REVIEW: The Last Stand

Arnold Schwarzenegger is back... or so he wants us to believe. Is he back on top? Back on form? Or maybe just back to what he does best?

But what does he do best? Blasting an oversized gun, spouting cheesy one-liners and throwing the bad guys around... of course.

The Last Stand sees Schwarzenegger as Ray Owens who was a once big time Sheriff, who now resides in a small Southern American town right on the Mexican border. There he has a small team of mexican Mike Figuerola (Luis Guzmán), tough but cute Sarah Torrence (Jaimie Alexander) and rookie policeman Jerry Bailey (Zach Gilford).  They think they are in for a quiet weekend, as the whole of the town is off to watch a football game. However, what they don't realise is that further up North is LA, a notorious Mexican Drug Lord, Gabriel Cortez (Eduardo Noriega) makes an escape from his FBI prison transfer and Agent John Bannister (Forest Whitaker). As Cortez hot foots it down south towards the Mexican border, in a specially modified car at 200mph with FBI agent Agent Ellen Richards (Genesis Rodriguez) held hostage, it's up to Arnie and his band of misfits to try and stop him making it over the border.

OK, so this was supposed to be Arnie's big comeback, since his last major outing in 2003's Terminator 3 (not counting his cameo in The Expendables or The Expendables 2). It's what Arnie fans have been waiting for - a move back to his big gun toting cheesy one-liner self. Does The Last Stand deliver on this front? Well, yes it does. While the film does have a big long build up to the final battle, when it finally is delivered, it is a rip roaring good time. Guns blazing everywhere, limbs and body parts being apart (with a better use of CGI blood than The Expendables) and some well timed and much needed humour (look out for how Johnny Knoxville dispatches of a goon covered ammunition with only a flare gun). It's a glorious throwback to some of Arnie's earlier action cinema outings, where it would be relentless wall-to-wall blood, guts and guns... it's just a shame that it takes nearly the whole of the film's running time to get to this moment.

So what is the rest of the film filled with? Well, to be fair we are introduced to the cardboard cut-out Sheriff's department with equally simple backstories. Mike is simply the bumbling Mexican who is there for laughs, Sarah is torn between her love for the job and her ex-boyfriend that she has locked up in the jail cell and Jerry is the typical rookie who is looking towards the bright lights of LA for more action in his work. However, not all characters are treated to backstories. Strangely, I felt that Arnie's character was a little underdeveloped - it wasn't until I looked at IMDB, which said that his character left his LAPD post after a failed operation that injured his work partner, that I realised I must have blinked and missed this revelation. Also, the make antagonist, Gabriel is rather underdeveloped too. Sometimes a mysterious villain can work, but they need to be imposing and frightening enough to carry off the role. Unfortunately, Noriega isn't really given anything to work with or doesn't bring enough himself to make for a convincingly sinister villain.

I suppose the character flaws can be brought down to the writer credits, which The Last Stand has four. I've said it before, and I'll certainly say it again, the saying "Too many cooks spoils the broth" is definitely true when writing films. I don't think I've ever seen a brilliant film which has more than two people who have writing credits on the script, because any more and it seems to become a battle to include what's cool rather than what's good. Having said that, a weak script was partially covered up by the direction from Jee-woon Kim (I Saw The Devil, A Tale of Two Sisters) who brings a bland, but competent filming style to The Last Stand. We have sweeping shots of the southern American countryside and some cool crash zooms (reminiscent of old Western films - especially in the showdown at the end of the film) but we also have some awkwardly long shots of the super car travelling (supposedly) at 200mph down the highway, but the shot is so wide and awkward that it looks more like it's travelling at 60mph (with a helicopter managing to keep up behind it at the same speed).

I guess it looks like I'm bashing The Last Stand and I'm really not. It's a good time and definitely a film that will fill up some people's 'guilty pleasures' list, because it's a film that harks back to some of Arnie's earlier films (but this time with an ageing action hero at the helm). It's got guns, explosions and fast cars, so it's got the making of a good lads night in (when it hits DVD, obviously). The only thing that holds the film back from being better, is that it's just that... a film that is quite forgettable once you have laughed at all the jokes and funny moments and gawped at the gunfights and explosions. It follows all it's story beats precisely to the point where you can guess what's going to happen next and what will happen to the characters. It even ends on a friggin' freeze-frame - 80s nostalgia right there!!

So, if you're looking for a good time where you can firmly switch your brain off, then The Last Stand definitely is a good film to go and see. Just don't expect to see the next best Arnie actioner and you will be pleasantly surprised. Expect anything more than an average action flick, then you will be disappointed.

*** / *****

REVIEW: Django Unchained

Not many Directors can claim to be auteurs. It takes time and a particular style that resonates with audiences in order to earn that title.

You can't argue against the fact that Quentin Tarantino has definitely reached the pinnacle of being a auteur. Not only does the poster for his new film brand it as Tarantino's Django Unchained (he's reached the Madonna stage of his career where he only needs one name) but only watching the opening act of Django Unchained it is unmistakably Tarantino's film.

The film follows the titular Django (Jamie Foxx) a captured slave living in 19th Century America. In the opening scene, he is freed (by force) by former Dentist turned bounty hunter, Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz - who makes a brilliant turn from antagonist in Inglorious Basterds to protagonist in this film). Django stays with Schultz to be trained up as a bounty hunter, with the promise that Schultz will help him free his enslaved wife, Broomhilda (Kerry Washington) from a brutal Mississippi plantation owner, Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio) by going undercover as slave buyers. However, once they get to Candie Land, fellow black enslaved Stephen (Samuel L. Jackson) is immediately suspicious of Django and sets out to uncover what Django and Schultz's real purpose is.

When I said that the opening scene is unmistakably Tarantino, it's because it reminded me so much of the brilliant opening scene from Inglorious Basterds. It's simply Schaltz approaching the two men that have Django enslaved and proposing to buy him - when the men disagree, Schaltz just shoots them and sets the rest of the slaves free. However, it's the slow burn of the scene and how dialogue heavy it is that makes you realise that this is Tarantino. While most Directors might have decided to go for an action-packed opening scene, Tarantino wisely decides to hold back. As the slave owner writhes and shouts out in pain in the background, Schaltz simply continues his conversation with Django. It's the kind of menacing presence that made Christoph Waltz so brilliant in Inglorious Basterds... but this time he is a hero?! And then, instead of simply explaining simply what Schaltz's job is as a bounty hunter, Tarantino decides to trick his audience with an overly complex shootout between Schaltz/Django and the Sheriff before they call in the Marshall. Again, it's the complexity of Schaltz's bounty hunting job and his ability to remain so calm in the face of a town full of guns pointing at him that make him instantly a hero in our eyes.

As for Django? Jamie Foxx plays the brooding moody type very well throughout the majority of the film. It wasn't until near the Third Act of the film when he actually sees his wife Broomhilda, that we see his charming side ("Hey there, troublemaker!") While his backstory is simple and he largely plays the part quite straight-forward, it's Django's inner troubles of dealing with other black slaves (and having to treat them badly) and then his pain when his wife in within touching distance but he must remain undercover is what makes his character appealing. Not as likeable as Schaltz, granted... but likeable nonetheless.

And finally for the characters, Leonardo DiCaprio continues to amaze me with his acting. Just to think, he was the floppy haired lover-boy in James Cameron's Titanic back in 1997, he has since definitely earned his acting chops. In Django Unchained, he plays a sinister and twisted slave owner, but not played in the most obvious, cackling villain way. He forces his slaves to fight to the death, and revel in it, and then happily invites Django to dinner with Schaltz near enough straight afterwards. It's the little characteristics that DiCaprio brings to the character and the excellent writing from Tarantino (like how he then massively relies on his black slave, Stephen for advice and support, before completely trashing black people's intelligence) that really brings the character to life and easily a contender for best villain of 2013 - even though we are only 22 days into the year.

As for Tarantino himself? He is on fine form. The direction is solid and exactly what you would expect from one of his films. Brilliantly slow brooding scenes, which all add together for a more explosive finale and that's exactly what happens in Django Unchained. If you found Inglorious Basterds or DeathProof boring and dull with not enough action, then Django Unchained will do nothing for you. However, if you are a fan of those previously mentioned film, then Django Unchained will be another solid outing for you.

My only criticism of Tarantino for this film is that the dialogue and writing didn't seem as spot on, nor did it have as much tension as some of his previous films. Sure, the basics of his style was there, but I didn't find myself completely gripped during the dinner scene towards the end (unlike the unbearably tense dinner scene/pub scene in Inglorious Basterds) nor did I find myself as entertained by his character's dialogue (unlike the banter between the girls in DeathProof). It's not terrible, but it just wasn't as good as his previous films - that being said, it's still a damn sight better than most other films being released at the moment. The one thing I did like about this film was Tarantino's shots of humour throughout - especially the exceptionally long mask argument scene and the "Say goodnight to Miss Candie, Cora" before the character is blasted into the next room. It was some welcome relief from a fairly serious story dealing with black slavery in America (despite the rescue mission itself being quite over-the-top!)

However, Tarantino's direction is spot on once again, with beautiful sweeping shots of the American countryside apposed against his more intimate dialogue scenes. He also uses his cool looking text titles once again, so there is definitely no mistaking that it's his film! He couldn't resist the opportunity to have a cameo in his own film, where he shows some fairly awful acting skills, but this can be overlooked because it really was such a small part.

So, if you are a fan of Tarantino, then Django Unchained is another solid effort. While not as great as his previously released films, it's definitely nowhere near being labelled "terrible".

**** / *****

REVIEW: Les Misérables

Musicals. You either love 'em or hate 'em. You either embrace the sung choruses of love and laughter (or in this case, pain and anguish) or you laugh off the stupidity that people will sit there and sing to each other rather than talk.

Frankly, if you cannot embrace the structure of musicals and their reliance on music numbers to drive the narrative forward, then I don't have a lot of time for you. I don't mean to make this personal, but I have no chance in changing your opinion. So, if you don't like musicals, stop reading... now...

Les Misérables is a complex story full of interweaving story lines. It primarily deals with Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman) who has been imprisoned for stealing a loaf of bread. When Inspector Javert (Russell Crowe) sets him free on parole, Jean Valjean decides to skip parole and build a new life for himself. He soon establishes himself as a respectable factory owner, where one of his employees Fantine (Anne Hathaway) is fired by the foreman for having an illegitimate child, Cosette (Isabelle Allen) that she has left with two shady characters, Thénardier (Sasha Baron Cohen) and Madame Thénardier (Helena Bonham Carter). Jean Valjean promises to keep Cosette safe (a now grown up Amanda Seyfried), whilst also on the run from Inspector Javert. However, Paris, France is in the grip of a revolution - as Marius (Eddie Redmayne) and Enjolras (Aaron Tveit) lead a group of students to the barricades, Eponine (Samantha Barks) has fallen for Marius, but he soon falls head over heals in love with Cosette. In the midst of the battle between the student revolutionists and Inspector Javert and the French elite, decisions will be made that will change their lives forever.

I hope I've made that sound dramatic enough, because if it's one thing that Les Misérables can't be criticised on is having a simple storyline. The film does really well to pack in all the stage show's twists and turns into a 157 minute running time (that feels surprisingly quick). The fact that Director, Tom Hooper (The King's Speech, The Damned United) didn't try to skimp on any of the plot points and paid full respect to the stage show was a wise choice. If he had chosen to overlook certain plot points, I'm sure there would have been angry fans everywhere.

However, one of the main points of Les Misérables was always going to be the cast - should they cast good singers or good actors? It was always going to be a tough choice, considering The Phantom of the Opera (2004) was criticised for hiring actors, instead of singers. The fact is, Tom Hooper and casting director, Nina Gold decided to go for actors that could sing. But then the decision was made that the actors would sing live on set and that there wouldn't be any dubbing and lip synching. It all seemed very suspicious. However, I can clear it up now that the performance of the songs in Les Misérables was pretty spot on. While it seemed a little bit questionable at the start - some of Jackman's singing as Jean Valjean felt a little flat - it soon seemed to get into the swing of things. Now, you won't exactly be rushing out to buy the soundtrack, as you will probably be sticking to your Original West End/Broadway Cast Recording CD, but for the purpose of film, the actors did a fine job in breathing life into the songs. Special mention has to go to Anne Hathaway and the meaning that she injected into I Dreamed a Dream and Come to Me - it was heartbreaking.

The troubles with the casting of Les Misérables were few and far between, and any hiccups could be largely overlooked. I had some slight issues with Sasha Baron Cohen as Thénardier, because he didn't feel like a strong enough presence (I'd have stuck with Matt Lucas from the 25th Anniversary Concert if they needed a famous face.) However, my biggest issue was the casting of Russell Crowe as Inspector Javert - my main issue was that he just wasn't imposing enough to be the Inspector that was hunting Jean Valjean throughout the whole film. His singing was... passable, but his acting wasn't up to scratch. His only ounce of emotion seemed to come through when he sang Stars, but his suicide song fell flat on it's arse.

The emotional impact of Les Misérables has to be it's strongest point as a musical and as a piece of entertainment - it's a gut wrenching story that will wring you dry in terms of how much you can see the characters endure. Almost every single one of them goes through some kind of pain and the complexity of the story just helps you have some kind of empathy for them. For some reason, the film fails, in some respects, to grab you emotionally like the stage version can. While the film is undoubtedly a depressingly emotional piece, it wasn't until when Eponine was singing A Little Fall of Rain that I started to feel any kind of emotion. Hathaway's portrayal of Fantine was brilliant, but she falls victim to the fact that her character is barely in the story long enough for you to truly care for her (not the film's fault, purely a plot point of the musical as well).

Having said all of that, the negatives that I am pointing out are merely nitpicking, because Les Misérables is a beautiful and haunting piece of cinema that is a great adaptation of the stage musical. The directorial style of Tom Hooper is inspired for this film in particular - the awkward angles, extreme close-ups and gritty hand-held style lend amazingly well to the poor and decaying 19th Century France which the story in set in. While the choice to record the songs live on set was a great choice in adding an emotional depth to the songs, from an acting point of view, the extreme close-ups on the character allowed us to be even more involved in their emotional troubles.

So, if you are a fan of musicals, then Les Misérables is the perfect silver screen adaption of your favourite musical. If you are not a musical fan, then you will probably find it too long, too slow and too boring, but no one really cares...

**** / *****

REVIEW: Texas Chainsaw 3D

Horror films are an easy target. They have nothing substantial about them, right? They are just some stupid teenage characters, who don't listen to any of the warnings around them, who then get chopped up by some psychopath with an oversized weapon (compensating for something?!)

So, what does Texas Chainsaw 3D try to do to challenge this perception of modern horror? Well, nothing really. It's pretty much a 'paint-by-numbers' horror film with a much forced twist at the end.

Texas Chainsaw 3D is claiming to be the 'true' sequel to the 1974 horror classic, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. TC3D picks up exactly where the 1974 film left off and sees Sheriff Hooper (Thom Barry) responding to the Sawyer household where Sally Hardesty (Marilyn Burns) has just escaped. After a botched up attempt at the Sawyers handing over Leatherface (Dan Yeager), the Sawyer household is burnt down with all the family inside... except a single surviving baby. That baby grows up to be Heather Miller (Alexandra Daddario) who is unaware of her family's dark past. When she is informed that her Grandmother has died and left her house with all it's possessions to her, Heather takes a road trip with her jock boyfriend, Ryan (Trey Songz), her slutty best friend, Nikki (Tania Raymonde) and her new Chef boyfriend, Kenny (Keram Malicki-Sánchez). On the way to Texas, in true Texas Chainsaw tradition, they pick up a wandering hitchhiker, Darryl (Shaun Sipos) who is not all that he seems. After managing to annoy the town Mayor, Burt Hartman (Paul Rae) and attract the attention of the young attractive Policeman, Carl (Scott Eastwood), Heather and her friends decide to bed down for the night in her new house, because it looks so cool. What they don't realise is that Leatherface also survived the fire back in 1974 and is living in the basement of the house.

I'm not sure where to start with my review of Texas Chainsaw 3D to be honest. It's not because I found it to be completely terrible, but more that its a horror film, that knows it's a horror film, and doesn't do anything to try and attempt a fresh spin on the genre. The opening of the film, which sees the 1974 film converted into 3D, is actually pretty special (especially for horror fans) and then the continuation of what happens after the end of the 1974 film is also quite interesting. While the Director, John Lussenhop and writers, Adam Marcus, Debra Sullivan and Kirsten Elms (it's always a bad sign when there are three writers!) could have plumped for a bit more tension between the Sawyer family and the rest of the town, when they were demanding for Leatherface to be handed over, it was still a pretty sweet scene.

However, as you can probably guess, Texas Chainsaw 3D is not all a bed of roses and suffers from many common flaws that modern day horror films fall for. The first off is the characters themselves... they are all pretty flat and two-dimensional (see what I did there?!) The only real stand-out is Heather (which is good, considering she is the main protagonist) and is given her chance to stand-out properly from the rest of the crowd in the film's third act. But the rest of them are as paper cut-out characters 101 as you can get. The jock boyfriend, Ryan is simply there to pull in the female crowd (he spends a lot of his screen time topless) and to try and be the strong one for Heather to rely on. However, we find out that he has cheated on Heather with her slutty best friend, Nikki - a plot line that could have been interesting, but instead the writers decide to completely by-pass with two fleeting scenes which show how much of a cheating scum-bag he really is. But what's the biggest annoyance about the whole cheating sub-plot is that Heather has no reaction to it, not a single ounce of her is bothered by the fact that her boyfriend and best friend and sleeping together. Then, there's Kenny, who likes to cook. That's about it for him, we don't find out anything else considering he is the least developed character and therefore the first one to die.

It's not just the characters that are the only flaw in the film. The plot points that lead up to the main twist in the story, at the end of the film, all seem rather brushed over in favour of ramming more gore down the audience's throat. Now, I'm all for a big chase scene followed by an equally good payoff, but when the film's entire third act twist relies on the struggles that Heather has faced in order to corrupt her, points like her cheating boyfriend, her allegiance to the Sawyer Family and her torture by the Mayor and the towns people really needed to be given time to be properly developed. Instead, we don't see one single reaction from Heather or an act vicious enough from the Mayor or the townspeople that warrants for Heather's corruption. It all just seems rather forced, and when Sheriff Hooper decides to let Leatherface go free at the end of the film, it just raises all sorts of questions that the film fails to answer.

I hope I haven't given too much away about the 'twist' (as easy as it is to guess while watching the film), because it's the best thing that Texas Chainsaw 3D has going for it. The one thing that attempts to break Texas Chainsaw 3D from being a generic, Direct-to-DVD horror film. While the fact that the film relies heavily on horror conventions isn't completely detrimental - I still had a blast watching it - I just couldn't help but feel like this film could have been so much more.

As for the 3D? For a film that had a fairly modest budget of $20million, it was used pretty well. Most of the time, it was used as an immersive tool, giving the film great depth and really bringing you into the world of Texas. However, I really enjoyed the 'money shot' moments, like when Heather stupidly decides to hide in the only open coffin to hide from Leatherface and his chainsaw comes through the lid AT THE AUDIENCE or when Leatherface throws his chainsaw AT THE AUDIENCE. Sure, it's a bit of a drag that as an audience you don't have the choice to view this film in 3D, but I must admit that it was used well and at no point did the film look flat (it's just a shame that the characters and plot were so flat - see what I did there?!)

So, if you are a horror fan - or more importantly, a Texas Chain Saw Massacre fan - then Texas Chainsaw 3D is a pretty good time. Don't expect anything as gritty as the original 1974 film, but do expect just as shallow characters doing just as stupid things.

Is horror dead? There's still a little bit of life in this old chainsaw yet.

**½ / *****

REVIEW: The Hobbit An Unexpected Journey

All eyes are on Peter Jackson. After his mind-blowing and epic Lord of the Rings Trilogy, many were wondering if he was biting off more than her could chew by filming the trilogy's prequel, The Hobbit.

It didn't help when it was revealed that Jackson has decided to try and see if lightning strikes twice, by splitting the fairly slim book into three separate, 3 hour long films.

The first of the new Hobbit Trilogy has been named, in part, after the books first chapter and spans approximately the first third of the book (with some added stuff courtesy of Peter Jackson, but more about that later.) After a short prologue involving Bilbo Baggins (Ian Holm) and Frodo (Elijah Wood), tying The Hobbit to Jackson's Lord of the Rings Trilogy, the story flashes back to when a young Bilbo (Martin Freeman) is approached by Gandalf (Ian McKellen) to accompany some dwarves on a mission to reclaim their homeland from an evil dragon. Of course, Bilbo is initially reluctant, due in part to being a hobbit who likes nothing more than to stay at home away from adventure, but he soon agrees to join Gandalf and the ragtag group on their journey. After stopping off at the Elf Kingdom and failing to get the blessing for their mission from the council, including Elrond (Hugo Weaving), Galadriel (Cate Blanchett) and Saruman (Christopher Lee), Bilbo and the dwarves are forced to continue on with their journey without anyone to help (except good old trusty Gandalf.) What follows is the setting up of a new mission and new dangers (while also feeling quite familiar at the same time) without the group actually making it to the dwarves homeland.

The reason why I say that it's all too familiar, is because The Hobbit An Unexpected Journey does largely feel like that little unknown film, Lord of the Rings The Fellowship of the Ring. The two films are alike in the sense that their soul purpose is to set up the mission that the protagonists are facing and (re)introduce us to the world and the dangers that they now face. While it's not all boring exposition (even though the start is a little bit slow), you can't help but feel after watching the film that the best is still yet to come.

Sure, An Unexpected Journey does provide us with some the added thrills (courtesy of Jackson, that wasn't in the original book) of the Orcs returning to be the main antagonist. The Orcs are lead by Azog (Manu Bennett), a large and impending Orc who has a personal vendetta against Bilbo and the elves. To be honest, he was a welcome addition made by Jackson to include more predominantly in the film, otherwise Bilbo and the dwarves would have been simply chased by wild wolves (Wargs), like in the book, which might have felt a bit flat and unthreatening on film. While Azog's CGI left much to be desired, unlike the rest of the visual effects in the film, and his dialogue was sometimes a bit cheesy and "on the nose" (especially when he kept calling them "Dwarf Scum"), I still found him to be an effect antagonist.

Having said that, not all of Jackson's additions seem to fit in as well. His choice to include more light-hearted humour fell a bit flat sometimes - noticeable moments where this happens include when a Dwarf asks for some chips (do they have chips in Middle Earth?!) and when Bilbo is attempting to free the dwarf's horses from a group of Trolls and Jackson decides to include some snot gags. It just made the film, as a whole, feel more like a light hearted family fantasy epic, rather than the dark and mysterious Lord of the Rings Trilogy. Another example of this includes Jackson's decision to feature the Brown Wizard, Radagast (Sylvester McCoy) more predominantly (considering he only has a fleeting mention in the book.) While Radagast's scenes weren't all bad, his attempt to bring a dead hedgehog back to life felt like it was lifted from a Disney film and his bunny rabbit sledge chase, when he was trying to lure the Orcs away, felt a little flat and boring compared to what it should have been.

However, An Unexpected Journey is not all bad. In fact, it's a pretty solid opening to a new Middle Earth trilogy with Jackson back at the helm. The casting was pretty spot on (although we didn't really need to have Elijah Wood and Ian Holm come back for about a minute of screen time, did we?!) and even though the dwarves were a little hard to tell apart (something that was always going to be a problem with such a large ensemble piece) the actors did a god job of keeping the group into a tightly knit community that we cared for - although Gandalf did fall into being a bit of a babysitter at time, because those dwarves are just so useless.

The film (and books) highlight has to be the inclusion of Gollum (Andy Serkis) who is just as obsessed with the ring as he was in the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. The CGI used to bring him to life is still as breath-taking, and the riddles scene that he takes part in with Bilbo is a welcome break from the dwarves encounter with and escape from the Goblins and their King. I just hope that Jackson finds a way to try and bring him back into the other two Hobbit films (although I'm not sure how?)

So, overall An Unexpected Journey is a pretty solid effort into kick-starting the new Middle Earth Trilogy. While Jackson's decision to split the small book into a three part epic film series was a questionable one, his ability to intertwine new ideas with those already existing with J. R. R. Tolkien's is pretty seamless. So sit back and enjoy the wonder of Middle Earth... again.

**** / *****

REVIEW: Parental Guidance

Ah, the family unit. The ridicule of all family films since the birth of film. Unwanted relatives in Uncle Buck, the forgetful parents in Home Alone and then the divorced parents in Mrs Doubtfire. It's all there and it feels like it's all been done before.

However, along comes Parental Guidance, a film that decides to poke fun at the idea that parents have become soft. They worry too much about their children's feelings and forget to actually discipline and parent their children.

The film follows controlling parents, Alice (Marisa Tomei) and Phil Simmons (Tom Everett Scott) who have three children; the talented musician, Harper (Bailee Madison), the son with a speech impediment, Turner (Joshua Rush) and the weird youngest boy, Barker (Kyle Harrison Breitkopf). While Alice and Phil are extremely busy with their work lives, they still manage to just about squeeze in time to parent their three children. However, when Phil suggests that they go on a private holiday and leave the children in the care of grandparents, Dianne (Bette Midler) and Artie Decker (Billy Crystal), Alice has problems letting go of the reigns of control. What follows is a "crazy" and somewhat touching journey of discovery where the children learn that they can have fun and that Alice actually has to let go a little bit in order to become a 'better Mom'.

While Parental Guidance tries to find some new ground in the well worn family comedy sub-genre, it still fails to feel fresh. To be quite frank, the 'U' certificate that the film has plumped for ('U' standing for Universal, which means suitable for all) has arguably ended up harming the film. I say this, because a good family film should have the gross-out gags for the children, but also the subtle innuendos to entertain the parents - with a 'U' certificate, Parental Guidance arguably fails to entertain the elders by completely bypassing the subtle adult humour and hitting crude sight gags head on.

As a result, the set-up to the film at the beginning is a bit of a mess. The most jarring thing at the beginning is that characters do not feel properly set-up - the only characters with a true sense of any kind of problem are the children. Parents Alice and Phil just don't seem to be truely "modern" parents who care too much about their children's feelings more than disciplining them - they have stock phrases like, "Use your words!" instead of saying, "No!" to their children, but other than that there is no sense that these parents are stiff and uptight. It almost felt like their characters should be extreme in order for more comedy and to make their character arc more defined. Likewise, the Grandparents are supposed to be these weird, kooky relatives that you want to hide away, until you have to talk to them. To be frank, Dianne and Artie Decker seemed like really nice people and the kind of Grandma and Grandad that you really wouldn't mind having to visit. As such, when Alice has such a hard time agreeing to let them look after their children, it felt forced.

However, where Parental Guidance gets it right is that the film has heart. Much like Home Alone and Mrs Doubtfire, which have a heartfelt message to tell, Parental Guidance gets its schmaltzy family-values message across in it's third act - largely thanks to the children characters. We see the strange Barker finally let go of his imaginary friend in a poignant funeral for him in the back garden. Then there's Turner who overcomes his speech impediment thanks to Artie's obsession with commentating on Baseball. Then finally, there's Harper who is finally allowed to be a young girl, make friends and actually stay at her new school (rather than moving around all the time.) It's the scene between Mother and Daughter at the end, when Alice finally let's go of the reigns and allows Harper to step down from her musical school audition (so she can stay at her regular High School where she is finally making friends) that really steals the show - for a film that largely relied on messy sight gags, it was a welcome release of emotion at the end.

So, if you're going into Parental Guidance expecting the next big Mrs Doubtfire family film, then you will be sadly disappointed. It's a bit of a mess of a film that finally starts to get it right round about the mid-way point. However, the messy start and complete ignorance of it's older audience that sadly lets the film down greatly.

**/*****

REVIEW: The Impossible

There's nothing like a film based on a true story is there? We're amazed by the human nature on-screen and the impossible problems that they face (see what I did there?!) but then at the end of it, we realise that this actually did happen.

The 2004 tsunami was an event which swamped the media and has actually featured in some films since (Hereafter) but The Impossible feels like the first proper effort to bring the true story to the silver screen.

The film follows parents Maria (Naomi Watts) and Henry (Ewan McGregor) who bring their three sons, eldest Lucas (Tom Holland) and younger siblings Simon (Oaklee Pendergast) and Thomas (Samuel Joslin) to Thailand for a Christmas break. However, as we all know, tragedy struck in the form of a tsunami on Boxing Day, sending the whole area into disarray and mayhem. Maria and Lucas are separated from the rest of their family and must find their way to help across the terror that now lies before them. Along the way they pick up a young boy to help him, but Lucas' worries are focused on Maria, who has a horrible gaping wound on the back of her leg, which is resulting in huge blood loss. With the help of the local indigenous people, Maria and Lucas make their way to a local hospital, where Lucas finds his calling in helping to reunite others (while looking for his Dad and brothers at the same time.) As Maria's condition worsens, to the point where she is on the edge of death, it's a case of a race against the clock for Lucas to find the rest of his family before he is left on his own in the devastated country.

OK, so The Impossible is an unashamedly weepy film, which is purely designed to tug at our heart strings and really make us empathise with the family and the situation that they are in. It wastes no time in getting the tsunami wave on screen and place our protagonists in mortal danger, so the majority of the film has time to play with putting them in perilous situations which we are willing them to survive. One of the first times that I really felt the film was doing this was after the tsunami had struck, Maria and Lucas were clinging onto a fallen tree for dear life, and they both admitted to each other that they were scared. Surely not a thing that a Mother would do for her son? But the emotions were so raw at this moment, that it just felt so real. At this point, I knew the casting and the acting from our main players was going to be spot on.

I cannot really praise the young Tom Holland enough, who really does carry his and Watt's story, as Maria quickly falls into a catatonic state, where her injuries are so overwhelming that she is barely able to speak. He goes from a heartless, moody brother (he won't even talk to his little bro on the plane... ahhh diddums!) to the point where he is actively seeking out people's missing relatives in the dank Thai hospital simply so they can be reunited. It's a brilliant character arc that Holland manages to pull off brilliantly. While Pendergast and Joslin were also fairly good in their roles as the younger brothers, they were simply there to look cute most of the time. The only weak link in the family that I could really pinpoint is the casting of McGregor. While he wasn't weak in portraying his character, his desperation to find his wife and child is heart wrenching, some of his decisions that he makes are simply dumb and made me dislike his character at some points. I mean, who would send off his two young sons on a van with strangers, simply so he can search for his wife and elder son alone?

I guess what I'm trying to say is I wish the film would have spent much more time with Maria and Lucas and kept the rest of the family as a sub-plot, as I felt much more invested with their story.

However, the direction from Spanish Director, Juan Antonio Bayona is pretty much spot on as he hits most story beats and wrings all the emotional scenes for all that he can. However, strangely enough, his decision to include the visceral details of Maria's leg wound and the disgusting environment of the overwhelmed Thai hospital saps out the emotional edge of the film but adds to the realism. I could tell this was happening as three young teenage girls who sat directly behind me, obviously there for a good cry, were debating whether to leave or not because the film was so 'disgusting' (much to the annoyance of everyone else around them.) While I don't think it harmed the film in any way at all, some people may feel a little bit cheated, because the trailer promises a good weepy epic and decides to bypass all the medical struggles that are faced in the film.

However, that is the only blip that I could find in the film, because The Impossible is a brilliantly raw take on the 2004 disaster that struck the coast of Thailand. While it may not be as sad and depressing as such weepy favourites as The Notebook, The Impossible is more about the family ties and bonds and how far people will go in the face of adversity to find the ones that they love. The tsunami itself isn't lingered upon in numerous sweeping aerial shots or with a massive build-up, it just hits the audience as suddenly as the real thing hit the coast of Thailand.

So, go into The Impossible expecting a raw and emotional take on the 2004 tsunami then you won't be disappointed. Expect to go in with a handful of tissues and a good old cry, and you might be disappointed. Sure, it's a sad film and certain scenes really did get a lump in my throat, but it isn't a weepy classic.

****/*****

2013: A Year to Look Forward To...

Much like last year, I'm going to predict which films I am most looking forward to (and also those which I'm not really bothered about.) I didn't do too badly last year...

FILMS I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO WILL BE IN GREEN!
FILMS I COULD LIVE WITHOUT WILL BE IN RED!


January

Texas Chainsaw 3D
OK, so I'm a horror junkie. While I admit this film doesn't really look good or much like the original 1974 Texas Chain Saw Massacre - it looks like a generic modern day horror film - I can still get a little bit excited about a mainstream horror release. Right?

The Last Stand
Arnie back in an all guns blazing action film? Count me in! I just hope that he hasn't tried to play it all cool and has kept in his cheesy one-liners.

V/H/S
Another horror film, and what?! This one was released in America last year, so us Brits are a bit behind the times. It does seem that this one includes found-footage which I'm not a massive fan of (it feels a bit of a lazy option for filmmakers), the fact that this is a collaborate effort between different genre directors is quite exciting.

A Haunted House
Just looks really boring and not very funny, considering this is supposed to be a comedy. When will spoof filmmakers realise that Scary Movie was funny because they took their time with writing it and they didn't try to cram in extreme amounts of popular culture references that get old really quickly?! (Thankfully, I can't find a UK release date for this one yet!)

February

A Good Day to Die Hard
While the title of the film is a bit of a mouthful, the fifth entry into the Die Hard franchise doesn't look too bad. I'll admit it, I pretty much loved Die Hard 4.0 with it's digital age self, but I'm not sure what A Good Day to Die Hard can bring new to the table with it's storytelling... At this stage, what really can the son/father relationship do differently that Die Hard 4.0 didn't do with the bickering duo?!

Mama
This Guillermo del Toro produced horror film looks very interesting and very creepy. I've always been fascinated by the idea of feral children who've had a deprived upbringing and this film brings that to the forefront of horror. What if their Mama didn't really want to let go?!

Dark Skies
Looks like a more subdued and interesting take on the alien abduction sub-genre of sic-fi. I'm in.

Hansel & Gretal Witch Hunters
This just looks like Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter on steroids, which isn't really a good thing. How can you take such a classic Grimm fairytale and make it look so shallow and boring?

March

Oz: The Great and Powerful
While the film does look a little bit of a visual feast, I'm still a bit unsure as to what the depth to the story could be. However, I'm a fan of James Franco, so I'm happy.

Jack The Giant Slayer
I felt like I've been seeing snippets of this film for ages, so I'm excited that the release date is actually looming soon.

The Last Exorcism Part II
The first film left a sour taste in the mouth when it ended so abruptly that it felt like the filmmakers ran out of ideas. I have a feeling that I will have the same feeling with this one.

GI Joe: Retaliation
The fact that this film was pushed back a whole year because the test audiences disliked it so much might be a testament to how bad this film is. And the fact that I didn't really like the first one either...

April

Jurassic Park 3D
OK, call me a hypocrite because I wasn't looking forward to Titanic's 3D re-release last year, but Jurassic Park is different because it's a childhood classic. I don't know if the 3D will be any good, but I'll still love the film!

Evil Dead
This film looks completely brutal. While I liked the first film, the 80s charm really makes it, it seems like this remake is really pushing the boundaries of horror. I mean, look at the trailer...

Iron Man 3
While Iron Man 2 was a bit lacklustre, I'm hoping that the most charming of The Avengers crew can bounce back with a better sequel this time. I have hope for this one.

Scary Movie 5
Yep, they're making another one. And yep, it looks just as bad as all the other "Movie" spoofs out there.

May

Star Trek Into Darkness
I'm not a Trekkie, but I loved JJ Abrams Star Trek back in 2009 with all his screen-glare-glory and this sequel looks just as incredible!

The Hangover Part III
I loved The Hangover, but The Hangover Part II was simply a terrible retread of the same story and even the same story beats as the first film. Thus, I'm not really bothered about The Hangover Part III.

June

Man of Steel
Now that The Dark Knight trilogy is over, Christopher Nolan has turned his Producing duties towards bringing back Superman to our screens in what appears to be a darker and much grittier version. I can't wait.

World War Z
While this looks nothing like the book and that the zombies look a bit of a strange CGI mess (I'm hoping that they aren't as bad as the monsters in I Am Legend), I'm still looking forward to this for the sheer scale of destruction shown in the trailer.

Monsters University
Wait, another unwarranted Disney sequel?! Never.

July

Pacific Rim
I don't know too much about this one, but the trailer looks incredible. I'm in.

The Smurfs 2
Did anyone ask for this? Really?!

August

300: Rise of an Empire
Not seen much about this one at all (I don't even have a trailer) but I, like every other man out there, absolutely loved 300 so let's just hope that this can live up to expectations.

This Is The End
An interesting one this. An end of the world comedy coming out in 2013. A bit late to jump on the bandwagon isn't it?!

Insidious Chapter 2
I kind of liked Insidious. It did well building up the creeps up until the stupid finale involving Darth Maul in the nether regions or whatever it was. Therefor, I don't want anymore in a sequel!

September

Elysium
Again, I've not heard too much about this, but the online viral marketing for this film is interesting. Also, it's written and directed by the bloke who did District 9, which I also loved so let's hope he keeps it up!

October

Carrie
Another horror remake, but much like The Evil Dead this one looks like it will equal or maybe even top the original 1970s film. Plus, this one has Chloe Grace Moretz in it, who I think is an amazing actress, who has Julianne Moore playing her Mother - what can go wrong?!

Thor: The Dark World
I loved the original Thor. To be honest, I thought I wouldn't because the trailer made it look a bit lame - the old fantasy character stuck in our world. But the film was just so cheesy and captivating and fun. I hope the sequel is more of the same... but different, as all sequels should be!

Paranormal Activity 5
It's getting silly now. I kind of liked the first one and the third one, but parts two and four were so ridiculously bad that the story is really starting to wear thin now.

November

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire
I haven't read the books, so I'm not sure if they are much better, but the films feel really watered down and censored considering that it follows young adults hunting and friggin' killing each other!

December

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
I'm currently reading The Hobbit at the moment and I literally cannot wait to see what Peter Jackson does with this one. The book is fairly short to be split into three films, so I want to see what Jackson adds to them.

Anchorman: The Legend Continues
I don't care how many people tell me otherwise, Anchorman was not funny. It was stupid and boring and I couldn't be less excited for a sequel.

REVIEW: Life of Pi

Some Directors simply take the job that's given to them. Some like to think they have a choice and select jobs that they like the look of. And then there is the rare breed that like to be called auteurs.

Like him or not, Ang Lee can be said to be an auteur of some kind. The Taiwanese Director has long since established his visually driven storytelling through such films as Hulk and Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, and it's safe to say that Life of Pi is no different, really.

Life of Pi follows the older Pi Patel (Irrfan Khan) who is retelling the story of when he survived the sinking of a cargo ship when he and his family were moving to Canada to a writer (Rafe Spall). While his early life is quickly skimmed over (largely showing us his love for India, a young girl who he has fallen in love with and a tiger who he has a fascination with called Richard Parker. It is then that we follow the teenager Pi Patel (Suraj Sharma) who is the lone survivor on a lifeboat with an injured zebra, a monkey, a hyena and Richard Parker. Safe to say, the survivors on the boat are quickly whittled down and Pi is left to share his only chance of survival with the aggressive Richard Parker. It's a story of faith and belief as Pi tells a story that is difficult to believe, especially when he stumbles across a carnivorous island in the shape of a Hindu diety, Vishnu. Pi challenges the writer to believe in him and have faith that his story is true, or whether he wants to accept the more straight-forward and believable story where something much more straight-forward happened.

Life of Pi, while heavily reliant on the original source material, has Ang Lee written all over it. The film is visually stunning to look at, although I was confused as to why Lee chose to film it in 1.33:1 aspect ratio, rather than a wider screen. There's some beautiful aerial shots of Pi and Richard Parker as they lie in the lifeboat in the middle of the still ocean. There's some beautiful night shots, where the edge of the ocean and the start of the starry night merge together to form as one. And the boat sinking itself was also brilliantly tense as Pi desperately climbed and swam his way to safety, while backdropped against the brightly lit ship under the water. It's some really beautiful stuff.

And then, Ang Lee decides to cross the line of visually stunning storytelling, into a fantasy, whimsical dream like state when Pi and Richard Parker start to become some starved and drained and especially when they come across the carnivorous island. I know the whole film is about belief and getting the audience to have faith that Pi's story is the truth, but it almost felt like it was too much. I didn't want to have a repeat of Hulk where the visuals took over the storytelling and resulted in a boring story, I wanted to have a visually stunning story being told. It's just a shame that it seems Lee let's himself get too lost in the metaphor behind the story rather than actually telling the story.

Having said that, the most intense and interesting part of the film definitely comes within the first hour, where we learn of the young Pi's obsession with taming Richard Parker, the sinking of the cargo ship and then the initial struggle for dominance on the lifeboat between Pi and Richard Parker. It's just a shame that the second half starts to run out of steam - the carnivorous island sub-plot feels very rushed, yet it should have been a major plot point in establishing that when a person gives up hope, that's when they die (as seen when Pi tells the story of another man who gave up hope and was consumed by the island.) Also, when Pi needs to start telling the Chinese insurance company a more 'believable' story, again it feels very rushed and largely skipped over, when it was a story that relied on a lack of faith and should of had equal emphasis as the story with the animals and carnivorous island that required faith (almost as if to give them an equal balance.)

The way in which Life of Pi is told was always going to be the major hook to the story. It's like The Hole, where Thora Birch's character is left telling three different variations of the same story and leaves the audience wondering which is the truth. It's just a shame that we never truly get that sense of doubt in Life of Pi. The story which relies on faith, belief and religion is so shoved down our throats, that I felt it was quite preachy.

On another note, I have no idea why Ang Lee decided to agree to the dilm being in 3D. It literally added nothing to the storytelling. Unless my eyes were doubting me, there was no depth added. The stuff that "flew" out of the screen felt a little bit gimmicky and also quite flat (Li of Pi committed the same sin as Wrath of the Titans and suddenly shifted the aspect ratio of the film so stuff could "fly out" over the black screen space.) I almost felt like the 3D glasses were dimming the visuals on screen, so for the first time I felt that the 3D was a detriment to the film, rather than helping the storytelling.

So, overall Life of Pi is a bit of a mixed bag. While the story started off strong with the establishing of Pi's character and the predicament he faces when stranded on a lifeboat with a ferocious tiger, it fell completely flat in the second half when the visual-vomit from Ang Lee flew across the screen and the idea of faith was shoved down our throats.

**/*****

2012: A Year To Look Back On...

OK, so 2012 was when I first starting blogging my film reviews of everything that I saw at the cinema (and sometimes what I saw on DVD.) One of the first blogs of 2012 I did was what films I was looking forward to seeing and likewise, those that I wasn't looking forward to seeing. Let's have a look and see if I was right to be excited?



The Amazing Spiderman - ***/*****

As I said in the original blog post, I was a massive fan of Sam Raimi's Spiderman trilogy, so I was naturally looking forward to The Amazing Spiderman. While Andrew Garfield did a stand-up job taking over the red and blue suit and Emma Stone was great as his love interest, Gwen Stacey, the whole film felt a little boring and been-there-done-that. Basically, it wasn't that much different to the Raimi films.



Prometheus - ****/*****

I loved Prometheus. I don't care what you all think, I absolutely loved it. Sure, it wasn't a great prequel to Alien, and the stupid tacked on ending of the alien being born bugged me, but I loved how it raised so many questions. So what if it didn't answer all of them, it was a beautiful, beautiful film.



The Woman in Black - ****/*****

I loved the stage play. I then read the book and thought it was very chilling. The film? It was a bit reliant on heavy jump scares and sure, Daniel Radcliffe looked a little young to be playing Arthur Kipps, but it just felt like a well made tight little British horror film, something we have been missing since Hammer's heydays (minus the campiness of Christopher Lee).



Wrath of the Titans - ***½/*****

Clash of the Titans was pretty tame, had too much Hollywood gloss to it and had really flat 3D, but I was entertained on the most basic level. I was expecting more of the same from Wrath of the Titans, even though it had a new director, and I was unfortunately spot on. It suffered the same flaws in its look and plot, with even more monsters being abruptly killed off in this one. Looking back on it, I think my 3½ star writing might be a bit generous.



The Cabin in the Woods - ****/*****

I loved Cabin in the Woods. It was just what the horror genre needed to give it a bit of a boost - much like what Scream did in the 1990s. I'm just a little disappointed looking back on it that the film didn't get the mainstream advertising that it deserved. I can even overlook that ridiculous closing scene...



The Hunger Games - ***/*****

I don't like to admit it, but I was right with this one. It's a film that should have been a more extreme version than what it was. I don't understand why the filmmakers went for a light film which dealt with young people hunting and killing each other?!



The Avengers Assemble - **½/*****

One of my biggest disappointments of the year. I love superhero films and a film which had some of the big titans altogether should have been great. Instead, the 3D was flat and it just felt like it was the Thor show rather than a joint effort.



And films I wasn't looking so forward to...

American Pie: Reunion - ***/*****

I don't know how it did it, but American Pie: Reunion wasn't terrible. Sure, it wasn't an amazing feat of cinema, but it also didn't pretend to be anything else. Instead of finding the older actors weird and creepy doing the same stuff they did over 10 years ago, I felt a weird sense of nostalgia and remembering when I went to the cinema for the first films.



The Dictator - ½/*****

I was right - it was terrible. Sasha Baron Cohen needs to move on from his brand of "outrageous" humour, because it's not funny.



Titanic 3D - N/A

It was... nice to see this film in cinemas again and felt a lot more epic than watching it on the small screen. The 3D wasn't too shabby either, but not the best film of 2012 (or even 1997).



The Expendables 2 - ***/*****

I actually enjoyed The Expendables 2 a lot more than I thought I would. Even though Nan Yu nearly brought down the entire film with her appalling attempt at acting, it was great to see so many cameos by actions biggest stars.



Now on to 2013!