REVIEW: Lockout

Whatever happened to the action films of yesteryear?! The rugged, daring and wise-cracking hero, the helpless and beautiful damsel in distress, the massive explosive action sequences where the hero walks away without looking back and the evil villain who just seems out to cause as much destruction and mayhem as possible.
Have these films become out-dated? Do audiences not really want to see this kind of film anymore? I guess not really, because the complaints from online communities and reviews that I have seen about Lockout so far are pretty extreme!
"It's boring and so predictable!"
"The action scenes are terrible!"
It doesn't look good, does it?

Now, if I was a complete sheep and followed the crowd, I would probably start writing a similar scathing review... however, I'm not ashamed to admit it, but I actually kind of enjoyed Lockout.

The film follows the main character of Snow (Guy Pearce), our wise-cracking hero who is wrongly accused of espionage and murder. In order to clear his name, he is forced to go on a mission to SAVE THE PRESIDENT'S DAUGHTER!! Emilie Warnock (Maggie Grace) from a prison base, that is in outer space and orbiting the Earth, where the prisoner inmates have started to riot and takeover.

I couldn't help but smile at certain points of Lockout. It's such a throwback to cheesy 1980/1990s action films that is was just like I was a young lad again. It felt like I was watching the new John McClane, John Rambo or Dutch appear before me. Sure, the film was modernised with the hokey outer space prison concept, but the typical plot and characters were still there. I've seen online that a lot of people found Pearce's character, Snow to be a bit too much at times and that his wise-cracking jokes got old. I found it to be on the contrary. I really loved the way that Pearce built up his attitude and how he interacted with other characters - especially Grace's character, Emilie. I suppose that I could argue the case that Pearce didn't really have a proper character arc - he remained the same character throughout and didn't really make any changes, even at the end - but, I was enjoying his simple-minded jokes so much, that I didn't really mind!

Moving onto the villains, brothers Alex (Vincent Regan) and Hydell (Joseph Gilgun) do fairly well with the limited characters that they are given, but I can't help feel that they were constantly overshadowed by Pearce. They certainly gave off the impression that they were evil, but they were a bit too simple for my liking. It's revealed quite early on that they are brothers, so I was expecting there to be some good tension built up between the two, but it never really happens. They also have a really basic back-story and never truly reveal what they want or why they were imprisoned in the first place. Were they trying to get off the prison base? Were they trying to rule the prison and stay there?
Another issue I had is that the outer space prison seemed a little... empty, even though thousands of prisoners had just been freed. I half expected there to be a power struggle to rule the prison between the villainous brothers and the other prisoners, but there wasn't. I expected there to be trouble around every corner for Pearce's character when trying to find THE PRESIDENT'S DAUGHTER!! but he didn't. In fact, many times he would talk/shout without any worries and walk through many deserted corridors.

Having said all that, and the problems with the main villains, the film does a half decent job with racking up the tension - especially in the first half of the film. Within the first five minutes, we witness our hero, Pearce being hit hard across the face in a glorious close-up shot as he is being interrogated. Then, we see him being chased across the city before being arrested - admittedly, the CGI in the chase scene is terrible, but I still found it effective in keeping the tension up.
There's a scene where Pearce and THE PRESIDENT'S DAUGHTER!! are making their way through the vents - a simple scene that you half expect to have nothing happen - yet the tension is still built up as we realise they are being followed.
Some of this tension is released a bit by the film's third act, especially with the obligatory "I'm not leaving this space prison without you" scene (which I was expecting all along) and the pretty stupid space jump at the end of the film. I won't go into too much detail, as I don't want to spoil it, but all the tension that's built when you think they have no way out of the outer space prison is wiped away with a bit of lazy writing.

So, a judgement needs to be made between how much of a film needs to be predictable and how much needs to be fresh enough to keep us guessing. I've slated films before for being too predictable, but what makes Lockout different is that it feels like more of a throwback rather than an all-out copy of previous films before it.
If you like your cheesy action with simple villains, wise-cracking heroes and the damsel in distress (aka. THE PRESIDENT'S DAUGHTER!!) then it's safe to say that you will find Lockout to be an entertaining, but not necessarily revolutionary, film.
If you are expecting a space epic of Alien and Blade Runner proportions, then I'm afraid to say that you will be disappointed.
Much like the cheesy action films of the previous decade, go in with your eyes wide open, your brain switched off and your mind left open, because it's best in this kind of film if you don't think and just enjoy/accept everything you are shown on screen!

***½ / *****

REVIEW: Battleship

Ahhh, the summer blockbusters. Full of action, plot, depth, relationships, life lessons... OK, that's a blatant lie. Summer blockbusters are renowned for being films that are visual popcorn for the eyes and nothing else. But, why has it become this? Why should films released during the warmer seasonal periods be just the big set pieces for the film companies that make and release them? 

Some argue that it began with the film Jaws released by Steven Spielberg - a film that was not intended to be a summer blockbuster but ended up being one of the highest grossing films of that year. Some might argue that since technology has improved so much over the past few decades, it's given filmmakers the chance to include more and more visual effects in their films. So, have visual effects slowly overtaken the importance of a good plot in a film?

Battleship is a film that unashamedly fits within the summer blockbuster mould and makes no attempt to hide that fact. The poster brandishes the subtitle, "From the creators of TRANSFORMERS" and the theatrical trailer includes a lot of guns and explosions, so you should know exactly what you are getting yourself in for!

The film follows two brothers, Alex Hopper (Taylor Kitsch), who is the waster brother, and Stone Hopper (Alexander Skarsgard) who is the high achieving brother. Stone convinces his brother to make something of his life and join the American Navy, which is where Alex likes to use the weaponry and cause mayhem. And what do you know? Aliens start to attack our planet, create a forcefield of protection around them leaving only Alex and a handful of other Navy officers inside the forcefield to try and destroy the aliens and save our planet.

The problem with Battleship is that is boring. From the word "go", you know exactly what this film will do, exactly what will happen at each point and that Alex will be rewarded for his valiant Navy efforts at the end of the film (thus, not making him a waster anymore.) I would have labelled that as a spoiler, but it's so obvious that it's going to happen that I've not really spoilt anything. I'd even go as far to say that during the big explosive battle scenes between the humans and the aliens, I was still bored. Supporting characters are knocked off so quickly, that there is only really one target left for the majority of the film for the aliens to attack. And... because this target contains the protagonist (hero) of the film, you know that it's not really in any trouble at all, because he needs to live in order to complete the story.

Another issue with Battleship is the acting. Dear Lord is the acting awful! There were lines delivered like, "You need to get off this island now, there are ALIENS just off the coast!!"

OK, that's not an exact quote, but it goes along the lines of that.

And then there is Rihanna... She does OK with what she is given and she wasn't awful but if she is wanting to broaden her repertoire and extend her skills into acting, I really wouldn't have picked Battleship as the film to do this.

So, I'm keeping this review short and putting as much effort into it as to show how much I enjoyed the film... Not a lot at all really. I know that summer is a time when traditionally you are supposed to switch off your brain and leave it at the door, because the summer blockbuster is usually a braindead fun "romp", but I want a fun time in the cinema. I don't want a film that is so boring and predictable that I start complaining about the acting in a blockbuster...!!

*½ / *****

REVIEW: The Cabin in the Woods

How much research do you do into films before you go and see them? Are you someone who just needs to see the poster in the local cinema to judge whether you want to see it? Or are you someone who likes to watch the trailer and research sites such as imdb.com to see what other people are saying about it (and risk spoilers) before you go and see a film?

Countless films have said to have been spoiled too much by it's marketing campaign, and The Cabin in the Woods is no exception to this. The trailer arguably reveals a bit too much than it should - a few too many of the 'money shots' that make this film worthwhile - but what I can say without spoiling it is that the trailer shows very little from the third act, which is where the film really kicks it up a gear.

Basically, The Cabin in the Woods is the kind of film that is best viewed if you go into the cinema without knowing anything about the film at all. It's not a film full of twists and turns to keep you guessing (the basic premise is revealed in the very first scenes) but it would just feel like a more fresher premise if you were to go in thinking you would be seeing yet another teen horror set in a creep cabin in the woods.

The film follows a group of five college students who fit completely into the stereotype moulds of horror film characters that have been used in many horror films from the 80s, 90s and most recently in the new millennium. There is Dana "The Virgin" (Kristen Connolly), Curt "The Jock" (Chris Hemsworth), Jules "The Slut" (Anna Hutchinson), Marty "The Fool" (Fran Kanz) and Holden "The Geek" (Jesse Williams) and they all decide to go spend a weekend in the woods at Curt's cousin's cabin. It's all very cliche so far, but without giving anything away, they must try and band together to discover what the secret is behind the cabin in the woods...

Ooooh, is that mysterious enough for you without giving anything away?!

Basically, The Cabin in the Woods is every horror fans dream of a film. It's what horror should really be for those of us who love it - a deconstruction of what has been built up over the past and the subverted and turned completely back on it's head before it shocks us as the knowing audience. Not many other genres do this - romantic comedies stick completely within their boundaries, action films always deliver a strong, ass-kicking hero to defeat the baddies and dramas always introduce us to struggling relationships with sympathetic characters. So why does horror do this? It's always been at the bottom of the heap with respectable genres - how many horror films have the Oscars andBAFTAs recognised? You could probably count them all on one hand. So, it seems like it's the horror genres way of proving itself as a worthy genre. It's an interesting concept, as The Cabin in the Woods is definitely a spoof of the horror genre and has also been done before (Scream being the most obvious example), but it's not a stupid spoof film like Scary Movie. One of the main issues I had with The Cabin in the Woods though is that I wanted at least a part of it to be scary, much like Scream was. I really enjoyed the comedic moments and the jabs at the horror genre, but the suspense was lacking - mainly through the uninspired lighting and cinematography (in my opinion). When the... things are introduced, we are just shown them... There is no build up to actually what they are or what they look like, they're just there right in front of us, and that just isn't scary! Now, I know a lot of fans will probably see this and complain, "But it wasn't meant to be scary..." I know that, I just wanted parts of it to be scary.

However, in this one flaw that I found with the film, the rest of it was practically perfect. It's just a wonder that it took so long to make it's way to the cinema - a quick IMDB search will tell you that it was actually filmed in 2009. Also, a look back at some of the original poster art will show you the exact tone that the film goes for

The acting is pretty much spot on throughout for what a horror film should be and the cast do well with what they are given. I would argue that some of the characters feel a little bit underdeveloped or underused, but that goes with the grounds of an ensemble film and could also be argued that it's what horror films usually do... (I feel like it's getting a little bit horror film subtext overload in this review, so I apologise to everyone who isn't a horror film fan, but it is what it is!)

I can't really go into much more detail without spoiling anything in the film. If you are a fan of horror, then this is almost the perfect film for you. If you aren't a fan of horror, then the cleverness of the script and premise may pass you by as nearly every scene is meant to poke fun at the genre or completely flip your expectations upside down on the 'teens go camping in the woods' sub-genre. The third act is especially where fans of horror will gawp at the screen in awe of the action taking place on the screen before them, so stick it out and just wait for the finale that packs a definite punch.

**** / *****

REVIEW: The Cold Light of Day

Technology... who needs it?! It appears that in our modern day it's what drives us forward. The latest iPad? I need to have it. The most up-to-date smart phone? I've got to have it. Digital projection in cinemas? Wow... well, I don't really need that. Why do I want to watch a DVD on the big screen when I could be watching traditional film. I can't really explain what is so different about film in the cinema or why it is so much better, but you can just tell a massive difference between film and the digital crispness of newer films. I always remember watching an original print of Poltergeist at a horror festival and it just looking so "cool" on the big screen!

The reason why I am having a moan about digital projection before I start my review is that while watching The Cold Light of Day at the cinema, the film suddenly stopped about 15 minutes in. The reason for this? Apparently the digital projector had "crashed" and that they needed to reboot it which would take about 15 minutes. What followed was some awkward sitting around and waiting, before the film came back on... right near the end of the film. So it was stopped again and then started somewhere in the middle of the film. Once again, the film was stopped and then it must have started about 10-15 minutes after where we had left it off. But this time the film was just left to play. We missed a good chunk of the film and also missed the inciting incident that drove all the action forward (we only found out what had happened through some quite awkward dialogue).

So, what I am going to attempt to do is try to review a film without having actually watched all of it. Unfair? I'll give it my best shot.

The film follows Will Shaw (Henry Cavill) who arrives in Spain for a family holiday - a family who he doesn't keep in touch with very well. When there, we find out that he has a strained relationship with his father, Martin Shaw (Bruce Willis) and spends most of his time on his phone to his struggling workplace back home. When visiting the local town, Will's family are kidnapped, and to get them back he must delve deeper into his family's secrets and deliver a mysterious briefcase to intelligence agents.

The plot is pretty straight-forward, but for an action popcorn flick, it's exactly what you want. There is some strong influences from films like James Bond and Die Hard in this film with car chases through the Spanish setting and shootouts on rooftops (which massively helps because Bruce Willis stars - will he ever truly breakout from his typecast role?!) The Spanish setting really helps add something visually to this film, it's just a shame that sometimes the shaky hand-held camera detracted us from the beautiful setting - I do understand the need for that type of camerawork though (to help add a sense of urgency to the film.) It just made me really want to go on holiday; the beaches and towns just looked amazing!

Another positive was seeing such powerhouse actors, Bruce Willis and Sigourney Weaver, appear together in the same film. While both have really been typecast in previous roles (Die Hard and Alien series respectively) it's in films like this that they can show what they can really do... well, kind of. Bruce Willis still plays his typical tough cop routine and Sigourney Weaver manages to play another tough bitch role (similar to the small cameo she had in Paul) so I guess she likes playing characters opposite to Ripley in Alien. Also, the film criminally underuses these actors together. They must have had about one or two scenes together (and we missed those, because the digital projector decided to shut down.)

One of the major issues I had with the film is that it seemed quite underdeveloped. Some of the lines of dialogue especially were written awkwardly or delivered awkwardly by the actors themselves. Henry Cavill did mostly well with his roles (although he had a couple of slippy moments), but the awkwardness was especially evident when Lucia (Veronica Echegui) has her big moment and reveals how she fits into the entire plot of the film. Firstly, there seemed to be very little emotion from the actress (do we blame her or the director, Mabrouk El Mechri?) and the lines she had to deliver were just too awkward and "on the nose". It just felt like the script needed to have a few more table read-throughs from the actors and maybe a rewrite by a fresh pair of eyes.

Overall, the film delivers on the basics of being an action-packed summer no-brainer. However, it does suffer from feeling rushed/underdeveloped and being a little bit too predictable at times. I'll be generous and give the film an extra half of a star though considering we missed probably the biggest moment of the film thanks to digital film projecting...

*** / *****

REVIEW: Wrath of the Titans

Sequels are difficult things to do correctly. To quote one of my favourite film franchises (Scream), "By definition alone, they're inferior films." The action needs to be bigger, relationships between existing characters needs to be deeper/more developed, the death count needs to be higher/a key character needs to die and the legend/story that set up the original film needs to be developed or completely changed to a left field idea.

Wrath of the Titans does all of this in almost like a checklist of how sequels should be made... except changing the legend behind the original story. The plot to Wrath of the Titans is so familiar to the original film, Clash of the Titans that it almost commits the same crime that The Hangover Part 2 did (except Hangover 2 literally was a carbon copy of the first film, at least this one wasn't an exact replica.)

The film follows our hero from the first film, Perseus (Sam Worthington) who is happily living a quiet life as a fisherman with his son, Helius (John Bell). Things don't go smoothly for too long though, as Zeus (Liam Neeson) is tricked by his own son Ares (Edgar Ramirez) who is jealous of Perseus being the favourite son. Hades (Ralph Finnes) and Ares soon create a pact to bring back the Kronos by draining the power of Zeus.

Perseus soon teams up with the son of Poseidon, Agenor (Toby Kebbell) to collect all the God's weapons (Poseidon's trident, Zeus's staff and Hade's fork) to combine them together and destroy Hades and Ares's plan and save the world.

Sounds simple enough right? That's what I liked about Wrath of the Titans, it really kept the plot simple enough for the character stuff to at least have a chance to shine through, unlike Clash of the Titans where I was having to constantly be reminded of why characters were doing certain things.

The Father/Son theme of the film was so prevalent throughout and added a real interesting spin on things. Perseus and Helius are the most obvious link to that plot device as Helius now becomes an extra element that Perseus has at risk when he is saving the world. The only problem with this is that during the second act of the film, Helius seems to mysteriously disappear and Perseus seems to forget all about him! He does come back for the finale though and provide a bit of tension during the final battle.

The complex relationship between Zeus, Ares and Perseus also adds some nice tension during the film and a wicked betrayal when Ares first strikes Zeus to the ground and takes him hostage with Hades. It's just a shame that Ares seems to come out of nowhere, considering he was nowhere to be seen in Clash.

By just adding this small theme to the film, Wrath is already better than Clash.

Another thing that the film does very well is the big action set pieces. One of my biggest complaints with Clash was that most of the battles (apart from the big scorpions) was an anti-climax as the monsters were just dispatched off way too easily. The underuse of Medusa and the Kraken in Clash was almost criminal, however Wrath seems to have learnt from its predecessors’ mistakes and provides us with some of the best special effects and fight sequences that I have seen in a while. Director Jonathan Liebesman adds a gritty and realistic feel with his filming style and the CGI across most of the film is really top notch. The only let down areas really was the Cyclops (for some reason, they just felt like they were half rendered compared to the rest of the slick CGI) and the use of the Minotaur (he was criminally underused – very similar to Medusa and the Kraken in Clash, but this was just one battle in a slew of fisty-cuffs battles that were thrown on screen at us.

However, much like Clash, the use of 3D in Wrath just seemed like an added on element that added absolutely nothing to the final film. Most of the action remained flat on screen and the one or two “jump out” moments were fairly lackluster and didn’t require an extra £1.50 from me! My advice to you, see it in 2D where possible, because you really won’t be missing much at all.

Another issue is that parts of the script feel really underdeveloped and awkward. A scene between Perseus and his nurse at the beginning where he was told that he promised never to let Helius hold a weapon in battle fell on deaf ears, as Helius never really actually did hold a weapon until the last two minutes of the film. What was the point in telling us this?! Also, the off-screen death of Io, just so Perseus could start to ‘get it on’ with Andromeda (Rosamund Pike) was completely underdeveloped and so awkward when the lovers kiss came right at the end of the film.

A final issue with Wrath is very similar to Clash; the final battle with the big epic monster just ended far too abruptly and without problems. In Clash, the Kraken was turned to stone with a couple of minutes of unleashing hell on Argos. Whereas, in Wrath the Kronos barely steps out of his volcano to wreak havoc on Argos when Perseus flies through his throat(?!) to deliver the death blow. It was all just too convenient.

Having just said all of that, Wrath really wasn’t a disappointment. It was one of my “ones to watch” at the start of the year and I’m really glad that I did actually watch it. While it wasn’t perfect, it was a definite step up from Clash – not very hard to do, but a step in the right direction nonetheless!

***½ / *****

REVIEW: The Hunger Games

Are we much more volatile nowadays? Are we less likely to be told what to do and just accept everything that is said to us? Without getting too "media student" on you, there is a theory that we are no longer 'passive' audiences (where we simply believe and do as we are told), but we are much more 'active' (where we question what we're told and interact more with the media).

It certainly seems so after the London Riots last year, where some young thieves were blatantly going up to news reporters and boasting about their loot and why they were stealing items from innocent shop owners and big corporation companies alike or beating up other citizens in front of CCTV cameras.

It was, in a word, awful and the media did a good job in creating an atmosphere of fear to try and ensure that it wouldn't happen again (lots of stories were reported where camera crews were attacked, citizens were trapped in their own homes through fear of not going outside and even some people were killed when trying to defend their property.) It's no wonder then, that films like The Hunger Games exist, where the film is based on the premise that the Government has had to go to drastic measures to try and control the population from rebellion and destroying their own communities.

The film follows young Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) who volunteers to take her younger sister's place in the annual Hunger Games, alongside Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson), which sees two citizens from each of the twelve districts battle it out in a Gladiator arena style death match until only one remains as the victor. Before being placed into the arena though, the citizens are treated a few days of luxury in a top of the range hotel, being mentored by the best fighters, training to ensure that they win the death match and finally trying to win the affection of the public in the capital city in order to get sponsors during the fight (sponsors can send in donations during the battle that can help the person win the fight, so the more sponsors you have, the more likely you are to survive.)

What follows is a largely predictable affair, where you know who is going to win straight off the bat. While that doesn't really matter too much in terms of being satisfied at the end (the ones you want to win do actually win), the film lacks one major factor; tension.

Right from the start, I just didn't really feel anything. The drawing out of the names had no tension, because we had only been properly introduced to one character by this point - we knew she was going to be one of them! The training before the battle just didn't have any tension because our protagonist was ranked as one of the most likely to win - she didn't have anything to train for. When the battle itself started, there was a bit of a scrap at the beginning when quite a few of the fighters snuffed it, but the game had no time restraint or anything extra that made it a tense atmosphere. Sure, the characters risked death, as only one could survive the game, but it's so obvious from the beginning as to who is going to survive that there was no tension. By the end of the film, it's all played out by such run of the mill plot points, that it just felt like an anti-climax.

Comparing the film to the much more superior Battle Royale, something I will be doing a lot during this review because the films are just too similar, Battle Royale decided to add a three day limit to the battle, if there was no winner by the end of this limit then all the remaining players would die, all players had to wear a necklace that would kill them if they broke any rules, it was a proper ensemble film so the main protagonist wasn't obvious from the beginning and some players were given such dud weapons during the fight (saucepans etc.) that they had no chance of survival at all.

Another issue that I had with The Hunger Games is that the film just wasn't shocking enough. The film's premise was about people who had to fight to the death on live television, how could it not be shocking?! Normally I don't complain about a film's age rating, because I honestly believe that an age rating doesn't make a film good or bad, but the 12A rating has really hurt this film. To really juxtapose the desperation in the horrible conditions in the different districts and then the brutality of the battle against the luxury of the grand hotels and locations of the capital city, the film really needed to grab it's audience by the balls.

It didn't. Katniss could easily slip out of her sectioned off district to go and hunt for her family and during the battle any fight that would really have shocked the audience with it's brutality was toned down to meet with it's 12A guidelines. Again, making a comparison to Battle Royale, that film did it by having a really cheesy and perky welcome video juxtaposed against the extreme brutality of the battle itself (rated 18 for blood splatter, dismemberment, shootings etc.) I'm not a gore-hound by any stretch of the imagination, but Battle Royale needed that shock factor. The Hunger Games was missing that and it suffered greatly because of it.

However, it's not all bad. There are some touching scenes between Katniss and the young Rue (Amandla Stenberg) that help create an emotional arc for our protagonist. She almost becomes a mother/older sister to Rue during the battle when she had to take her younger sister's place in the battle right at the beginning.

The cinematography to the film is also pretty stunning in places. The shaky camera does take a little bit of getting used to in the beginning, but over the course of the film is really creates a sense of anxiety, tension and momentum to the story. That's what proper filmmaking is all about!

Overall, The Hunger Games had a really interesting premise that kind of fell short of the mark. While it added some serious back story to the reasoning behind the battle itself (unlike Battle Royale), the film suffers from feeling like having a watered down plot with an obviously signposted narrative purely aimed at the teenage Twilight audience, when it could have been so much more.

*** / *****