PAUL (2011 - Cert 15)

I approached Paul with a great deal of caution. I love Spaced, I love Shaun of the Dead, I love Hot Fuzz. However, when ever Simon Pegg, Edgar Wright and Nick Frost did something that didn't see the trio fully united, I've come away disappointed. Scott Pilgrim vs The World just wasn't what I wanted it to be, it had all of the flair that I knew Wright was capable of, but none of the content that his usual flashes of brilliance compliment so well. Pegg's 'solo' ventures have also left a lot to be desired with Run, Fatboy Run probably his best effort, miles ahead of the poor Burke and Hare and the woefully unfunny and painful to watch How to Lose Friends and Alienate People.



Paul is the first time that Pegg and Frost have written a film together (Shaun and Hot Fuzz were both penned by Pegg and Wright) and in the director's chair they have drafted in the safe pair of hands belonging to Greg Mottola (who directed Superbad). The story of two Alien-obsessed geeks travelling across America and befriending an obnoxious extra-terrestrial is a project that has been a long time in the making. Pegg and Frost using it as an excuse to have a road trip round the States looking for inspiration, they finished filming in 2009, only to have to shoot further scenes in 2010 and the film finally getting released early 2011. From reading Pegg's auto-biography I know that it is a film that he is very passionate about and proud of, something he's put a lot of work into and something made in conjunction with his best mate Frost. All of that doesn't necessarily make a good film though. I'm sure Zach Snyder worked bloody hard on Sucker Punch, and I'm sure he feels strongly about what he's made, however that doesn't stop it from being rather shit.

It's inevitable that Paul would be compared to Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, I suppose that comparison is in some ways fair and if you are going to compare them then Paul is clearly not as good a film, but it really is a different film. While Shaun and Fuzz were knowing genre pieces, playing up to, referencing and also taking the mickey out of the conventions of those types, Paul is a love letter to sci-fi adventure films more than anything, there is something more sincere and innocent about the sentiment behind Paul.

There is clearly a massive amount of themselves in Graeme and Clive, granted they aren't exactly as nerdy as the two heroes of the film but they are cine-literate geeks and you suspect that the trip to Comic Con was written into the the script to give them both a chance to go to the event and hang out with a room full of Boba Fetts. There is a certain something about the performances of Pegg and Frost, it's not their best and most polished accomplishments by any stretch, but they are enjoying themselves in a child-like way and that permeates through the whole film, giving it a youthful and unsullied essence.

Speaking of child-like, that brings me nicely on to the other star of the film, Paul himself. Voiced by Seth Rogen, he is a completely CGI character, and it must be said we have come a long way from the days of Jar Jar Binks and even Gollum to an extent. The animation and effects of Paul are really impressive. There are rarely, if at all, moments where you the existence of CGI leaps out at you, Paul exists solely as another character, not a special effect. There is also a huge achievement in managing to stop him from being irritating (like our friend Jar Jar). It's very ambitious to pin an entire film on the character and they do get away with it. The quality in the effects mean that the visual and physical jokes do work well and the familiarity of Rogen's voice give the gags a bit extra despite there arguably being too many lowest common denominator jokes involving toilets, probing and farting.

While we are on that brand of humour, I think it's important to point out that this is another factor in making this so different, and ultimately inferior, to Shaun and Fuzz. Some of Paul is very broad comedy. Exceedingly broad in fact. For those of you familiar with the subtle laughs and very British jesting of Pegg's work with Wright will feel alien (sorry) around poo, wee and sex jokes. It seems to lack the indie feel that we would have expected. I have heard interviews with Pegg and Frost where they suggest that the bigger studio backing and consequently bigger budget resulted in a diluting of the idea and the script, the money makers and bean counters getting in the way again (exhibit 1 - the obscenely bad trailer).

I think the dilution really does give the film a wonky feel. Some of it works, some of it doesn't. I can't help but feel that if they didn't interfere, then there could have been something really special. However, if they money men just wrote it themselves then I'm sure they would have made a lot of cash from stupid teenage boys who don't know any better. Instead we are left with something that falls in between. This is perfectly highlighted in the inclusion of a plot thread about creation theory vs evolution. The boys pick up a girl on their travels (Kirsten WiigPegg and Frost, but it is a powerful idea that is sandwiched in between Paul getting his bits out and smoking pot. It loses much of the impact. I also hear from press coverage that this aspect of the story was downplayed during the 'studio' process which of course makes it seem shallow and contrived rather than a fundamental piece of the film as I imagine it was intended. Although not as contrived as the plot itself which seems to have been abducted a galaxy far, far away. It's clearly not going to be the most important part of a film of this nature, but it really is the sort of stuff that could have been drawn on the bag of a fag packet. It's the usual sort of Governmental alien cover-up thing that has been done many times and has a host of well known names like Jason Bateman, Bill Hader and Sigourney Weaver being amusing at various points. The farce of a story is I suspect part of the whole knowing wink to sci-fi films gone by but it doesn't work as well as some of the other referencing that pops up throughout. Much of my enjoyment of the film was taken from spotting which lines were lifted from classics we've all seen before. Aliens, Back to the Future, Close Encounters, they're all flagged up here - this really is a film geeks film made by film geeks for film geeks.

And therein probably lies another problem. Yes I enjoyed all of that part, the jokes about Adam Shadowchild books (which was originally meant to be played by Stephen King), the voice cameo from Spielberg, the puns on film names, but that's because I fall into the film geek category. I suspect for those who don't, much of the film just won't work, which is what I've heard from a number of people who have seen it. The referencing lines are delivered in a very knowing overstated way, almost pantomime-esque, if you don't get the gag, it all just comes across as bad acting. Another thing that I must admit is that if it wasn't Pegg and Frost in it, I probably wouldn't think it was that good a film. If, for argument's sake, it was Ant n Dec, or Cheech & Chong, I think I would probably not be as kind to it, but as it is Pegg and Frost and I have a huge amount of affection for them and love watching them on screen no matter what they're doing, because of that there is a significant amount of  giving them the benefit of the doubt.

It is flawed, hugely flawed, but it is funny in places, also unfunny in places, it's got it's heart in the right place and although some of it is mis-judged it still resonated with me, but a bigger budget and a baggy script mean that this just doesn't quite make it. Pegg and Frost fans should enjoy it, film geeks will revel in it, but as a film in itself it unfortunately isn't up to scratch, it's like not being 'in' on an 'in-joke'.

BURKE AND HARE (2010 - Cert 15)

John Landis' return from a 12 year break from cinema was an event in 2010 that didn't really get as much press as it should have done. A hiatus of over a decade from the man who brought us An American Werewolf in London, Blues Brothers, Trading Places and the affectionately remembered The Three Amigos, should really have been greeted by huge fanfare, but the waters barely rippled.

In many ways, the story of Burke and Hare, is classic Landis. Serial murders in Edinburgh between 1827 - 1831, committed solely for the purpose of selling the corpses to a doctor for research (a historic and brutal version of Cash Converters) is the perfect combination of the darkness of death and the farcical lengths people go to for economic gain, ideally suited to Landis' blackly comic visions.



He gets a good cast on board as well. Burke and Hare themselves are played by Simon Pegg, the film geek's leading man, and Andy Serkis, a brilliant actor with cult status for the choice of some of his roles. They couldn't be a better fit for a film heralding the return of a director held in such high esteem by film buff-dom. Isla Fisher is a good addition as well as the love interest, attractive but goofy and comedic in her own right. Tim Curry and Tom Wilkinson are present and correct as rival doctors trying to beat each other to advances in the medical profession. Christopher Lee has a little cameo, a couple of British TV comedy favourites turn up in Paul Whitehouse and Jessica Hynes. Oh and Ronnie Corbett plays the head of the militia. Remarkable.

So, great director, ludicrously dark yet true story, dependably decent and slightly mental, if unspectacular casting. It has to be a sure-fire black comedy hit.

Perhaps it should have been, but quite frankly it's all a bit of a mess. The story itself rumbles along at a good pace, predictable at times but with enough coming from leftfield to make it interesting. The narrative follows Burke and Hare, the killers, and has them as the 'heroes' of the piece. I liked the fact that we were being asked to side with the bad guys, rather than the usual tale of good vs evil. That isn't the problem though, it's the tone of the film, and more specifically the comedy that I take issue with. There are some nice dark comic touches as our heroes try to become murderers and have varying levels of success. But then Landis resorts to broad slapstick comedy and a whole host of lines that just don't cut the mustard. I did chuckle a few times, but this was mostly to do with Pegg's delivery rather than anything else. He could read the back of a cornflakes box and make it funny. Serkis is annoying, and barely trying, for the vast majority of his time on screen, Curry and Wilkinson are good fun, Fisher does well and is likeable, but the best turn in the film has to go to little Ronnie Corbett. He's not brilliant by any stretch of the imagination, but he is a laugh and is never dull.

It all felt a little diluted...the true events should have given Landis and the writing team plenty to harvest, both in terms of comedy and interesting characters. Instead, the film relies on Simon Pegg's facial expressions and the noise of breaking bones for the majority of it's comedy, rather than the potential in the story of two Irish immigrants and the combination of the business theory of supply and demand and murder. The characters are two-dimensional at best, there solely to fall over or say funny things, which is a shame because the ending is braver than the rest of the film leaves you expecting and it would have had at least a bit of emotional impact if some care was made with creating characters instead of cardboard cut outs. This is made all the more frustrating when you consider that an American Werewolf in London is still one of the finest examples of doing this sort of thing properly. It makes me think it's more to do with laziness rather than anything else.

Massively disappointing as a Landis fan, a Pegg fan and a cinema fan. Worth a look though for Ronnie Corbett, and it's a shame that the best line of the film is used in the trailer.