2010

Well it seems like director Martin Kent has wittingly decided to follow on from his previous themes of global destruction by making "2010". Like "the day after tomorrow" 4 characters are placed inun-survivable circumstances, yet manage to escape barely scathed, such as driving on a cracking road in a stolen limousine.

The Scouting Book For Boys

"A tragedy of lost childhood - a tremendously assured directorial debut"

Director Tom Harper could have asked for no better calling card than this debut feature film. 'The Scouting Book For Boys', starring the burgeoning talent of Thomas Turgoose (known for his lead in Shane Meadows' 'This Is England'), is a dark story that follows the experiences of two friends on the cusp of adolescence, experiencing the tragedy of growing up far too fast as a result of the situation they plunge themselves into.

David (Turgoose) and Emily (played by Holly Grainger) are best friends living in the idyllic solitude of a Norfolk caravan park. Their sheltered lives are shattered when Emily is told that she will have to move away to live with her Dad, and so together the two plan to hide Emily in a nearby beach cave. The resulting police search reveals secrets about Emily that David was unprepared for; with his feelings for her growing stronger by the day, and with the real reason for her running away becoming clear, David's romantic existence unravels into a nightmare of strange, conflicting emotions.

The success of this film lies in the fact that the director and writer (Jack Thorne) have managed to capture that sense of desperate adolescent obsession. The teenage protagonists are created faithfully. There is never any inclination to patronise their confused emotions - instead, the intensity of feeling provides the main dramatic impetus, as the dynamic of a childhood relationship begins to change drastically in the face of responsibilities which they are simply not capable of dealing with.

Cinematographer Robbie Ryan in this film creates a love ballad for the Norfolk coast, drenching his shots in golden hues and hazy stretches of empty beach, superbly capturing a landscape caught halfway between land and sea. His work makes the tragic violence of the final scenes all the more unbearable, emphasising to the audience how far these teenagers have come in the course of the narrative, ripped from the dappled summers of childhood into the dank half-light of a cold cave.

The leading performances from Turgoose and Grainger carry the audience forward into the darkness of the final plot twists. Thomas Turgoose is undoubtably an intriguing acting talent, creating in his character a restrained yet emotionally potent portrayal of adolescent love/obsession. Holly Grainger is admirable as the independent teenage girl who thinks she can take on the world and all it throws at her, unable to recognise how out of her depth she really is. The way she moves from being in complete control to utter dependence on David underlines an impressive understanding of Emily's emotional desperation.

The final turn of the plot has the potential to estrange some viewers, as the director leads his audience to the brink of emotional distress. But the layering of the film requires the charting of fallen innocence to be fully realised, and the director doesn't flinch at its execution. This is a daring introduction to the world of feature film for Tom Harper; its release marks the arrival of a significant new talent in the U.K. film industry.

James Gill: Twitter @jg8608
Email: gilljames@me.com
www.singleadmission.co.uk

Four Lions

Like Charlie Chaplin's Hitler, Chris Morris' 'Four Lions' shows that no subject can escape comic scrutiny; humour always seems to find the ability to expose the ridiculous in otherwise appalling situations. This satirical black comedy vents its disgust at the pseudo-morality of suicide bombing, whilst managing to portray its terrorists with an affection that allows the audience an unexpected emotional attachment with these supposed figures of violence.

The film follows a terrorist cell of blundering, inept, and impossibly stupid would-be suicide bombers on their quest towards martyrdom -- we follow them failing miserably in a Pakistan training camp, trying to run through sheep fields whilst carrying bags of explosives, attaching bombs to crows, all the time creating a chaotic 'blooper' reel of attempted martyrdom videos. These suicide bombers are not the feared assassins of popular imagination, but absurd and easily led dupes who encourage laughter and ridicule -- and significantly, in the end, pity.

The comedy of 'Four Lions' lies in the power of its bathos: the film reduces the dreaded spectre of suicide bombing to a ludicrous pageant of ineptitude. It's a film with fast laughs and dim wit in abundance, an absurd 'How Not-To Guide' to martyrdom.

However, the audience cannot help but feel pity for the characters as their plot reaches its climax. There is a sad inevitability to the group's last moments together; despite the horror of what the bombers are planning, the audience has been lulled into sympathising with their situation. The sadness of the film comes with the audience's realisation that these characters are regular, likeable, funny, naïve people -- they are not monsters in themselves, but made monstrous by their susceptibility to absurd, immoral teachings.

The lead character Omar's interactions with his wife and young son are painful in their twisted depiction of the ideal family unit. At one point Omar (played by Riz Ahmed) tells his son a bedtime story about 'Simba's Jihad'. It is a scene that is touching, funny and uncomfortable all at once, a reflection of our responses to the film as a whole.

'Four Lions' is provocative in its comic parody of an emotional subject, but there is never any sense that it wishes to be deliberately inflammatory. Instead, the story is told with warmth and sharp humour; it offers us a fine concoction of derision and sympathy, pulling at our affections whilst cutting the terrifying down to the clownish.

James Gill
Twitter @jg8608

Email gilljames@me.com

www.singleadmission.co.uk

Saw VI (2009) (18)

Starring: Tobin Bell, Costas Mandylor, Mark Rolston, Betsy Russell

Directed by: Kevin Greutert

Written by: Patrick Melton, Marcus Dunstan

Produced by: Mark Burg, Oren Koules

Reviewer’s rating: 5/10

Saw VI is the latest and hopefully the final installment of the Saw series. The film focuses on the effects of the Jigsaw killer, and his successor, Mark Hoffman. Like the previous films in the series, we see the same old death traps and games, as well as the same long-running storyline that has run throughout the series.

Like in the previous Saw movies, it plays on the character’s morals as well as the contemporary issues in America, such as healthcare and the current mortgage crisis. Unfortunately the plot of the film isn’t quite as interesting, with Hoffman carrying out Jigsaw’s legacy despite his death from three films ago.

Intentions are immediately set out with the film’s gruesome first scene. The first game is probably one of the most difficult to watch, it begins with two employees in the mortgage sector; the one who is able to cut off more flesh being allowed to live. It is these sorts of scenes which are likely to bring back the Saw fans, with more clever traps, and more guts and gore than ever.

The remaining traps and games in the movie are based around an executive from an insurance company who to his peril, John (Jigsaw) had previously unsuccessfully dealt with. In his fight for survival, we see yet more ingenious traps, whether it be holding your breath or choosing who lives and dies. The moral issue of who deserves to live seems to be the only thing which gives the audience any point of interest, apart from all the blood that is. The side-plot of Hoffman’s relationships with John’s wife and the FBI just seem to have gone on too long in this saga, and is just asking to be concluded.

Performances in this latest entry are for the most, pretty poor. Apart from that of Tobin Bell (John/ Jigsaw), who again perfects the role of the villain, despite still being dead. Unlike Costas Mandylor’s character who isn’t dead, Hoffman just doesn’t compare with Jigsaw.

Despite having the same structure and similar traps as the other five films, the twist in Saw VI is somewhat unpredictable. Most watching would probably have believed the family in the cell to have been that of the insurance executive, the twist being that it was actually the family of a client who he had previously denied giving insurance to, as we find out from one of the film’s many flashbacks. The game turns out not to be that of the executive but instead of the family, whose decision it is whether to let him live or die. This leads to probably the most brutal scene, in which hydrofluoric acid is pumped into his back, and his body dissolving!

Reviewer’s verdict: Saw VI is probably a must see for all Saw fans due to its death defying traps, and bloody gore. However its structure is exactly the same as all the other previous Saw movies meaning if you’ve seen one, you’ve seen them all before. Scenes with John probably bring up the most entertainment, but a fresh look is needed if ever another Saw film is to be made.

Harry Brown

Film One: Harry Brown
Running Time: 103 minutes
Director: Daniel Barber Cert: 18
Starring: Michael Caine, Emily Mortimer, David Bradley

It was so good to see Caine back in a British film after a running flush of successful films across the pond, starring in blockbuster’s like Christopher Nolan’s Batman films and The Prestige. This gritty take on modern day broken Britain and the towering estates of south London is really drilled home right from the beginning, holding no punches early on with the characterisation of the yob gang. With some really awesome cinematography Daniel Barber has created an honest image of what a large percentage of people perceive as the ‘council housed and violent’ aka Chav persona.

In Harry Brown Michael Caine plays a widowed ex-marine, who is not dealing well with the loss of his daughter. As events unfold through the early stages of the movie you really cant help but feel sorry for Caine’s character. A Combination of filters, lighting and good set design paint a clear picture of his life and the constant repetitiveness of day to day life with no family.

A saviour comes in the form of his best friend (David Bradley), whom he spends most of his time with in the pub playing chess, putting the world to rights over a few swift pints. After a while of this the tempo of the film speeds up as the gang of drugged-up yobs starting crossing the line closer to Harry’s liking, and when his last remaining companion is tormented relentlessly to the point of reaction he is brutally murdered by the gang. This starts the pensioner avenger on his mission which also clarifies the genre of this film, a savage but absorbing revenge thriller.

Harry Brown touches on some sore points do to with her majesty’s metropolitan police service, making them out to be pretty much useless and portray them in quite a negative light, especially after David Bradley’s character dies.

To be honest going into to see this film I kind of had the impression it was going be another Gran Torino, a Clint Eastwood film that had been released just month’s earlier which had a similar story line. I was overjoyed and overwhelmed how dissimilar it was from the idea I had in my mind and that of Clint‘s movie. The film visualises common stereotypes very well, mixed with a good understanding of the use of language, it is really noticeable and helps carry the story from the violent youth’s side.

Some viewers may be put off by the quantity of realistic violence. I believe it to be quite reasonable as it is not overly used and not grotesque, it is only used as when needed. Even though I have to admit there are some squeamish moments throughout, so its not for the fainthearted.

All in all I think it’s a superb British film and although at times the plot line weakens there is the amazing leading role which carries and surpasses any of the films early short falls. For only the second film Daniel Barber has directed, I think he has made a great movie and will be one to look out for in the future.

My Rating: (4/5)

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.

Paranormal Activity (2009) (15)

Starring: Katie Featherston, Micah Sloat

Directed by: Oren Peli

Written by: Oren Peli

Produced by: Steven Schneider, Jason Blum

Reviewer’s rating: 9/10

Paranormal Activity is the film making all the headlines and is the must-see that everyone is talking about. Directed and written by Oren Peli, this film has been touted as one of the scariest films ever made. With only a lowly budget of $15,000, Peli has created a documentary style horror, similar to that of The Blair Witch Project, however Peli’s clever usage of the camera turns this simple idea into a terrifying chiller of a movie.

The film is based around a couple living in a suburban part of America. Micah has recently purchased a camera in order to try and capture footage of paranormal activity, which his girlfriend Katie, believes is demonising her. He plans to videotape their everyday lives in order for the two to be able to combat it somehow.

The effects created and the excellent performances of Micah Sloat and Katie Featherston combine to give the film a strong sense of reality. Because the normalness of their everyday lives are shown as well as the paranormal stuff, it makes the film look even more real and believable and therefore scary to anyone watching.

Peli’s brilliant use of sound effects and special effects really create an eerie atmosphere, it is this as well as the sense of anticipation that something scary is going to happen so even something like a door slamming seems terrifying. The build up plays a large factor, beginning with the door moving and slamming, we then see bed sheets being moved, shadows being created and probably scariest of all, something that appears to grab Katie and drag her down the stairs.

The relationship between Micah and Katie is almost as compelling as the activity itself, with the couple having numerous arguments about Micah’s persistent filming of it, he feels he must be her saviour but this need gradually wears off with his fear of the spirit growing throughout the movie. We learn of Katie’s past experience with the paranormal activity, which leads Micah to become angry with her for not letting him know of this before they moved in together.

As well as all this, the time-code on the camera is used to great effect, by speeding it up; we see Katie stood over Micah for a number of hours moving only slightly during this, really creating an unnerving atmosphere that she is being haunted.

The ending leads to the eventual death of Micah at the hands of Katie. With more special effects we see an already dead Micah flying back towards the camera, the camera has then moved and Katie who seems to be under, comes towards Micah’s body, the film ends with her face almost mutating into a demonic face, she smiles and the footage is concluded.

Reviewer’s verdict: Paranormal Activity is terrifying but brilliant movie experience and a definite for horror lovers or even just film lovers. Oren Peli’s brilliant use of creating realistic characters in realistic settings really enables anyone to relate, which thus makes the paranormal activity even more of a hair-raising experience. This film should probably not be watched alone, and is one to get you turning those lights on and leave you wondering about those creaky noises are at home.

Paranormal Activity

Film Two:  Paranormal Activity
Running Time: 83 minutes
Director: Oren Peli
Cert: 15
Starring:Katie Featherstone, Micah Sloat

Starting out in the ‘lovey dovey couples’ house you find out that Katie’s character has been stalked by a demon for years and now its entered the house. As the story line develops it turns more into more of a poltergeist theme with doors and other objects being moved around randomly. As time passes the intensity gradually rises with more and more attacks from the demon. This all leads to a hair raising final twenty minutes, which delivers everything you would want from this haunted house genre and more.

Paranormal activity has been a real success for such a small budget, $15,000 spent completing the movie, nearly $40 million made in the first month at the box office! The hype of this film reminded me of when the Blair Witch Project came out back in 1999. Done just by hand held and tripod camera work you get a real sense of tension and suspense, this technique is carried over in paranormal activity.

Thankfully director Oren Peli has made a film a bit more worth crediting, with well thought out set’s and brilliant black screen space, you find yourself from the beginning looking for shapes or movement in the shadows. Unfortunately the characterisation of the boyfriend is stereotypical of an American horror flick, but the actresses (Katie Featherstone) role is done surprisingly well, giving the audience a realistic reaction to the events that unfold.

I think the film has taken lots of its content from previously for gone horrors like The Exorcist, Emily Rose, Amityville Horror. The list goes on, but for me this film had its own unique twist and house style that really stayed with me, days after watching it. It eloquently touches on some of the everyday spooks that people get. For instance; floorboards creaking, pipes expanding, the misplaced judgment when you believe that you hear someone or something. That alone is enough to get your average hardened teen sleeping with the lights on, and is a remarkable feat!

In summary I thought that Paranormal Activity is a well put together film, I liked the way that the two characters in the movie where part of the actual crew who made it. It added a little more substance to what is more or less, quite a straight forward story line. I would recommend it to any one who is interested in digital media production to watch it. Not only to see the technique, style and plethora of shots, but to admire the fact that this is Orin Peli’s first film and it has proven a few keys points about modern cinema. It has certainly inspired me and proves that you don’t need massive budgets, tonnes of C.G.I or super famous actors to make a genuine,thoughtful, decent film.

My Rating: (3/5)

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.