely and drowns them into a new world. Not a new world at all when they quickly realise they are back in Narnia when they re-unite with their old friends Caspian and Reepicheep who help them up onto the ship that was seen in the painting. The ship is in the middle of nowhere and the quest for everyone on board is to travel across the sea in order to find Aslan's country, even it means travelling to the edges of the world. On their journey, they encounter many obstacles that the evil in Narnia is dominating with which include invisible beasts and warriors.

Georgie Henley and Skander Keynes revisit their roles as Lucy and Edmund Pevensie carrying on their splendid acting. Also Ben Barnes returns as Caspian but this time a change in his accent can be noticed. Simon Pegg voicing Reepicheep gave the effect of a less mature mouse which Apted was looking for, and he sure made the right choice for his desired effect. The newly introduced Eustace is played by Will Poulter who if any readers have seen the 2008 British comedy Son of Rambow would know as Lee Carter. The whole personality of being an irritating person is well done by Poulter. And of course, the great lion Aslan is voiced again by Liam Neeson; the powerful voice of his deserved the role at the start and still does. Referring back to the beginning, the directing was spot on with the actors. A thumb up for Michael Apted.

Technically speaking, the conversion to 3D was one of the best I've seen in a real world picture and certainly one of the best in its genre. Very rarely were there scenes which were just flat out 2D. The scenes which the camera was focusing on the characters on board of the Dawn Treader were particularly outstanding in 3D. Not to forget to mention, the nature in 3D was brilliantly done, from snow to water to the scenery. The process of 3D did slightly lower the contrast of the colours as with every film so watching it in 2D would give it a more beautifully coloured picture. Positives for both versions then. Moving onto the sound – sound effects of the invisible beasts had a marvellous effect in the movie and worked well with the positioning of the character as the camera was taking place in their point of view in the scenes they were involved in and the musical score was epic and well used during the many epic battle scenes in the film plus they helped create tension in the sequences leading to the battles and during them. The creations of the creatures were again amazingly created and that's not just talking about Aslan either.

In my opinion, this film is superior to its predecessors. A lot faster paced than the previous two with the voyage of Dawn Treader almost immediately becoming the subject in the film from the start. The film is shorter than the previous two and maybe it was because of their lengths that they were slower than this. The majority of the second half of the film is very tense with electrifying scenes that I will not spoil in this review. Going back to the beginning with the question I asked, the changes in production increased the quality of this film and all was delivered well. One of the best fantasy films of the year and if you missed the new Harry Potter film or were disappointed that the creators of that film could not make it 3D in time, this is an excellent alternate. Recommended in either 2D or 3D, there is a benefit in both aforementioned in this review – 2D for the brighter colours, 3D for one of the best 3D fantasy pictures.

The Tourist (I) (2010)

Fans of the The Lives of Others will be disappointed. And the fans of Johnny Depp. Oh and don't forget the fans of Angelina Jolie too.

[4/10 · 11 December 2010]

The Tourist is a remake of the French film Anthony Zimmer and is the second major film directed by Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck. The first being the critically acclaimed German drama film The Lives of Others back in 2006 which was a remarkable debut for the director as it garnered just over 80 award nominations, winning 61 including an Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film and a BAFTA Film Award for Best Film Not in the English Language. If any of you fans of The Lives of Others were hoping for another masterpiece by the director…well, this film did not live up to your expectations.

The Tourist starts off by introducing Elise (Angelina Jolie) – a femme fatale who is having every move she takes watched by the French and British Police in their hope to have her meet with husband Alexander Pearce so they can then attempt to capture him. Pearce is not only wanted by the police for the $774 million he owes in taxes but also a mobster (Steven Berkoff) for his embezzlement of around 2 billion dollars. After receiving a letter from Pearce which asks to find someone of roughly the same height and same build as him, Elise goes off to find an alternate partner to conceal the real Pearce from the pursuing authorities. On a train trip one day, she sits down next to a random man who is introduced as Frank (Johnny Depp). They develop a relationship which leads to them staying with each other in a hotel. From there, it is presumed by the authorities that Frank is actually Pearce because of his actions with Elise (such as kissing her) and this leads to several games of cat and mouse between Frank and the followers, not stopping until they can finally seize the opportunity to interrogate him and get the money they are owed. Note that there is a bounty on his head too.

The film has a slow-medium pace to it, with some of the second half being suitable for insomnia. The chemistry between Angelina Jolie and Johnny Depp isn't done very well because of their characters personalities. Elise is a good looking woman who would stay with any man just after a single train ride with him (as we are told in the film) and Angelina Jolie plays this character well. On the other hand, Johnny Depp is known for his many different types of roles in films from playing a pirate to a demonic barber and this time a maths teacher from Wisconsin. Throughout the film he looks puzzled all the time and with this mystery of Alexander Pearce and his little knowledge of it, you can see why. Plus Elise is a dangerous character, suggested by the police watching her, yet Frank is willing to do anything she says. A confused maths teacher, he is. Not such an Edward Scissorhands type of performance this time. The supporting cast includes BAFTA nominee Paul Bettany as Inspector John, the leading agent of the London Scotland Yard squad watching Elise, Timothy Dalton (the man who played Bond in Licence to Kill & The Living Daylights), and Steven Berkoff (Rambo part II, Barry Lyndon). A splendid cast with the main two being internationally known but this is one of the bad choices they have made in their respective careers.

The Tourist is similar to the recently released (at the time of writing) The Warrior's Way in terms of how the story is executed. The Warrior's Way did quite well in mixing a western action film with a fantasy. The Tourist does something similar, it combines different genre's – it is a romance film with quite a lot of elements of comedy and at the same time a thriller as you see how the crime story unfolds. The scenes in the film which result from building tension are quite predictable. One major negative point I have to make about this film is the dialogue. Lame lines which attempt to be funny just don't fit in. The script was written poorly with some dreadful lines such as "That's a terrible name" which you can see from the trailer if you haven't seen the film yet.

Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck's efforts of creating a film that is either meant to be similar to romantic comedy like Knight and Day or a romantic thriller like Duplicity fall short of being decent. So I guess two of Hollywood's biggest stars end 2010 in a mediocre movie.

On an extra note, the ending of the film has a twist that I will not give away, but I will say that it was disappointing and ultimately made me gave the film 4 stars instead of the 5 it could have received.

Fred: The Movie (2010 TV Movie)

There's a Lott to enjoy but not a lot to enjoy

[1/10 · 10 December 2010]

Back in 2008 when Lucas Cruikshank launched his first video as his own fictionally created character FRED, who was to know that in just a year his persona would grant him one million subscribers (on an extra note, he was the most subscribed at the time)? Now with just over two million subscribers, it must have been the felt that the internet sensation's high popularity should be granted a film by the creators of this. The result of this? Garbage.

Fred has a crush on his next door neighbour Judy (Pixie Lott). He lives with barely any distance between them and his quest is to see her. The start of the film also introduces Kevin (Jake Weary) who is the neighbourhood bully and attempting to prevent Kevin every time from seeing her. At the point in the film where Fred has the opportunity to finally see the woman he desires, he presumes she has been kidnapped but then finds out that in fact she has moved to a new house. Continuing on the quest to seek Judy's new location, he encounters many different situations such as bumping into a talking deer and having a shower – via a car wash. He also bumps into a character called Derf who is also played by Cruikshank but has the complete opposite personality to Fred.

The characters in FRED are acted out incredibly badly with Fred having the over-the-top, over-exaggerating style that he normally has in his videos but in the film world you would have seen it in many horrendous films before such as the Tom Green character Gord Brody (from the crudely named film that was released several years ago and not to mention is one of the worst films ever, you know what I'm talking about). Pixie Lott was an exception by being the character that must have had the least E-numbers, and she was singing in quite a few of the times she appeared in the film which showcased her talent but not very much. However she was decent considering it was her first time acting. Jake Weary as Kevin was another same personality disgrace like Fred. Perhaps the worst had to be John Cena as Fred's dad. Incredibly over-the-top and uttered one of the worst lines I have heard in film in 2010 – "She's been kidnapped…by kidnappers." – is what he says upon driving Fred to the other side of town when looking to locate Judy's new place of residence. On an extra note, the effects used in some scenes such as a thought by Fred of his head flying off are immensely bad and incredibly unrealistic. Plus the comedy was some of the worst I had seen in a while, not even a minor sign of being amused I showed when watching this pile o' rubbish.

Bad Santa star Billy Bob Thornton recently said that he thinks this is an awful period for film. FRED highly suggests this. It is an epitome of an appalling comedy. Hec, it's an epitome of an appalling film! Bad comedy, bad acting, bad everything else = nomination of a Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Picture.

Oh and to some of you viewers who find Fred's voice irritating in his videos, it's been only slightly toned down here (due to his ageing from 6 to 15) and listening to it for just over 80 minutes could leave you very annoyed.

The Warrior's Way (2010)

Cowboys vs ninjas? Sounds good but...

[6/10 · 5 December 2010]

The Warrior's Way – stars South Korean actor Jang Dong-Gun, Kate Bosworth, Academy Award winner Geoffrey Rush plus the little man we knew in Bad Santa as Marcus, Tony Cox. A mismatched cast in terms of the films they're in but hey presto it worked in this western-fantasy-action flick.

The film opens with a voice narrating the foundation of the warrior's story. It is a story of an empty-eyed warrior who trained his life to achieve one purpose – to become the greatest swordsman. He achieved this by defeating the tribe he was sent to by his own tribe who are known as the Sad Flutes. He defeated them all until there was only one enemy left, a baby named April. The two clans had been fighting for around 500 years and Yang had defeated every one of his adversaries until this one. Ultimately, he chose not to completely fulfil the target of destroying the entire tribe by sparing her and taking her away. The baby's giggling is heart-warming for the warrior and this completely drives him off wanting to execute her for the pleasure of victory for his tribe. Knowing that he has failed the mission, he travels as far as away from the tribe as possible. This suggests that the tribe may go after the baby their selves if the warrior cannot handle it...but no, not until very late into the film. Thumb down for a loosely put plot.

Instead the story continues with the warrior's journey to look for his old friend and he travels to a circus town in the 19th century Wild West of America that is full of cowboys with the exception of some clowns and 8-Ball – Tony Cox's character who aids the warrior around the place as a Colonel roams the place killing anyone he desires, and even going for rape. The contrast of the settings as they shift (from the location of the tribe and the circus town) was smartly done. The tribe area is a dark, heavily poured upon area and the circus town is a post-apocalyptic looking, deserted area that looks quite similar to the place in the Denzel Washington flick The Book of Eli. Adapting to this environment by learning things he should have learnt a long time ago with the people around him; the warrior's mission is to survive if he was to encounter his tribe again if they were to attempt to annihilate him due to his refusal of killing the last enemy.

As I mentioned before, though the cast worked well, having Jang Dong-Gun was just another one of the "Yeah it's got a big star, the critics will love it" act by Hollywood. Not fluent in English and he barely had any dialogue in the film. Maybe it was because Sngmoo Lee (the director, this is actually his first film) was going for a silent-but-deadly approach or maybe it was just the lack of fluency? Sam Bosworth and Geoffrey Rush did a good job and were shining in their respective roles and Tony Cox was well suited to his character. The man who stole the show was the Colonel, played by Danny Huston. His forceful, powerful, authoritative, infamous role in the film is pulled off well. Nothing award winning but makes do for the normal over-the-top style you see of his.

The movie has its pros – intense battle sequences, really cool slow motion scenes (from bullets to sword swipes), and of course with the point of the baby being a target for the rest of the Sad Flutes, it has its joyful and tearful moments. Oh and the soundtrack wasn't quite at the top of the epic scale but was really good combining the sort of stuff you'd hear in Lord of The Rings (well it was produced by the producer of that brilliant trilogy) with some opera that fitted in during the times it was used. However it has its cons – the baby barely has significance for a lot of the film. The film has a lot of clichés – we've seen Korean/Japanese/Chinese men that have words of wisdom and what they speak can make a massive difference (take Mr Miyagi from the Karate Kid as an example) and that is what you see with this warrior when he advises what the town could use for a bigger arsenal of weapons. Plus there's the slow-mo slashing (combine a sword slash from 300 and put the dude from Ninja Assassin in the Spartan's position and that's what you have here) and as always in similar films, the victors of the battles are predictable. Perhaps the most major negative point I have to make about this film is how the whole concept of ninja's versus cowboys that the trailer had given us an idea about, is nothing until maybe THREE QUARTERS into the film. So yes it does happen but if it's what you had hoped to be the theme of the film, then you'd probably find yourself out of the theatre before this happens. A let down of what I had hoped would be something I didn't see often in flicks revolving around a ninja warrior.

All in all, it was a decent debut for Sngmoo Lee. It has its positives and it has its negatives, you either like it or you hate it. The Warrior's Way – a tale that is cliché packed but just may satisfy the audience that love Asian flicks or are looking for something a little different to what's at the cinema right now as it combines different genre's. Plus it's certainly better than the dull Wild West flick Jonah Hex that was released earlier this year. 6.5/10