PANDORUM (2009)

As a lover of all things Scf-Fi and all things Horror, Sci-Fi Horror is one of my favourite genres. Alien through to Alien Resurrection, Event Horizon and more recently Sunshine. Doctor Who to an extent. Even the game Dead Space on the PS3. Sci-Fi Horror really flicks my switch. So when Pandorum arrived from Lovefilm I was looking forward to immersing myself into a gory dose of horror in Space.



Begins well enough. Ben Foster awakes from Hypersleep on a huge space ship alone, no one else around and with no memory of why he's there. Interesting premise. Then Dennis Quaid wakes as well, again with no memory and they decide they have to find out what the hell is going on. Foster sets off to explore while Quaid navigates from afar.

What follows is a mess. A proper mess. A dogs dinner of a film. It has absolutely no originality whatsoever. The ship looks like all 4 of the Alien films at different times and it wants to mess with your head in the same way as Event Horizon. But it doesn't. There is a tunnel scene which is obviously a direct rip off of Captain Dallas in Alien, characters fall into a rubbish pit like in Star Wars, it hasn't got one original idea.

Then there are the creatures. Again, seen these before. In the Descent, in Creep. They run around like the demented people in Scotland in Doomsday. Before they are unveiled there is a scene where you see a shadow which looks identical to a Xenomorph from Alien.

What makes all of this even worse is that the lighting is so bad, the director, Christian Alvert (who also penned this tripe) clearly thinks darkness, pitch black darkness, is atmospheric, and the editing is so fast and jumpy, you don't have a clue what is happening. Who is dying? Who is hitting who? Who was just thrown over there? Oh hang on, I don't care.

The actors get nothing to work with except Quaid who has a decent stab at a crazy bloke. However, its difficult of course to do this when the words you have to say have had no thought put in to them at all and have been jotted down on the back of a fag packet.

I could barely continue to watch it through to it's conclusion, I didn't care one jot what happened. Then I did get to the end, finally, and do you know what, it wasn't actually that bad. A good idea executed in a mediocre manner. It became clear to me that there was a good idea at the centre of all of this for a half an hour episode of something on the Sci-Fi channel, but in order to make it work as a feature film, they had to flesh it out. Alvert clearly thought that the only way to do that would be to throw in some monsters to chase the characters around to make the film last just shy of two hours. He should watch an episode of Doctor Who and make notes. Character development, heard of it Mr Alvert?

If you want a dose of Sci-Fi horror, just see any of the films that Pandorum tries it's best to copy. And makes a complete hash of.

I hated it. Avoid at all costs.

THE GIRL WHO PLAYED WITH FIRE

So as I said last time out, I was planning on a surprise for my mum's 60th. Good old trusty Film Club at the Covent Garden hotel. 3 course dinner and the movie. Perfect. So having managed to watch the first instalment of the trilogy I plonked myself into my comfy leather seat in the screening room and waited excitedly to see what Salander and Blomqvist were going to put through next.



We are thrown immediately into disturbing flash backs from Salander's past and it quickly becomes clear that this isn't going to be a more light-hearted and jovial story. Things quickly get even darker as Blomqvist and his colleagues interview a new reporter for the Millennium magazine who is going to focus on a piece about the prostitution and human trafficking trade. The story doesn't hang about as a triple murder takes place and Salander is in the frame for the killings. What follows is a 2 separate quests: one by Blomqvist to prove the police wrong and Salander's innocence (despite them note seeing one another since the conclusion of the first film) and the other by Salander to confront the demons of her past.

As far as plot goes, that's all you're getting, I wouldn't want to ruin it for those of you who haven't read the book and for those that have, I'd be wasting my breath.

But is it any good. Erm....well, yes, it is. To an extent.

The acting is once again superb from the two leads, Rapace clearly loving the role and enjoying becoming even more Bourne like as she goes into hiding and dons disguises and Michael Nyqvist developing a determination to do the right thing and help Salander.

Unlike the first film, this has a proper baddie throughout. A mysterious blond giant of a man who really does create an aura of invincibility that makes you wonder how on earth our heroes will overcome him. You also have no real idea where he fits in to the whole thing. It constantly keeps you guessing.

So, great story that fizzes along, great acting from the familiar faces, a nemesis that fills the screen and scares you. It's all there to be just as good as the first. Well it should be. Unfortunately it suffers from the same problem that many screen adaptations of novels do. Characters pop up from nowhere with very little introduction and then serve a major purpose in driving the story forward. This clearly comes from trying to be faithful to the source material and not deviating from the plot as it exists on the page, but not being able to include the full detail of the back story otherwise it would be a sprawling 5 hour epic. There are also major exposition moments where the characters may as well be giving you a PowerPoint presentation. Unfortunately, another casualty of having to sacrifice elements of the book was the issue of human trafficking. It appeared as though this was going to be a major element of the story at the beginning and then once the chase starts it's completely forgotten about. As I've not read the book I don't know this for certain, but I understand that this issue continues in the novel throughout. Finally the police in the film serve no purpose whatsoever, they show up every so often and do nothing as Blomqvist runs about solving all of the clues. I'm sure Mr Police Chief wouldn't stand for that.

These criticisms aside, it's a very good thriller that really gets the pulse racing and builds to a climax that means I genuinely can't wait for the final instalment.

Quick note about Film Club at the Firmdale again. It was a lovely night out but there were issues in the screen room at the Covent Garden Hotel (smaller than the Soho). Some people struggled to see the subtitles at the bottom of the screen due to the seating and their view was obstructed by heads in front of them. Silly mistake and not good enough for the money this costs. Some people actually had to leave. I'm tempted to write a letter......

THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO (2009)

For my Mum’s 60^th birthday I had arranged a surprise that involved watching the Girl that Played with Fire, the Swedish film adaptation of the second book in Stieg Larsson’s record breaking novel trilogy. This put me in a very difficult position, I had not read any of the books and I had not seen the first film in the series. Would I be able to waltz in to the saga 33% of the way through with no knowledge and still enjoy myself.

I decided not to risk it and would have to watch the first film beforehand. However, I only managed to finally watch it on Saturday morning, the same day as I was due to be surprising my mum. Cutting it a bit fine....but I succeeded and got away with it.

I settled down to watch it and realised that I had no idea what to expect. I had somehow managed to avoid the phenomenon. I saw a different person reading it every day on the train, swimming pools on holidays were surrounded by copies of the books, you couldn’t look anywhere without seeing the cover. Somehow, I had battened down the hatches and I had no idea what it was about.

I believe that my ignorance made the film more enjoyable so I won’t go into too much detail when describing the plot. Blomqvist, famous journalist for political magazine Millennium, is sentenced to 3 months in prison for printing a factually incorrect article about a Swedish businessman. He has 6 months to wait until his sentence begins and is offered a job by a rich businessman to look into details of his niece’s disappearance 40 years ago. A separate storyline runs alongside this – the story of Lisbeth Salander. Professional hacker and very ‘alternative’ individual.

The first thing to say is that it is a very tough watch. There are a few scenes that are very graphic and the director doesn’t hold back from showing some really awful things in full view. I do think that these scenes are necessary though, they really do help in building a really dark atmosphere in a world where everything seems ok on the surface with homely rural communities, but when you scratch the surface, little is as it seems.

The lead performances are fantastic, particularly Noomi Rapace's portrayal of Lisbeth Salander. As I have already mentioned, I’ve not read the books but I have spoken to many people who have and they all say how spot-on the casting is for that character. She is easily one of the most interesting characters, male or female, that I have seen in a film in a very long while. She is a bundle of contradictions, seemingly wanting to do the right thing, but never wanting to get too close to anyone - ‘Falling in love is the worst thing you can do’. She gives very little away but you know deep down that there is a simmering darkness to her personality that could erupt at any moment and almost certainly will. She has the resourcefulness of Bourne, the ruthlessness vengeance of Michael Caine’s character in Get Carter but in the next scene will have a child-like innocence about her. Truly incredible stuff.  

Blomqvist is the ying to Salander’s yang. The difference in their personalities, characters and the worlds they inhabit make what is essentially a straightforward murder mystery all the more interesting. The clues and progression in the plot are a sideshow to the development of the characters and gives the cast the opportunity and scope to add flesh to these already complex personas.

The supporting cast are all excellent providing more than able support. Its a real treat to see a film where not every person is great looking with chiseled chins and immaculate hair. Real people. It all adds to the gritty reality of the adaptation.

Another character that needs mentioning is the country. There are some wonderful sweeping shots of the landscape, making the cities look colourless and the rural settings are shown to ramp up the feeling of isolation. Inspiring. The director clearly knows what he's doing. Another example, and another reason why I liked the film so much, is the use of flashbacks. So often this device is used as a way of explaining a missing plot element to the audience. Not here. Instead, Niels Arden Oplev uses flashbacks to allude to a character's history, not to spell it out. He clearly doesn't think that the viewer is an idiot and is confident that we can either fill in the gaps, or, even more impressively, use our own thoughts to form views on what is happening and what is making these people react in this way.  

By the time we get to the pay-off at the end I was so invested in the characters that I really cared about what would happen and had no idea how it was going to play out. However, the one criticism is that once this pay off is over, there is another ending that makes the film feel overly long – I suspect that it was a vital plot point in the book and the film makers felt that they could not leave this out otherwise they would feel the wrath of the Larsson-ites.

I can’t recommend it enough. It is an intelligently paced (it felt very similar in tone to Let The Right One In, methodically creeping through the plot as it gathers pace to it’s conclusion), fantastically acted and thought-provoking thriller that constantly keeps you guessing. I’m not sure whether it’s as good as the books, but on this occasion I don’t think that matters. I’m happy to have experienced the film as a newbie and I’m interested in seeing what David Fincher does with the material  in the Hollywood version, because there’s plenty for him to work with here. He could learn a thing or two from this film though. Less is more.

HALLOWEEN SPECIAL

We are just a week away from the best excuse for fancy dress of the year. Although we haven't quite got the hang of it like the yanks have just yet, we are starting to make a bit more of a big deal out of it. The trouble with this year is that Halloween falls on a Sunday which rules out having a massive blow out party (unless you are immune to hangovers of course). So my suggestion for this year is to go out on the Saturday night, get a bit messy and then leave Sunday, the real Halloween for a marathon of horror films (although if you have kids, I appreciate that there will be a trick or treat trip in there as well.

So I've decided to give you a bit of a steer to make sure you pick the right films to settle down for an afternoon and evening of terror and shocks.

Here's my top ten films to watch this Halloween (in no particular order - that would be too much like hard work on my part).

1) The Thing (1982)

John Carpenter had already wowed cinema-goers with the fantastic Halloween, The Fog and Assault on Precinct 13 when he turned his attention to this story alien chiller set in the Antarctic. Kurt Russell (back with Carpenter after Escape from New York) is in fine form leading a group of stranded scientists as they try to survive the menace from outer space. The monster in this is both contagious and shapeshifting so the terror lies in never knowing where the next scare or grisly death is coming from. Add ground-breaking effects for the time in to the mix and you have a classic, claustrophobic film that combines horror and sci-fi in a similar, although not as memorable, way to Ridley Scott's Alien.


2) Poltergeist (1982)

Spielberg had an idea for a film a long time ago, a suburban American family terrorised in their home by aliens. He was to call it Night Skies. He even had someone start working on the creature design. Then he had a change of heart and wanted to make a very different film about an alien. This was to become ET. The idea of the family under attack was altered to this supernatural horror. Although Spielberg only has a Producer's credit (it's directed by The Texas Chainsaw Massacre's Tobe Hooper) there are stories that Spielberg took everything over and put his stamp all over it. Don't be put off by it's mild certificate - It's scary and it still stands up well after all this time.

3) The Blair Witch Project (1999)

A true phenomenon. Made for next to nothing and released into the cinemas with a PR campaign of 'Is it real or isn't it?', it made a staggering amount of money and scared people out of their skins. We are still seeing films clearly influenced by it come out every year (Paranormal Activity and Cloverfield to name two), but there aren't many that have a pay-off at the end as chilling and satisfying. The final images will stay with you for weeks after.

4) Rosemary's Baby (1968)

Mia Farrow and John Cassavetes move into a new apartment in a building inhabited by strange neighbours and disturbing characters. Once Farrow becomes pregnant the film turns into a terrifyingly disturbing decline in her psychological state as she grows increasingly uncertain of the origins of the baby. Once again it's a film that has an ending that does the rest of it justice.

5) Ils (Them - 2006)

A little known french film that tells the story of a couple on an idyllic holiday in a country retreat. Then in the middle of the night they hear strange noises and go out to investigate. What follows is a brutal assault on the senses as they are terrorized and struggle for survival. A rollercoaster of a film that never lets up and will shock you again and again. Hollywood had a go at something similar with the Strangers (starring Liv Tyler) but struggled to have anywhere near the same sort of impact.

6) Rec (2007)

Another foreign film, this time Spanish, and also influenced by The Blair Witch Project. It starts with a girl and cameraman doing a documentary at a local firestation and then they are called to a disturbance at an apartment block. An elderly woman attacks a policeman and then panic spreads. The film is then confined to the flats adding even more claustrophobia to the single camera format. Full of scares and unpredictable turns, you will never know what's coming next. This is another film that has the confidence and belief to stay true to it's convictions and concludes in breathtaking style.

7) Evil Dead 2

Still a classic. Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell picking up where they left off in the previous film, but with more gore and more dark, dark, dark humour. I will never forget flicking through the channels when I was younger and seeing Ash with the possessed hand. At first hilarious, and then you realise where Raimi is taking his lead actor, then pure shock. That is the film in a nutshell. Unpredictable, terrifying and funny. Genius.


8) American Werewolf in London (1981)

John Landis was famous for his black comedy in films such as the Blues Brothers and he continued this theme in an American Werewolf in London. After the comedy of two Americans in a Yorkshire pub the scene on the moors scared the life out of me when I first saw this film. The gore when one of the men is slain was so vivid. I hadn't seen anything like it before, but nothing prepared me, or will prepare you for the famous transformation scene. The physical effects are tremendous and surpass anything modern CGI can achieve. The comedy continues through the film, as do the scares and the finale in Piccadilly Circus will live long in the memory. The ending is also remarkably touching.

9) Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)

Wes Craven at his very best. A brilliantly memorable and terrifying evil baddie is only part of the reason for this film being so scary. The premise of the monster stalking and killing his victim's in their dreams is an excellent device for some grusome and surreal death sequences but it also means that when you're tucked up in bed after the film has finished you wonder whether you dare to fall asleep.....

10) The Shining

Stanley Kubrick's masterful visualization of Stepen King's creepy stroy of a family caretaking a hotel during it's winter, out of season months. Jack Nicolson's portrayal of a man descending into madness is phenomenal and some of the imagery used when the hotel get's inside his mind are truly memorable. Many films have tried to capture the same essence of The Shining but few have come close.

Oh and one more for luck...

11) Shaun of the Dead

I have a real soft spot for this film. The comedy is perfectly pitched by all of the cast (particularly Pegg and Moran) but that is only a portion of it's appeal. Towards the climax the film get's gradually scarier and I admit that I cry on three seperate occasions. Every time I watch it. Funny, scary and with characters you really care about. A modern classic.

INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL (2008)

I was due to go to a fancy dress party last weekend (anyone who knows me will know that those words stir great excitement in me), the theme was Hollywood or Bollywood. I thought long and hard about what to go as and finally went for a Ghostbuster (Robocop was narrowly beaten simply because that costume would have required me to re-mortgage my flat). So early Saturday evening I was settling down with a bottle of beer, casually inflating my blow-up Proton Pack whilst contemplating whether to play the persona or Venkman or Stantz (I could never pull off the studious vibe of Spengler), when my girlfriend emerged from the bathroom saying her flu had kicked in and she wasn’t well enough to go. This was a shame because her costume was the woman from King Kong and involved having a giant gorilla fist wrapped around her for the evening. Naturally, I played the doting boyfriend and settled her down on the sofa and went and purchased a Waitrose Oriental snack selection.

With nothing on the telly, and us yearning for the days of the Generation Game and Noel’s House Party, we scoured the movie channels and the only viable option was Terminator 2 which was swiftly rebuked by the girlfriend. So I went into the DVD archive and picked a selection of 4 from her to pick from: The Mummy, Jaws, Howard the Duck and, the eventual victor, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

It’s not the first time I’ve seen it, I saw it the day after it’s release. It was the return of one of the most iconic film characters of all time and one that will always be associated with me growing up. It was also, interestingly, the return to screen of a once great actor who had fallen by the wayside and had not had a hit in a long time. I suppose Harrison Ford must have said to himself, ‘well if I can’t manage it as Indy with Steven Spielberg behind the camera, I never will’.

The fourth film in the much loved series is set many years after the still brilliant Last Crusade (which is understandable given Ford’s advancing years) and the Nazi’s are no longer the baddies. It’s the Cold War and the Russians are providing Indy with the opposition. Led by Cate Blanchett’s general the Russkies are scaling the globe and recovering artifacts that hold psychic powers in a bid to rule the world and be victorious over the good old US of A. And they need to get their hands on the big one....and it’s on American soil.....they need Indy. Kidnapped, he gets caught up in the quest for the Crystal Skull which, in the usual way, spans continents and a variety of locations. A whole host of characters join him for the ride, some old and some new (Shia Labeouf and Ray Winstone among others).

So far, so formulaic. Did we really expect or want anything else? When you re-visit something like Indy with the same cast, directors and producers you aren’t going to go for the reboot – you want and expect more of the same. It's an exercise in nostalgia. With that in mind, I think the real question is, ‘How did it compare to the others’? In short, fairly well.

It’s not a masterpiece, not by any stretch of the imagination, and it misses the mark as often as it hits them, but it does have some positives.

The film starts fantastically with the Russians breaking into an American military facility and nuclear testing site and the ensuing action sequence is classic Spielberg, physical stunts mixed with humour, and culminates in a fantastic image of Indy with a mushroom cloud behind him. This promises great things, a darker Indy and a very different world. There is also a scene where it is suggested that Indy is a war hero and a real hero for his country. Nice touch. There are some nice Cold War moments too, with the KGB and FBI getting involved.

The main highlights of the film are what you would expect from Mr Spielberg. The action and the humour. I've already mentioned how the film kicks offs, but there are some other great moments, a motorcycle chase and a cliff top car chase with bazookas and swordplay stand out (although the latter has a strange CGI feel to it - almost as if it was rushed). These scenes have a good blend of action inter-spliced with humour. For example the motorcycle chase has a nice nod to Brody, the character from the first 3 films and also has a good gag as the pursuit goes through the school library. There is some good humour to be found in the banter between Indy and an old flame that emerges later in the story as well as lot sof jibes about Indy being a bit ancient. All of this ensures that the film fizzes along at a nice pace and never lets up.

But, and there is always a but, although these scenes are great, they do feel a bit tired. The first Indy film pioneered this sort of action but all these years later, it feels as though we've seen it all before. And a lot of times. I found myself reminded of The Mummy (the recent Brandon Fraser version) on more than one occasion. I accept that The Mummy relies heavily on the influence of the Indy films but it now feels like the roles have reversed. The amusing sword fighting was similar to that at the end of the Mummy and a scene in Indy 4 with killer red ants made me think of the scarab beatles immediately. This familiarity removed any potential 'wow' factor that there may have been.

So that, was the positives (with a bit of a negative), now for where the film misses. Firstly is the supporting cast. Blanchett aside, who really enjoys herself camping it up, there are some performances which will only be remembered for their irritation. First up is Ray Winstone. Usually dependable, in this film he plays Indy's sidekick but is reduced to simply shouting 'Jonesy' every so often and then taking a whack. Almost as annoying as Jar Jar Binks. Then is John Hurt. Shame, because he's a fine actor and he is not given nearly enough here to make use of his talents. Then there is Shia Labeouf. Although he isn't that bad in this, he's not particularly interesting and is not much of a presence when on screen. He is however in, although not responsible for, the most stupid and nonsensical moment in the film as he has a ludicrous Tarzan moment. There is also a worrying moment at the end where it suggests that he may take the famous Fedora from Indy and carry on the franchise. Please no. There are other scenes that really push the limits of believability. I know it's not a documentary but we can only suspend disbelief so far....

The ending. Every who has seen this film has a view on the ending, and most of those views are negative. I like the ending. I'm not sure why people are so irritated by it, but I have heard people say that it's too far fetched. But I refer these people back to the previous films with the Lost Arc wiping out a field full of Nazis and the Holy Grail being guarded by a centuries old knight who is still alive. Why is this any different? It's a satisfying finale with fantastic special effect laden imagery to revel in.

So, in my view it's the 3rd best Indy film, better than the Temple of Doom but a long way behind the Last Crusade and the incredible Raiders of the Lost Ark. Well worth a view, but it probably won't live up to your hopes or expectations.

SCOTT PILGRIM VS THE WORLD (2010)

Let's kick this off by saying that I was looking forward to seeing this film. Really looking forward to it. Properly excited. Edgar Wright going over the pond to direct a film with a hefty budget (on the back of the huge success and critical acclaim of Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz). Based on a comic book (or is it graphic novel these days). Brandon Routh, Chris Evans and Jason Schwartzman as evil ex-boyfriend's dueling the always likeable Michael Cera. All the ingredients were there for a true cult classic.



I don't think I've ever been so tickled by a trailer. It built a great wall of anticipation in me with the familiar faces, the over the top colours, the clever Edgar Wright visual touches, a great computer game reference when two fighters line up to one another. It's almost as if someone had undertaken a market research study on one of my day dreams and decided to put it on the big screen.

So, I was excited. So excited that I decided to make this a special cinema trip. Not to the usual haunts, not even to the plush Electric Cinema. But to the Film Club at the Soho Hotel. 'Oooooh, posh' I hear you say.

The film tells the story of Scott Pilgrim of Toronto. Geek. He's in a band who yearn for the big time but are going nowhere and is dating a High School girl and is getting plenty of stick for it. Then he meets the girl of his dreams (Ramona) and falls for her in a big way. But, and there's always a but, if the two of them are to be together then Scott must fight, and defeat, all 7 of Ramona's evil exes.

It begins with some wonderfully playful banter between Scott and his friends, really steeped in the current geek phenomena. There is also a lovely scene where Scott and his high school girl are on a dance arcade machine while casually chit-chatting. These are the moments where the film gets a sensibility really reminding me of Juno and the touching scenes in Zombieland. I could have watched an entire film of these scenes without getting bored.

Then it goes mental.

And if anyone can direct mental it's Edgar Wright. He really is a modern auteur and this is definitely an Edgar Wright film. He revels in the comic book world that he creates here, seemingly delighted that he doesn't have to be held back by the constraint of reality. His favourite trick is sound effects being shown visually with onomatopoeic words on screen in true comic style. Think the old Batman (Pow!). The fights themselves are done with real style and have a very physical feel to them, not like the floaty gravity defying rucks in the Spiderman films. They are also made to look like pixelated videogames of yesteryear (the Universal logo at the start of the film is even pixelated). The coin collecting of Super Mario gets referenced heavily too.

So, at the end of the first fight, I'm thinking 'this is great'. More, more, more. Which is exactly what we get - more of the same. And thats the problem with the film. It's obviously heavily influenced by video games and its worth noting that when playing old videogames (Pac-Man, Frogger, Space Invaders) and you complete a level, you go on to the next level which is almost exactly the same. It might be quicker, more enemies, different layout but it is essentially the same. Scott Pilgrim suffers from the same issue.

Despite all of the exes being unique in their own way, all trying to steal the show (Brandon Routh gets a special mention as Vegan ex number 3) the fights all feel the same, and you never really think that Scott isn't going to be victorious, the question is how he's going to win and when Keiran Culkin is going to pop up with the next funny line (he is brilliant and almost worth the entrance fee alone). Fight, couple of nice scenes, joke, fight, couple of nice scenes, joke, fight. And repeat.

It's not a long film, a couple of hours at the most, but it felt long. I must confess that I found myself wondering how many exes had been defeated and how many were left. Not a good sign. And I got bored of the onomatopoeia's....give it a rest. And then come the end of the film I didn't actually care whether Scott got the girl....I had been battered to the point of indifference.

Having said that, I enjoyed it. I loved the visual elements, I loved the comedy, I loved the references to everything that I love and have loved - who says you can't make a good film from a video game? It's everything Mortal Kombat should have been. But there was just too much of it.

Shaun of the Dead was based on a two minute segment of an episode of the classic sitcom Spaced. Scott Pilgrim vs The World felt like it should have been an episode of Spaced and no longer than that.

I'd like to mention the Film Club at the Firmdale Hotels because they really are a lovely night or afternoon out and a great way to watch a film. For £35 you get a 3 course meal or afternoon tea and champagne as well as entrance to see the film in one of their stylish and well decked out screening rooms. And they give you popcorn. Sweet or Salted It's a good deal and a nice way to treat someone to a trip to the flicks instead of the usual hike to the filthy SIN-e-world (see what I've done there) When you start ordering booze is when it gets a bit expensive though..... http://www.firmdale.com/index.php?page_id=20

TRIANGLE (2009)

Back to safer ground this time around after the horrifically disastrous flirtation with the rom-com (Couples Retreat). I added this little film to my Lovefilm list after vaguely recalling coming across a positive review at some point over the last year or so.



Once it landed on my doormat I did a bit of research and found that it was made by a familiar name - Christopher Smith. His first film Creep, set on the London Underground, one was half of a brilliant thriller/Horror. The claustrophobia and terror in that film was fantastic before it descended into typical genre fare with Descent like monsters running around. Severance, his second, went for the comedy horror angle and was a decent stab at it, starring Danny Dyer before he became hugely irritating and began to pop up in ever bad British film released (straight to DVD of course).

Triangle is more akin to his first film, much more serious in tone, but he also seems to have matured. The opening credits look fantastic, seemingly random images with a beautiful soundtrack cracking up the intrigue. We are then thrown into the storyline which I will only dip into - I don't want to be giving away any spoilers.

6 friends take an idyllic sailing trip but come across a freak storm which leaves their boat capsized and in the middle of nowhere. To their relief a massive ocean liner turns up and rescues them. That is where the fun, games and terror begin. At first you think you're watching a typical slasher film but in a different location but then things unravel beautifully taking you into a confusing thread which constantly keeps you guessing. It's fare to say that when watching the film you get the hook of exactly what is happening quite quickly after that but you are never sure where it is going to end up.

The majority of the cast don't get a great deal to do other than Melissa George who is fantastic in this. Without without giving anything away, her character goes through a number of different emotions and the character changes considerably, a few times, during the 99 minute running time. Its a brave role for her to play and she pulls it off admirably.

The horror of the film is top notch as well. Its not overly gory so that when there is claret no screen it is genuinely shocking and really catches you off guard. There are some fantastically creepy moments in the film, imagery that really stays with you long after the film finishes. It's worth mentioning here though that although the concept of this film is very original some elements owe a lot to films we've seen before. Ghost Ship and The Shining spring to mind immediately but that is not necessarily a criticism, more of an observation.

So with Halloween approaching, I'm sure people will be thinking about a night in with a couple of DVDs to get their yearly dose of horror. Rather than reaching for the recent remakes of 80's horror films, I would really recommend giving this a go. An intellingently crafted and fantastically interesting story that keeps you guessing constantly, doesn't treat the viewer as an idiot and will give it's fair share of scares and freaky moments. It also has a good pay-off at the end that will mean you keep thinking about the Triangle days after you've sent the DVD back to Lovefilm of Blockbuster.

NB - I'd like to say that the trailer I've included here doesn't really do it justice. It's much more delicate in it's tone without the wallop of the loud music. But it doesn't need that wallop. See it and you will know what I mean.

COUPLES RETREAT 2009

I'm aware that I've not been doing this very long, but I've been mindful that the only films that I've reviewed have been ones that I have an interest in or have gone out of my way to see. So, after an afternoon in a beer garden enjoying the last day of the summer before the dark nights draw in, my girlfriend and I settled down on the sofa to opt for one of the films showing on the Sky Movie Channels. Back to the Future II was one choice, Marley and Me another, and finally Couples Retreat. Normally I would be straight onto Marty McFly and the tiny void left by the absent Crispin Glover, but a voice inside my head said to me, 'Go on, do something different'. It may have been the cider consumed that day, or it may have been guilt for making the girlfriend sit through anything sci-fi, but whatever it was I decided I would deviate. I couldn't quite bring myself to Marley and Me so I went for the safer ground of a couple of hours in the company of Vince Vaughn and Jon Favreau, stars of Swingers, one of my favourites. A couple of hours with those two couldn't be so bad.



The first thing to mention is the plot. I use this word in the loosest possible sense of the word. I'll mention it briefly but I'm not going to waste much more time bothering to explain it, because the makers of the film clearly didn't think it was particularly important either. 4 couples, varying levels of happiness, 1 couple (Jason Bateman and Kristen Bell) decide to go to Eden, a marriage counselling resort based in paradise but they manage to convince the other 3 couples to go as it makes it cheaper for them. That's it. No one has to book time off, decide how they are going to afford it (despite one of the characters admitting he is debt in his opening scene). However, these extra couples only agree to go on the condition that they do not have to undergo any counselling, they just want to go on jet skis. But is that how it turns out.....?

Oh the hilarity ensues. Well it would have done had there actually been any jokes in the film. Never have I laughed so little. One chuckle and that was Peter Serafinowicz saying 'My name is Stanley, with a C'. The film seems to rely on having un-funny dialogue and hoping that the charisma and delivery of the cast can elevate it to comedic heights. Except, the cast don't actually bother. They turn up and say some words, and that'll be it. These people do have comic timing, Other than Favreau and Vaughn, Jason Bateman is a great comic actor, Kristen Davis from Sex and The City showed plenty of promise in the tv series. What happened here then?

Then when it is clear that this method is proving unsuccessful, it attempts to have a go at visual comedy set pieces. However these are handled all the subtlety and craft of a bulldozer. There is a scene involving sharks which I'm sure was meant to bring the house down with laughter but it's a patchwork quilt of a scene - it looks as though they have literally not bothered to think about it. 'Morning Vince and Jon. Take one. That'll do. Let's sunbathe'.



I'm happy to admit that this film isn't my cup of tea and I am clearly not the target audience, but what really offended me is at the end when there was a 'message'. Really? Are you serious? You're going to lecture us on how relationships should be? Do me a favour. When this happens things get really bad though, the dialogue moves from being just unfunny, to clunky and extracted from greetings cards. And the film immediately feels too long. Days too long.

Jean Reno is in it too. He should know better. And Vince Vaughn must be on the brink of becoming the most irritating individual in cinema at the moment. Shia Lebeouf is keeping him off top spot at the moment.

What really takes the biscuit is that this was co-written by Jon Favreau. He wrote Swingers for goodness sake, some of the best dialogue from the last couple of decades. What has happened?

Please do not see this film, do not contribute any more money towards it and do not encourage these people to think they can get away with putting together a film with no through, talent and care. Do they really think we are all stupid enough to put up with this unimaginative dross? Talented film makers everywhere are struggling to get money together to put together their labours of love and this sort of dross takes up space in our multi-plexes and dvd shops.

People. Everyone. Singletons. Couples. Retreat from this film.

THE VILLAGE

M Night Shyamalan has come in for a lot of stick recently. The Lady in the Water, The Happening and recently The Last Airbender have all been absolutely canned by reviewers. I've personally not seen any of the these films but I loved the Sixth Sense and Unbreakable was, in my opinion, even better, so he clearly has talent.

I recently came back from holiday and fancied watching the Ryder Cup on the Monday so I ordered the Sport channels. The Sky Movies package didn't cost much more so I took the plunge and that night I saw on Sky Sci-Fi/Horror The Village - Shyalaman's 4th film (After Signs, that I also have yet to see).



As I settled down to watch it I remembered seeing a trailer for this film at the cinema (can't remember what film I was actually there to watch) and I recalled excitement at seeing the trailer. It seemed scary, mysterious and it was directed by the man who brought us two cracking films. What was there not to like?

It's the story of an idyllic, isolated village, seemingly at some stage in the past, that is surrounded by a mysterious wood. This forest contains creatures that the villagers hold a truce with, the creatures do not bother the villagers if the villagers do not enter the woods. Once the scene is set these rules are gradually broken and when a tragedy hits one half of a loving couple in the village, a blind girl begs to be allowed to travel to one of the 'towns' to get help, but this means going travelling through the woods.

Its got a brilliant cast, any film that can boast Sigourney Weaver, William Hurt, Adrien Brody, and Joaquin Pheonix has to be on to something. Perhaps this roster is a sign of how high Shyalaman's stock was in Hollywood at this time. All of the names above do a superb job, it's a wonderfully acted film and they seem to really enjoy hamming it up with 'olde' language. There's a sufficient range of emotions for them all to go through, there's tears, good humour and naturally a bit of terror. The main protagonist though is, Hunter Bryce Dallas and she is the best thing about the film. She plays a young blind woman on a quest to save her fiancé from death. She had a small part in Spiderman 3 but I suspect we will get to see a lot more of her. Although the beginning of her quest is the start of some fine acting, it also is the moment that the film has a wobble and loses it's momentum. Until that point I felt as though I was there and did believe in the characters and the world, but once she set off I must admit I got a little bored. We've all been there, it was the moment that I realised that the film was perhaps too long and we were entering a portion of the story that didn't need to be there, or if it did, it was to the detriment of the story.

It picks up again though and grabbed hold of me and took me through to the conclusion with a nice little twist. On second thoughts, not a twist, more of a reveal.

The now trademark Shylaman curveball ending, in this case, is satisfying and surprising. I confess that it didn't get me quite as the Sixth Sense did and it wasn't quite as enjoyable as that at the end of Unbreakable, but I didn't see it coming and it added something appealing to the film. Beyond that there was an open-ended final shot which I also enjoyed and refused to be sucked into a closure that would have made the film too neat and tidy. It also gave the film a deeper under-current where is became clear that this film was about much more than just a load of monsters terrorising villagers, removing any worries that this was merely a cheap thrills B-movie.

On the point of monsters, it is worth mentioning the creatures in this film. This is very much a case of the thought and mystery of them being much worse than the beasts themselves. That is less to do with the skill of the direction, acting and story and more to do with them looking like a collection of long twigs under a red blanket. I'm not asking for something as iconic as Xenomorph, but please, lets have something that looks a little less laughable. The clip below might not be taken from the film but it's not far off.



All in all, I enjoyed and I'd probably watch it again. A creepy and intelligent film, with more depth than the trailer might suggest, it explores the issue of ruling a community through fear and also of the way modern society can infect 'old-fashioned' vaules. It just misses something as it nears it's conclusion so it becomes the beginning of the dip in form for the director, but there was plenty to appreciate. I have every faith that Shyalaman's next film will be good. Won't it?

THE 'BURBS (1989)

With Joe Dante's return to duties behind the camera after 7 years in cinemas at the moment (The Hole in 3D), I found myself with a night in the day before heading off on holidays so I delved into my DVD cupboard and pulled out one of his back catalogue.



Made after the messy but fun Explorers and the now fondly thought of Innerspace (originally panned by critics), it needed to be a hit to keep Dante's reputation on the rise after the success of Gremlins and The Howling. Although it didn't make quite the box office impact he would have wanted, it has developed quite a following over the last couple of decades.

Something that has struck me recently is how badly some films age. One example is Big Trouble in Little China, a film that I watched on a weekly basis during my early teens. When it was given a special edition DVD release I bought it immediately and ran home from work to revisit the good old days. Although it was still fun and flicked all the right switches, it looked really dated. The 'Burbs doesn't suffer in this department, probably because it doesn't need any special effects that may have scrimped on the budget. The only big set piece is at the end with an explosion that looked better than many of the CGI fireballs we have to endure these days.

Like Dante's other films the focus here is on black comedy with a daft twist and returns to the small town setting of Gremlins where a gang of neighbours (Tom Hanks, Bruce Dern and Rick Ducommun) become increasingly suspicious of their new 'diferent' neighbours and set about trying to prove them as wrongdoers.

The charm and fun of the film is the comedy of the 3 male leads. Hanks was at the peak of his comic acting powers, following on from the fine work in Big including another food scene resembling his interference in the buffet of that film. He also has a wonderful zany freak out at the end of the film which you can't help but laugh at. Dern's army type and Ducommun provide great support as the odd side kicks egging Hanks on. The best laughs of the film come from moments played straight, but undeniably with the tongue firmly in the horror genre cheek. My favourite moment, and the one I always remember the film for, is when Hanks and Ducommun find a bone in the garden that they presume is Walter's leg. Cracking use of the close-up/pull away.



Dante and the writers have some real fun poking fun at small town America, the silly personalities and minutiae of living in these towns. How else are these men meant to entertain themselves? The highlight of their day is discovering where Walter's dog will take a dump. 

Hanks' rant at the end has some serious resonance as well - suburbs and towns were undergoing a change in those days, neighbourhoods were getting bigger and strangers were appearing. The days of knowing everyone's names were disappearing. I don't know whether I was looking too hard or already had this idea in my subconscious, but I got feeling that Dante and Co were telling us to not be suspicious of those that were different to us. That then went down to the toilet when they found skeletons in the boot of the Klopeck's car. That'll teach me for looking for meaning.

A negative? Corey Feldman. I remember loving him when I was a kid. Now whenever I see him (I also saw the Lost Boys recently) he irritates me more than Cheryl Cole. And that is saying something.

80's films are enjoying a renaissance at the moment with remakes, re-releases, remasterings and sequels but this one seems to have passed everyone by. You hear very little of it. However, if you mention it to someone who saw it growing up, a familiar smile creeps across their face. If you haven't seen it, watch it. Sod it, go and buy it, I got it for £3 from HMV. A cracking black comedy from a real fan of horror.