Brick Review

I've always been a massive fan of noir stories. The concept that all characters are merely stylised methods of driving home a completely ambiguous message makes me feel comfortable. As does the clichéd dialogue, the overly expository narration and the moody setting. In short: noir is the ultimate indulgence to me.

Second only to por... nothing.

So, enter Brick: an indie noir murder mystery film set within a school. The concept sounds a tiny bit bizarre but when you really think about it, everything fits. The detective is the school snitch and everything winds into place for a fun little comedy.

Only Brick isn't a comedy. It takes the basis formed in my above paragraph and makes it serious. The school snitch, Branden (Joseph Gordon-Levitt of Third rock from the Sun fame), finds his ex-girlfriend, Emily (Emilie de Ravin) dead. From there he sets out of a traditional tale of betrayal, lust and revenge.

The script, whilst lacking narration, is an expertly woven and unashamedly noir affair. It takes a while to learn to keep up with what the characters are actually saying, however, once this falls into place it's hard to see a flaw. Each character is as intricately woven as can be expected in this genre, each plot device feels natural and as the plot progressed I was completely engrossed.

As much as the film's success is due to writing, more is due to acting. In particular Joseph Gordon-Levitt delivers the most outstanding portrayal of a noir detective that I have ever seen. He even manages to pull of the stereotypical “hands in pockets” walk without making it seem stupid. The supporting cast are all outstanding. Each manages to nail the stereotype handed to them by the script whilst bring a level of credibility to the role.

The use of sound within the film is chilling. The music used to compliment dramatic moments is outstanding and the film's use of environmental sound is something almost unprecedented in the genre. Brick even manages to prove that not all noir has to be shot at night, in the rain.

So, overall Brick is the most expertly written, directed and acted noir film I have ever seen. Not only does it manage to incorporate almost all of the noir clichés expected in the genre, it also succeeds in elevating it past the stupidity expected. What lies as a result is a film which both conforms to and destroys expectations.

10/10

Dragonball: Evolution Review

I’ve been putting this one off for a while, mostly because it’s an easy target. I actually saw this at the cinéma. I went with friends; we may as well have been the only people there. So, what is Dragonball: Evolution?

It’s a bastardised version of Dragonball. Kind of.

When I say Dragonball: Evolution is a bastardised version of Dragonball what I mean is that anything that made Dragonball at all unique has been taken away and shot. What we’ve been left with is a collection of names.

If you’re a fan of the series you’ll hate this film. It shouldn’t surprise you by now either. Hollywood has quite clearly demonstrated that it has a process by which it can destroy any source material, no matter how good. I like to call it youthicising.

Youthicising a franchise consists of adding popular actors, explosions, sex and rock music to every scene. No matter how frivolous. It’s based on the theory that the entirety of my generation is comprised of moronic adrenaline junkies.

Whilst that may be true, it’s still annoying.

So now that I’ve made it abundantly clear that Dragonball Evolution will be horrific for fans to watch, I’d like to say that it is equally horrific for newcomers. The script is riddled with inconsistencies, puns and over-blown action, the acting is hammy at best and the special effects are laughable.

I actually can’t think of a single good thing about it.

So, go see it if you like watching young actors make complete idiots of themselves. Or if you enjoy watching a respectable franchise get torn apart from the inside. Or if it’s raining.

0/10

Star Wars Episode 4: A New Hope Review

For those of not in the know, I've been perusing this franchise with a strange and determined conviction for a while now. It all started last year, when The Force Unleashed smashed into my cranium faster than a speeding bullet. I got irrationally annoyed, paranoid some would say and then I started a crusade against Lucas' horror beyond horrors. Then time passed, good films came back into my life and I forgot about this silly feud.

Until now of course.

I have returned fresh from reviewing the fantastic and tragically cancelled Joss Whedon series Firefly and the mediocre Batman-in-space rip off Terminator: Salvation. I'm angrier than ever. Now that I have had the epiphany that all Firefly fans must eventually suffer. So, know that I mean only good when I say: Firefly died for your sins Lucas!

Let me explain. Thanks to the immense popularity of certain Science-Fiction franchises, specifically Star Wars and Star Trek, the popular view of the genre has become tweaked to stupidity. Once a breeding ground for the originality and insight seen in works like Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-Five, George Orwell's 1984 and Philip K. Dick's Do androids dream of electric sheep? the genre is now seen as something of mockery. In popular culture sci-fi is often seen as a breeding ground for the kind of pathetic, drooling adolescent morons seen only painfully unfunny comedies like Revenge of the Nerds (I'll get round to it).

So in combat to this stereotype sci-fi began to dumb down. The result: Star Wars. In my enraged state I've decided to stop picking on the prequel trilogy which everyone knows is shit and decided to go straight for the heart of the series. So without further bullshiting, I'm reviewing Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope.

Originally entitled simply Star Wars (until Lucas, you know, ruined the series for even the fans) this film jump started the entire series. The plot centres around a young boy named Luke Skywalker who falls in line with a crazy old man named Obi-Wan Kenobi and several other warriors from the factory of idiotic naming to fight against the malicious Empire, which is led by a fearsome wheeze bag named Darth Vader. This film in particular focus entirely on Luke's attempt to rescue a girl with the stupidest hairdo in the universe, Princess Leia.

I would love to say that this story had at least some originality, but it doesn't. The plot follows a simple “save the princess” routine in space. The concept is flawed, the dialogue is camp and the acting is adequate.

The action sequences are where the film comes alive. The special effects are quite clearly the best available in 1977, the choreography is exquisite and the accompanying music score is spectacular. It almost makes up for the rest of the film. Almost.

So what else can I actually say about Episode 4? Not a whole lot really. It's an action film plain and simple. It isn't deserving of it's cult following or even the vastly superior sequel, The Empire Strikes Back. No decisive blow can be struck either way, it's all so average.

6/10

Terminator: Salvation Review

Terminator has always been something of an enigma to me. Whilst I must admit that the first, second and, to a certain extent, third films are all entertaining and enjoyable films; the concept that technology is a threat to mankind has never seemed that profound to me.

It is true that with any new technology, social issues arise. That doesn’t mean that technology is an inherently bad thing. Take for example: the internet. Sure, it’s a festering pile of idiots, paedophiles and superegos but it… isn’t as bad as the atom bomb?

Alright, even if technology is bad, we already know. Every science fiction artist, writer and filmmaker ever has already made this abundantly clear to us. We don’t need Arnold Schwarzenegger to tell us that.

We need Bat- I mean Christian Bale to do it instead!

After Terminator 2 the series seemed done to most people; Terminator 3 killed it for anyone who thought otherwise. Yet here we are with Terminator: Salvation. Why?

The cash cow says “More!” that’s why.

The concept is that even after the best efforts of everyone from the previous films, the war with the Skynet has happened. Judgement day went down and only a few pockets of survivors are left to fight the malicious corporation. They are led by John Connor (Christian Bale), who as the expository text at the beginning of the film kindly informs us, many dismiss as a false prophet. Including me.

I don’t mean to take issue with the entire Terminator series but this concept just bugs me. Even if Connor is some form of chosen one, what the fuck can he actually do? He has no special powers, if not for convenient writing and impossible plot devices he could die as easily as anyone else in the series. I must admit that I was expecting some form of resolution on this point when I walked into see Salvation. The film is set when he’s supposed to be doing his thing after all. Of course that doesn’t happen. Instead what we’re given is two hours and fifteen minutes of loosely scripted filler. I wish I was joking but you can deduce the films plot from the trailer! There’s even a blatant “To be continued…” closing monologue.

The writing itself is pun laden and derivative. Trying far too hard to steal the famous one liners from previous films without giving a second thought to the context this dialogue is being used in. As to be expected action sequences are frequent and long. Although they become annoying at times, these are genuinely inventive and enjoyable, heightening pace and tension consistently towards the third act of the film.

Special effects are astounding, as is the use of sound, even if it is unnecessarily loud at times. I would also like to draw attention to the costume design which is some of the best I have ever seen in a science-fiction film. Ever.

Alright, I promised myself I’d save this until last: acting. Even though the credits say that Christian Bale is playing John Connor he wasn’t. He was playing Batman instead. I’m not joking; he does the voice and everything. I could stand the voice in Batman; it was terrible because it was meant to sound like someone covering their real voice. In Terminator it’s just silly.
It also got me thinking. Batman’s a prick, when played by Bale, Connor’s a prick when played by Bale, hell, even Howl is a prick when voiced by Bale. So, here’s a fun game: name a film where Christian Bale isn’t a prick.

I honestly can’t think of single one.

Aside from Bale, the cast perform moderately well. Most of them manage to carry scenes through to the conclusion as Bale gasps and wheezes through his dialogue like a man dressed up in a bat costume.

With a lung disease.

Overall, Terminator: Salvation is a good action film. It has good special effects, bad dialogue and Batman. What do you expect?

6/10

Firefly Review

Firefly is a bizarre thing. Although it only lasted for one series, with a film (Serenity) later coming to fruition due to the outraged demands of fans; it is one of the most talked about and debated sci-fi television shows ever created. Why?

The full title is Joss Whedon's Firelfy. Joss Whedon wrote Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

Let's get one thing straight: I hate Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The show spawned so many god-damn awful spin-off's and has such annoying fans that I can hate it without looking at it's own merits. The three episodes that I've actually watched were painful, narcissistic, borderline masochistic attempts to combine the genre of teen drama with supernatural.

Yeah, I said it: Buffy was shit.

Although, the one good thing I will say: Buffy's main flaw was it's concept. Not it's writing. Whedon was admittedly able to provide half decent character progression alongside reasonably successful horror and action sequences, and always quick-witted dialogue. So, if Firefly's concept is any good we might have a good series. Firefly's concept: Cowboys in space.

For fuck's sake.

As it turns out, this is less jarring than I initially thought. Once you get past the initial change from flying around space to riding horses and the show begins to pick up pace it becomes by far the least important element of the show. In fact, after seeing Buffy I was shocked to find that by the most interesting thing about Firefly was the characters.

You see, at the show's heart, it is a character drama. Each character within the cast is both deeply written, unique and perfectly portrayed. The main character, Malcolm Reynolds (Nathan Fillion) never stops being completely fascinating, as he drags the audience through moral dilemma after moral dilemma without ever letting them know enough about him to get tired of it.

The supporting characters are also excellent, as each character manages to consist of both believable interaction with the other members of the crew, and a concrete grounding in character development and moral direction. As with Fillion's portrayal of Reynolds each of the supporting actors manage to craft an exceptionally deft and witty interpretation of the character that they have been cast as. No-one ever becomes tiresome or annoying and special mention must go to Adam Baldwin (Full Metal Jacket, Angel) for his portrayal of the character Jayne Cobb as he steals the show no matter what.

However, Firefly's true strength ultimately lies with it's writing. All 14 of the episodes within the series are tightly woven and perfectly executed sci-fi adventures into the unknown. Whedon displays all the hallmarks of his previous endeavours: his charismatic wit, his exceptional character development and manages to make it perfect by getting rid of the one thing that made Buffy awful in my eyes: angst.

The use of sound and special effects within the series bring each episode to the point of masterpiece as they perfectly capture not only the atmosphere and tone of any given moment, but never seem out of place given the context of the entire plot: a drama about cowboys in space. No easy task.

So, after all of this I'm left wondering why Firefly was cancelled. Was it because Whedon wanted to return to Buffy? Was it because it cost too much? Was it because the show wasn't actually that good and I'm just an entity unto myself?

No, it's because no-one watches sci-fi any more. In the eye's of most people I've talked to sci-fi has outstayed it's welcome. Why? People associate it with Star Wars and Star Trek. I think it might be time for me to re-start a little fan-attack on something...

10/10

Night at the Museum 2 Review

Information: I like to catch the latest showings of new films at the cinéma, it combines both my love of film and hatred of small children wonderfully.

Problem: Night at Museum 2 had the latest showing at the cinéma.

I guess I'm reviewing a film intended for small children, again. Fuck.

As it's name would imply, Night at the Museum 2 is a thoroughly unnecessary sequel to 2006's Night at Museum (Ben Stiller, Ricky Gervais and Steve Coogan) in which the exhibits in the American Museum of Natural History come to life in the dead of night. The original was a cute little concept, pulled off fairly well, which turned a massive profit. Sequel time!

So what can you expect from the sequel? The same film. Sure there a few differences here and there (example: Ben Stiller isn't confused at the beginning and the exhibits are. This leads to some quote-unquote “hilarious” role reversal sequences) but the premise is the same, the cast is mostly the same and the plot's same bar a gimmick or two.

Don't get me wrong: Night at the Museum 2 is definitely an improvement. The special effects are better, the script is funnier and the acting is better but it's missing originality. Gone are the thrills experienced when the exhibits came to life, gone is the sense of immediacy and danger created by the unknown and gone is the humour derived from simple everyday situations. I imagine, then again I have a mental age higher than 12.

So overall, Night at the Museum 2 is a very good children's film, provided the children watching it haven't seen the first film. They might get it mixed up with the DVD. When will Hollywood learn? We don't go to the cinéma to watch the same plots unfold with better special effects, as an audience we crave one thing and one thing only: originality.

I guess I'm being too hard on this film because I wanted to watch the new Star Trek film so I could hear dialogue I've heard one thousand times with prettier battles. I'm aware of the hypocrisy.

8/10

21st Century Breakdown Review

This review is going to be shit. I know this for a fact and I felt I should share it with you. You want to know why this review is going to suck? Alright then.

Fact: I don’t understand music. Tempo, pitch and all that other crazy stuff is as mythical to me as a sustained erection… I mean a unicorn.

Or possibly something less phallic.

Nevertheless, I am going to write a review of Green Day’s 21^st Century Breakdown and you are going to read it.

Maybe one of us can do the title justice.

21^st Century Breakdown is a sort-of follow up to 2004’s American Idiot, an album widely regarded as both the turning point in Green Day’s career (the band’s previous hits relating almost exclusively to introspective, masturbation obsessed, energy drink fuelled nerd punks. Myself included) and one of the most important socio-political commentaries of recent years (if you consider 2004 recent). American Idiot infused powerful chords and musical grandeur with angry, cynical and rage driven lyrics to astounding effect. It was and still is one of my favourite albums.

Not too easy to live up to then.

Capitalising upon American Idiot’s success with a quick, masturbation fuelled release would have been the economically sound thing to do. Oddly Green Day didn’t do that, instead deciding to leave fans in the dark for five years and occasionally releasing half-hearted covers of Clash and John Lennon songs (‘I fought the law’ and ‘Working Class Hero’ for those wondering) whilst secretly working on a new album. The end result is eighteen tracks of narrative driven, politically motivated pop punk under the title 21^st Century Breakdown.

I must admit that I was sceptical about this album when I heard the single, ‘Know Your Enemy’, for the first time. It’s not a bad song but it has very little to say beyond “apathy is bad”, didn’t seem to contribute to any larger plot and seemed musically reminiscent of the Dookie era. Basically it was a regression into the tired and tested Green Day formula, which is by no means a bad thing, but hardly seems like a good thing after American Idiot.

Luckily the album isn’t a regression in any way, instead managing to carve a narrative on a par with some of the finest literature out there through it’s eighteen tracks. Unlike American Idiot, 21^st Century Breakdown doesn’t underplay Billie Joe’s now obvious intelligence in order to make itself accessible to the people his political agenda is targeting. Instead it makes you work to fully understand the narrative with clever, almost sardonic references to various cultural icons (for want of the most obvious example: if ‘Christian’s Inferno’ isn’t a direct reference to Dante’s epic allegory of the same name then the world has gone insane).

Thankfully, not only is the narrative a genuinely good concept, this time around Green Day have allowed themselves to do it justice with songs which match it’s grandeur musically. Unlike in pretty much every other Green Day album ever, the band no longer rely on loud songs juxtaposed against understated melodic nightmares (reference point: ‘Wake Me Up When September Ends’) instead opting to adopt a less progressive and generic album structure, and allowing each song to play it’s by itself and drawing it all together in the albums penultimate song: ‘American Eulogy’.

It would be an understatement to say that Green Day pushed themselves musically on this album. ‘21 Guns’ (my favourite song on the album) sees Billie Joe pushing his lyrical skills to the breaking point, ‘East Jesus Nowhere’ sounds more like The Clash than Green Day’s cover of ‘I fought the law’ did and every song in the album sounds fresh, interesting and genuinely like it’s part of a larger scheme. Apart from ‘Know Your Enemy’.

Which is really my only complaint; the single holds absolutely no purpose in the context or the rest of the album beyond a brief reference in ‘Restless Heart Syndrome’. It’s not like none of the other songs can serve as singles, indeed the album is literally designed so that you can skip tracks and still understand the overall message at the end. I can think of three tracks which would make better singles off the top of my head anyway: ’21 Guns’, ‘The Static Age’ and ‘East Jesus Nowhere’. I suppose I can forgive the inclusion of the song though, if only because it’ll draw in the Dookie crowd and teach them that political motivation did not make Green Day shit.

I think I’m done. That wasn’t so bad was it?

You bleeding much?

10/10