G-Force (2009)

basics...
From the sublime Inside Men to the ridiculous G-Force... A Disney/Jerry Bruckheimer production that sees Zach Galifianakis (wow, spelled that right on my first guess!) as an FBI bod in charge of a crack squad of talking guinea pigs, who are out to prove their worth by investigating Bill Nighy's tech-mogul's plot to take over the world. Or something.

brilliant...
G-Force has a good set up and delivers a lot of wham-bam special effects, chase sequences and flashy CGI that would no doubt keep kids entertained for hours. There are also quite a few references to more adult films that are enjoyable and helped to keep my attention away from the films flaws. I particularly liked the line 'Yippee-ki-ay coffee maker!', a Die Hard reference that none of the film's target audience should know.

but...

The sad thing about G-Force is that it never really lives up to the fun-sounding premise that guinea pig spies might suggest. There's not enough fun to be had with the fact that these are guinea pigs! The film takes itself a tad too seriously - Galifianakis is basically a straight man to some ok-CGI lumps of fluff with impressive voices (Nic Cage, Sam Rockwell, Jon Favreau, Penélope Cruz, Steve Buscemi and Tracy Morgan) but a weak script, by something called 'The Wibberleys'. That credit explained a lot... The plot - the mole is actually a mole in the ranks and plans to wipe out humanity through killer kitchen utensils - is silly and there are plot holes and contrivances galore. It seems churlish to say that about what is clearly a kids movie, but there should be so much more to this thing that special effects, shouldn't there? I don't think it's a big ask for a tighter script and less clunking scenes like the one in which Galifianakis suddenly decides to tell the little spies he got them from a pet shop

briefly...
G-Force left me annoyed at the squandered potential that a film featuring spy-fi rodents and this cast might imply.

Shelock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (2010) & Sherlock: Series 2 (2011)

basics...
The continuing adventures of celluloid Holmes and Watson, starring Robert Downey Jr and Jude Law in Victorian London, plus the return of Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman as Sherlock and John, modern day problem solvers on a TV budget.

brilliant...
Very little seems to have been written, at least in the things I read, discussing these two very different adaptations in the same breath, which is odd considering they both back in sequels released/broadcast within a few weeks of the other. The movie is a less cerebral, more visceral, action-packed affair than the trio of new episodes, yet each 'product' is recognisably Sherlock Holmes, and each is a joy to behold. Key to each is the chemistry between the duo of actors in the starring roles - Downey Jr and Law seem so comfortable sparking off each other, while Freeman is a knockout as his (platonic) love for quirky Cumberbatch's super-sleuth translates through to the audience. A Game of Shadows is more fun, more assured than its predecessor, and the inclusion of both Stephen Fry, as Holmes' brother Mycroft, and Jared Harris as nemesis Moriarty are masterstrokes. The TV show has an equally compelling villain in Andrew Scott's Jim Moriarty, and the final episode, in which he sets Sherlock up for an almighty fall was nail-biting stuff. Damn Stephen Moffat's love of cliff-hangers!

but...

I reiterate my complaint from my review of Sherlock: Series 1: 3 episodes is not enough! Even if they are each feature length. While it's nice to see Noomi Rapace on screen in A Game of Shadows it would have been even better if her character had something useful to do - the dearth of female characters gives a real boys' own adventure feel to the film. Women are better served in the TV version, particularly Lara Pulver's Irene Adler - I hope we see more of her next series (although in the infamous naked scene we've already seen quite a bit).

briefly...
Worthy successors and happy bedfellows, each adaptation/version has a lot to recommend it. 

The Twilight Saga: New Moon (2009)

basics...
The continuing adventures of mopey Bella Swan and her miserable vampire boyfriend Edward, with added Jacob - now a super-buff werewolf.

brilliant...
I wasn't overly excited by the first Twilight movie, but there were signs that it could have been good - Taylor Lautner's Jacob was not just attractive, he also lit up the screen when he appeared. Knowing his role expanded in New Moon then I was happy to watch this sequel. And boy was I happy once it started too! Bella makes reference to how buff Jacob has got since she last saw him at the beginning of the movie, and then once his long hippy hair is cut off and he starts walking around in just a pair of denim shorts we get to see just how buff he really is. It's easy to tell where the nickname Jak-Abs comes from! Lautner continued to be the most charismatic of the main cast members, with Bella mooning over Edward for much of the running time, as he's decided he has to leave - except he pops up in shimmer ghost/visions things that look stupid and appear to be there to placate the 'Team Edward' portions of the audience. Bella continues to treat everybody who's not a vampire shittily, and although she falls for Jacob, once she finds out Edward's going to top himself in Italy (go figure) she's off to stop him without a single thought for cute puppy dog Lautner. I found the whole film to be more satisfying than the first, possibly due to better direction, probably due to a focus on Jacob and his werewolf pack - who are mighty impressive, turning into HUGE wolves that are a solid CGI job.

but...
As ever this is Bella's movie, and Kristen Stewart continues to scowl and mope through the film - as the part demands I suppose. It would have been a braver move to completely forget about Edward rather than have the visions popping up. Bella becomes such a selfish character, and I wanted to reach into the screen and slap her silly, commanding her to get a grip and stop moping over her vampire boyfriend. The supporting characters get pretty short shrift, although Edward's sister is fun - she does however bring about a massive shift in the movie when Bella spontaneously flies to Italy (not telling her poor Dad) to stop Michael Sheen and Dakota Fanning killing Edward. Unfortunately, she gets there in time, and then none of the bad vamps decides to kill Bella, despite the fact she knows about their breed. This whole section is clearly a manipulative set up to make you come see the next movie, and undoes a lot of the good work of the rest of the film - Bella, and thus the story, forgets about Jacob who seems to have just been serving as filler in the ongoing love story.

briefly...
An average action/romance flick with a couple of uninvolving leads - brightened considerably by Taylor Lautner's smile and pecs. Could there be a bit more excitement next time please?

Jurassic Park (1993)

basics...
18 years after it first appeared in cinemas Jurassic Park was re-released in a shiny new digital print, so of course we had to go and check it out. 

brilliant...
I've seen Jurassic Park so many times over the last couple of decades, including at the cinema in 1993, on my friend's pirate video copy (that I taped over with Neighbours...), on VHS, on DVD and now back on the big screen, and it's never looked better. Everything else about the film remains several notches above excellent, from the plot, which complements the sterling source novel, to the cast of fine actors. There's a lot of humour, a lot of suspense, dashings of real terror and awe inspiring special effects. While some of the CGI may not look as pristine as today's efforts, much of it surpasses expectations to remain fresh and real. One of the greatest joys about seeing the film again in the cinema is being able to hear John Williams' epic, magistic, instantly recognisable score blasting out all around. I would probably have been happy to just sit with my eyes shut and listen, since I can probably construct the whole film in my head anyway. Despite the number of times I've seen Jurassic Park, it never gets old. I can find no fault, and each viewing brings further chances to savour the perfectness of the whole and its parts.

briefly...
Quite simply one of the finest films that has ever evolved.

The Shadow (1994)

basics...
A superhero movie from a time when there wasn't one every two weeks, i.e. the 1990's, The Shadow sees Alec Baldwin's bizarrely named Lamont Cranston taking on a descendant of Genghis Khan in order to save the world. He does this by using a odd set of powers taught to him by a monk back in the days this American hero was a warlord in China...

brilliant...
A synopsis of this film makes little sense, so it's a wonder that the plot holds together. That any of this works at all is down to some great casting, not least in Baldwin's charming (anti?)hero - he's ably supported by turns from hammy Tim Curry, funny Peter Boyle and pre-Gandalf/Magneto Ian McKellen. It was these names that drew me to the film, plus I have a soft spot for superhero movies of course. And it was for these names that I stayed. 

but...
Aside from a prologue that was mirrored years later in Batman Begins, the film The Shadow most reminded me of was Dick Tracy - both obviously had a lot of money spent on effects and guest cast, and little attention paid to scripts and anything more than an average finished product. There's just something about The Shadow that doesn't work, and the fault seems to lie with the titular hero, who we meet ordering a man's death and than are expected to root for as he goes about fighting crime. And while Baldwin would prove hilarious decades later in TV's 30 Rock, here he's not given material to really bring out his inner comic. I can't believe that David Koepp - writer of Jurassic Park - scripted this mess. But it's not all bad, there are worse ways to pass 2 hours. 

briefly...
A Dick Tracy-style mess of style and little substance, The Shadow could have done with being a lot darker, like a certain Knight, or keeping it light all through, á la Batman & Robin. 

Twilight (2008)

basics...
Twilight is your typical girl-meets-reformed-vampire romance, only with hoards of insane fans, going crazy over 'R-Patz' and 'Jac-Abs'. 

brilliant...
I wanted to really like Twilight, and it's not a terrible movie. But not being a crazy mad fan of the books (never read them) or Robert Pattinson, who is sort-of-handsome but not really as a pasty-faced, moody vampire. It's only when Bella (Kristen Stewart) figures out that Edward is a vampire halfway into the movie that Pattinson gets to let loose a bit and shows flashes of something great, but this is tempered by the general woodness of the script and misery of the direction. I liked spotting the people I knew in the supporting cast, like Up in the Air's Anna Kendrick, Dr. Cooper from Nurse Jackie and the tasty Cam Gigandet, who has the scene's only hot topless shot. Taylor Lautner's Jacob is only a minor character in this movie, he'll come back in force later on as far as I understand it, but his brief scenes here, with horrible long hair, add a spark that I wasn't expecting. His storyline is one of the more interesting bits. Oh and Edward's vampire family is fun too.

but...
The main flaw in Twilight is the morose, sullen heroine, Bella. I can see why teenage girls identify with her, but she's incredibly difficult to symathise with or give a shit about. She's miserable for no discernable reason and rarely cracks a smile. And then she's lumped with some poor dialogue and an interminably long, drawn-out prelude to romance with Edward. This film could really do with some editing, and some excitement. Especially considering this is a vampire movie there's very little action, you have to wait until the closing 20 mins for all the real danger and thrills when Gigandet's evil vampire smacks Bella around a lot. 

briefly...
Twilight is OK. I would like to watch the later films to see more of Lautner, to see if he lives up to the promise he shows here, and to maybe see Pattinson kick things up a notch - maybe different directors will help with this. Otherwise, if I want to see a vampire-human romance I'll stick to a story with bite, like True Blood or Buffy.

Captain America: The First Avenger (2011)

basics...
The final Marvel movie before next years super-hero team up, The Avengers, Captain America stands out through being set in World War II, with Nazi bad guys, and a super patriotic hero in the form of... weedy Steve Rogers. Transformed into a buff (hello Chris Evans' pecs), fast healing 'super-soldier', he must defeat the dasterdly Red Skull (Hugo Weaving) before he takes over the world.

brilliant...
Captain America's biggest asset is its cast, which includes the charmingly hunky Chris Evans, gruff and funny Tommy Lee Jones, villainous Hugo Weaving, slimy Toby Jones, winsome Hayley Atwell, cute young Dominic Cooper, and best of all, Stanley Tucci with a German accent! What's not to love? It also helps that the characters exist in a different era as well as a different place, and there are other variations on the superhero theme that contribute to an enjoyable movie, aside from the action setpieces. For a start, Steve Rogers is well known to the world as Captain America, there's no secret identity here, although in a hilarious and knowing sequence, the Captain is initially just a propaganda tool, someone used alongside scantily glad chorus girls touring the country to sell War Bonds. In a neat touch, he also has his own comic book! There's enough originality and window-dressing to make this standard hero origin tale an enjoyable addition to the genre. 

but...
In a year that's already seen Thor, X-Men: First Class, the Green Lantern and probably a couple others I can't remember in cinemas, Captain America's story suffers a little from 'been there, seen that' syndrome. We all know the basic super-hero origin story tropes, and here the Captain sometimes feels like he's going through the motions. And on top of that, I never once thought that our hero was in any way threatened by Red Skull and his Nazi henchmen, defeating him was all a little too easy. Steve Rogers is a bit too perfect too, where are his flaws? Thor has anger issues, Tony Stark is a hedonistic mess... maybe Rogers' issues will come to the surface now that he's thawed out in the present day, and all those he saved back in the 1940s are long gone. 

briefly...
In spite of the feeling of superhero deja vu, Captain America's cast and enthusiasm, along with some genre twists, make it one of the better comic book movies. Although, not as good as Thor.

X-Men: First Class (2011)

I love an X-Men movie so there's no surprise that I enjoyed the latest in the series, First Class, just as much as the others. While it doesn't beat X-Men 2 as the best of the bunch, it's certainly a credit to the X-Men name, full of spectacular effects and action, with a massive cast of mutants. I especially like the gay/mutant allegory, which is occasionally made explicit such as when 'don't ask don't tell' is uttered by Hank (The Beast) here in reference to the fact that his mutation cannot be seen, so he keeps quiet about it. Don't ask don't tell being the US Army's old method of dealing with gay soldiers. 

First Class is a prequel to the rest of the series, featuring a young Xavier (James McAvoy) and Erik (Michael Fassbender), plus Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence) and a hilarious cameo from Wolverine himself (not to mention 'older' Mystique, Rebecca Romijn), along with a whole host of previously unseen mutants both young and old. It's a shame that there's almost too much plot going on for a few more meaty character scenes would have added to the whole, but everything breezes along with laughs, thrills and spills. 

Kevin Bacon is a fun bad guy, and he really seems to enjoy the role, while Fassbender is tremendous as pre-Magneto, his trek around the world to find the man who murdered his mother giving a Bond-like air to proceedings that is not dispelled by the 1960's stylings. First Class is not a perfect movie, but it's a thoroughly enjoyable one, faults and all. 

Interestingly, First Class shares an actress, Rose Byrne, with Bridesmaids, which we saw a couple of days previously. Plus, here's Mad Men's Betty Draper (January Jones), and who was that bedding the lead in Bridesmaids? Oh yes, Don Draper (Jon Hamm)!

Thor (2011)

For my birthday on Wednesday Andrew took me out for lunch and tea, and inbetween we saw Thor - just a few years earlier we saw Iron Man in London on my birthday, so it was nice to follow the Marvel-movie tradition! And just as I was blown away with how good Iron Man proved to be, Thor is up there with the best comic book adaptations yet.

It felt so much different than other Marvel or even DC movies, pitched at just the right level between funny and dramatic, Kenneth Branagh's steady hand kept things from getting ridiculous - and with the subject matter, costumes and themes it was an ever-present danger that it could have all gone a bit Flash Gordon. Instead I was rivetted to the Shakespearean themes, of Thor (a buff and surprisingly funny Chris Hemsworth) and his rivallry with brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston), who had more layers than I expected, and both have complex relationships with dad Odin, a marvel-lous Anthony Hopkins.

I thought that the movie would start in Thor's far off home-land of Asgard and then transfer to present day USA for the rest of the running time, but both locations co-existed throughout, and the drama in Asgard was countered with a lighter touch in smalltown USA, where Natalie Portman, Stellan Skarsgård and Kat Dennings played the scientists who find Thor in the middle of the desert, after Odin has banished him from Asgard. There are some hilarious fish-out-of-water-moments, especially when Thor's friends turn up to find him. A few knowing references to other Marvel heroes and another cracking Stan Lee cameo, plus a post-credits Samuel L. Jackson headfuck were the cherries on top of a refreshing, dramatic and joyful addition to the comic book hero canon.

Kick-Ass (2010)

I'd read so much about Kick-Ass in Empire around it's release last year that it almost put me off watching it, just because I thought my expectations would be too high. Sitting down to watch it on shiny blu-ray last week I found that after a bit of a slow start it really sucked me in and I enjoyed it muchly. 

It reminded me a bit of Scott Pilgrim, although less stylised and 'comic book' looking than that movie, it had a very modern spin on the superhero genre and its conventions. The beautiful Aaron Johnson (who I raved about in Angus, Thongs and Perfect Snogging) is our hero, a regular teen who decides it would be cool if super heroes really did exist, so he puts an outfit together online and goes out to find some crime to fight... and ends up beaten and stabbed, though handily this results in his having Wolverine-style metal grafted onto some bones and a lack of feeling in his nerves. 

Meanwhile Nic Cage, who's at his best here, sees how Kick-Ass' exploits go down with the public and becomes Big Daddy, with his young tween daughter a potty-mouthed killing machine, Hit-Girl (Chloe Moretz). And then there's bad guy Mark Strong and his son Christopher Mintz-Plasse, a.k.a. Red Mist, who Big Daddy targets to avenge the death of his wife, while Kick-Ass is blamed for the deaths of Strong's gangsters... It's all quite involved and takes some explaining. One thing I'd say is that the buzz around the film seemed to be all about Moretz and her foul mouthed action ways, which unfairly left Johnson in the background. I personally think he makes this movie, although I've seen him in just two films so far, and he's utterly gorgeous (it's the eyes), I really think he's a talent to watch.

The action, with a *ahem* kick ass soundtrack, is kinetic and savage, but thankfully not bone-crunchingly violent a la Watchmen. The dialogue is peppered liberally with cuss words, but they don't detract from the knowingness of the characters, who regularly reference Batman, X-Men and other superheroes. There's a nice love story with Dave/Kick-Ass and his crush Katie, who initially thinks he's gay and he's happy to play along if it means he can help spray tan her naked body! The film isn't too knowing though, it does have buckets of originality and some gloriously over the top gun play to recommend it. So yeah, Kick-Ass certainly does what it says on the tin. An awesome film.  

Unstoppable (2010)

There's not a lot to say about Unstoppable. It's an excellent action-thriller about a runaway train, starring Denzel Washington and the hunky Chris Pine, with great support from Rosario Dawson. 

The reason I say there isn't much to say about this movie is that it's a good, solid action movie in the vein of Speed, with nice character work, but with emphasis on the train. It won't win any awards for acting or originality (there's even the potential of the train colliding with another train of school children) but it provides real thrills, tension and heroism and is directed with such flair by Tony Scott that it stands out against other such thrillers. Who'd have thought that shots of trains travelling really fast could be turned into something so exciting? The relationship between Washington and Pine was well developed, sharing an easy chemistry, but it was secondary to the train! Did I mention the train?! A top notch movie. 

Red (2010)

Last Orange Wednesday we went to the cinema for the first time since Scott Pilgrim, back in early September, which seems like so long ago. The subject of the trip was Red, an action comedy from the director of The Time Traveller's Wife, a movie I didn't expect to like and ended up really getting into.  And no, following my last post about Blue, this isn't one of the films in the Three Colours Trilogy!

Red stars (deep breath): Bruce Willis, Mary-Louise Parker, Morgan Freeman, John Malkovich, Helen Mirren, Brian Cox, Ernest Borgnine, Karl Urban, Richard Dreyfuss and Julian McMahon... It's quite a cast, and although it has an Ocean's Eleven/Thirteen feel that they had a lot of fun making the movie, it's slick but not as fun as it might think. That's not to say I didn't enjoy Red, I certainly did, and I'd watch it again, it's just there was something a little subdued about it, not enough action and not frequent enough comedy. 

Having said that, the joy of Red is seeing these older actors cutting loose in the sort of movie usually reserved for characters in their twenties and thirties. Bruce Willis still kicks ass, and my favourite bit of the movie, when he steps out of a moving, spinning car, narrowly missing the boot smacking him in the ass to unload a gun into a pursuing vehicle... it was like vintage Die Hard! It had the audacity of the stunt in Die Hard 4.0 when he kills a helicopter with a car, along with the typical Willis smirk. In fact, Willis seemed permanently set to smirk, and he was a bit reigned in -  I'm watching Moonlighting at the moment, so I wanted more of that Bruce Willis.

The film undeniably looks great, and Helen Mirren is a delight, once she turns up, firing machine guns in a beautiful cocktail dress. The plot is fine, no awards for originality but it kept my interest. The reason I'd happily watch Red again is that it's a lot of fun, a good solid movie with no frills.

Scott Pilgrim vs. The World (2010)

The third movie we saw at the cinema in an 8 day stretch, Scott Pilgrim has, like The Girl Who Played With Fire, had some bad reviews, but Empire liked it, so it’s all ok! I can see why people might not like Scott Pilgrim – it’s very much a movie for teenage boys, or people who’ve been one, who get the computer game references that come thick and fast and inform the style of the whole movie.

From the opening Universal logo, retro-fitted to an old computer graphic, with suitably old-fashioned computer game blippy music, Scott Pilgrim is one long series of in-jokes. But more than that, it’s frequently hilarious, energetic and unlike anything else I’ve seen. There are a whole heap of great characters played by equally great actors, and the movie sees Scott (Michael Cera, looking oddly buff in the fight scenes) becoming infatuated with Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), and having to fight off her 7 evil exes to win her heart, oh and Scott’s band is meanwhile taking part in a battle of the bands contest. It’s preposterous, and oh so brilliant, working in a world with its own logic, where Scott can be punched into walls and survive, where the exes he fights burst into a shower of coins when he defeats them, and where pretty much anything can happen, if it has a basis in computer games.

The plot, when you boil it down, is fairly straightforward, what I enjoyed most about the movie is the many characters and their interactions with each other and Scott. Cera is adorable in the lead, and his gay roommate Wallace Wells, played by Kieran Culkin, provides standout support. The characters share a bed, often with Wallace’s boyfriend and other men friends, and they share an easy relationship that is wonderfully drawn. Other favourite characters are: Young Neal (Johnny Simmons), the mono-syllabic groupie who is much better than this description sounds; Lucas Lee (Chris Evans), Ramona’s second ex and object of Wallace’s crush; Todd Ingram (Brandon Routh), the third ex who is defeated through a hilarious vegan-police intervention; and the wonderful Knives Chao (Ellen Wong) who is really the heart of the movie.

Knives is Scott’s younger girlfriend when the movie opens, who he dumps to go out with Ramona. I found this odd because Ramona doesn’t have much to recommend her, and it’s not really explained what is so fascinating about her other than she has brightly coloured hair. She’s a bit sullen and doesn’t really give Scott any encouragement, whereas Knives is loveably devoted to him. I thought that the brilliantly monikered Knives wouldn’t be in the movie much, but when she is dumped she becomes a bit of a stalker and jealous girlfriend, culminating in a great fight at the movie’s end. I was disappointed that Scott didn’t choose Knives to run off into the sunset with, and this was really the only downside of the movie. She was a much more interesting and fun character than Ramona who stands out as not being so good when all the other characters are so well defined and fun to watch.

Scott Pilgrim vs. The World continues Edgar Wright’s hit rate, following Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, and he really is a unique director. He’s equally skilled at comedy, action and drama, and it’s only a shame that he doesn’t make more films more often. Having been a teenage boy and a continual geek, I enjoyed Scott Pilgrim a lot, it was one of those movies that I left with a huge grin on my face, and they’re always worth noting. 

June 2011 Edit: We've recently watched Scott Pilgrim again, on blu-ray, and it's still an awesome, hilarious, ass-kicking movie! With a great selection of deleted scenes and outtakes too. I think this will be a movie we come back to again and again.

Apocalypto (2006)

I wasn't sure I wanted to watch Apocalypto. As intrigued as I was by the concept - it's set in 16th Century South American, and features a cast of ancient Mayans, speaking, well, ancient Mayan - Mel Gibson's last movie as director was the gory (and boring) Passion of the Christ, and within the first 5 minutes of Apocalypto, a wild boar is killed bloodily and graphically. Unsure whether to continue watching (especially as I was eating my tea at the time) I determined to stick with it, occasionally holding my hand up to the screen when anything too bloody was going on. I didn't realise I was so squeamish, but I really don't see the point in dwelling on gore for the sake of it, it does nothing for a plot - my idea of hell would be watching a gore-filled movie like Saw or its ilk.

Once I got past the gore I found Apocalypto to be fascinating and compelling. It's unlike anything I've seen before - perhaps it's a little bit like Avatar's Na'vi, who live in the jungles and speak a foreign language, and they do say the past is like another country. It was refreshing to watch a movie devoid of technology (and much CGI) and that rested on the strengths of the performers, none of whom were recognisable. I think it often helps to get lost in a movie when you're distracted by stars or thinking 'where do I know him/her from?'.

Gibson showed the Mayans as normal people, making fun of each other, with love and death and grief - and there was a lot of death, as the main character, Jaguar Paw, sees his village destroyed and he and his friends are taken as slaves to a 'city' with massive temples and human sacrifices. At this point it became even more like Avatar as the sacrifcial Mayans were daubed with blue paint. Up to here, half way through the movie, Jaguar Paw watches most of the goings on, but he eventually runs free and the last half of the movie is a pulse-pounding frenetic footchase throught the jungle.

Jaguar Paw's motive is to get back to his village where he hid his heavily pregant wife and son down a hole they can't climb out of, before they starve, or drown. Along the way he is chased by vengeful baddies who lob spears and arrows at him, and who are taken out by snakes, waterfalls, jaguars (one has his face bitten off in one of the more disturbing, bloody scenes, this was a real GOL moment, or Groan Out Loud!), and ingenious traps. I really felt for Jaguar Paw and urged him on, silently cheering everytime a baddie was poisioned or impaled.

I'm glad I watched Apocalypto, it was different and made me think about how these races may have existed (I know it's not a documentary and that there is artisitic licence), and to see the world from a none European, Westernised, twenty-first century viewpoint is intriguing. I suppose the bloodyness was necessary to show how savage some of the practices were, but they were a bit too graphic in parts. Why can't that nice(!?) Mr Gibson make a movie without gore - even Braveheart had it's bloody moments.

First Knight (1995)

I thought that First Knight was going to be a fun film. I knew it starred Sean Connery, who didn't turn up until 30 mins in, but I didn't realise Richard Gere was in it too (or Rob Brydon, who was an uncredited extra in the Wales-filmed first 10 mins!). The movie has Connery's King Arthur marrying Julia Ormond's young Guinevere, while Gere's sometimes American, sometimes sort-of English Lancelot falls for her, and she for him. There's also a bad guy with a funny name who's trying to take over Guinevere's old kingdom, but who's easily foiled by Lancelot everytime he tries to do something like kidnap Arthur's new bride. 

Unlike the BBC TV series, Merlin, there is no magical wizard here, and also a distinct lack of fun. It's all a bit plodding and obvious, and the action scenes of swordfights and horse-mounted battle are pretty pedestrian affairs. How odd that Jerry Zucker, the director, was one of the men responsible for Airplane! because there's barely a wry grin nevermind a laugh to be found. The knights of the round table are little more than faceless extras. Gere's Lancelot looks like he's in a shampoo advert half the time, and I kept confusing Ormond's insipid Guinevere with Maid Marian. The baddie, whose name I can't remember, was a great villain when he appeared and whoever portrayed him brought some sorely missed relish to his performance. I've never rated Gere or Connery as great actors, Gere often just looks smug, as he does here. Connery has the right gravitas as an older statesman King Arthur here. It's just a shame he doesn't get much screentime compared to Gere. It's not an awful film, just a boring one. 

Mad Max (1979); The Graduate (1967); Lethal Weapon 4 (1998); Loaded Weapon 1 (1993); The Walker (2007)

Watching the Lethal Weapon series and reading about Mad Max (1979) in a recent issue of Empire, we decided to give the latter a spin and to find out why Mel Gibson hit big. I enjoyed the movie, it was clearly cheaply made but there's a lot of fun to be had and what action there is is well-directed and visceral. The violence is cartoonish but wince-inducing, especially when Max gets his arm run over by a motorbike. The Australian locations are gorgeously shot, and altogether the movie holds up as great fun. 

For a break from Mel Gibson we watched The Graduate (1967), the movie that made Dustin Hoffman a household name, and another 'classic'. I really liked this - the characters, the actors, the witty script, and the excellent direction all add up to a movie that has quite rightly gone down as a gem of cinema history. Hoffman is a delight as the awkward Benjamin Braddock who stumbles on an affair with 'cougar' (as they'd call her nowadays) Mrs Robinson, played deliciously by Anne Bancroft. Mike Nichols directs the movie in a stylised way that doesn't distance you from the action, rather it adds commentary to the youthful timidity of Benjamin. Hoffman's performance is very funny, one of his best ever, up there with Rain Man, and I'd quite happily watch this again soon. 

We finished off our run of Lethal Weapon movies with the final in the series, Lethal Weapon 4 (1998), which came several years after the last sequel and added Chris Rock and Jet Li to a cast that had already grown to encompass Joe Pesci and Rene Russo. Packed with memorable stunts (such as Riggs fight on a house-moving wagon) and more comedy than before, LW4 is another strong entry in a series that has no real weak link. The fights are just as bloody as in the first movie, and the script has the decency to point out that Gibson and Glover are indeed getting 'too old for this shit', and their storylines are advanced through Riggs' imminent fatherhood, and Murtaugh's grandfatherhood. Pesci is at his least annoying here, but then he is opposite Chris Rock, so maybe he's just less annoying by comparison. This is a fitting end to the series, and I hope they don't try to make any more, because the stars definitely would be too old - they couldn't pull it off like Bruce Willis did in the superb Die Hard 4.0.

Following the Lethal Weapon series we revisited National Lampoon's Loaded Weapon 1 (1993) which parodies several films, but none more so than Lethal Weapon. There are direct references such as Emilio Estevez's Colt going for a walk to show off his naked butt, Colt's/Rigg's trailer getting shot up by the bad guys in helicopters (in a brilliant Bruce Willis cameo), and Samuel L. Jackson's Luger sitting on the toilet parodying the classic LW2 bomb scene - but this time the character is just taking a shit. Other send ups include Basic Instinct's 'gratuitous beaver shot', Silence of the Lambs, and Rambo, but it's the LW references that are funniest. While not quite as good as Hot Shots!, Loaded Weapon 1 is a good laugh, full of hilarious performances from Whoopi Goldberg, William Shatner, Denis Leary and Tim Curry.

I enjoyed all of the movies above over the last week or so, and they all had a lot to recommend them. Unfortunately I can't say the same for The Walker (2007), a movie in which Woody Harrelson plays gay as Carter Page, a companion of high society Washington women, including Lily Tomlin, Lauren Bacall and Kristin Scott Thomas. This might have worked as some sort of comedy, but it's far too serious and becomes a murder-mystery-thriller type affair when the lover of Scott Thomas' character is killed and Page attempts to keep her out of it and find out whodunnit. Harrelson tackles the role in much the same way as Heath Ledger handled gay in Brokeback Mountain, by mumbling almost incoherently the whole way through. It's hard to warm to Page, or any of the characters really, apart from Lauren Bacall's society woman who doesn't get enough screen time. As the movie wears on in a po-faced manner the answers to the mystery provide little revelation or interest and there's not much of a satisfying conclusion. For a film with an interesting premise, it all fell a little flat.

Lethal Weapon 2 (1989) & Lethal Weapon 3 (1992)

Appetite whetted by the original Lethal Weapon, we watched the first two sequels in quick succession, and for my money they're as much fun as the first, and because there's no setting up of the relationship between Riggs and Murtaugh they get straight into the action and comedy. 

Lethal Weapon 2 is the one with the South African baddies, where Patsy Kensit puts on a funny accent and bares her breasts, Riggs' caravan home is riddled with bullets, and Murtaugh finds himself sat on an exploding toilet, in one of the series' best scenes, full of both humour and heart between the two buddies at the centre of it all. This movie also introduced Joe Pesci's equally funny/irritating side kick character, Leo Getz ('whatever you want, Leo gets'), who would be a part of both following sequels. For the most part I like Leo, Pesci plays him juuuuuust about the right side of punchable. There were some amazing action sequences, including the opening car chase, and the collapsing of the house on stilts, while the bad guys are suitable different from those in the first instalment to be satisfying - the Apartheid-era South African villains adding an extra social dimension that is handled with skill.

With Lethal Weapon 3 the certifcate dropped from an 18 to a 15 and the series got a little lighter and less bloody. At the end of LW2 Riggs was stabbed and shot to shit in a grim sequence that original writer Shane Black wanted to end with the character's death, whereas the carnage is not half as graphic in LW3. People still get shot by the barrel-load though, this time by a corrupt cop in a plot that doesn't feel as fresh as it's forebears, but which still delivers thrills and laughs, along with more great action pieces - this time a whole building explodes within the first 5 minutes, and the finale sees a housing development burned to the ground. What makes these sequences impressive is that they were real effects, not CGI fakeries, and it's a shame these large scale real effects are not as prevalent today. 

In LW3, Murtaugh is determined to retire from being a cop - he's too old for this shit - and thankfully, in the avoidance of the usual cliché that spins out from these kind of plots, he lives to kill another day. Leo Getz is back again, and is used sparingly enough that he's effective and not superflous. Riggs gets a love interest this time round, who survives, in the form of Rene Russo's Lorna Cole, a female mirror image of him in terms of scars and fighting technique. She's the Batgirl to his Batman. Or something. Either way, she's a good addition to the growing cast, and she's back for the next instalment. It's interesting to note that there was no love story in LW, and the one in LW2 ended tragically, you'd think that Riggs would see more action. The fact that he's a grieving widower in LW and his lonely life is contrasted with Murtaugh's happy family kept him single then, and the death of Kensit's character in LW2 spurred him on to revenge, so it's nice to see Riggs have a little happiness this time around. 

After a break to explore some other movies, we shall return to the franchise, and hopefully give Loaded Weapon 1 a go again too. 

Lethal Weapon (1987)

After watching Bird on a Wire the other week we decided to stick with 80’s Mel Gibson and revisit (for me – they were new to Andrew) the Lethal Weapon series, beginning of course with the first movie from 1987 that first saw Mel Gibson and Danny Glover’s Detectives Martin Riggs and Roger Murtaugh partnered together.

This first movie is so 80’s and so right in so very many ways. The music particularly, the jazzy saxophone soundtrack from Michael Kamen and Eric Clapton is definitely of its era, but it fits the tone and the action so perfectly. It might seem dated compared to today’s incidental music, yet it still works. It fits the 80’s look and feel, particularly in terms of the amount of violence and over the top gunplay, before action films became watered down to get more accessible ratings. Lethal Weapon is 18 certificate for a reason, the violence is real and bloody, Riggs and Murtaugh both get hurt and bleed, there’s no sugar-coating.

The movie opens with a half naked woman jumping to her death from an apartment block onto a car below. It’s a hell of a powerful way to start a film, and the drama and action and humour never lets up. The story itself is pretty ho hum about the heroin trade, but it’s the backdrop to one of THE classic cop-buddy movies of all time. Gibson and Glover are an inspired pairing, sharing such an easy chemistry, it’s no wonder they paired up again and again, and again.

Gibson shows off his buff body in a gratuitous early scene, memorably parodied in National Lampoon’s Loaded Weapon 1 (which I intend to revisit after I’ve finished with Lethal Weapon 4), and his whole persona as Martin Riggs is magnetic. I forget how good an actor he could be, and the scene when he contemplates suicide is difficult to watch. Glover is world-weary but has a wonderful family around him, with personalities and a sense of humour. It’s always a delight to hear the immortal ‘I’m too old for this sh**’, and here’s where it all started, twice in one movie too!

The Lethal Weapons are much like the Die Hard movies, once you watch one you’ve got to watch more, because you enjoy spending time with Riggs, Murtaugh and John McClane. I’ll be revisiting Lethal Weapon 2 very soon…Watch this space.

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (2010)

A natural progression from the two Tomb Raider movies, the other weekend we watched the latest computer-game-to-blockbuster-movie, Prince of Persia. As with Tomb Raider, it has a silly long title with a colon, and the plot is fairly preposterous guff, but I enjoyed it more than the others. This may be down to the fact that Jake Gyllenhaal is a hotter prospect than Angelina Jolie, or perhaps because it does something a bit different. 

It didn't feel like a computer game adaptation, and I wouldn't have known if I hadn't read about the movie in Empire. I'd not heard of the game before, it's not got the same name-recognition for non-gamers as Lara Croft does. Set in a distant Persia (not Iran...) the movie begins like a live-action Aladdin, particularly in reference to the Disney animation's One Jump Ahead song sequence, as young Dastan runs and jumps his way about the city walls and roofs to avoid capture by the king's guards. Flash forward a few years and the boy is now beefy Jake Gyllenhaal, sporting not-hideous long hair (if he'd been played by Orlando Bloom, the hair would look ridiculous, as he always looks with long hair) and ripped abs. Nice. 

Dastan reluctantly teams up with the lovely princess Tamina (Gemma Arterton), who you know he'll end up falling for once the two get past the bickering stage. They're a great screen couple, Arterton and Gyllenhaal sharing wonderful chemistry that adds spark to their relationship. The two run around the desert trying to stop Sir Ben Kingsley getting his hands on a dagger than contains the titular sands of time, and can reverese time about 60 secs at once. Naturally Sir Ben wants to use the dagger for evil, and Dastan doesn't want to let him have it. 

Along the way, Dastan and Tamina fall in with the rebellious Sheik Amar, played hilariously by Alfred Molina - he's the best part of the movie, and he gets all the funniest lines, as well as a central role towards the end of the film. It's a shame that the conclusion of the movie, time snaps back, means Dastan ultimately never meets Amar - with any luck he'll turn up in the expected sequel. 

That ending, which I honestly didn't see coming, could have been a let down. A typical 'and then everyone woke up' that has worked in films like The Wizard of Oz, here the adventure had been so much fun, and the Persian setting so different looking, refreshingly so, that I didn't feel cheated. All in all, Prince of Persia was a more satisfying film than either Tomb Raider, and even better than Pirates of the Caribbean, Disney/Bruckheimer's other big movie series. I'd happily watch Dastan's further adventures, provided Gyllenhaal is playing him, and Molina returns.

Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life (2003)

After the OK first Tomb Raider movie, I was hopeful that the sequel, with its long-winded title, would be as good, if not better. I was pleased to find The Cradle of Life was a more interesting and enjoyable movie than its predecessor. 

Less Indiana Jones than the first movie, the Tomb Raider 2 had a better plot that didn't just feel like excuses for action sequences, of which there seemed fewer than before, but not to the film's detriment. Despite Angelina Jolie's strong presence, I still found Lara to be pretty uninteresting and unknowable, so it was a good job the plot drew me in. Gerard Butler played the is-he-isn't-he good/bad guy this time round, and he was good enough, though he's no Daniel Craig in the looks or acting department. 

There was a greater sense of fun in Cradle of Life, and Ciarán Hinds made a wonderful villain, a real scenery-chewer. I'm writing this review a week or two after watching the film, and although I remember enjoying it, I don't remember a great deal about the experience! I suppose that says a lot about the movie, and the type of movie it is, nothing profound and with nothing new to say, but a pleasant way to pass 2 hours all the same.