THE RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES (2011 - Cert 12A)

I’m not a Planet of the Apes aficionado, not by any stretch of the imagination. I saw the first one years ago, so long ago that I can’t remember anything about it, least of all the ‘twist’ at the end. So, with this in mind I didn’t approach The Rise of the Planet of the Apes (or ROTPOTA as it’s now become known) with any preconceptions or any of the usual reservations about a modern day butchering of a vintage franchise.  I’m not really sure what I was expecting, but I definitely wasn’t expecting what I got.

Rupert Wyatt, who’s only achievements of note to date are small British flick The Escapist and a few episodes of Hollyoaks, has crafted a thoughtful and at times upsetting summer blockbuster. Rather than simply adopting a prequel approach, Wyatt’s ROTPOTA is more of an origins story, charting the development of Caesar, from pet chimpanzee to leader of a revolution. Set in the present day, or extremely near future, James Franco’ s scientist is determined to find the cure to Alzheimer’s. Testing on apes takes place and through a slightly iffy plot point Franco ends up taking a baby chimp home. He names it Caesar and as he grows up it becomes clear that the experiments have had an effect on the monkey, giving him advanced intelligence to the point where Caesar behaves more like a child rather than a pet.  As Caesar reaches the equivalent of adulthood he starts to get exposure to all that is wrong with the world. His pure innocence and naivety is taken for granted and abused resulting in flashes of anger and aggression. He meets maltreatment in captivity with other monkeys, all the while using his advanced stuff between the ears to plot escape and revenge. Some of the scenes where Caesar gets hurt are genuinely upsetting and even at times harrowing. Much of this has a lot to do with the incredible special effects. Weta, the company behind Gollum and the updated King Kong, have raised the bar even further. Andy Serkis is again on mo-cap duty and this is easily the most impressive CG character I have ever seen. You never feel that you are watching a computer-generated ape, it seamlessly combines with the physical environment and feels totally realistic. The real achievement though is the emotion and depth that comes across through the technology. This isn’t Jar Jar Binks, it’s miles ahead of Paul (who I was relatively complimentary about), this is a proper living and breathing character. There were a number of tear-inducing moments as the camera gets up close to Caesar and you can see the pain, frustration, anger and unhappiness. All of this without any dialogue (he might be smart but he can’t speak). If it were a live actor (in the flesh) everyone would be calling this one of the performances of the year and calling for a statuette.

The development of Caesar reminded me of Batman Begins and X-Men: First Class. Caesar is Batman and Magneto, the film taking the blank canvas of the character and showing all of the brush strokes as the picture forms fully, all the hurt and mistreatment transforming the central figure into the monster that drives the film to it’s conclusion. It really took me by surprise (in a very good way), for what looks on the face of it a popcorn-fodder action flick the reality is something very different – a state of the art character piece. And a brave one at that, to put a CG ape as the centrepiece was a bold move but Wyatt does it with such confidence that he seems like the most obvious and natural idea in the world.

The ironic thing with the film is that despite the amazing characterization and acting of the lead character, the supporting cast of humans never get close to the same level and suffer from cliché. Franco is decent, but that is only because he’s watchable all the time, Freida Pinto is the epitome of filler and exposition as the love interest/some scientist or something, she has virtually nothing to do, David Oyelowo is the corporate bloke and good old Brian Cox is wasted in a bit part as the keeper of the monkey enclosure. Only John Lithgow as Franco’s Alzheimer suffering father (forming an interesting extra emotional motivation for Franco’s character) and Tom Felton (nasty piece of work) manage to do anything interesting with their roles. It’s a massive shame because if the actors managed to up their game and the writers took a bit of time to create something with more depth, we could have been talking about something in the same league as Inception and The Dark Knight. As it stands it’s probably just on the rung below, but definitely part of the new breed of intelligent blockbuster.

The final part of the film really does satisfy, the ape revolution culminating in a thrilling scene on The Golden Gate Bridge, visually spectacular and a rare treat these days to see action of that nature not in colour-drained 3D. After all of the mayhem, Wyatt impressively still takes the time to fit the last piece of the jigsaw into Caesar, the straw that breaks the monkey’s back, and then give the events of the film a wider context and suggest the possibility of the story continuing into other movies. All of this and it still weighs in at under 2 hours. A remarkably concise film with a minimal fuss approach.

Out at the same time as the much hyped Super 8 and heavily marketed Cowboys and Aliens, ROTPOTA could be seen as a bit of a stealth hit, creeping up on the competition. It’s done very well in the States and has made a very good start over here. It’s well worth checking out, not only for the technical genius of it, but also as a film about someone good turning bad as well as good old fashioned Friday night entertainment.

SUPER 8 (2011 - Cert 12A)

I've been on the receiving end of the Super 8 hype more than most people. In fact I think I've had double the dose for I was in New York earlier this year just before the film was released there at the beginning of June, then over the last couple of weeks I've been witness to Blighty's very own, and it has to be said slightly more subtle, version of the marketing Juggernaut. Whether here or on the other side of the pond the message has essentially been the same - 'This is the best Spielberg film that Spielberg didn't make'. Yes the great man was on production duties and may of course had some input into the creative process but this was very much the work of the new kid on the block, J J Abrams. As both writer and director, this, we are told, is the most personal project that he has yet undertaken and a result of the success he had enjoyed through Lost and the Star Trek reboot, he had now been given the opportunity to really make something that was important to him. The big draw for everyone though was how 'Spielbergian' it was all meant to be, a word that was coming up in every article, review to TV spot.



Now that I have seen it, it truly is Spielbergian. The small town setting is there, in this case Lillian, Ohio (Spielberg was brought up in Ohio), which is where we meet our standard issue Spielberg hero, 13 year old Joe Lamb (Joel Courtney) and his friends (Kyle Chandler, Ryan Lee, Gabriel Masso and Zach Mills) shooting their very own zombie film, using a Super 8 camera (ahhhhh I hear you say - it's the same type of camera that both Spielberg and Abrams used to make their early films). It's taken back to 1979, to a time when small town America was real suburbia (See The Goonies, Close Encounters, ET and Poltergeist) and it also has the effect of giving everyone straggly haircuts and flares that are instantly related to old-Spielberg. As the plot progresses, with the kids 'on set' witnessing a massive train crash and 'something' escaping from the train wreck and terrorising the town, you know you really are in Spielberg country. Then by the time the army turns up and gets involved (a la ET and Close Encounters) you have moved away from referencing and nods and shifted into the world of the homage or the cinematic love letter. It went much further than that as well though. If you look at all of those early Spielberg films, not just those that he directed but others he hand a hand in writing, ET, Close Encounters, Jaws, The Goonies and Poltergeist, and even later ones such as Jurassic Park and Empire of the Sun, at the centre of it all is a family relationship, often that of a father figure and a son. Super 8 explores the same themes and does it superbly, opening with the death of Joe Lamb's mother and the strained relationship that is left between him and his father. Youthful love is also there through Elle Fanning's love interest Alice Dainard in a nicely crafted relationship that blossoms throughout. It gives the film a real heart.

Super 8 is clearly is meant to echo the films of Abrams' mentor and he succeeds in that aim, making something that feels instantly familiar, like bumping into a good mate who you haven't seen in while, you both just slip into the groove despite the time elapsed since your last shared bag of pork snacks. Just making a nerdy love letter to one of Cinema's greats doesn't just make a great summer blockbuster though, as we keep being told this is, it needs to entertain as well and be a film in it's own right.

And to be fair to Abrams he does manage this as well. It's brilliantly paced, it rips along with the right level of set-up before chucking us in and then keeping us interested with humour, intrigue, tear-inducing characterisation, action and peril. The train crash in particular is a real stand out set piece. It looks fantastic and is rare example of a modern action sequence taking the breath away, arguably as good as anything I've seen this year.  The initial 'something' scenes where the carnage starts to take shape have the jumpiness you would expect without being gory or remotely violent. The tension builds nicely as the town realises it is in danger and the usual army vs local police (Joe's father as the deputy sheriff) conflict plays out. What is most impressive though is how touching the film is. There are some hairline moments that you might miss with a blink that really do make the characters what they are. A sharp intake of breath here, a prolonged look there, less is definitely more, very much reminiscent of my favourite scene in Jaws where Brody's son mimics his movements. Abrams deserves credit for not over explaining things when it comes to characterisation, but the young cast in particular should also be praised as their performances create so much depth and go beyond kids running away from 'something'.

I just wish Abrams showed the same reluctance with spelling out character's feelings as he did with plot exposition. There is one horribly clumsy moment where an important element of the story is explained to us, practically like a teacher with a blackboard. It sticks out like a sore thumb among a film of otherwise high quality, unfortunately it's one of the distinct memories that I have taken from the viewing and has tainted it. This extends into a rather unsatisfying ten minutes as the film builds to the climax and we are introduced to the slightly underwhelming 'something' and a bit of an ET moment. It's a shame that there is this 15 minute spell where things don't work, because everything before is so good, and it recovers in time for a beautiful, touching and yes, very Spielbergian, final scene that is a very fitting way to sign off.

It ticked all of the boxes of a summer blockbuster, and then went beyond, I laughed (including an end credits sequence that you should stick around for), I cried (at least three times) and I jumped (the girlfriend jumped out of her skin throughout). It's just a real pity that there is a small part of the film that is so mis-judged and feels so out of place.

My only other reservation is that this is a film made by a film geek, and if there is a generation of cinema-goers that aren't as familiar as I am with what Abrams is trying to emulate, they may not have the same appreciation of that attempt and it's result as I do. It also only really looks back, unlike Attack the Block that felt familiar but at the same time fresh. I'm confident that this won't really be a problem though when it comes to putting bums on seats, and among a summer line up of reboots, robots, superheroes and sequels, I really hope it does well. It's a film that has it's heart firmly in the right place and Abrams sentiment can probably be best summed up by one of my favourite scenes in the film, with the young boys watching on in admiration at Elle Fanning's character, as she acts out a scene in their zombie movie. It's that moment of wonder that motivates Abrams to do what he does.

THE A-TEAM (2010 - Cert 12A)

Another 80's throwback and another attempt at tapping into the nostalgia that we all feel for something we grew up with. From when I first heard that this was in production I was never for one second confident that it was going to be able to emulate the joy that I felt with Hannibal, Face, Murdoch and BA on Saturday afternoons, just like if they said they were going to make McGuyver or Airwolf into a film, if I want to revisit those days I may as well just buy the box set for next to nothing and chill out on the sofa. Why go to all the trouble of trying to get others to fill those well worn shoes and dart about in that familiar van?



Having now seen it (on TV as I was never excited enough to watch it at the Flicks) I was right in my assumption, it just didn't live up to or recreate that excitement I felt when I was younger. Whether that was due to my headstrong nostalgia or my unrealistic expectations doesn't really matter, it just didn't do the job.

That isn't to say that it isn't without any merit whatsoever though.

Rather than assume we all know what they are, the film is an origins story, telling us how The A-Team became soldiers of fortune, heroes in Iraq in covert operations, double-crossed and turned into fugitives fighting to clear their name. Hannibal (Liam Neeson), BA (Rampage Jackson), Face (Bradley Cooper) and Murdoch (Sharlto Copley) are introduced, no, thrown at us in an action sequence that transported me straight back in time, not to Saturday tea time, but to the 80's when action entertained, when it surprised and when it exhilarated. Nowadays we've seen everything, dinosaurs once impossible are now on BBC and ITV primetime, aliens destroying cities used to be made from tiny models, after Independence Day it can be done with a couple of clicks of a mouse (over-exageration I know, I'm not belittling the talent in CGI). It's hard to do something that we haven't seen before, but Joe Carnahan (Narc and Smokin' Aces), combines over the top action (helicopter looping the loop), humour (Bradley Cooper rolling down a hill entombed in a roll of tyres) and a touch of the familiar (the black van and 'I pity the fool' references) to get us on the edge of our seat. As an opening to the film, it really does work. It thrilled and amused in equal measure, and there is a definite joy in seeing Hannibal chomp down on a cigar and Face flash a smile at a woman. However, much in the same way that there is pleasure in eating Arctic Roll, it's short lived as you realise that taste is just a flash of the familiar and that you'd much rather be tucking into a Magnum double caramel or a cornetto enigma.

As the film progresses it all wears thin rather quickly. The nods to the TV series fade into inconsequence, the amusing quips from Murdoch become less frequent (and less funny), the humour and charm fade and all you are left with is action sequences (outrageously blasé action sequences) that are hurled at you by Carnahan. They are still enjoyable scenes but by the time we've seen a tank falling out of the sky on a parachute firing at fighter drones (halfway through the film) there is a feeling that we've peaked and it's gradually downhill from here.

There is a plot that thinks it's akin to the double crossing and second guessing of Bourne or the Craig-era Bond, but doesn't really make sense and lacks any real depth which means that not understanding doesn't really matter and you don't really give a hoot as to who the bad guy is. A love-story strand is introduced as well as a strange and worrying thread where BA finds peace with himself only to discover by the end that violence does indeed solve problems that feels sinister and off-tone with the rest of the film.

Essentially when the film reaches the second half, the action dries up and plot takes over (ineffectually) with (failed) attempts at characterisation, all coming together for a totally outrageous and overly unrealistic (yes, even compared to the tank bit) finale that tries to be a lot cleverer than it actually is. Despite 50% of the film falling away there are times when it does work. The main cast are all decent and entertaining enough, particularly Copley, and the first two or three set pieces make this the film that The Expendables desperately wanted, and ultimately failed, to be.

Just about worth a watch but you'd be better off watch any of the Die Hard films or any early Arnie to Sly films.

CHASING AMY (1997 - Cert 18)

I was a very late arrival to the Kevin Smith party. I saw Dogma when I was a lot younger and can remember very little of it, in fact I'm sure I didn't really get it, I was just a teenage boy who liked Salma Hayek. By the time I got around to actually seeing Clerks (only a couple of months ago) it was getting embarrassing telling people that I thought of myself as a film buff but hadn't seen that so-called seminal classic. Once I had seen it I knew immediately what people had been banging on about all these years. I went into work the next day preaching it's virtues and quoting lines from it. One of my work mates mentioned that it is one of fiancé's favourite films, only bettered by one of Smith's other films, Chasing Amy. Next thing I know I've got the a copy of Chasing Amy on DVD passed on to me in exactly the same way that I force people to watch Shaun of the Dead. 'You have to see this'. and so it sat on one of my shelves for a couple of months, never being touched, rarely being considered. The truth is the front cover put me off.

It smacked of rom-com. The colour of the writing, all the characters on the cover, the woman taking up the majority of the space. The title combined with the imagery made it seem like There's Something About Mary, everyone after the same girl. It just didn't scream 'watch me'.

One lazy Sunday afternoon, the girlfriend and I needed something easy to watch to keep Monday morning at bay. She (a purveyor of the rom-com) reached for Chasing Amy and after a moment's pause, where I decided that if I had to watch a rom-com it may as well be one by Kevin Smith, I gave in.



Now that I've watched it, I'm disappointed by myself. Angry even. For allowing it to sit on a shelf, unwatched, for judging a book by it's cover. Due to my stupid film snob tendencies I was put off by an assumption, a rash one, and this meant that there was a delay in seeing one of the best films about relationships I have ever seen.

Clerks is good, very good, it's the one that everyone talks about and the film that saw Smith burst on to the scene, but Chasing Amy is better, it's braver, it's about something that not many people have tried to explore - The modern relationship, and the insecurities that come with it.

Ben Affleck is Holden, comic book artist, living and working with his best mate Banky (Jason Lee). All is good as their comic Bluntman and Chronic (based on Jay and Silent Bob of course) is a success. The only thing that is missing is the girl. Then he meets her, Alyssa, played by Joey Lauren Adams. She has it all, beautiful, smart, funny with an attitude. The only problem is she's a lesbian. Yes she likes girls. Don't be fooled into thinking it's a stupid, immature comedy about 'conversion' though, it's more about how sexual liberation and the modern obsession with openness has opened a whole can of worms, issues and insecurities. Ego's are dented, feelings are hurt, all because the people care and worry.

It's drenched in typical Kevin Smith dialogue. People speak how we all want to speak. I would love to bounce off other people with instant dry wit plucking an amusing simile out of thin air from my endless supply. It doesn't scream realism but it is great to watch. Highlights include a great exchange as to why women are to blame for men being bad at cunnilingus and why one character can't travel without taking an exhaustive porn collection. I know what you're thinking, it's a sex comedy. And to some extent it is, but not in an American Pie/Porkys guise. It's not a gross out comedy, more observational, like how you might imagine Jerry Seinfeld to be if he discovered sex all over again. And developed a potty mouth.

The quality in Smith's writing goes much further than just jokes and good speeches. Chasing Amy is a film that relies on, ok uses the well worn rom-com formula (i.e. guy meets girl, guy likes girl, guy get's girl, guy upsets girl, guy gets girl back, or does he?) but still manages to feel new and fresh. Part of that will be down to the irreverent humour, the unfamiliar behaviour of the characters for this genre, but a great deal of credit should go to Smith for creating a film with characters and situations that you really feel for. We aren't siding with the characters because convention tells us to do so, we are with them every step of the way because their insecurities are those that nag away at you when you first start seeing someone you really like. We have all been there. Amongst all the rough (and there is a lot of sweary sex banter) there are some gems, where you feel like you are getting an insight into the film maker's heart, none more so than when Silent Bob simply becomes Bob and the film get's it's title. It's a segment that all at the same time creates real emotional sympathy but also cuts straight to what the film is about and is trying to say. Smith's genius, acting and writing, making it all seem so easy.

It then digs deeper, much deeper than a couple trying to love each other against the odds, it addresses sexual tendencies and the prejudices that they create, the assumptions that we make everyday. The film constantly challenges what we believe and whether we could be accused of being homophobic or judging a book by it's cover. I consider myself to be very open-minded and accepting but I had to question myself a number of times as thoughts quickly jumped into my head. It's a remarkable achievement to have made something that has so many layers and says so much but on the face of it seems to be something quite simple and juvenile. Just like when Alyssa falls for Holden.

The screenplay also manages to stop Joey Lauren Adams' squeaky, whiny voice from grating by giving her enough interesting things to say that I didn't notice. That's unfair on Lauren Adams actually because she is very good in this. She has to be the loveable love interest at some points, a spunky independent lesbian at others and a bit of a bitch the rest of the time. It's a challenging role that she pulls off very well, despite that voice. The whole cast is very good to be fair, Ben Affleck before he went big on good form and proving that he can be engaging, we like him but we know he is making a pig's ear out of everything, Jason Lee as the best mate gets all the best lines, the along with Dwight Ewell camping it up as the gay representative, both there as comic relief but ultimately, as you quickly realise, there for much more than fluff round the edges, their superbly delivered dialogue makes you laugh immediately, then you have to stop to wonder whether you should really be laughing.

When I finished watching it, I said I thought it was one of the most important films I have ever seen. Although that might be over egging it slightly, it's the best example I have seen of a film exploring sexuality, questioning what society really thinks of homosexuality, the assumptions that we make everyday and, most importantly, what has happened to modern relationships through a generation of experimentation. Essentially it asks, and is reassuringly not arrogant enough to answer, whether we are ready for and actually better off because of sexual liberation.

See it.

HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS PART 2 (2011 - Cert 12A)

I don't think I've even been more confident that a film would live up to my expectations than when I was sat in my reclining chair at the Clapham Picturehouse to watch the big finale to the Harry Potter series. After the first two very child friendly and perhaps a little too innocent Chris Columbus entries, The Philosopher's Stone and The Chamber of Secrets, David Heyman with his team of co-producers and a selection of directors (Alfonso Cuaron, Mike Newell and David Yates), managed to make a series that was both faithful and dedicated to the source material. As a reader of the books I was constantly impressed with how the films managed to grasp the wonder, youth and darkness of J K Rowling's creations so perfectly. There was a real sense that the makers of these films were putting a lot of care into what they were doing, yes they wanted to make a lot of money but they also appeared to be desperate to do the story justice. They were only getting one crack at this, there isn't going to be a reboot, they didn't want to be the people who made a hash out of Potter. The quality of the films along with the continuing story has meant that it has never really felt like a 'franchise', although there's no doubting that it really is, it's more of an epic series that has spanned the last 10 years. This means that there isn't the usual dread that comes with a sequel to a film that you like. When I watched Spiderman 3, I knew deep down that it wasn't going to meet my expectations and the standards set by the previous two. With Part Two of The Deathly Hallows I just knew that this was going to be a brilliant end to a series of films that I love.



Imagine my disappointment when it came to light that The Deathly Hallows Part 2 was, in my opinion, the weakest since The Chamber of Secrets. Disappointment is perhaps a bit too strong a term, I really enjoyed it, but it just struggled to live up to the incredibly high standards set by the Prisoner of Azkaban through to the first Deathly Hallows film.

The decision to split the last book into two films meant that very little plot set up was required in this sitting.  The first film was all setting up, not much happened, it was criticised for being too wordy, but it was a necessity and it added a huge amount of depth to characters that we all thought we already knew so well. In part two we are thrown straight into the action, dragons, Gringotts vault, a roller coaster style bank job, Horcruxes. It's all there and before you know we are back at Hogwarts for the huge final battle, that takes up much of the film, and it has to be said that it is visually superb. The scale was reminiscent of the biggest and best that The Lord of The Rings had to offer, Death Eaters vs the teachers and pupils, giants, huge spiders, suits of armour coming to life, spells being cast, counter spells raining in, Hogwarts crumbling, it's relentless and is great to watch. Huge battle scenes come out every week in mediocre effects movies but there is something extra special about seeing Hogwarts at the centre of it, especially when we've been waiting ten years to see it.

This might be a good moment to mention the 3D. None of the previous incarnations were in 3D, there was a plan to have the first Deathly Hallows film in 3D but they decided that it just wasn't working and they didn't want to compromise their creation. I have to ask whether they stopped to think about whether it was a good idea this time around. This is a dark film, not in the usual Harry Potter sense of the word, but actually dark in terms of colour. There are the occasional flashes of colour through a spell or an explosion, but this is largely set against a black back drop as the battle plays out during the night. The 3D drains the film of what little colour it has and you have to wonder whether there is any point in giving darkness depth, it doesn't exactly leap out of the screen like the penis in piranha or immerse you like the surroundings in Avatar. There were also a couple of instances where the effects let the side down, for example a broomstick chase looked a little on the cheap side, contrasting with the otherwise very accomplished effects.

The cast continues the 'biggest' theme, everyone is in it. I mean everyone. Any character from the Potter universe that hasn't been killed off is in this film. Some have beefed up roles integral to the story like Maggie Smith's Professor McGonagall becoming an action heroine, some have a line or two but others,  such as Jim Broadbent, have nothing more than a couple of seconds of screen time. There is a great deal of pleasure to be taken from all of the characters from all of the films coming together at once, a school reunion of sorts only one where you're pleased to see everyone and not avoiding the smug bloke who is now a TV presenter.

It's much more than just bit parts by all the best British thespians though. There are some very good performances in the film. The main three, Radcliffe. Watson and Grint are perfectly solid, they don't really have a great deal to do other than running around trying to save the day, which is a bit of a shame after the quality and depth of their characters in Part One. Ralph FiennesVoldemort as desperate, almost scared. As the horcruxes fall one by one, I got a very real sense that Voldemort knew that things were unravelling, the closer he gets to his goal, the more the wheels start to fall off. He really isn't in control. It's a great additional dynamic to the usual good vs evil. Matthew Lewis' Neville Longbottom finally gets to the party and has his pivotal role. It was great to see the bumbling fool from the earlier films grow into a hero and there are a couple of stirring speeches from Lewis that got the goosebumps going. What was noticeable about the film to me though was the lack of any real 'goosebump moments', or for that matter, many moments of genuine emotion. It really should have been packed to the rafters with them, the book is after all. The kiss, the deaths of important characters, the reveal of Snape's importance to the whole story - that reveal is probably the best part of the film actually, Harry seeing Snape's memories and his past is the closest I got to a tear and it was brilliantly played by Rickman, as you would expect, and superbly handled by David Yates.

I've thought long and hard about why the grandstand moments didn't feel jaw dropping like I expected them to, perhaps it's because I've read the book and I knew what was coming, although I had read all the books before I'd seen the films and that didn't diminish from the wow factor. I think the reason is, strangely, that the film was too short. Everything felt a bit too brisk. There are a number of changes in direction and plot in the story and the closer you get to the ending, the less time you are allowed to pause for contemplation. Deaths happen and then you are quickly forced to move on, you don't have time to get upset, a set-piece pops up, you want to be impressed but all of a sudden you're following a broomstick through a fiery room and you need to brace yourself for the next big effect. I wanted to be able to appreciate these important moments, as they make the leap from page to screen, but there are just so many of those moments. It's a strange thing to criticise the film for but at only just over a couple of hours I though there could have been another 20 minutes or so just to give us all a chance to actually enjoy what was happening. I thought that was the reason why the last book was split into two wasn't it? To avoid the feeling of everything being shoehorned in. The prime chunks of storyline lobster from the book become tightly packed sardines in the film.

I think this may have all come across a lot more negatively than I have intended. It is a very good film, it does the usual things well, it's funny, it is exciting, it has all the spectacle and scale that I expected, it has great actors doing what they do best, but it just fell short of what I wanted. To say it's the weakest film since Chambers of Secrets isn't to say it's rubbish, it's just that number three through to seven were all amazing. Perhaps my expectations were too high, they were never going to be met, perhaps the 3D ruined it for me, I may re-watch it on DVD and think differently about it (I hope so) and realise that it was the perfect sign off for a film series that really has been one of the greatest achievements by the British film industry.

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'.

REC 2 (2009 - Cert 18)

The original Rec, about a zombie-ish virus outbreak in an apartment block, is one of my favourite horror films of the last ten years. The handheld camera footage/faux documentary style has become more frequently used in recent years but that film is certainly one of the best exponents of it. It had a simplicity to it, a realism. Quality acting managed to make you feel for the characters despite there being little to no back story for all of them. There was a constant sense of panic and peril, there were jumps, it was creepy. It did everything a horror film should do, scare, disturb and emote. All of this in a Spanish language film, nothing lost through subtitles at all.

There was an American remake (shock) called Quarantine that was almost identical, shot for shot, but somehow managed to lack all of the terror and substance that the Spanish original had. Another example of something being lost in translation.

I then discovered that Rec 2 was being made. I presumed that it would be a case of another director/writer coming along to try to build a franchise cashing on the original. However, my presumptions were wrong. Rec 2 was to have the same co-directors and co-writers of the first, Jaume Balaguero and Paco Plaza, and they were going to set the sequel directly after the first with armed police going in to the building to get rid the demonic menace. I was picturing a type of Aliens scenario, the joy of the first but with more guns.



Well that'll teach me for getting my hopes up. The two film makers have made two completely and utterly different films, on both content and quality.

Whereas the first film was simple in it's set up, people in an apartment block trying to survive, this only succeeds in being overly convoluted and bogged down in plot. There is a dual story line involving two different hand held cameras that come together at various points in the film. It's a bold move and does do something interesting with the narrative threads and makes the familiar format slightly more intriguing, however rather than just keeping it simple the writers have built on the clues at the end of the film referring to the origin of the virus and in doing so they have immediately destroyed the simple premise of the original. It becomes a bit like the exorcist meets the scene in Aliens where the marines enter the nest. But in a shit way. As it develops it quickly becomes apparent that the story hasn't been thought through at all, the plot has got more holes than colander, all suspense is lost, you don't give a toss who gets killed. In fact you're never really sure who is getting killed. I know the handheld footage is meant to be a little erratic but there are whole sequences where you haven't got a clue what's going on.

It's a mess, a hurried mess. The more I think about it afterwards, none of it really made sense. Why did the second batch of people go in to the building? The Fireman's motives were clearly not thought about. Where were all the monsters from the first one? Did they just pop to the shops? At times the monsters are there, then they disappear just for the sake of having some exposition without the people being under attack. And the ending, oh the ending. It thinks it's clever, but it's just dire. The whole film is a shambles. I'm not being too harsh, it shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt because it's a genre piece. If the first film, made my the same people remember, can be so good, why can't the second at least be 75% as good. It's like Jaws 3 compared to Jaws. Not worthy of playing on the name of the original.

I was thinking of signing this review off in the manner of a parent, 'I'm not angry, I'm just disappointed'. The truth is though, I am angry, really angry. At Jaume Balaguero and Paco Plaza, at the studio for letting it happen, at myself for contributing some money towards the coffers. That's the key thing, people will see this because the first one has become a bit of a cult hit, and if Rec 2 makes money, the chances are they will make another one (look at Police Academy - how did it get to 7 films?). I just hope there is some return to sanity for the makers and they manage to put some thought into what they make.