The Cove

2009, USA. Certificate: 12A. 92mins. Director: Louie Psihoyos

Richard O’Barry worked as a dolphin trainer and catcher in Miami in the 60s. He famously trained the dolphins in the popular U.S. TV series flipper and did well out of it’s success. When “Kathy”, one of the trained dolphins, “committed suicide”, as O’Barry puts it, right in front of him, - by drowning her self, the penny dropped. O’Barry had a realisation that these highly intelligent, sensitive, ocean dwelling creatures should not be bought, sold, profited from, treated as toys for human enjoyment and kept imprisoned. Since then he has committed his life to high lighting the cruel trade in captive dolphins, and resorting to direct action to dismantle a dubious business he played a major part in creating.

In The Cove O’Barry is the pivotal character that provides the back story and passionate driving force of this film.

Director Louie Psihoyos gathers a self described “Oceans Eleven” of marine experts, special FX nerds, film technicians and free divers to infiltrate a hidden and protected cove in Taiji , Japan, the hub of the marine park dolphin trade with a sinister secret.

With more hi-tec kit than and equally obvious as a unit of US marines Louie’s team  blag there way through customs and set up camp in a Taiji hotel where they plan the covert visual and audio recording of this regular sea mammal massacre. It’s been O’Barry’s mission to expose the goings on here for some time, he knew he had to do it right and only had one chance. The Taiji fishermen ‘mafia’ know him, fear publicity and they guard their cove aggressively. The fishermen, in league with local officials, spy on, film and violently harass the outsiders. They do this hoping to get a reaction, some form of criminal offence on camera that will ban an individual from the area, a technique used here successfully up until now to keep the marine parks stocked with fresh entertainers and Japanese shops stocked with mercury contaminated, highly priced, fraudulent whale meat.  Japan’s national pride is entwined it seems with whaling in a similar way the upper classes in England hunt foxes and Americans carry guns. Later in the film we are shown an international conference on whaling, here Japanese officials are exposed bribing small impoverished countries to lobby for the return to commercial whaling.

The Cove is a skillfully made documentary film, informative, entertaining and moving, it plays on our love of thrilling suspense block busters like James Bond. The “Mission Impossible” style music over the brilliantly shot and edited “night sight” imaging of the  Enviro- A-team going about their business raises the tension and keeps us hooked. This film adds to the growing family of environmental films hitting the cinemas, this one is by no means the runt. Cynics, I’m sure, would question O’Barry’s motive to make this film now, environmentalism is in fashion, “there’s gold in them Hollywood hills”! At this time in his life when perhaps the money from the “Flipper” series isn’t flowing like it was? Whether O’Barry needs a few quid? like us all, or not he comes across as genuine and his cause more than worthy and understandable at a critical time in the earths history. As he says “if he can’t stop what is going on in this Cove in Taiji there isn’t a hope for the wider world”. This I feel is his true motive, magnifying a micro-cosom of man’s down fall, the way we can treat such angelic, intelligent fellow mammals and the wider planet in the name of progress and civilization.

Harry Brown (2009)

Cert: 18
Running time: 103mins
Cast: Michael Caine, Emily Mortimer,Ben Drew,Jack O'Connell
Director: Daniel Barber
Release date: 11th November2009
Marv Films

It’s a nice refreshing change to be out with all shiny glitz and glamour of Hollywood and overly used CGI and to go to a more grimey gritty UK thriller. The film is very much like a more gritty version of ‘Taken’, with a good balance of both Story and action. We all like to see explosions and car chases , but it’s nice to know that in Harry Brown they sat down properly to make it as realistic and interesting as possible which proves a great success.
The film sees senior citizen , Harry Brown , lonely living on a rough and ready tower block estate. Gang violence and knife and gun crime is a everyday happening on his estate and all who live there live in constant fear. After friend, Len takes matters into his own hands by carrying a bayonet as protection but results in his death. Harry , sickened by the slow uncaring police investigation takes his own tactics to serve justice to his late friends gruesome murder.
The film features a fresh up and coming cast of fantastic British Actors such as Jack O’Connell (Cook from Skins) and rapper/singer, Ben Drew (more commonly known as Plan B). All the cast seems to be spot on, delivering breathtaking performances all round to make a genuinely convincing insight into the youth gang culture in inner cities. Director Daniel Barber makes good use if this  with the use of footage supposed to be filmed on their mobile phones.
Of course nobody can not mention the phenomenal performance of Michael Caine who steals the show. I found it incredibly fascinating the way that the old generation of actors playing a key role as this in a relatively young  and up and coming British actors. His role as Harry Brown is fantastic and delivers realistic emotion throughout , which you can’t help but be on his side through all the bloodshed in the film.
Martin Ruhe (Cinematographer) captures the feel of inner city life in an amazing way. The film’s plot is relatively dark and grimey , and the slick cinematography reflects this. Each exterior shot as stylish and beautiful as the last with some amazing visuals which not only set the tones of each location and the characters involved but also sets the pace throughout the film in an amazing way.
Screenwriter Gary Young does a fantastic job of  the script. All characters are fluent and perform a crisp image of the characters profiles, such as Jack O’Connell’s character ‘Marky’ who seems hesitant and shy in interrogation due to the way he is sexually abused and Ben Drew’s character ‘Noel’ who doesn’t give two hoots for the law and has a reckless attitude.
This fantastic use of dialogue combined with these fantastic characters see you on the edge of your seat, cheering as Harry Brown cleans up the estate to get rid of scum like Noel. The script also provides a perfect introduction of life on the estate through Harry’s eyes. Lonely and isolated, cooking breakfast for himself and going out to playing chess and the development of his character as his emotions flare up after being told that there is little that they can do in providing justice to Len’s death, which ultimately sees him from being a frail gentlemen to feeling young and serving up justice.
Overall a top class British thriller which I would much prefer to watch than the big budget Hollywood films. With a UK setting and all British cast , it sets a real sense of realism to the film and covers all too familiar stories heard in the news of gang related deaths and drug trafficking. With slick and stylish cinematography , it’s hard to keep your eyes away from the screen as you delve deeper and deeper to this dark and dangerous estate till you feel as if you are a resident in this estate yourself. The beautifully crafted script shows great characterisation and shows that great thought and care has gone into the screenplay this combined with the outstanding cast of new up and coming British Actors and a well deserved lead role for Michael Caine who proves that he’s still got it.

Review by Mark James

2012 (2009)

Cert: 12a
Running time: 158mins
Director: Roland Emmerich
Cast: John Cusack, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Danny Glover, Woody Harrelson
Columbia Pictures

Well well well, where to start? 2012 is the latest feature film written and directed by Roland Emmerich who brought us other similar films such as The day after tomorrow. Both films are very similar and in my personal opinion if you’ve seen one you don’t really need to see the other.
Roland seems to have dug out the script of The day after tomorrow and changed it from Ice age to the melting of the Earths core. It seems very lazy and a poor effect from Roland who seems to rely very heavily on his CGI special effects.

2012 is more about the CGI special effects than about the scripting or story of the film (although even the story is very poorly written in the screenplay). To create his dull format of a script come alive he has a cast of John Cusack  who plays a overused cliché of a father who after the divorce with wife, struggles to connect with his Children but somehow in the midst of the apocalypse , the family are magically back as one. It’s a worn out cliché which we’ve seen far too many times in disaster films and John Cusack delivers a very dull and bland performance.
Roland Emmerich’s screenplay for the film features yet again all too familiar cliché lines and characters which is laughable at times as the characters dialogue seem dated and cheesy. This I find frustrating as the apocolypse is a perfect way to show characters true emotions and their inner minds but instead Roland persists and delivering the same old overused clichés and cheesy catchphrases which spoil the film.

With the poor script and story of the film , the big budget director Roland Emmerich needs to level this out to show a realistic view of the end of the world as it unfolds. The end of time, the end of the human race.

However It is very painfully unrealistic to watch as the use of CGI is all too apparent and makes it very unconvincing to the viewer. What Emmerich needs to do is balance CGI and actual special effects better which would look a lot more realistic than what looks like a computer game being played.
Hats off, he has got a good team of animators on at hand to create these big action sequences but is ruined by Roland’s poor script, as the end of the world seems to wait up for the main characters by a few seconds, so that every move is a convenient and escape from natural disaster.

This is seen all too clearly in a scene in which Cusack drives frantically to avoid the cracking streets which is always a few feet away from him at all times which looks terrible. It seems as though the cracking of the landscape is just waiting behind the lead roles. This can also be seen in ‘The day after tomorrow’ where the lead characters are running away from ice! And by closing a door, they stop the ice which is ridiculous on so many levels.

Roland Emmerich’s films are now becoming ever so more painful to watch as they become over cliché and poorly scripted. The worst part for me is the way that the end of the world just waits seconds behind the main characters and the overused and dated clichés. The big budgets and use of CGI should be used to better advantage instead of being used on Emmerich’s dated formats for disaster films. It’s hard to tell with it’s the world having the disaster or Roland Emmerich, I would say the latter.

The Twilight Saga: New Moon

The Twilight Saga: New Moon Review:

Werewolves, Vampires, romance and feuding, on the outside New Moon seems like quite a promising film. However, unless you’ve been living under a rock for the last few years than you’ll know that these are highly misleading elements. If you have been living under a rock for the last few years then don’t be fooled by the trailers. If you’re looking for another Underworld style movie with guns, girls, vampires and werewolves you’re going to be disappointed.

Instead you’ll end up with broody teenagers, pubescent boys and a strange craving for older men, and / or, younger women.  As far as vampire films go, this is highly disappointing. There’s little to no blood and not a pointy tooth in sight. When Stephanie Myers was growing up she must have had a hatred for vampires and werewolves. They must have stolen her favourite teddy bear or something extreme to make her want to completely destroy Vampire and Werewolf mythology.

Vampires that sparkle in sunlight? No thanks, I’d rather they burst into flames.  I can hear the 12 year old fan girls screaming at me, “Twilights a romance story who cares about anything else?” How about every guy that gets dragged along to watch it? Even if it is a romance, it fails on that premise. How are we, as the audience, supposed to align ourselves with the protagonist Bella? She jumps from a vampire who’s over 100 years old to a werewolf who is 2 years younger than herself. Does that not seem strange to anyone else?

Regardless of the age gap, Bella seems to chop and change who she likes and who she doesn’t as often as I eat hot meals. One minute she’s with Edward, then the next he’s gone and she’s leading on Jacob. Then Edwards in trouble and she leaves Jacob and is back to Team Edward. She’s broody and highly irritating. Was I the only one cheering for the Volturi, the only real vampires in the story might I add, to do us a favour? Bella dies, Twilight ends, the world rejoices. But no, we’re forced through 2 hours of New Moon and probably another 2 films.  The acting is quite simply atrocious. Kirsten Stewart is broody and boring. Compared to her other achievements in Panic Room and The Messengers, Twilight is like a giant lead anchor that will hold her down for the rest of her life. Whenever she goes for an audition she’ll be known as that girl who was in Twilight, which is a shame really, she’s actually not a bad actress.  Robert Pattinson is another who drags the film down, although his past performances are nothing to be proud of. His terrible acting as the burly, depressive Edward is highly disappointing, but, as far as his acting career goes, that’s about par.

This films only saving grace is the cinematography. The setting is a fantastically beautiful back drop for a love story. The woods, the high school, the Cullen house, they’re all stunning. It’s crisp, colourful, highly detailed and carries this film above being a completely flop.  The scripting is another thing that lets the film down. It may be fine for all of the Twi-hard fans out there but what about the rest of us who get dragged along by our Twi-hard girlfriends? Huge chunks of context and character information seem to be missing. I found myself constantly asking questions throughout and afterwards about what special abilities different vampires had and who they were.

Twilight is a Hollywood budget movie, trying to be an independent film. Although it looks spectacular, that’s as far as the indie feel goes. It’s $50 million budget seems somewhat wasted until you realise that it’s worldwide opening weekend pulled in over $255 million.  As far as the Twilight Saga goes so far, New Moon beats the original, but as far as claims to success go, that’s like Stephanie Myers claiming she’s better at writing novels than a new born baby. For all you unwilling guys out there who get dragged along, make the most of it. At least get some free popcorn or refuse to pay for the tickets or something.

Jennifer's Body

Jennifer’s Body Review:

If you want someone to jump on the, “Oh my God Megan Fox is so hot!” bandwagon then stop right here, being semi-hot can’t, as much as Hollywood would like to differ, carry you through an acting career in anything except x-rated movies.

Those of you looking for something with the wit or originality of Juno are likely to be highly disappointed at what seems like a half hearted horror comedy.

At least that’s what it claims to be, although it doesn’t offer us, as the audience, enough of laughs or scares in my opinion to warrant it be called anything other than tripe.  The film is quite simply weak. This may not be down to a bad script, poor acting and bad directing, it just doesn’t seem like a good movie on paper.

A teenage hottie (Fox) is sacrificed to Satan by a Satanic rock band, only she becomes possessed instead of dying because she’s not a virgin then proceeds to wreak cannibalistic havoc on the male population of her hometown until she is killed by her best friend.  The film opens with the line, “Hell is a teenage girl.” This is about as witty as the film gets. This is not however, without irony. Fox, supposedly playing a teenager, seems highly out of place throughout the film.

It’s ridiculous how much older she looks than the rest of her fellow class mates. Whether it’s her boobs, or her manly jaw line, placing the main role of the movie on someone like Fox was a bad call.  As far as casting goes however, Fox wasn’t the only bad call. The satanic rock band aren’t very satanic at all. I was highly disappointed when they turned out to be what looks like Snow Patrol with too much eye liner. I can’t help but feel that if the band were cast more along the lines of Emperor the film could have been slightly more entertaining. Saying that however, the music is by far the best bit of the film. Stay home and buy the soundtrack. You’ll thank me later.

With Fox and the band down, that leaves the success of the film resting on the shoulders of supporting actress Amanda Seyfried. Although she pulls off crazy with a strange hotness, the nerdy girl seems to be lacking something. Although she’s nowhere on par with her other performances in Solstice and Mean Girls, it’s not entirely bad, which is more than can be said for Fox. And, at least she has those other performances to give her some hope.

Compare this to Fox’s other films like Transformers and… Well… Yeah. I think it’s clear which of these two leading ladies has more talent.  The terrible, terrible dialogue is what lets this film down even more than bad casting and Fox’s lack of acting talent. The so called “witty” banter seems somewhat ridiculous with words like, “Salty” being thrown around, does anyone even use words like those? I thought youth culture today liked making up words not taking words and completely destroying meanings. It’s not just stupid word. You know its bad when pop culture references would seem more at home when uttered by Frodo Baggins. Two of the worst lines in the film, although its hard to tell whether they would be better spoken by someone with acting talent or whether it was the rest of the film letting them down are, “It says it on their wikipedia.” Which a girl says whilst having an argument with an eye witness at what the satanic band were doing when the bar was on fire. And, “I found it online,” Spoken by one of the band members in regards to the Ritual Sacrifice they were about to perform.

Oh online jokes, I forgot they were supposed to be funny. Probably because I don’t have a sense of humour, or maybe because they’ve been severely abused.  The cinematography isn’t all bad, the costume wants to rely more on boobs and bodies than relevance to the film and the broody teenagers get boring quick. Stay home and watch High School Musical, it’s scarier and more hilarious than Jennifer’s Body will ever be.

Iron man

Iron man is a movie convention of the comic books and comic book character with the same name, iron man.

Iron man follows the rise of the comic book hero, tony stark, mainly known as iron man played by Robert Downey Jr. tony, a playboy and the CEO of the multi-million dollar company called Stark Industries, who design and create ground breaking technology in weaponry and missiles.

But when his convoy is raided by an unknown force a piece of shrapnel goes into Tony Stark’s chest from a missile from his own company, he is captured but luckily is given a magnet attached to his chest powered by a car battery to stop the metal reaching his heart, killing him. The captives imprison tony stark and to build them a Jericho missile. Tony refuses, so they begin to torture Stark. He makes an armoured suit, also known as mark 1, using the equipment he asks for and then he uses it to break free from the cave and then he escapes.

He reaches home and starts production on what was to become mark 3.

He uses this suit to aid him as he decides he is going to use this technology to fight the forces of evil.

There are many scenes of fast paced action for example there is a scene in which iron man is flying through the sky, with two harrier jets following after him as he is classed as an unknown object flying over guarded territory but manages to escape.

In an interview with the director of the movie, Jon Favreau he leaked out that the flight scene in the movie with the harrier jets was influenced by the movie, top gun, featuring tom cruise.

It also contains an action scene in which he returns to the place he was held hostage, before he arrives it sets the scene in which the terrorists are terrorising and capturing the villagers of a little village.

When iron man arrives the main baddy of the scene looks up with the classical camera angle and expression of a villain as in to give the classical non-verbal message to say either “what is that!” or “oh my god, its iron man” or any other superhero you can think of, this is a classical frame used in many comic book hero movies, such as Spiderman, another marvel comic book creation.

Iron man is a full paced action movie and I would say is not for the faint hearted and I recommend this to anyone who is a marvel comic book reader, fan, someone looking for an action movie and those who like action movies.

A caution is given from me, as the motto from the movie may stick in your head for weeks to come after watching this movie, the motto “I am iron man”.

It is worth watching even when it is more than a year old just to recap or to catch up on the story as in 2010 marvel comics are releasing a sequel to the movie.

The first movie ends on the cliffhanger that Tony Stark reveals that he is iron man, which the famous motto will stick in your head.

“Heroes Aren't Born, They're Built.”

Coco Before Chanel

2009, France, Cert (UK): 12A, 105 mins

Director: Anne Fontaine

Cast: Alessandro Nivola, Audrey Tautou, Benoit Poelvoorde, Emmanuelle Devos, Marie Gillain, Regis Royer

Anne Fontaine’s 2009 “Coco before Chanel” is a biopic of the early years and making of the now iconic Gabrielle “Coco” Chanel. Set in France at the turn of the century this appropriately non fancy tailored film focuses on the young “Coco” Chanel’s path to her destined career and all the hurdles this pioneering legend endured to bring us the global megga brand that is “Chanel”.

The trailer sums it up well with the words “From humble beginnings, to the heights of society her passion would challenge convention”.

Given up to an orphanage in 1893 Coco learned to sew, presumably retreating from her hurt and focusing her anger in this discipline. The simple nuns smocks, contrast of black and white imprinted on her young mind for future use. Learning to be a hosiery maker by day and a club singer with her sister Adrienne (Marie Gillian) by night Coco is shown to be a resourceful, unique young woman on mission out of abandonment and poverty. With an eye for stylish simplicity and practicality she is in the right place and time, providing she plays her cards right, to ride the industrial revolution wave to eventual success.

She sees her chance in the form of Etienne Balsan ( Benoit Poelvoorde ) the rich play boy aristocrat who becomes intrigued by Coco’s flare. They have a relationship that appears to be an exploration by both of class differences and parental issues. Etienne is perhaps a fun father figure and Coco a non conventional feisty play thing. Their affection grows and Coco invites her self into his Chateau, a strategic move that places her closer to Paris and the connections she needs. The film is predominately set in and around his flamboyant, fun palace where Coco learns to ride horses that she loves so much and uses her cat like freedom to come and go as she pleases. Tenaciously proud Coco examines the over indulgent upper class twits like an anthropologist, the posh women’s over the top style is the focus and drive of her fashion revolution. If she had her way Coco, often dressed in  her own tailored men’s clothes, would guillotine the restrictive corsets and over the top pompous attire that keep the ladies in their place, stuck in the eighteen hundreds.

Befriending a pop star of the day Emilienne d’Alencon ( Emmanuelle Devos) Coco brings her round to some of her thinking and gets help to set up a hat making business that is the taste of things to come.

Audrey Tautou is, typically, a joy to watch as Coco and plays the serious, slightly cold young icon well,  She says early on “that a girl in love is like a begging dog” so when she falls for Authur “Boy” Capel, a friend of Balsan, it is pleasing to know she is thawing inside but you cant help feeling it will end in tears and not a tiered cake.

This film bottles the changing times of the era and packages it stylishly, It would be interested to know if this film is factually accurate or whether it adds or drops a stitch or two for effect?. With the blossoming love affair and financial support of Capel, Coco’s confidence and happiness is mirrored in her Parisian business. The final shots, as the credits roll, use mirrors well to position this inspiring revolutionary artist among her art, the chic clothing on a line of elegant models.

Whether a follower of fashion or film this is a great piece of cinema.  As Coco put it  “ Fashion passes, style remains”.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

Cert: 12, Run time: 102 minutes approx, Cast: Hugh Jacken, Liev Schreiber, Danny Huston, Dominic Monaghan, Ryan Reynolds. Director: Gavin Hood

Before the “oh no, not another spin off” alarm in your head starts ringing, any viewer should pause and reconsider approaching this film.  The truth is, it is one of those films that is affected by the viewer’s expectations, to an extent that causes the more observant viewer to question the general effectiveness of this film.

Saying that, the likelihood of someone watching this film with absolutely no background context their minds is very low.  The X-men and the Wolverine characters are well established, even to the people who have never read a marvel comic (such as the writer of this review), especially due to the three recent X-men films.  Everyone will have some expectations.  They are likely to expect a grittier X-men, but the film does just about steer clear of being that unoriginal.

The title “X-men Origins” does suggest the potential for some artistic depth.  An in depth explorations of the past of a major character in the X-men, with a heavy emphasis on character development , is what I should be able to describe this film as.  Ideally what you would be reading right now would include descriptions of the interesting new directions this film goes in, or the total difference from the X-men , but none of these things apply.  The plot is mediocre, culminating in a (spoiler alert...well, pseudo spoiler alert, after all, this will come as no surprise) final confrontation with the enemy.  In this case it’s a new mutant which uses all of the mutant powers from a variety of mutants whom were held captive while their mutant powers were harvested.  The end result is a teleporting, invulnerable, fighting machine with arms that can become swords and the ability to shoot laser beams form its eyes. 

Yes, it is unfortunate.

And no, it doesn’t ruin the film to the extent one might expect.

The small plot twists, the way in which the plot develops and the character’s various motivations for their actions are reasonably satisfying, even if the thing they lead up to is totally ridiculous.

So, to somebody who may, for whatever reason, not expect that much out of it, one would assume that the plot’s lack of credibility would not be much of a problem.  Not that this would be a good thing, a film with this much potential should achieve more, but even this opportunity to make an impression on some people was squandered.

To put it simply, the film writes cheques it cannot cash.  It manages to do this by having an incredible title sequence that shows all of the different major wars the apparently immortal Wolverine and his brother Sabretooth (portrayed excellently by Liev Schreiber) have experienced.  The alteration in quality after this should disappoint anyone.

Technically the film is strong, with visually effective CGI and a variety of visually gratifying shots.  The dialogue is passable and the plot does make sense, but to add yet another speed bump, the delivery is rushed.  Catalytic events that move the plot forward are delivered briefly, almost as if an afterthought, inserted solely for the purpose of joining sections of the plot together at an unsightly seem.  The performances range from excellent to barely adequate and the entertainment value is quite high, despite the artistic flaws.

So, overall it is a very disappointing piece with just enough quality to save it from being a bad film. 

The end result? 

A film, which, after being viewed, leaves the viewer in danger of feeling absolutely nothing.

Hancock

Cert: 12. Cast: Will Smith, Charlize Theron, Jason Bateman, Eddie Marsan. Director: Peter Berg

The 21^st century has not been short on films which twist established paradigms within popular genres.  This time it’s an alcoholic superhero with a disregard for authority and common etiquette.  Hancock (Will smith) is a flying, apparently indestructible (not to mention invulnerable) super “hero”.  He regularly saves the lives of the inhabitants of Los Angelis, from a range of threats common to all those in need of rescuing.

Everyone has seen Superman, Spiderman and insert-super-hero-gimmick-here-man effortlessly save lives and disrupt criminal activity leaving behind a generally appreciative public.  What they do not expect to see, however, is a super human crime-stopper/life-saver who leaves a path of destruction which costs the public a lot of money while remaining unapologetic. 

The entertainment value of this concept alone is very high and is certainly realised on screen.  The unconventional context spawns a plotline with subject matter that should be considered, well, unconventional.  At least within the context of superhero movies, most of which began life as a comic book forty or fifty years ago before undergoing countless adaptations and technological facelifts (the ratio of action footage inexorably shifting in the favour of CGI).

The lives of our antihero Hancock and Ray Embery (Jason Bateman), who works in PR while living the American dream in your average suburban paradise, become intertwined after Hancock saves him from being run over by a freight train.  Ray then decides to act as Hancock’s PR manager – and there you have it, an original direction for this unconventional idea to move in.

This sort of plotline seems predictable though – yet the audience is not to expect the formulaic plot format chosen from a list of formulaic plot formats they might out of a Hollywood movie.  The plot takes a totally different direction in the second half of the film.  While this certainly causes the audience’s interest to peak, and allows the plot to exercise some considerably intelligence, it does feel as though two different films have been sewn to the back of one another.  This is not nearly as damaging as one might think, but it still seems as though the film required a more cautious approach to handling the plot.

So, unfortunately, there is a pretty major aspect of this film leaning towards the “cons” column, but that may be forgiven as directorial and performance efforts definitely hit the mark.  The characters are portrayed with a universal credibility, Smith becoming, rather than merely portraying, Hancock (some trademark mannerisms do make it onto the screen though, but they are not detrimental to the performance), with Jason Bateman and Charlize Theron portraying Ray and Mary (Ray’s wife) Embrey to great effect.

Directorial style is also without a doubt a major strength in this film.  Deliberately shaky camera movement aids the conveyance of tension at different points throughout.  Shots are composed well, the settings saying as much about the characters that occupy them as the characters themselves do.  Also, important objects are given attention at strategically chosen points, falling suitably short of painful blatancy. 

Director Peter Berg handled this film very well. A strong concept is well conveyed, and even the apparent flaws do not bring this film down to a level below being very good.  In general, a success, and certainly worth seeing.

Harry Brown

Harry brown is an action thriller movie and is also Michael Caine’s first lead role movie for years and has turned out as a good movie.

Harry brown follows an old age pensioner, played by Michael Caine who is an ex marine, showing you through his eyes the underground of gangs, as in the violence, guns, drugs and murders.

The way the crimes are shown are more exaggerated. The effect it gives out is that you are seeing what harry brown sees and the vision is that harry is seeing all these crimes happening so obviously, almost like it was in broad daylight and none of the authorities are doing anything about it, only when there’s a death involved in it.

An example of this is that at the start of the movie it shows a first person style shot looking through the eyes of a hoodie on a motorbike circling a mum with a pram shooting bullets at her, in broad daylight she is killed but no authorities come.

But further down the road it all comes back as they are hit by a truck.

The main character is named after the title of the movie, harry brown, a war veteran who swore he would never kill again.

The narrative storyline and events which unfolded in the scene were only presented using camera shots and actuality, no dialogue.

But when his father is found dead in an alleyway, killed by the thugs after months of torment, he goes on a quest for revenge, killing drug and gun dealers along the way with a hint of action embedded into the movie.

The movie I see fit as a multi stranded conventional movie with a hint of unconventional content and narrative.

The main narrative storyline follows harry brown, taking his revenge and another narrative line follows a detective trying to find out what has happened and who’s caused these murders. This plot has a hint of irony because harry brown and the audience know who’s killing all the gangsters and dealers but none of the police force and the investigator don’t know it until the end in which the investigator finds out but apart from that it has a very ironic narrative structure.

The movie follows a narrative basis that it starts off at an equilibrium, there’s a disruption then there’s an attempt to repair and near the end the hero, harry brown, is overthrown and just when you think he’s about to loose the tables are turned and the equilibrium is restored, or in this movie a new one is created.

The first few minutes of the film are described only by using camera shots, actuality and contain no dialogue or voiceover.

This is a film worth watching at the cinemas but if you are looking for more towards an action movie this wouldn’t be the movie for you.

Harry brown is a slow paced thriller with scenes of short gun fights.

It also contains scenes with the use of guns, drugs, violence and fowl language but worth watching at the cinema. For this film I give it a four out of five.

Blade Runner

Cert: 15. Cast: Harrison Ford, Rutgar Hauer, Sean Young, Edward James Olmos, Daryl Hannah. Director: Ridley Scot

Blade Runner is the work of the genius Ridley Scott. In the not too distant future, man’s technology has evolved with the creation of Replicants, super fast, super strong clones with a limited life span. They are programmed to serve humans and help them on off world colonies, but a group of four Replicants have gone against their programming and have hijacked a ship to earth in search of their maker. We join the movie with the character Rick Deckard, a Replicant hunting super-cop known a Blade Runner, who has retired for sometime but is forced to rejoin his old duty when news of four Replicants have somehow made their way to earth and have already killed humans who question their race. We follow Deckard in his hunt for these humanoids.

The city of L.A in 2019 has become a sort of supped up Tokyo. It could be described as what you would see on the inside of a computer if everything was neon. The special effects for their time are superb; many of the scenes involve the magically created landscape with lots of bright lights and futuristic architecture. The more the movie goes on the more we become engaged in the visual side of the film. Replicants being gunned down with what can only be described as an explosive end. Police cars flying by, with all sirens going.

Although this is a very good film, at the time it did not do so well when it was released. It was criticised for its storyline and about how ‘thin’ it was with the empty happy ending and the downright ridiculous voice over from Harrison Ford. Also how it relied on its visual aspects far too much.

Having not being alive when this film was made and comparing it to many modern films it is fantastic. Yes the special FX are old yes the storyline is thin and a little confusing; it still makes one hell of a watch and a truly magnificent film which will stay one of the greats for a very long time.

The Dark Knight

Cert: 12A Cast: Christian Bale, Heath Ledger, Aaron Eckhart, Michael Caine, Maggie Gyllenhaal. Director: Christopher Nolan

The Dark Knight is one of the many Batman movies. It is set one year after Batman begins, having defeated the last villain to terrorise and threaten Gotham city, Batman has now begun ridding the streets of evil villains and crooks with the help of Lt. James Gordon of Gotham Cities police force and the newly appointed District Attorney Harvey Dent. The movie also introduces us to the new villain, a psychopathic murderer with an appetite for killing, known as the Joker. His face has been painted like a clown for a smile though he has scars up the side of his cheeks. We never know how he got these scars as he changes the story each time. Batman is then confronts him after much chaos and has to choose to save either Harvey Dent or Rachel Dawes, Bruce Wayne’s love.

The plot of the movie is one that keeps you pinned in your seats as it takes a variety of twists and turns through the story. It is clear that many hours of screenplay writing went into this as to keep true to the comic book’s story. The visual side is one that keeps your eyes dancing, the explosions and fight sequences are most pleasing. The real Batman power can be felt. The fast paced action shots such as car chases and big explosions add to the effect which keep the viewer engaged.

There isn’t much to criticise this film about just the only thing this adaption could be put down for is it is not a kids film, no comic book music or cliché story of good always triumph’s and no one but the baddies get hurt. Apart from that sure it’s a lengthy piece for some people and yeah it could be a bit on the serious side but this film is a work of greatness.

This film has left a massive impact on the movie industry, and has left movie critics in awe. This movie defiantly has many of the Batman traits with a whole new bad guys do damage point of view. It defiantly will stay a favourite among Marvel fans and also those new to Marvel but this film defiantly has the SOCK!, POW! And ZOK!