Disney's A Christmas Carol Review

I'm going to be brutally honest now: I have very few feelings about Christmas. As a staunch socialist (nearing communist) and atheist both the capitalist and religious meanings of the holiday are completely lost on me. As far as I'm concerned the holiday is just the same as any other time I spend outside of university (formerly school). Except slightly colder.

With all this said it may come as a shock to know that I love the feeling about at Christmas. I love the idea of good-will to all men (and women of course), sharing, and holiday cheer. Even with my own experiences of Christmas consisting mainly of sitting around in my bedclothes and watching TV, there's something about the stories which gets me. As an example: it's the only time of the year that I can think Disney without immediately thinking Nazi afterwards. Oh wait -

I think I actually have to credit my enjoyment of a festive feeling to the media. Half because my own life is seemingly devoid of it, and half because TV and films are simply better at Christmas. And it's not only because of the production values. Simply put: the stories presented at Christmas all hit something shared within the human experience; that bizarre feeling of instantaneous excitement for an event (which ultimately disappoints). I would personally argue that The Snowman is the best example of this and no other films need apply, but apparently Disney disagree.

Nazi wankers.

A Christmas Carol sees Jim Carrey join the likes of Patrick Stewart (A Christmas Carol), Rowan Atkinson (Blackadder's A Christmas Carol), and even The Muppets (A Muppet Christmas Carol) in the plethora of TV adaptations of Dickens' famous book. Like all versions of the film, this one has a gimmick – it's 3D. Whilst I can honestly say that I'm not too much of a fan of 3D films, I don't mind admitting that it works here. If there's one thing Disney can do well it's animation.

As for the rest of the film, I'm going to dive straight into my nitpicking. And honestly there isn't too much to comment upon. As everyone over the age of a sperm cell knows the plot of this film it's probably only worth mentioning how it's represented here. Rather oddly the first twenty, or maybe even thirty minutes of the film are some of the bleakest sections of animation I have ever witnessed. The portrayal of Scrooge as a complete and utter bastard is so brutal and nigh on perfect that it becomes impossible to see how this film could have been made for children.

Then it all derails into a jaunty trip down Disney lane for a large period of time. Things move fast, colours splash all over the screen and children giggle. It's oh so wonderful.

As with any self-respecting mature male does when confronted with this sort of entertainment I tried to find my inner child and enjoy what I was presented. Finding him bitter and full of the ashes of failed promise I got bored and messed around with my 3D glasses for a bit. Just as I was about to switch off entirely something remarkable happened. Disney went back to being bleak. My inner ash child was contented and I continued to watch. Until it ended like every rendition of this story always does: with Scrooge becoming a happy, Christmas loving man. Rather abruptly I might add.

Other than the plot I can't find much to mention. The animation is fantastic, the voice acting is fine, and the musical score is Christmassy. I can only really say that I don't think anyone will enjoy all of this film. The beginning is too slow and bleak for children, the middle too quick and Disney-esque for adults, and the end too unbelievable. It's worth a watch I guess.

Fuck it: back to The Snowman.

6/10

Halo 3: ODST Review

Dearest reader,

What follows is part review and part suicide note. As followers of my website, blog, or Twitter account will undoubtedly have picked up on, I'm having a pretty shit time at the moment. So, I decided to take a meagre portion of my student loan and buy something to cheer myself up. Given that Halo always used to cheer me up in my earlier teenage years and the cast of Firefly (possibly my favourite sci-fi of all time) are the voice actors for ODST I decided that it was a pretty safe bet. Heck, my friend Rory even came over to play the game through on co-op (legendary difficulty – we're manly men!) with me. We set aside a whole day for it.

I like to take a walk with whomever I happen to be with after absorbing any media product intensively. During these walks I like to talk about whatever I just played/watched/read/listened to a little bit whilst not fixating on the subject. After ODST there were very few words. Rory and I merely walked in near silence, letting out miserable sighs, the occasional swear word, and any phrasing of the sentence: 'what the fuck?'.

I feel that it may perhaps be perceived that I'm over-stating how badly this game affected me; I'm not. To make my point valid I feel I have to refer to the worst film I have ever seen: Revenge of the Nerds 2: Nerds in Paradise. Although Nerds 2 is completely devoid of humour, although I felt as if my mind were being torn apart by hundreds upon hundreds of tiny knives whilst watching it, although I wanted to die during every second of that putrid pile of shit, I still enjoyed it more than ODST. Why? BECAUSE LOGIC HAS NO PLACE IN HELL!

Alright, in-jokes aside, why is ODST as bad as I say it is? I admit that I actually enjoyed the game mildly the first time I played it through (on normal). The pacing seemed alright, I never got stuck in one area too long, and the marine statistics and weaponry actually seemed to make the game run smoother than Halo 3 itself. But it cost me £30, and I refuse to pay £30 for 6 hours of gameplay. I only took that crap for Portal because it was 6 hours of gaming heaven and you got three other games with it. And before you start: we don't talk about Mirror's Edge here any more.

On the game's second play through it starts to fall apart. When I say 'fall apart' I mean everything is boring after the first mission – which isn't too great. The detective angle that Bungie have played off as revolutionary for the series comes down to nothing more than running through mostly empty scenery whilst looking for a single object to the sound of shit music. It reminds me of those game world hubs that used to be in things like Spiro, and Crash Bandicoot. Except shit and far too drawn-out.

The rest of the game is similar to the same old Halo affair without ever approaching any level of fun. The combat drags after the first half hour, largely due to the fact that it's obvious Bungie have provided a single way to deal with each situation thus making even the larger sequences seem completely redundant. Then, once you hit the third, maybe the fourth hour of gameplay something hits you: ODST is the same fight copy and pasted about fifty times.

I paid £30 for five minutes of gameplay.

You may scoff at this criticism and say that all shooters are in effect exactly same thing done over, and over, and over again: you'd be completely right. The only difference between this game and other shooters is that other shooters try to hide how repetitive they are with set-pieces. ODST has precisely one set-piece, and it's shit. I would even go so far to say that ODST is more repetitive than World of Warcraft. At least with WoW you have to change what you click every few levels.

With this we come to the crux of the matter: the storyline. I can forgive anything for a good plot. As an example: The Da Vinci Code. It's an awfully constructed and written book, but I kept with it because the story was so interesting. ODST falls apart completely because of one reason and one reason only. That reason?

As far as I can tell, there is no plot.

As the Rookie (yes, they pulled another Master Chief esque character out of their arse) you do nothing but look for the other characters, and as the other characters you do nothing but shoot shit. There is a very desperate attempt to link everything in the game's last two missions, but it simply doesn't work.

It somehow seems that Bungie are trying desperately to remind the audience of Firefly. The characters are all similar to those in the the show, the dialogue is borderline Whedon (but I do mean in his Angel and Buffy years. Which are naught but a blight upon humanity), and there are numerous references to episodes very dear to my heart. The problem? THIS IS THE FUCKING HALOVERSE!

Forgive me for resulting to stereotypes, but I don't think the common Halo gamer is going to have heard of, or care about Firefly, Serenity, or any of the actors involved with them. So, they aren't going to be too happy when they see all these references changing EVERY FUCKING DYNAMIC ESTABLISHED WITHING THE GAME WORLD! Similarly, Firefly fans don't generally like Halo. And even if they do I imagine they'd much rather just watch the show than play through six hours of substandard science fiction for a scant few references. So, what about the multiplayer?

I must admit that I probably went into 'firefight' (sic.) with lower expectations than I should have done, but with a campaign that mid-numbing can you blame me? Basically the mode is just fights which bored you in the campaign lasting even longer, with less reason to continue playing them. If you're a really hardcore Halo fan then you might enjoy it. But I mean a really hardcore Halo fan. The kind who gets annoyed when people say the game is 'okay but not great'.

As for the second disc, I assume you all already own Halo 3? If you fit the description of a hardcore Halo fan shown above then your head probably exploded over the three exclusive maps already. Otherwise, there's just no fucking point. You may as well just throw your money in the bin.

And with this my fury has been vented unto the world and I can now go and quietly hang myself. I don't want to leave any personal messages to anyone – you're all wankers. I suppose I should probably say something poetic with myself passing. How does '0/10' sound?

0/10 – It'll do.

With spite: James.

(P.S. I'm not actually going to kill myself. It's a joke; mocking depression is obviously hilarious.)

Saw VI Review

Before I start let me say that this review is completely pointless. About a year ago I reviewed the first film in this series, and to my surprise it wasn't too bad. Since then I've swallowed whatever remained of my dignity and watched all of the Saw films. As I expected, they get progressively worse and, like all franchise, seem completely pointless after the third film. And even telling you that is fucking pointless; wanna know why?

It's pointless because no matter what I say, no matter what anyone says, if you're reading a review of Saw VI on the internet then you are going to go and see it. Sequel syndrome will have set in and you'll be desperately trying to convince yourself that the plot will add up. You have to see how it ends now, even though you know it won't be at all interesting – or even make sense. It happens to the best of us.

Consumerist twats.

I don't even think there's any point in my explaining the plot: it's Saw, you already know what happens. The only difference is in the traps and over-all plot progression. So, in the spirit of the review, let's completely forget intellectual superiority to the film-makers and dive straight to the only part of this writing I can possibly pass off a genuine review. Here goes: the traps are meek and the plot doesn't go anywhere.

I just reviewed Saw VI.

Now that nuisance is out of the way I'm going to indulge myself in some critical catharsis (read Aristotle bitches) and pick-up on some of the finer elements of this film. I don't think that it would be at all unfair of my to say that when you go into see a Saw film you expect to feel slightly (more and more emphasis on slightly as time goes on) repulsed, mildly bored, and thoroughly underwhelmed. You do not expect to be politically challenged in any way. Well guys, guess what. Saw VI has political commentary!

When I say political commentary I don't mean to say that Saw VI has subtle references to problems within our society, or a sense of irony, heavens no! What I mean to say is that the film desperately tries to catch up with the rest of the artistic society by bashing capitalism. I by no means absolve myself from this school of thought (having written explicitly anti-capitalist essays), however it probably says a lot more about the state of the world when the basest forms of entertainment (gore porn, a.k.a. Saw) start to pick up on the idea that being a socialist is trendy. All political arguments aside, it's unreasonable to expect an audience to swallow an entire plot based upon subtext. Without spoiling the film (irony see?), the characters depicted as evil capitalist scum within Saw VI are by no means evil in real life. By forcing them through the hell created by Jigsaw for simply doing their jobs the film doesn't make us feel like they're getting some form of divine punishment for buying into capitalism. It just makes Jigsaw look like a dick.

In fact, this annoyed me so much that I think I'm going to introduce a new element to the reviews: Writing 101. Every time a writer fucks up so bad that it makes me feel like I could hit someone they will be signposted by a new rule – lest they be foolish enough to repeat the mistake. Today's rule?

#1 – Subtext is not plot.

In conclusion, Saw VI is exactly what you expect it to be with very, very bad political commentary stapled on. To give it credit, Saw VI is no-where near as bad as Saw V and I did somewhat enjoy the time I spent with it. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone beyond fans of the franchise, the bad acting alone can kill it for a new audience member. However, if you're a fan of the Saw series (and I'd recommend seeking mental help if this is the case) by all means go and see Saw VI. Not that you need me to tell you that, you've already gone.

I'm wasting my life, aren't I?

4/10

Zombieland Review

Zombieland is advertised badly. Every advertisement I've seen for the film features the gimmick of the theme park in some way. The trailers all show a scene with zombies being crushed by a fairground ride, the poster displays the cast standing in front of a fairground, and even the title alludes to the setting. Why is this bad?

About ten minutes of the film is set there.

Advertising scruples aside, let's dive in shall we? The film revolves around Columbus' (Jesse Eisenberg) desperate attempt to survive in a zombie ridden America. Along the way he encounters the Twinkie obsessed cowboy Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson) and the two immoral sisters, Wichita and Little Rock (Emma Stone and Abigail Breslin respectively). Aside from this very little happens. The plot and comedy is mostly derived from the character's internal conflicts (an example of which would be Columbus' internal monologue, which is reminiscient of Scrubs – but with zombies), and the setting. Occasionally some gratuitous violence or a cameo is thrown in for good messure.

From the outset, a character based zombie comedy may not sound like such a great idea. It doesn't really play on the zombie film sub-genre itself for comedy (except in a very obvious social satire way), and it relies entirely on the ability of the script-writers. Whilst this has been pulled off before to amazing effect (see Shaun of the Dead), you'd be forgiven for doubting its appeal.

Fortunately, Zombieland has one feature which catapults you easily into the rest of the film: the protagonist. As already mentioned, large amounts of the story are told via Coloumbus' internal monologue. These sections not only provide succinct aids to the plot, but also help to create the most wonderfully identifiable and neurotic character I can remember in recent film history. Both the scripting and the acting are equally creditable for this, with some brilliant lines being delivered in a quite frankly perfect manner by Jesse Eisenberg. In fact, this character is so fantastically crafted that he is able to support the rest of the film on his shoulders one the few occasions it falls flat.

Not that it falls flat often. Each of the supporting characters is instantly likeable, and wonderfully scripted as well. Special credit must go to Woody Harrelson for his fantastic portrayal of Tallahassee, but the two girls are both fantastic as well. Past this, the action sequences are filmed with a perfect tone, the scripting is almost flawless and I can honestly say that I was never bored.

The one complaint I do have is that around the 40 minute mark the film slows down quite considerably. It speeds up again when a certain (and awesome) cameo comes into play, but a large section of the film feels quite stale compared to the rest. Luckily most of this sustained by our lead and what results is by no means bad film making. Its just outshone by what went before it and what happens after it.

To sum up, Zombieland is the only genuinely funny comedy I've seen in a long time. It has a few failings which make it fall short of the only other zombie comedy worth its salt (Shaun of the Dead) but it still managed to leave me feeling satisfied. Check it out.

9/10

RunMan: Race Around The World Review

It's been pretty dark around here of late. From uploading my own poetry and short fiction – none of which have even the slightest shred of happiness in them – to studying William Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus for university, it's been a long time since I did anything happy. Coincidentally, it's also been a long time since I had any money. The cure to both of these dilemmas comes in the form of RunMan, a lovely little independently developed game which can be downloaded for free here.

Now that I've said it's free you all think my standards have dropped, that if some thing's free then it's not worthwhile. Well, I'll have you know that my standards haven't dropped; I'm not giving anything back to the community, the community can fuck-off. Just because this game is free does not mean that I'm going to conclude my review with some benign statement like “what have you got to lose?” If it's shit I'll call it.

It is free though. Just saying.

Anyway, moving on from the fact that this wonderful game is completely free; RunMan: Race Around The World centres around the character of RunMan as he... races around the world. Well, you gotta hand it to them: they know how to be consistent. And this is is a video-game, the plot isn't important! It's all about the gameplay, which is actually very good here.

The game is a simple two dimensional platformer, with the objectives of all platformers: get to the end of the level. Each “zone” is divided into several levels with a boss level at the end. This is massively helped by the game's level design, which is some of the best I've ever seen. Several features have been added to vary things, most noticeably the sprint which speeds the game up and keeps it interesting for experienced players. The one complaint I do have is that the boss stages are always exactly the same thing sped up slightly. It's a minor complaint, but still enough to bring you back to the real world.

However, it's the game's graphics and sound which really make it worthwhile. The art work is intentionally cartoony and badly drawn, colour is used far too much, and the overall effect is that of a children's cartoon book. It's fucking wonderful! Add in some music which you just wouldn't expect, and this game is guaranteed to put a smile on your face.

So, overall RunMan is an exceptionally well-made, fun, and simply joyous game. It harkens back to the days of gaming's infancy, provided tight level design, childish and amusing storytelling, and a look which is both wholly unique and all too familiar. The only complaints I can think to offer are the boss battles, and the game's length (clocking at roughly an hour and a half). Whilst there is some replay value (character unlocks etc.) it's not really all that worthwhile. Still, definitely worth a look.

And it's free.

8/10

District 9 Review

District 9 is the first film that I've had to put thought into reviewing in a very long time. This can be accredited to two things: 1) District 9 is a difficult film to review, and 2) the other films that I have been reviewing lately fit nicely into certain criteria. I personally think that number two is more to blame; as complex as District 9 may pretend to be, it really isn't.

The film centres around Wikus van de Merwe (played by Sharlto Copley, the directors best friend) a field operative handling the relocation of poor South Africans Aliens. I realise that my joke wasn't that subtle, but when I'm dealing with a metaphor about as subtle as a brick to the face what do you expect?

So, as anyone with half a brain can deduce from the way that the film was advertised, this film isn't really about aliens; it's a half-baked metaphor about the apartheid in South Africa! And, as I guessed, this is it's main problem.

I don't know about you, but when a film tries to handle material as dark and miserable as the apartheid, I generally expect it to come to some form of moral conclusion. This isn't to say that District 9 completely shirks this responsibility, in fact it tries really hard to come up with something. However, when the film finished I felt that I hadn't been told anything beyond “people are dicks”, and in a film set in the real apartheid I could accept this. In a sci-fi I can't.

It may seem odd that I set my sights slightly higher for a work of fiction (especially science-fiction, a genre headed in public consciousness by George Lucas, a man who is clearly bat-shit insane), so allow me to explain myself. When you write, or film a serious work of fiction you immediately set yourself up to provided some form of message, any form of message. However, if working with a real life situation, you are not obliged to do so. Real life is messy, fiction is crafted.

It may seem like I hated this film, which I really didn't. Once the obnoxious nature of the “social commentary” on display here is dispensed with, District 9 proves itself to be an extremely enthralling sci-fi. The plot is tense, the characters interesting (especially the aliens), and the production values are extremely high. Overall, this may actually be my favourite science-fiction film since Serenity.

So, what is District 9 really? In my opinion, it's an extremely well crafted, and inventive film which aims far too high. In the hands of a more capable screenwriter, this could have possibly been one of my favourite films of all time. As it stands, it's still one of my favourite sci-fi films, and I highly recommend it. I would also recommend keeping an eye first time writer/director Neill Blomkamp, as with the technical expertise, dedication, and ambition he has show here he could well become one of the best film-makers in the business.

8/10

Taxi Driver Review

As all regular readers of my reviews will know, I like to pride myself on being at height of film, television, video game, and literary snobbishness. Ergo, I hate admitting to lapse in my cultured image. Continuing with this theme, it gives me great displeasure to admit that I hadn't seen Taxi Driver (a film widely regarded as the height Robert De Niro's career, and one of Scorsese's best) until about two weeks ago.

Before you leap on the “oh, how could you” bandwagon I'd like to remind you that I've still read more than you ever will. And I mean ever.

I suppose I should probably provide some form of excuse for this gap in my film knowledge, and lacking any real form of justification for this error in my judgement I must fall back on the law to protect me. I only turned eighteen a little over a month ago. It has only just become legal for me to watch this film. To anyone who points out that I've reviewed certificate eighteen films before now, I have only this to say: I'm a hypocrite, shoot me.

Moving away from my own utter failure as a human being, a critic, and a consumer, Taxi Driver revolves around the life of Travis Bickle (Robert De Niro), a depressed young cab driver working in Manhattan. He becomes obsessed with a woman named Betsy (Cybill Shepard) and encounters several criminals on the job. The film depicts his descent into insanity.

It sounds like an extremely simple plot when all of the film techniques, and psycho-analytical character progression are stripped away, which is why the film leaves them in. The camera work on display here is astounding, building and maintaining a level of tension consistently throughout the film's plot. Similarly, the film's script and music all work towards creating a sense of dread. This is so effective that's it's almost suffocating.

Oddly, whilst this is the film's biggest achievement, it is also it's biggest flaw. The atmosphere of dread transcends the level of simple entertainment and becomes something entirely of it's own. The lack of moral clarity in anything shown on screen is simply too much to bear at times. The film itself made me feel sick. It's sadistic to the utmost level.

The acting is superb. De Niro gives the performance of his life as the disturbingly troubled Bickle, managing to make me both fear and sympathise with the character at all times in the film. Besides this the supporting cast are excellent, each managing to craft wholly real characters when given any screen time at all.

Ultimately, Taxi Driver is a landmark in cinéma. Not only is this the perfect example of how to develop and maintain an atmosphere of dread and tension, it also serves as an unending testament to Scorsese's ability as a director and De Niro's skills as an actor. However, it is not a film which is easy to sit through, and as such I feel that can only recommend this to people with a good ability in watching films.

10/10

Paprika Review

As a rule all real animé is one of three types of insane (by “real animé” I mean everything that hasn't been Americanised). These are:

1. Bizarre – Absurd dialogue, bizarre character progression, and no real plot.

2. Perverted – Fan service through and through. Hentai belongs here.

3. Dark – Ranges from violent to borderline psychotic levels of violence.

The animé we are currently dealing with, a film named Paprika, slots nicely into the first category. Featuring lines like “I remember you from that time when I saved you from the tyrannical king, I would've talked if you hadn't turned into a bowl full of instant noodles,” this is by far the most bizarre animé that I have ever seen in my life.

So, the most logical question to ask is if this film has anything stringing the bizarre scenes together. The answer to said question is a tentative yes. The film's plot (and believe me when I say that I mean that in the widest possible sense) centres around the invention of a device which allows you to view your friends dream as your own. For some reason one of these devices falls into the hands of the evil chairman, who begins to enslave the populous in a dream world. It's wafer thin, has no real progression, and means absolutely nothing, but it does the job.

What job I hear you ask (not literally. Although it is 3am on a Monday. I really need to start writing these at a more practical time of day). Well, the entire point of the plot in this film is to string together the dream sequences, which are bat-shit insane. I can however forgive this, because they are fucking hilarious.

That, and the fact that we must always acknowledge my Revenge of the Nerds II: Nerds in Paradise review. Oh? You forgot that:

“LOGIC HAS NO PLACE IN HELL!”

It's good that I'm egotistical enough to pull this off.

Returning to Paprika, every dream sequence is immaculately scripted. Although the dialogue contributes nothing, to anything, anywhere, it never once failed to make me laugh. This was quite possibly the funniest film I've seen all year. Besides this, the film's soundtrack and art are awesome. Nothing else to it.

There's not much else you can say about a film like Paprika. It's bizarre, hilarious, and leaves you wondering what the hell just happened. I think that I enjoyed it.

7/10

The Grapes of Wrath (1940 film) review

I'll admit it: when I first saw this film I hadn't read the book. (I have now). Something about Steinbeck's meticulous descriptions of everything put me off the novel. Which is odd considering that East of Eden is one of my favourite novels ever written, and Steinbeck is one of my favourite. I'm not sure what this admittance does to my credibility. Never mind, I wasn't too reliable anyway.

That admittance fucked me up.

The film, like the book, follows the journey of a poverty stricken family of share croppers from Oklahoma, named the Joads, as they desperately try to make their way to California in search of work. Very few changes have been made to the plot of the first act of the film, save the occasional adaptation of imagery or dialogue in order to fit the cinéma. However, the second act of the film has been changed almost completely.

Having been exposed to the film first, I found no problems with this. It was still enjoyable (to the extent that a film about poverty can be enjoyable), and the final scene did leave me satisfied. After reading the novel, my view of the film changed entirely. I can understand that the changes have been made to leave the audience with a sense of hope, rather than desolation, as well as in an attempt to avoid any issues of censorship; however, that does not excuse them.

By avoiding the more controversial messages held in Steinbeck's novel, the film somewhat misses the point of the book. When compared to Steinbeck's novel, the ending seems far too corny, and cliché. Some of the characters aren't given the development they need to become almost real people, and the sense of tragedy is lost. Furthermore, the omission of the peach imagery changes them focus of the film from the relationship between mankind and land, to mankind's interaction with itself exclusively.

Besides these edits, the film is exceptionally well-made. The acting is superb, with each character bouncing off of the others perfectly in conversation. In fact, the simple act of making the character's all seem different for each other is hard enough when using the word, that the difference between the way each character is portrayed is nothing short of astounding. Sound is used in sporadic brilliance. Whilst I don't much think that the music chosen fits the film very well, the use of background noise against speech creates an unusual, and quite terrifying atmosphere of desolation and loneliness.

The cinématography is the best that I have ever seen in a black and white film. Shadow is used to outstanding effect, and as the film draws on the contrast between light and day becomes ever more striking. Some of the landscape shots used are so breath-taking that I had to re-watch them. It's that good.

Overall, The Grapes of Wrath is an extremely hard film to review. The good bits are amazing, but the difference between the book and the film will probably leave anyone who's ever read the novel with a sense that they've been cheated. Still, a must for lovers of cinéma, if only to look at the technical expertise.

8/10

Franklyn Review

Franklyn is a film about the mind. Although, you wouldn't think it from the way this thing has been advertised. In every trailer there is for this film they show a lot of footage of a Rorschachian character prancing around a huge Gothic city beating the shit out of guards. The actual film has about two minutes of that stuff in it. So if you were looking forward to some epic fight scenes just don't bother, you'll get nothing but disappointment. I should know, I was looking forward to it too.

So, if not an action film, what is Franklyn? It's a deep psychological thriller full of dialogue, written by the director. It's also contrived as hell.

The film's plot centres around four characters. The first is the aforementioned Rorschach look-a-like who is named Jonathan Priest, and resides in the fictional location of Meanwhile city. Meanwhile city is a bizarre satire on religion where each citizen must be part of a faith. Sadly, what could have been a nice metaphor, or even a cohesive story-telling device, is never expanded on.

The other characters within Franklyn all stem from well-worn stereotypes. The troubled artist, the lonely divorcee, and the troubled parent all form the brunt of the plot, and take up three quarters of Franklyn's runtime. Before you ask, the story lines barely have any new elements, barring Franklyn's conclusion. Which is nonsensical rubbish.

Other than plotting, script, and to a certain extent, direction, Franklyn is a fairly polished film. The acting is well done, and neatly edited, the film's special effects are at times breath-taking, and the sound is well-realised.

The saddest thing is, it would be easy to make this film a genuine classic. If the script was loosened slightly, the writer took himself a little less seriously, and the entire first act of the film was cut, Franklyn would be a neat little film. Nothing too pretentious, or obtrusive. However, that was not to be. As it stands Franklyn is a pretentious piece of garbage that wastes it's money shots on a half-interesting plot-line and misleads it's audience from the start. Don't bother with it.

4/10

Flight of the Conchords (Series 1 & 2) Review

The Flight of the Conchords have been something of an underground favourite of mine for quite a while now. The comedy-folk duo, originally from New Zealand, have written and performed some of my favourite songs, including: The Humans are Dead, and Albi the Racist Dragon. Therefore, it came as an unnerving shock to me when I heard that the TV series under the same name had been cancelled. The reason? Apparently the second series was shit.

As such, I've decided to review both of the show's two seasons in one go. As with my last review (Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, Game of the Year edition) this review will be broken into sections. The first will concern the first series, the second will concern the second series.

If you actually need help understanding that, get the hell off my website.

Series One:

The first series is based around a fictionalised version of the band's rise to fame in New York. Already famous in New Zealand, Bret and Jermaine hire the completely inept manager Murray to aid them. The resulting comedy is extremely dry and aimed at an extremely specific audience. Whilst I found it extremely enjoyable (what with having sarcasm falling out of my eyeballs and all) I can guarantee that you'll hate it if you like anything with a laugh track shown on the ABC network. I mean that.

However, the show is comic gold in sections, most notably in the musical interludes. These are shown in the form of music videos, and more often than not provide the most laughs in the show. Despite the fact that these form the comic corner-stone of the show, they often contribute nothing to the plot and on occasions just seem stupid placed.

Overall, series one of Flight of the Conchords is a cult classic. Like it's main competition, The Mighty Boosh, it will appeal only to a small audience. Go for it if you enjoy reading my reviews.

8/10

Series Two:

As with series one, series two of Flight of the Conchords is based around the fictionalised rise to fame of the band under the same name. Again, as with series one, series two is an extremely dry comedy, aimed at an extremely specific audience. However, unlike series one, this series doesn't work very well.

The majority of episodes are comprised around the same formula as the first series, however, there is a key ingredient missing. Most of the songs are shit. Having decided to ditch the instantly classic cult comedy approach in favour of songs mostly based upon sexual innuendos, the Conchords have lost their comic identity. Whilst the overall effect may be appealing to a larger audience, when combined with the dryness of the talking scenes, the show appeals to no-one.

That's not to say that the series is without merit. One or two of the musical sequences had me laughing more than most of the last series (in particular, the Japanese karaoke scene is fantastic). However, on the whole, this series is disappointing. Buy it if you're a fan, not otherwise.

5/10

So children, what have we learned? Two things.

1. I need to stop reviewing two things at any one time.

2. I should stop answering my own questions.

No logical pun to end the review on...

Fuck off.

The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (Game of the Year Edition) Review

The first review I ever published online was my review of Oblivion. It scored full marks. You won't find the review online any more. It was terrible, derisive bullshit. In fact if you read Official Xbox Magazine's review of the game you'll get a better written and funnier version of my original review. So, why the re-write?

Because I don't have any money left to buy new things. (Hint, Hint.)

My opinion on the original game still stands. It is an excellent, and addictive game. The graphics still have the “holyshitthat'sfuckingamazing” effect today, the writing and voice acting is still absurdly good, and the gameplay is still intricate and expertly coded. However, I would now like to deviate from the opinion of my younger self and state that Oblivion is not a masterpiece. It has some flaws to account for, including: noticeable lag at higher levels, an insane difficulty curve and the bastardisation of the far more complex Morrowind gameplay system. If it were by itself I would probably give the game eight out of ten now.

Luckily the Game of the Year edition comes with the two largest expansion packs. Let's see if these can add anything. First up is Knights of the Nine.

Knights of the Nine is comprised of a new guild complete with guild hall, quests and new items. The plot revolves around an attack on a chapel, to say much more would give it away. It's peaks and troughs are badly spaced. Instead of beginning with a low and dragging you further into the plot, Knights of the Nine's plot starts badly and ends badly.

The quests offer a similar and completely lacklustre experience. Most revolve around simple item collection missions and the few that don't are entirely combat orientated. I will give the expansion credit for the items included within it. Each is a palatable reward.

Overall I would recommend Knights of the Nine to hardcore players of the main game. It adds about five hours more gameplay for those who simply can't get enough. However, on the basis that it adds nothing for the casual player to really enjoy my point score is going to stay at eight. Next: Shivering Isles.

Shivering Isles is massive. It contains new locations (masses of them), new characters, new side quests, a new story line and tons of new items. Set in the realm of Sheogorath (the daedric prince of madness) Shivering Isles focuses on the struggle of the realm against the knights of order. The plot plays out in all manner of directions and each plot twist is as interesting as the last. The expansion's plot actually bests that of the original game by far.

This obviously helps to keep the quests fresh. Ranging from running your own dungeon to taking drugs in order to stay alive, Shivering Isles is able to provide a constantly changing and always interesting gameplay environment. The pretext that the expansion is set within the realm of insanity allows the developers to implement strange gameplay devices on a whim.

Overall, Shivering Isles is better than the main game. It's quests and plot are genius. The items are all fitting for the difficulty curve, and the characters are all vibrant and full of life. It raises The Game of the Year Edition's score to a solid nine.

One point was dropped because of the increase in load times and the neglect given to bugs.

9/10

Control Review

Joy Division are a good band. I don't know anybody who hasn't heard Love Will Tear Us Apart at least once. Whilst the back-up members are undoubtedly talented (as can be seen in New Order's albums) the main appeal of Joy Division, at least in my case, has always been the morose lyricist Ian Curtis. Ergo, Control, a biopic about said lyricist is quite an appealing prospect to me.

Most biopics have an awful habit of adding meaning to the material that they are portraying. Whilst the outcome of this is varies, with occasionally outstanding results (see The Assassination of Jesse James by the coward Robert Ford), most films that do this tend to suffer. In fact the majority of the biopic genre suffers from “Hollywood syndrome”, a strange affliction which favours action over accuracy.

This being said, Control is the best biopic I have ever seen in my entire life. Based on the biography of Curtis written by his ex-wife, the film is a heart-rending, entrancing and, above all else, accurate representation of Curtis' life. The script is airtight and never tries too hard. It never glamorises Curtis, instead a conscious decision has been made to show exactly how horrible he was to his wife whilst still showing that he has been massively misunderstood.

The casting is perfect. Sam Riley as Curtis is quite possibly some of the best casting I have ever seen. His performance is outstanding, capturing not only the mannerisms of his subject-matter, but also the atmosphere given off by his persona. The supporting cast are also fantastic, each manages to give a realistic and believable performance.

On the music side of things: the soundtrack is amazing. Other than simply featuring Joy Division songs, several other artists have been used to capture the atmosphere of the time, encapsulate the mood of any given scene and support the character development. Not only have appropriate songs been chosen, good songs have been chosen! Control's soundtrack is a rare gem.

In a daring move Control has been shot entirely in black and white, perhaps to mirror the mindset portrayed as Curtis'. This technique nevertheless supports the atmosphere intended for the film and creates a very closed environment when combined with the exquisite cinematography.

Overall, Control is a masterpiece. Not only does it tell the story of one of the most interesting musicians in recent history, it tells it right. The soundtrack alone is enough to make this film worth watching.

10/10

Revenge of the Nerds 2: Nerds in Paradise Review

I've been putting this off for over a month. Not because I have to watch the film again: I don't. My review process involves me only watching a film once. Nor was I scared because I'm going to offend fans. None of the people using my website would find any of the Revenge of the Nerds (there a four) films at all funny. No, I was having trouble articulating my feelings for this monstrosity.

Believe me, it's horrific.

In theory I can end the review right here. Theory proven.

0/10

You won't let me though will you? You have to keep dragging me back in by reading these reviews. You're never content to leave me alone are you? I always have to justify my opinion to you. Well, I've got news for you.

I hate you.

For arguments sake: the above score is actually what I'm giving this film. The rest of the review will consist of why I think that. If it helps, try to think of this review as one of those films that starts with the end then spends the rest of it's runtime trying to justify why it did that. I hate that method: it rarely works well.

Revenge of the Nerds 2: Nerds in Paradise (released in 1987) is a sequel to the freak hit Revenge of the Nerds (released in 1984). The original film centres around the exploits of the Tri-Lambs, a group of nerds who fit every stereotype under the sun. Despite never having heard of it until I saw the sequel in a bargain bin, some research shows that Revenge of the Nerds was funny enough to be named Bravo's 91^st funniest film and is feature in a parody on Family Guy.

I have now lost all respect for Bravo and Family Guy.

Revenge of the Nerds 2: Nerds in Paradise is the same plot, in a different setting. The setting doesn't make sense though. That would by far too much to ask. Whereas in the first film the nerds were picked on at school for being nerdy, a perfectly normal occurrence (first hand experience), in the second film they get kicked out of a hotel for being nerds. Why? BECAUSE LOGIC HAS NO PLACE IN HELL!

The aforementioned “nerd hate” signifies one of the most sane plot points. Other, less sane, developments include: vaguely racist ambushes on the nerds with spears, kidnapping and abandonment, and finally, the discovery of a working tank in the middle of a desert island.

I could forgive all this if we had a likeable cast and some half-decent jokes. Instead what we get are characters based upon the worst clichés imaginable and jokes which not even the writer can have found funny. To illustrate my point: the nerds laugh at every joke in the film to show the audience that what they are experiencing is in fact meant to be humorous. Instead of an improved version of Japanese water torture.

This is actually the worst film I have ever seen. Films that are better than it include: The Man Who Saved The Earth, Battlefield Earth, Plan 9, Manos, Alone in the Dark, Catwoman and I know who killed me. The run-time on the back of the box states that Revenge of the Nerds 2: Nerds in Paradise is 85 minutes long. It felt like a life time. The price claims to be £2. In reality it cost me my faith in humanity.

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

Twilight Review

I hate Stephanie Meyer. Her writing is devoid of talent and yet somehow here I am, sitting down to review a film adaptation of her “novel” Twilight. So you know what I thought might be fun?

I thought it might be fun if I wrote this review in her style.

-Meyer stylistics activated-

I’d never given much thought to how my sanity would die – although I have enough reason to – one of those reasons being how often I interject my own sentences with meaningless filler text – but even if I had, I would not have imagined it like this.

It wasn’t raining when I put the DVD into the player. I didn’t see it as an omen – it was summer. It doesn’t rain often in summer.

It was awful, of course; I couldn’t deny that. Everything was shit: the acting, the script, the special effects. Even the idea. It was too shit – possibly the worst film I’d seen in over a month.

-Meyer stylistics de-activated-

Writing like that is killing me.

So what we actually get from the Twilight film isn’t actually as bad as I’ve just made it out to be. The acting isn’t shit all the way through and in particular the film’s two leads (Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson) manage to deliver fairly airtight performances when the flimsy pretext of their characters is taken into consideration.

Likewise the cinematography and direction on display here isn’t appalling. It manages to build a fairly creepy and foreboding universe which seems separate from that of the normal world whenever necessary with the use of some fairly impressive wide shots of the forest and repeated use of low angles. Sound is used effectively and the overall sensual effect of the film ranges from genuinely impressive to adequate.

I suppose my main complaint about the film lies with the plot and the script. Neither of these things are at all believable, coherent or even interesting. The plot progress with all the speed and elegance of an inbred snail, dialogue feels hammy (I’m aware that most of it is taken straight from the novel. That’s the problem!) and both scenes of plot and character progression may as well have the word “exposition” printed in large bold text for their entire duration.

Overall, Twilight isn’t dreadful. It’s easy on the eyes, sounds great and features some okayish acting at times. The only problem with the film can be attributed to poor writing, most of which can be attributed to Meyer’s writing. In other words, fans won’t be disappointed; they’re virtually getting the “novel” as a film. Anyone with common sense will be bored, sickened and sometimes even outraged; they’re virtually getting the “novel” as a film.

Oh, in case you were wondering: I only edited the text in my parody slightly. Most of it is taken from the novel directly.

5/10

There Will Be Blood Review

I like this film's title. It promises something, makes me want to believe in the creative vision. Admittedly, I have a penis and the promise of blood seems to stir something within me which I can't control. Maybe someone without a penis would be better suited to review this...

Note to self: Stop trying to ruin career and/or manhood.

Anyway, There Will Be Blood centres around the characters of Daniel Plainview (charmingly portrayed by Daniel Day-Lewis) a self-centred and embittered silver prospector turned oilman and his son H.W (Dillon Freasier and Russell Harvard) as they attempt to drain the town of Little Boston of all of it's oil, much to the disgust of the local priest, Eli Sunday (Paul Dano). It sounds like a remarkably simple plot on the surface and many ways it is, the narrative seems to throw almost random events in at points simply to keep the plot flowing.

I wouldn't be so annoyed at this if I thought the film needed the extra sub-plots to build up to it's, admittedly fantastic, climax (The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford is one of my favourite films so I can hardly be accused of lacking patience) but it doesn't. Even if something as simple as the opening of the film had been cut (5-10 minutes without any dialogue) it would have trimmed enough off the film to keep it as a coherent and interesting narrative. Sadly this isn't the case.

Which is a real shame. All complaints about the plot aside, the overall impression left by the plot is flabbergasting. Everything is tied nicely together by an almost infallible script, the depth brought into a seeming defunct concept is awe inspiring and the nuances brought into the film are literally jaw dropping. It's just too long though.

The acting throughout the film is spectacular. In particular, Daniel Day-Lewis is perfectly cast in the lead role, playing the character flawlessly without any errors throughout the entire film. Similarly, co-star Paul Dano is outstanding as Eli Sunday, managing to pull off an interesting and disturbing vision of religion gone wrong.

Cinematically There Will Be Blood is and interesting and daring film if not an entirely successful one. The long periods of silence or harsh sound contrasting to the full blown roar of an occasional explosion or orchestral peak, coupled with the nice variation between artistic and carefully judged cinematography and experimental use cameras is always outstanding, if only hampered by length.

So, overall There Will Be Blood is an outstanding well put together and conceived film, rendered almost unwatchable thanks to it's overblown length and slow and unrelenting pacing. The one thing I will add is that there isn't actually that much blood, rendering my ill conceived penis joke useless as a closing line. Urm... I'll close your line?

Someone kill me.

8/10