Soon after witnessing a catastrophic train crash, a group of friends begin to notice strange phenomenon in their small home town. Eager to somehow incorporate the events into their own movie, the group dig deeper into the events surrounding the crash only to discover something a lot more sinister is at hand. J. J. Abrams and Steven Spielberg invite us to remember how movies used to be.

Let me set a scene for you. In a small, American suburb some time in the early 80′s, a group of friends are living out their childhood. No video games and no Internet mean that these kids have imagination. They go outside. They ride their BMX bikes. They covet their house brick sized Walkmans as the height of technology. Then, an alien visitor is thrown in the mix. At first they aren’t sure if the alien is friendly or hostile but what they do know is that the government and military are hot on its heels and will stop at nothing to capture it and cover up its existence. Against his better judgement, and advice of his peers, one of the group makes a connection with the creature. He realises that the visitor doesn’t mean anyone any harm, he’s simply trying to get home. This boy’s name is Elliott. You know this story. If you’re my age, you grew up on this story.

I experienced a bit of a mixture of anticipation and indifference during the build up to the release of Super 8. As with most of his projects, Abrams gave very little away other than the fact that he would be working closely with Spielberg and that it would be a monster/alien movie. With the success of Cloverfield but the saturation of the genre, you can understand why I couldn’t make my mind up. What I got, however was a very pleasant surprise.

I’ll say right off the bat that Super 8 is simply the best homage to the innocence of the 1980s childhood that modern cinema has ever produced. It doesn’t shout about the decade in which it is set. It’s effortless in such a way that you know that a massive amount of effort went into making it seem that way. It does its job and by extension, proves that Abrams and Spielberg have done theirs.

The plot was familiar but more than original enough to be entertaining. The young cast were superb, particularly Elle Fanning who exhibits all of her older sister’s talent, without the nails-on-chalkboard voice and the special effects were spectacular but not over the top. I can only imagine that Super 8 would look fantastic in IMAX. Scripting, which is an area that can make or break a movie set in a specific period in history, was superb and never once causes your suspension of disbelief to waver.

I did start to wonder, though. There is a chance that I loved this movie so much because it was a wildly successful nostalgia-fest. Without the wonderfully executed homage to the films of my youth, would I have still enjoyed Super 8 as much? You can’t help but think  that a movie which draws so much of its charm from days gone by must inevitably lose some of its punch when viewed by an audience who weren’t around during that time. On the whole, though, I think Abrams and Spielberg handled this potentially sticky accessibility issue with skill. I think rather than making the movie, the homage to better times and better films simply makes a good movie great.

In closing, Super 8 is no E.T. But it proves, in its final not to the Spielberg classic, that even a movie only half as good can still win out over the septic tank of summer blockbusters that pollute our theatres these days.

Verdict:

I first heard of this by way of a trailer on iTunes a few weeks ago and it sort of caught my eye. As rubbish as they usually are, I really love it when movies come out that deal with an established myth or folklore story in a new way (that said, I have no interest whatsoever in seeing Red Riding Hood). Trollhunter is a Blair Witch style mockumentary set in rural Norway. A group of filmmakers on the trail of a bear poacher, instead end up tagging along with a bizarre government employee, the only one in Norway, who’s job it is to track down and kill trolls to protect the public while also working to keep them a secret. Sounds pretty bonkers, but check out the trailer to see why it caught my eye:

Things were never going to be easy for Trollhunter. A lot of people either hated the Blair Witch Project or are now so over the handheld shaky-cam sub-genre that they’d probably rather see the latest Michael Bay eye-fuck. Coupled with the fact that it’s all in Norwegian, the number of willing viewers had got to be dwindling. But, seeing as I’m not put off by shaky camera work or subtitles and I like special effects, I couldn’t get it watched fast enough.

The plot is the usual. Some hard drives were found near the site of an undisclosed incident in rural Norway and the contents have been judged to be genuine video proof of the existence of trolls. Where the story develops differently to Blair Witch, however is in the fact that the filmmakers aren’t originally out looking for trolls. They are originally on the trail of a man who they believe to be illegally shooting bears, something that only a select few certified hunters are allowed to do. When they follow the man back to his trailer they instantly discover that he is no ordinary poacher. After witnessing strange activity at his home, they secretly follow him out into the woods one night where they encounter a troll and one of them is bitten. Faced with the fact that he has been well and truly caught in the act, the trollhunter, Hans offers to allow the team to follow him while he hunts down the troll that attacked them. What transpires opens the filmmakers’ eyes to a widespread government conspiracy that has been going on for many decades, even centuries.

What I really liked about the movie is how it quickly and effectively distances itself from The Blair Witch project, and indeed Cloverfield. The fast paced story and the fact that you actually see the creatures (although not so much as to make a point of showing you) suggests that the director was well aware that his audience weren’t after Blair Witch: Norway while at the same time nothing as showy as Cloverfield. That sort of middle ground is actually very refreshing and just what you would want to see after a string of very hit-and-miss hand-cam genre pictures.

The dialogue was okay. Norwegian is a strange language which makes it hard to judge how well the cast are really acting but judging by their facial expressions and emotions, I’d say they did rather well. Camera work was realistic. A lot of scenes were either very dark or shot with low quality night-vision which goes to back up the story in that these people weren’t equipped to film trolls in the dead of night. They were there to interview people and look at dead bears. That said, it doesn’t leave you frustrated or squinting at the screen for too long without a decent pay off.

The plot was tight and the ending wasn’t forced in the way that a lot of these movies are. The credits roll at a nice logical point, recognising that, in real life, not all loose ends get tied up in an hour and forty-five minutes. That said, it does end comfortably without leaving too much unanswered or giving too much away.

Still, with all of these positives considered, Trollhunter didn’t blow me out of my seat. It was a fun little movie with some great tongue-in-cheek horror moments and a nice take on an old folklore tale but nothing legendary. If you’ve got a couple of hours free, go ahead and check it out, you won’t be disappointed, but don’t fall over yourself trying to get hold of it.

Verdict:

You may have heard of this one, maybe not. Rubber follows the story of an abandoned car tyre that comes to life and begins killing off the population of a remote desert community by psychokinetically blowing up their heads. Yeah, you read that right. So anyway, after a stupidly long break from this little old site, allow me to review what is probably the most ridiculous movie I’ve ever heard of.

If I haven’t stressed this enough up to this point, let me say it again; This shit is weird! I mean utterly batshit. From the outset everything about the story, including the way it’s told is strange. We start out with an introduction by a police lieutenant (not the actor playing him, the actual character) Yes, the fourth wall is smashed to dust. The Lieutenant addresses you as though you were one of the group of “spectators” who also break the fourth wall. He explains that the movie which you are about to see is “an homage to ‘no reason’, that most powerful element of style.” before pouring a glass of water onto the ground and getting back into the car boot he climbed out of moments before. The spectators then look on through binoculars as the “film” begins. I don’t want to spoil too much but these spectators play just as much part in the film as the eponymous tyre.

The actual story starts when the abandoned tyre picks itself up out of the dirt and rolls on its way. Early on it discovers it can destroy objects and living things without touching them and proceeds at once to the nearest population centre.

I won’t go into the story any more than that because, despite the negative review that is about to ensue, you’re pretty much going to watch the thing anyway. It’s car crash cinema. Oh, and it’ll make you think twice about that turkey on Christmas day, say no more.

Now, on to the nitty gritty. From the police lieutenant’s introduction onwards the movie does nothing but insist upon itself. It is the cinematic equivalent of Ron Burgundy shouting “Come over here and see how good I look!”. Rather than silently using good technique and style to tell a great story, it uses a pretty weak story to showcase directorial technique. Like a tyre on a car that needs tracking (see what I did there) the story wears very thin, very quickly. Tyre encounters a person –> Tyre starts to shake –> Person’s head explodes –> Tyre moves on –> Repeat. I’m guessing this is why all that breaking-the-fourth-wall crap comes in to it because if it didn’t the movie would be a one-trick pony on its way to the glue factory.

That said, the acting isn’t terrible. Spinella’s police lieutenant is particularly engaging but other performances are also far from garbage. The direction and cinematography are good, too. Clever but cheap-as-chips special effects adequately satisfy and careful camera work goes a long way in suspending disbelief over a living, homicidal tyre. All these things though, no matter how well executed shouldn’t be what the movie is all about. If you want to gush about how much you know about movie making techniques, make a documentary while you shoot a real movie… you know, one with a story and not just sequence after sequence of exploding heads.

So in summary; As a demonstration of directorial skill and technical prowess, Rubber is admirable. As a movie, however, it’s just plain terrible. When you cut through the weirdness there’s simply nothing there. Nothing that you’d want to trade 90 minutes of your life for, anyway.

Verdict:

Synopsis: When seasoned CIA spook Evelyn Salt (Jolie) is named as a Russian double agent she goes on the run to find her husband and clear her name. The only problem is Salt may well be everything that she’s accused of being. As the foretold “Day X”, the proposed start of World War 3, draws nearer the truth about Salt must be uncovered to save the world.

Bourne with boobs? Well, not quite. From the synopsis and, indeed the trailer, you might well get that impression but Salt is a whole different being all together. Firstly it’s a lot more tongue in cheek. The plot gets pretty ridiculous even before Jolie slaps on the facial prosthesis to become the most freakishly effeminate male NATO officer in recorded history. Insane leaps between moving vehicles, weaponised spider venom and super-Hollywood CIA headquarters are the order of the day here. Think more along the lines of the Mission: Impossible series than the all more serious Bourne trilogy.

Ridiculous as it may be this doesn’t mean it’s a bad movie. Jolie is clearly at home here as she slides comfortably back into her action boots after her hiatus from acting due to becoming a mother (to one of her own children). And she’s back with a bang. Salt is easily better than the two ill-conceived Tomb Raider movies and with Jolie front and centre she gets enough screen time to expand on the great action set pieces she hinted at in Wanted. Although Salt lacks the subtlety and ironic sub-plot of Mr and Mrs Smith it still ambles along at a decent enough pace to satisfy. There are certainly enough twists and turns to keep most happy for the duration as well. You might guess some of them but I doubt you’ll get them all.

Supporting cast perform admirably and, as is pretty much the law, don’t steal focus from Jolie. Schreiber, in particular, more than pleased as he took up much the same character as he played in The Sum of All Fears, with added suit. That’s all I can say about that.

Noyce did a pretty good job in the directors chair, so long as he wasn’t trying to make anything too taxing… because it wasn’t. Action set pieces played out well and there was enough suspense on the build up to them. A satisfying conclusion to wash down the popcorn leaves us with a well rounded action movie, but not much of a thinker.

Verdict:

Unthinkable

Starring: Samuel L Jackson, Michael Sheen, Carrie Anne Moss
Directed by: Gregor Jordan

When an FBI agent Brody (Moss) and a black-ops interrogator, H (Jackson) are brought in to press a terror suspect (Sheen) for the whereabouts of three nuclear bombs, right and wrong no longer exist.

When conventional interrogation methods fail, high level officials authorise H to use his signature torture techniques to extract the information, no matter the cost. Sickened by what she sees, it is up to agent Brody to get the information and find the bombs before H tortures a man to death and the the values of a nation are irreparably tarnished.

It took me a day or two to figure out whether I enjoyed this movie or not, and that I suppose is the whole point. Like Hard Candy, Unthinkable toys with what you think you know about right and wrong and it does this very, very well. Sure the pace is a tad uneven and it can be a bit bull-in-a-china-shop in places but on the whole I really quite enjoyed it. Moss, Sheen and Jackson delivered commendable performances, even if some of the supporting cast left a little to be desired, and the direction was more than competent, acting as a great tension builder.

Verdict:

If you enjoyed this, check out: Hard Candy, The Siege, The Sum of All Fears

From Paris With Love

Starring: John Travolta, Jonathan Rhys Meyers
Directed by: Pierre Morel

When handed his first “real” assignment, low-level CIA operative James Reece (who is acting as personal aid to the US ambassador in Paris) couldn’t be more thrilled… until he meets his partner. Trigger-happy, wise-cracking Charlie Wax leads Reece on a white-knuckle trail of destruction through the Parisian underworld and leaves him craving his desk job once again. But when Reece discovers he may be involved in the terrorist plot they are trying to stop, he realises he has no choice but to stick with Wax.

Like a cinematic meat-head, From Paris With Love packs a lot of punch with very little brains. Action, reminiscent of a ham fisted Jon Woo is drawn out by a ridiculous story and dialogue that would make porno script writers cringe. Travolta is too old to be doing this kind of thing and Meyers… well Meyers was okay but, let’s face it, you can’t polish a turd.

While not the best remove-brain-insert-popcorn movie ever made, From Paris WithLove did have its moments. Some of the fight scenes were exciting and some of the big explosion set pieces were pretty good too.

Verdict:

If you enjoyed this, check out: The 51st State, The Big Hit

The Book of Eli

Starring: Denzel Washington, Gary Oldman, Mila Kunis
Directed by: Albert and Allen Hughes

Eli, a lone traveller makes his way across a post-apocalyptic America with  a book that holds the key to mankind’s salvation or destruction. When he stops at a small trading post for water Eli encounters Carnegie (Oldman) who is intent on obtaining the book to control the town’s population and branch out to other settlements.

Solara (Kunis), one of Carnegie’s captives, decides to help Eli reach his destination and make sure that the book doesn’t fall into Carnegie’s hands. The pair make the last effort to reach the west coast, pursued by Carnegie and his band of mercenaries but can they reach their destination in time?

Remember how Deep Impact and Armageddon were released pretty much at the same time and they were nearly the same movie? Well The Book of Eli was, bizarrely released at the same time as The Road. The only fundamental plot difference between the two movies is that Eli has a specific destination. The protagonists in The Road just had to keep moving. That said, I think I enjoyed The Book of Eli a little bit more. It wasn’t as subtle with its message but the pace was a lot nicer and the ending wasn’t so depressing.

At first I thought the movie was a little too Jesus-tastic but the more I think about it the more I realise The Book of Eli is as much of an indictment of organised religion as it is a case for its existence. Combine this interesting story with some intense action and threat and you actually have a pretty successful movie.

Verdict:

If you enjoyed this, check out: The Road

A Serious Man

Starring: Michael Stuhlbarg, Richard Kind, Fred Melamed
Directed by: Joel & Ethan Coen

A Serious man follows Larry Gopnik, a Jewish college professor who watches his life suddenly unravel by way of a number of sudden unfortunate events. While looking for meaning in this troubled time, Larry not only finds no answers but stumbles into yet more misfortune.

Seriously odd-ball, A Serious Man is Coen Brothers through and through. This will most certainly not be for everyone but I was pleasantly surprised. While not laugh-out-loud funny you will find yourself identifying with how comically accurate a representation of day to day life it is. Not only this, you’ll find yourself exploring the ideas and undertones of the movie in your own mind for days afterwards and I don’t think I’m the only person who will want to watch it again in the future.

Performances were great all round and despite being a tad self-indulgent on the directors’ part the movie holds together very well.

Verdict:

If you enjoyed this, check out: Burn After Reading, No Country for Old Men, Donnie Darko (trust me, you’ll get why after you watch it)

Dorothy

Starring: Carice Van Houten, Jenn Murray
Directed by: Agnes Merlet

When a court appointed psychiatrist Jane Van Dopp arrives on a remote island to investigate Dorothy, a troubled young girl accused of abusing a baby she was babysitting she soon discovers that not everything is as it seems with Dorothy or the community on the island.

What at first seems like a textbook case of multiple-personality disorder begins to reveal itself to be something all together more supernatural and sinister. Can Jane solve the mystery in time to save herself and Dorothy?

Not at all what I was expecting, Dorothy is a fairly decent concept for a film and offers a nice twist on the usual multiple personality story. Unfortunately a low budget, unrefined direction and underwhelming cast let it down. The strongest cast member was Jenn Murray who played Dorothy and five other personalities throughout the movie but even this was sketchy at best.

The film’s marketing job was a bit of an abortion, if I’m honest. The trailers, packaging and tag lines all set the movie up to be like The Exorcist, Godsend or Birth when in actual fact it has more in common with Raising Cain and Deliverance. The interesting premise makes Dorothy worth a watch… just.

Verdict:

If you enjoyed this, check out: Raising Cain, Identity

Alice in Wonderland

Starring: Pretty much everyone you’d expect in a Tim Burton movie.
Directed by: Tim Burton

Tim Burton’s long-awaited re-imagining of the classic Alice in Wonderland sees Mia Wasikowska play Alice, a 19 year old girl who falls into a world from her childhood imagination to fulfill her destiny; to end the Red Queen’s reign of terror.

Although typically twisted and bizarre, Alice in Wonderland seemed to be a little too disjointed and removed from the source material. Proof positive that you can only mutate something so much before it becomes something else entirely. Burton did the exact same thing with Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Things seemed to just happen that, I’m sure made sense in the mind of Tim Burton but to average Joe, just seem totally misplaced and random.

One saving grace was the level of acting on show. Depp and co. performed admirably and smaller performances from Alan Rickman and Stephen Fry went down a treat.

Unfortunately, this time Burton has gone a bit too far into the surreal and turned out something a bit naff and all over the place. I’d much rather see the likes of his earlier work such as Beetlejuice and Batman. Those were the real gems.

Verdict:

If you enjoyed this, check out: The work of Salvador Dali

Like I said, let me know if you like this format because I’ve got a couple of days off work at the end of the week so chances are I’ll be doing the same again. I already have 44 Inch Chest and Splice ear-marked.

In a bit!

Twenty-six years and seven sequels later, Wes Craven‘s most recognisable horror creation is re-booted. This re-imagining of the classic horror tale has been on my radar for some time now as I was a huge fan of the 1984 original starring Heather Langenkamp, John Saxon and Robert Englund as Freddy Krueger. When I heard that Jackie Earle Haley (Rorschach from Watchmen) was set to play Krueger in the reboot I was even more excited to see what could be done with Craven’s over-worked baby.

What we have here is pretty much a straight re-make. Very little in the way of artistic licence has been utilised. I guess the makers didn’t want to stray too far from the source material in fear of a backlash from the die-hard fans (Odd, seeing as most of these die-hard fans were against any form of re-make from the outset.) The major changes are seen in Freddy’s back-story, something that was only touched on in the 1984 film. Instead of a child killer, Krueger is now portrayed as a paedophile with a penchant for knives and cutting who is outed by his young, victims; pupils at the pre-school where Krueger worked as a gardener. I’d seen some reviews complaining about this deviation but I thought it was handled very well. It brought the subject matter very much into the 21st century and added to Freddy’s malevolence in a way that would have probably been hard to do back in the 80′s.

As for Freddy’s character; Haley pretty much nailed it. Gone are the days of Robert Englund’s over-exaggerated campness. Haley’s Krueger is darker, nuanced and infinitely more threatening. This is only enhanced by the new look to the makeup. OTT pizza-face is out and gaunt, hollow realistic burns victim is in. Black emotionless eyes coupled with Haley’s deep growl make for a more than successful re-imagining of a horror icon.

Unfortunately this is where the good points stop. Aside from Freddy there is not one memorable character; at least none that you’d want to remember. Langenkamp’s strong yet vulnerable Nancy is replaced with an under-developed, awfully acted character who, if it wasn’t for the amount of screen time, you’d mistake for a third tier supporting character, not the lead. Her troubled kinda love interest type person, Quentin (Gallner), feels like a character we’ve seen a hundred times and wish would just fuck off. Oh yeah, and Nancy’s dad (you remember; the town Sheriff)… nowhere to be seen! What, did the money run out?

But at least there’s some sick gore and memorable kills right? WRONG! Even with all the very expensive special effects in this movie, the kills in the 1984 version were a hundred fold better. The one where the girl is thrown around the room by an invisible Freddy sucked in this version! The scene where Nancy’s boyfriend is pulled into his bed before being ejected in liquid form all over the cieling wasn’t even in this one! And it’s not just the kills that are replaced with cheap knock-offs. Marshmallow stairs are replaced with poorly lit, crude oil hallway and booby-trapped house gives way to generic dingy school basement. Gay!

On the whole, the movie was watchable. However this was only because Jackie Earle Haley carried the fucking thing, single handedly, from start to finish. I hope we see him for a sequel because his version of Freddy is something I want to see more of but for the love of god; hire some better writers and a director with half a  fucking clue!

Verdict:

It’s been six months (well about 2 years, our time) since Tony Stark threw down his cue cards and announced to the world that he was Iron Man. The world is a different place, it is at peace and the worlds first walking nuclear deterrent doesn’t only have to worry about enemies on the battlefield. The government wants his suit, his company is on the verge of ruin and the arc reactor chest piece that saved his life is now beginning to kill him. When things couldn’t get more challenging, enter Ivan Vanko, son of Howard Stark’s disgraced Russian employee, intent on destroying Tony; not just the man, but the symbol he has become.

I’ve been waiting for this since the credits rolled on the first movie back in 2008. Since then I’ve been drip fed nuggets of info that have just made me want to see it even more. War Machine, a new Iron Man suit Black Widow and more cool tech than you can shake a repulsor at. Couple that with rumors that the movie would see an even stronger resemblance to the source material (the comics) and you’ve got the makings of one exciting movie.

As has become the standard with Marvel comics adaptations since Marvel studios took full control of the productions; I was not disappointed. It seems the team at Marvel studios aren’t stupid, well they have been giving geeks what they want for over 60 years. They kept all the things that made the first movie so great and then added more!

The movie is certainly intense; especially the Monaco grand prix scene which, thankfully, the trailers didn’t ruin at all. War machine and The Black Widow are introduced in an unfamiliar but graceful way. Even the one character I had my reservations over, Micky Rourke’s Ivan Vanko, was skillfully and effectively portrayed and despite him not getting that much screen time still painted an appropriate amount of threat through the story.

One thing is clear in Iron Man 2; Marvel love tie-ins. Any fan of their comics has seen how good they are at crossover storylines with Civil War, Secret Invasion, Dark Reign and most recently Siege being very well received. No surprise then that in Iron Man 2 we see a shit load of subtle (and not so subtle) references to upcoming titles The Avengers, Captain America and (if you stay past the credits) Thor. These references work in varying degrees but even at their worst, see Cap’s shield, don’t do much to tarnish the movie.

So the performances were all good, the action and geek-o-meter all satisfied and it was as consistent, with regards to the first movie, as it could ever hoped to have been. However it wasn’t without its problems. As with the first movie, Iron Man 2 suffers a kind of cinematic premature ejaculation. It peaks early and once this happens the plot seems to wander a long while before returning for its second wind which isn’t as good as its previous, premature climax. For me the grand prix fight between Iron Man and Vanko is infinately more exciting than their final confrontation, albeit not as grand.

The movie also kind of teeters on the edge of a common comic book movie killer; character soup, y’know, that thing Spider-man 3 had. Though oddly I kind of wish some characters who didn’t appear did have little roles. For example I was well psyched for seeing Iron Man throw down with the Hulk, something that was rumored for some time during the movie’s production. But hey ho.

All in all this was a really entertaining movie and a more than competent sequel. Let’s hope that they hold it together for the next installment and, of course The Avengers.

Verdict:

Based on a comic book mini-series that wasn’t even finished when production began, Kick-Ass follows Dave Lizewski, a teenager who buys a costume and hits the streets as a “super hero” to help people. Using the moniker Kick-Ass he discovers that he is way out of his depth when he meets the real deal in the form of Hit Girl and Big Daddy, a father and daughter pair of vigilantes on the trail of mob boss Frank D’Amico. As Kick Ass begins to get the blame for the pair’s “work” he finds himself in the sights of the D’Amico family who put their own “super-hero” on the streets to trap Kick-Ass.

I’ve been excited about this movie ever since I read issue one of the series about a year ago. I only became more and more excited as I only heard good things from magazines and other reviews. Empire gave it a full five stars. In actual fact the movie left me conflicted. Here’s why.

I’m not going to lie to you. I massively enjoyed the movie. It was cool, snappy and didn’t try to pull any punches with language or violence like many films do these days to secure a lower certificate. Characters, especially Hit Girl were portrayed wonderfully and I really can’t see a weak link in the cast. Similarly, the direction, score and action were all top notch. No problems there either. What left me conflicted was the not so graceful deviations from the source material: the comic book series.

I’m the first to admit that in certain comic to film adaptations you have to make changes, either to flash out the content to fit a 2 hour movie or to cover up things that simply can’t be translated from comics (see Wolverine’s blue and yellow spandex). In Kick-Ass, though things were changed that really shouldn’t have been. Most of these I could overlook but two points; climax and Dave’s relationship with the girl of his dreams differed so much that it left me feeling disappointed. Maybe if you hadn’t read the comics these things wouldn’t bother you. but they bothered me.

***Possible Spoilers***

But the thing, on reflection that bothered me the most is how they translated the character Red Mist (Christopher Mintz Plasse) from comic to screen. In the comics, the true nature of Red Mist is only revealed when the double-cross is punctuated by a swift pistol whip to the back of Kick-Ass’ skull. In the movie, the set-up is dealt with out in the open and as such an opportunity for a great plot twist is thrown away.

In the grand scheme of things these flaws are minor. Kick-Ass is up there with Iron Man and Watchmen at the top end of the comic to film genre. I recommend you go and see it then read the comics.

Verdict:

Tired of mankind’s wicked ways, God has had enough. He instructs his general; The Archangel Michael (Bettany), to lead his army to earth to exterminate the human race for good. Convinced that there is still hope for man, Michael gives God the finger, heads down to Earth and cuts off his wings, transubstantiating into complete human form and heads to a diner in the middle of nowhere. There he meets up with a motley crew of misfits including a woman pregnant with man’s only saviour. It is here the final battle for mankind’s survival will unfold. Oh yeah, did I mention that Michael has a fuck load of guns? Probably should have.

Got all that? Good. Legion had some decent potential. Constantine mixed with Assault on Precinct 13 mixed with The Prophecy… with MOAR GUNZ!? Hell yeah it sounds like something I could get on board with. The reality, however wasn’t so great. In fact, it was downright disappointing. Not the plot or premise so much but the execution.

First of all, the dialogue was apparently written by a 5 year old. Subtle and nuanced is most certainly was not. Plus, I got the distinct impression that at certain (seemingly random) points during a scene that someone behind the camera gave the actors a signal to throw in an arbitrary F-Bomb. That’s how asinine it was. The only saving grace here was Charles S. Dutton gave the best dialogue of the whole movie and a pretty decent gag related to his character’s prosthetic hand.

Next big problem was how dark the bloody thing was. I appreciate that it probably didn’t have a monumental budget but come on, guy! Shrouding everything in total darkness might cover your bargain basement CGI but it’s fucking annoying. Did AVP2 not teach us anything!? Had it not been for this, the movie might have just been passable as a semi-decent Saturday afternoon actionfest… but no, the bastards ruined that too!

The final nail in the coffin for this debacle is the fact that it used every cliche in the book! Not just the action and scenes, things like 9mm MP5s that can not only shred cars from 500m away but also never run out of bullets, but even the camera work! It seemed like every other shot was a panning close-up of a person or object with a horribly executed shallow depth of field that looked like a faux tilt-shift photoshop effect.

“At least we get to see a kick ass fight between some hard-core angels and shit right?” No. You see 2 minutes of hopelessly dark blurry CGI followed by some bullshit cop-out of an ending that will leave you going “What… but what about the… WHAT!??! Oh fuck you, movie!”

So yeah, Not so much.

Verdict:

When his daughter is gunned down in front of him, aging detective Thomas Craven (Mel Gibson) begins an investigation that will lead him into the darkest realms of corporate conspiracy and government corruption. Edge of Darkness sees Gibson return to kicking ass and taking names and also stars Ray Winstone and Danny Huston.

The most notable thing about this movie is that you don’t get what the trailers lead you to believe you’ll be getting. From the very first (and very gory) death scene, Edge of Darkness is a fast paced revenge come man-with-nothing-left-to-lose tell with some great suspense and a marvelous performance from Gibson. Anyone who thinks he’s too old can sit down and shut up!

Truth be told, this movie has a great deal in common with Taken, a movie that received mixed reviews but I, personally loved every ass-kicking minute of. What Edge of Darkness has, however that Taken didn’t have is a surprisingly complex plot involving a rather large amount of characters. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not as complicated as something like Primer but it’s not your average brain-dead shoot-em-up either. The number of characters, however did the movie one small injustice in that, at times the pace was a little jittery and fractured as newly introduced characters are developed (as with Ray Winstone’s character) outside the context of the main plot.

This flaw is only a minor one, however and the sheer adrenaline and ferocity of Mel Gibson’s character are enough to satisfactorily fill any cracks that may appear. The flaw that costs the movie the fifth star, though is the ending… I mean the very ending… I mean literally the 30 seconds before the end credits roll which, because of spoilers I won’t go into. It almost felt like an afterthought, or maybe even an added extra thrown in at the whim of a certain aging Christianity enthusiast… say no more. The scene that directly precedes this could have been played up a lot more to create a far more satisfying finale (think the end of Watchmen).

All things considered, Edge of Darkness remains an extremely accomplished and entertaining conspiracy thriller with enough thematic backbone to stand up to all the action, bullets and snappy dialogue that the director and star could throw at it.

Verdict: