THE EDGE OF TOMORROW (2014 - CERT 12A)

It's not until you really give it some proper thought, but Tom Cruise really has been relatively prolific in the Sci-Fi department over the last decade. Spielberg had him twice in the noughties, the excellent Minority Report and then The War of the Worlds, slightly underrated at the time but I think it's darkness was simply ten years ahead of it's time, the bleak tone is now a common theme in the post-Nolan era of the blockbuster. The recent Oblivion was two thirds of an interesting film, only losing courage towards the end as it turned into a chase-and-explosion fest. Now we have The Edge of Tomorrow, originally entitled (rather better in my view) after the Japanese novel it's based on, All You Need is Kill.



It's a set up that isn't exactly boldly going where no one has gone before. Earth and Humankind has come under threat from an alien menace and we are losing the war. Badly. Europe has been taken over and our last stronghold is good old Great Britain (including some quite inventive and cool alterations of Trafalgar Square and Heathrow Airport).

First off, it's easy, and lazy, to say that it's a little bit derivative. It obviously has a touch of Source Code about it, people have said that the beasties are a rip off of Starship Troopers which I don't agree with, if you are going compare them to anything, it's probably a cross between Venom and the sentinels in The Matrix sequels. The human's armoury is also straight from James Cameron's costume cupboard and one of the key scenes does owe a bit to one of Spielberg's war films.

Interestingly though, I haven't seen anyone compare it to The War of The Worlds. Although Edge isn't quite as defeatist and nihilistic, it does share the same absence of hope. This isn't a glossy Michael Bay action romp, we, humans, are taking one hell of a beating. The opening battle scene, very reminiscent of the start of Saving Private Ryan, is brutal. Thist really is a war, people are dying all over the place. It's not like sequences in Marvel films where widespread destruction seems to result in no human loss whatsoever.

Also, like War of The Worlds, Tom Cruise doesn't start the film as an All-American hero. In War he was flawed, in Edge he is veritably loathsome. He is brilliant as the cowardly PR, spin doctor colonel and it is something we just aren't that used to seeing from him. I really wanted him to snuff it. However, it's also a performance with some depth. It wasn't long before I was feeling sorry for him as he shifts from being obnoxious to outright terrified as he is thrown into a battle completely untrained. As the film rockets along he does start to get back to the standard Cruise we all know, the hero, but he does manage to keep it interesting with a bit of heart as the relationship with the other hero of the piece, Emliy Blunt, develops.

It'a fair to say that before seeing the film, Emily Blunt didn't really strike me as the action hero type. What do I know eh? Who is Ellen Ripley? Blunt is superb. She is the fully trained, kick-ass marine. Think Vasquez from Aliens with longer hair, without the 80's one liners and a massive sword-like weapon instead of a huge gun. Like Cruise's character she doesn't start out particularly likeable, in all honesty she doesn't say much, she simply looks hard as nails. However, as Cruise returns to his more familiar ground, so does Blunt, she softens. It's a pair of well drawn character curves and it's nice to see them develop alongside one another.

The story itself just about hangs together, there are a couple of exposition scenes that spell things out in sci-fi jargon that just about fall on the right side of credible. During which, there is that one line of dialogue which is a signpost (lit of in neon, under floodlights, with giant arrows pointing) for a plot point later in the film.  It looks great, the effects and action have a solid and authentic feel. The combat scenes are violent and physical, it has weight and heft, you can tell that the director (Doug Liman) was behind the first Bourne film (which arguably gave birth to our current Bond).

As with some time travel / time loop films (yes Looper, I'm looking at you),  if you think about it too much it will quickly unravel and fall to pieces, but while you're in it, it flies along at a frantic pace, is exciting, at times terrifying (not in horror way but in a war is intensely frightening way), it has an ending that satisfyingly delivers and doesn't cop out. Plus it has Tom Cruise dying a lot and Bill Paxton. Yes Bill Paxton.

Not classic, but very good Saturday night sci-fi blockbuster entertainment. Instead of infinite Transformers sequels, Studios should be making and the public should be watching stuff like this.

DARK SHADOWS (2012 - Cert 12A)

Tim Burton's first film after the glossy but bland and instantly forgettable adaptation of Alice in Wonderland was apparently a TV series in the late sixties. Clearly I'm not old enough to remember it the first time around but I hadn't actually heard of it either, at least not until the publicity march began up to the release of Dark Shadows film. Having said that a quick scour of the 'pedias' and it's clear that Burton isn't the only one who is a fan of the 'Gothic soap opera' (I know, sounds good already doesn't it?).

So I won't be telling you whether it's a faithful adaptation or a complete reworking, because I have no idea. Instead I'll be doing what you should arguably always do, regardless of where a film's origins lie, judge it on it's own merits.

It's essentially a family drama, all be it with a quirky and blackly comic sensibility, centring on the Collins family in 1972 Collinsport, the town named after them as it was built on a successful ancestral family fishing business in the 16th century. They're a classic rich family with classic rich family problems, knocking about in a huge old gothic mansion, with far more rooms than inhabitants. Michelle Pfeiffer is the matriarch, Johnny Lee Miller is her brother, the weird uncle hanging on for the perks and wealth, Jackie Earle Haley is his troubled 10 year old son and Chloe Grace Moretz as the stroppy rebellious teenager. Other residents are Jackie Earle Haley, the creepy caretaker (think Filch from Harry Potter with marginally better personal hygiene) and Burton regular (and wife) Helena Bonham Carter as a live-in psychiatrist there to deal with the 10 year old boy and his belief in ghosts. 

So just a normal family set up eh?

That is until a long lost relative crops up, Barnabas Collins (Johnny Depp playing a role he has apparently always wanted to play - yes, just like Robbie Keane was always a Spurs fan, that is until he signed for Celtic and Liverpool respectively). Not so strange you think, until you realise that Barnabas has been in a coffin for the best part of two centuries after being cursed and turned into a vampire. 

Now we are firmly into Burton territory. Barnabas heads straight back to the family home and integrates himself back into Collins family life. He also decides he wants to get back involved in the now failing family business, suffering at the hands of Eva Green's rival company. In the process of doing this he discovers that Green has a link to his past.....

So, there's a number of things going on and I think Burton deliberately doesn't quite hang it all together in a traditional way. You have the comedy of a 200 year old vampire waking up in the 70's (think California Man or Crocodile Dundee fish out of water stuff), there's a bit of unexpected horror and gore (we are dealing with vampires here) and black comedy, humorous and downright bonkers family exchanges, destructive sex scenes, a tale of corporate rivalry and more than a touch of the supernatural. And that's not even giving away any of the big plot developments. Perhaps, after the financial success of Alice in Wonderland, the studio gave Burton a bit more of a free reign and this is Burton going the opposite way from a big special effects fest, not wanting to get bogged down with traditional narrative and studio film conventions. He's chucking a hell of a lot at the canvas, some of it sticks some of slides off and ends up in a mess on the floor. However, for those moments that do work, it immediately made me think of Beetlejuice and the great off beat parts of Sleepy Hollow and Mars Attacks. This is Burton recapturing some of those joyous quirky triumphs, banishing the memories (mine, but perhaps his as well) of Planet of the Apes, Alice and Wonderland and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. 

He's helped by an excellence cast, all of which are great and keep the film pushing along, allowing you to forgive when it misses the target. It's great seeing Depp doing something other than Jack Sparrow, reminded that he is a fine actor and can carry any film. It's brilliant to have Pfeiffer back, Bonham Carter is as ever one of the best things about the film, despite her small amount of screen time, Eva Green is having the time of her life and is seductively chilling as the villain of the piece, Johnny Lee Miller looks like he was born to play a creepy, pervy uncle and Chloe Grace Moretz is definitely going places - bring on Kick Ass 2.

It's a funny film. I don't mean funny ha ha, although there is good comedy in there (not quite laugh out loud, sniggers, chuckles and chortles are the order of the day), funny as in odd. It starts in one way, you think you've got a handle on where it's going, only for it go in the complete opposite direction. Then you think it will romp along, only for Burton to slow things right down and focus on something right in left field, Burton relishes not letting the viewer ease into a comfort zone, it meanders, it plods, it plays knock down ginger with you, until it reaches a climax that is part Twilight, part Death Becomes Her, infused with Beetlejuice and a bit of Sweeney Todd. 

Am I recommending it? I am, it's well worth a watch, not a classic by any stretch, but there's more than enough in there to enjoy and there's a joy in having a film maker kick off the shackles and be given the freedom to just do something a bit different. And is there anyone better at doing 'different' than Tim Burton.

PACIFIC RIM (2013 - Cert 12A)

Going to see this film was more out of curiosity than excitement. I also decided to see it at lunchtime on the 5th day of the first Ashes test, but that's another story and a decision which I won't ever stop regretting. Anyway, curiosity, yes. I've only seen the first Transformers, and hated it. I couldn't then bring myself to see the next instalments, I couldn't bear the thought of loud robots smashing into each other or Shia Labeouf trying to make himself appear vaguely interesting or talented. You may have also seen that my main gripe with Man of Steel was the last forty minutes which was essentially two immovable objects colliding with each other and consequently destroying an entire city. Very loudly. So with that in mind, Pacific Rim, a film about robots the size of skyscrapers fighting aliens the size of skyscrapers, might seem an odd choice for me to splash out on a ticket. The reason I took the plunge was Guillermo del Toro. Being a massive fan of his back catalogue, I was curious to see whether he could pull off something of this scale whilst still keeping it interesting and not eardrum banteringly dull. If Guillermo can't do it, no one can.

First things first, you have to go in with an open mind, perhaps even tap into the teenager still inside of you (come on, they're in there somewhere), because this film is silly. Silly on a gargantuan scale. In a lengthy and huge prologue, we are told that in the bottom of the Pacific Ocean there is a 'breach' which is a gateway to another world/dimension. Through that breach, Kaijus appear, huge monsters that look a bit like lizardy dinosaurs (yes think Godzilla). They flatten cities, within 45 seconds San Francisco and a couple of others have been destroyed. Conventional warfare doesn't make a dent in these beasts so the Jaeger Programme is deployed. Jaegers are enormous robots, 25 storeys high (yes think Transformers), piloted by two humans. They even have bombs, yes Jaeger Bombs (although that term isn't uttered in the film - a missed opportunity in my view). That is the set up in a nutshell, Godzilla v Transformers. Only it's not quite as shallow and straightforward as that. It's Del Toro's love letter to two much older genres, the Kaiju and Mecha genres, both a firm part of Popular Japanese culture. An homage but also an attempt to show a new generation what's it all about.

The advantage of having the prologue of this scale, including a battle between a Jaeger and a Kaiju, is that we get the big reveal out of the way early. There is no need to build up to the big climax to whet people's appetites. We've all gone to see a film about giant monsters fighting robots, why wait until the very last sequence to see it. Get it in there early. This gives del Toro and the film a chance to concentrate on other things. Characters. One of the (silly) plot points is how the Jaegers are piloted. The two pilots need to engage in a 'neural handshake' in order to pilot effectively together. This means they both 'drift' which is basically joining their brains together and sharing memories. Yes, as I type it I realise it sounds completely ridiculous, and it is, but it does give a good excuse for character development. Our heroes, the two pilots we follow the most, are played by Brit Charlie Hunnam and Rinko Kikuchi, admittedly in a creaky, and at times wooden, manner. They must learn to trust each other and fight back against their memories (both have suffered losses at the hands of the Kaiju). This all happens at base as they train and prepare for battle. This part of the film plays out a bit like Top Gun (Robert Kazinsky plays the Val Kilmer role) or the middle section of Starship Troopers. Idris Elba is the commanding officer of the Jaeger programme and he walks about gruffly in nice suits dispelling wisdom and shouting rousing speeches. In all honesty, he's great. Then we have the comic relief, Charlie Day and the superbly named Burn Gorman as scientists tasked with trying to understand the Kaiju, one a bit rock n roll, the latter a straight laced Brit with a cane. They bicker and talk about predictions and theories in a jovial and comedic way, nothing hilarious, just a snigger here and there. Part of Day's mission takes him into the criminal underworld where we meet Del Toro stalwart Ron Perlman, superbly playing Hannibal Chau (I won't ruin the gag about how he got his name). He's obviously not the most talented actor in the world, but you forget just how much you enjoy being in his company until he's on screen.

So you have the stuff going on at base, bit of romance, bit of male rival chest beating, the scientists scampering about, Ron Perlman being Ron Perlman, before you know it, an hour has gone by and we've had no action, no big monsters, we only see the robots in the garage being spruced up. Not only has an hour gone by, but I wasn't bored for one second. Furthermore, I had realised that I actually had developed a bit of a connection with all these characters. It's not exactly an art house character piece, not by any stretch of the imagination, there's some dodgy delivery of some hokey dialogue, but it all amounts to more characterisation that you would expect from this type of film. It also veers away from being too cliche heavy, for example the female lead isn't wearing tight shorts and flirting her way via wet t shirts to become pilot of a Jaeger. In fact, Kikuchi's story is what gives the film it's heart. Again, not exactly a heartbreaking masterpiece, but it's got enough depth to add some substance.

Then the action ramps up again for two enormous battle sequences, the impact of which heightened because of the previous 60 minutes of adding flesh to these characters. A masterstroke by del Toro and superbly executed.

I've got to mention the action, because it is incredible. It looks absolutely superb and you can tell it's del Toro behind it. A lot of it reminded me of the Hellboy films, the monsters looking out of this world but very real at the same time, and the mechanical devices, including the robots have a slightly old look to them, they aren't sleek, well designed machines, there's a touch of the steampunk about them. The thing that really comes across is the scale. I believed in the size of these things, they had weight and heft, each blow had impact. Very impressive indeed.

So, it's silly, very silly, but if you get past that and accept it for what it is, a monster v robot film, then you'll be surprised at the existence of some depth to go along with the very impressive visuals. It's a good old fashioned family popcorn film, pitched at the right level with humour, camaraderie, a bit of peril and loads of spectacle.

Hopefully, the lovers of Transformers will see this and realise that there's a different way of doing things, a better way. 

THE CAMPAIGN (2012 - Cert 15)

I didn't have high particularly expectations for this film. It hadn't had good reviews on release and it didn't take anything close to a respectable figure at the box office, but after a Friday off work, a wine drenched lunch followed by a spell in a beer garden, I needed to watch something that wasn't going to be taxing but was going to be funny, I wanted to laugh but I also fancied not having to use my brain particularly. Surely Will Ferrell and Zach Galifianakis and a race for congress would fit the bill.



Well it certainly was intellectually challenging, but it also wasn't particularly funny either.

Ferrell is Cam Brady, about to enter his fifth term as congressman of North Carolina, the only reason he's managed such a successful stint is the lack of any actual challengers, which is a good job because it's immediately clear that he is useless. One plot contrivance later, and two wealthy brothers are putting their support behind someone to oppose him - in steps Galfianakis as Marty Huggins. Neither of these characters feel fresh or new creations, Ferrell is channeling Ron Burgundy with a different accent and without facial hair and Galfianakis is a weirdo again, a slightly camper weirdo than we are used to, but a weirdo nonetheless. It's also worth nothing that parts of Huggins also appear to be a carbon copy of another comic creation, Ned Flanders from The Simpsons. The similarities aren't subtle either. If you are going to rip off one of the most successful comedy series ever, maybe be a little bit clever about it.

The film is essentially the campaign trail of these two as they go head to head, making a hash out of everything they do, from punching babies and dogs (yes punching babies and dogs), to inappropriate TV ads and interference with each others families. I appreciate that story and narrative aren't going to be top of the list of priorities in this type of film, but as the campaign trail develops, the polls chop and change between the two, seemingly having nothing to do with that they are actually doing. This could be a satirical look at the polls and the political system, but I strongly doubt that. That might require someone involved in making this film actually having to use their brain.

There is an interesting, funny and smart film to be made out of the political process, oh hang on, it has - In The Loop. The American political system is so ripe for taking the mickey out of, The Campaign had a wealth of material with which to play with, but just didn't bother. It instead chose to put together a load of different sketches which could have been slotted into many other comedies, none having anything to do with politics. A rushed, wasted opportunity. Even more irritating when you see that one of the writers was also involved in Spin City (Chris Henchy) and it's directed by Jay Roach (Austin Powers 1 & 2 and Meet The Parents).

There's not really much more for me to say, in fact I only saw it 12 hours ago and it's already slipping from my consciousness (I'll accept that a small percentage of that may be down to the excesses of yesterday afternoon).

Don't bother. Any film that makes an 81 minute running time feel in excess of two hours is clearing not doing something (or anything) right.

MAN OF STEEL (2013 - Cert 12A)

Now this was a superhero reboot that I'd been looking forward to. Not like last year's perfectly decent but unremarkable and pointless The Amazing Spiderman. Surely it wouldn't have done any harm to try to do something a bit different with Peter Parker? Perhaps that was the problem with Bryan Singer's Superman Returns. I actually really liked that film, and many people claim to still do so now, but perhaps it's desire to channel the spirit of the Donner originals meant that it just wasn't different enough and ultimately didn't connect with audiences at the time and that the numbers didn't really add up.

Cue Christopher Nolan. Not satisfied with his incredible vision for Batman becoming the template for art house blockbusters and making the studios realise that it is possible and acceptable for a big budget summer event movie to be both intelligent and succesful, he wanted to take on DC Comics' other big name. Enlisting his regular Batman collaborator David S Goyer to flesh out the story into a screenplay, this was to be the thinking man's Superman. Donner and Singer's versions were never exactly stupid, but we all hoped that this was going to a step up, something grown up....

Then the cast was announced. Aside from the relatively unknown, but perfectly suited, Henry Cavill as Kal El, we had a veritable smorgasbord of big names, proper actors with some real thespian clout. Kevin Costner and Diane Lane as Superman's Earth parents, Russell Crowe as his Krypton dad, Amy Adams as Lois Lane, Laurence Fishburne as the editor of the Daily Planet and Michael Shannon as General Zod.

It's all there in place for this to be the darkly perfect, broodingly cerebral Superman for our generation, and then you see that Zach Snyder is directing.....excitement turns to anxiety....





To be fair, his Dawn of the Dead remake (in my view his best film) was very good and it marked him out as one to watch. 300 has a bit of a cult following but even it's biggest supporters will probably admit that although it looks good, it's about as deep as a Saharan puddle. Watchmen wasn't exactly the film that I wanted from such an incredible book, but after a couple of viewings it's a much better film and adaptation than I first gave it credit for. Again there was potential. Then the unforgivably awful, nonsensical, idiocy that was Sucker Punch. I've tried to watch it again but I just hate it more than anything (yes, even The Holiday).

Snyder's career actually reflects Man of Steel perfectly. Frustrating.

Some of it is excellent. In fact most of it is excellent, the first two thirds certainly are. The first thing that struck me is that it's much closer to a full on science fiction film rather than the usual superhero fare. The opening on Krypton is huge, something George Lucas would have been proud of, perhaps what John Carter might have looked like had it not been Disneyfied to within an inch of it's life. Spaceships, droids, holograms, Russell Crowe in a space suit riding a flying dragon to evade spacecrafts, Man of Steel has clearly not forgotten that the roots of this story lie in a galaxy, far, far away.

Even when the action shifts to Earth, there's plenty of space ships, Codexes and a 'World Engine'. Also, in a neat rethink, Superman's Fortress of Solitude is a giant spacecraft buried under the ice. Man of Steel is closer to Star Trek than Batman.

This continues thematically too: one of the most interesting parts of the story focuses on Superman being an alien and how people would react to that fact. I'm sure that we wouldn't immediately embrace him just because he can fly and see through walls, we would greet him with suspicion and fear. When the villain, General Zod, (more on him later) addresses the people of Planet Earth, he starts by telling them 'You are not alone'. A really nice touch I thought, using the question that is constantly asked when considering extra terrestrial life.

The quandary of whether we are ready to accept an Alien is asked of the characters too, notably Clarke Kent, his Earth parents and Lois Lane during an interesting middle section that replaces the usual origin tale we've seen before in previous films and Smallville. We jump between flashbacks and the modern day as Lois Lane, an investigative reporter, tries to track down a mysterious man with superhuman strength who can't keep himself a secret because he just can't resist saving people's lives. We see a young Kent at school, saving his classmates, (even the bully), as their school bus crashes into a river, a slightly older Kent rescuing people from a burning oil rig. The best elements of this section are when his dad (Kevin Costner in arguably his best role to date) is trying to explain that staying a secret is more important than helping people. It's a real moral tussle that Henry Cavill really manages to pull off, culminating in the film's most, and probably only, heartbreaking and heartfelt moment.

Then General Zod finds Superman and it all really kicks off. First things first, Shannon's Zod is a good villain, not a classic by any stretch, this isn't the Joker, it isn't even Bane. But there is some depth and intrigue there. His motivations and borne out of his love of his home, he really believes what he's doing is right. Plus he is played with intensity by Shannon (as I'm sure you would expect), but his steely determination and anger, although good for getting the job of being a baddie done, only really make enough for a two dimensional character.

Anyway, once he turns up and transmits his message to the whole planet, it reminded me a bit of the way The Joker hijacked TV channels, and even slightly of Bane's speech at the football stadium. That is where the subtleties and similarities end though, because when Zod gets angry, Man of Steel becomes big, very big and incredibly destructive. This is where the film lost it's way for me. It all becomes a little boring. Superman has a fight with a couple of Zod's mates, but in order to make it more interesting, Snyder and co have decided that every time a punch lands, the recipient has to fly backwards and destroy a building or blow up a petrol station. It is a bit of a spectacle the first time you see it, then after blow after blow, it all becomes a bit much,

Then the World Engine starts up and an entire city is destroyed within minutes. Thousands, if not millions, of people would have died, except not once are we meant to worry about that. We do see the staff of the Daily Planet trying to get out, as long as they are ok, that's the important thing. Big special effects are fine, but they must have a context, it's boring just to smash things up for the sake of it, these things become exciting when there is some peril involved, an emotional attachment to it.

Once that all comes to an end, it feels like the film should stop there. It was a big enough finish to have got away with it. But no, it felt the need for one more big ruck, between Zod and our hero. Punch, Zod flies into a skyscraper and out the other side, glass smashed, top of building collapses, Zod gets one into Superman's chops, into a petrol tanker, huge explosion. Apart from the strange fact that they managed to find a clean couple of square miles of buildings that weren't destroyed or even touched by the World Engine, it becomes a needless 20 minutes of crashing, banging and walloping. To be fair, the moment when Superman saves the day (that isn't a spoiler, don't pretend you expected Zod to win) is another moral crossroads handled well by Cavill, but it's the thudding nonsense before that which makes it more of a relief than an emotional end to the story.

Except that isn't the end again, there's another bit that sets the film up for a sequel (again, no one will be surprised that there is going to be more of these). The problem with all of this is, when I left the cinema, all I could think about was the skull hammering last third, I had forgotten about all that went before that. I had been pummelled into submission. Which is a massive shame, because up until the point it became like Transformers or the end of Iron Man 2 and 3, it was interesting, it was doing something different, it was sci-fi and superheroes, it was asking interesting questions. It had Kevin Costner being brilliant, Amy Adams being perfectly fine, Russell Crowe being a bit Obi Wan (Alec Guiness, not Ewan McGregor). Then the film decides that the best way to answer a question is to bludgeon someone or blow something up. Lots and lots of times. Then do it all again.

Still it is worth seeing, but brace yourself for that finale, it's loud, long and just won't give in.

WORLD WAR Z (2013 - Cert 15)

Right, let's get it out of the way - I am a huge fan of the book my Max Brooks. And I do mean huge. So much so, that when I first saw the trailer for the big screen adaptation, I resolved to vote with my feet and boycott the film completely. This was perhaps a slightly childish decision at it was based pretty much completely on the fact that Marc Foster (Quantum of Solace) had opted for fast Zombies (think 28 Days Later) rather than the shuffling, rotting undead corpses of the book (Think Romero or Sean of the Dead). Then as the delayed release date approached (it was initially due come out in December 2012) rumours surfaced of extensive reshoots, a third act that had to be completely rewritten, first by Damon Lindelof and then he didn't have time to finish it, so Drew Goddard had to step in. So all things pointed to an absolute turkey and a wasted opportunity for taking the Zombie genre into new territory.

Then reviews started to indicate that it wasn't dreadful, that it was actually decent. Some reviews claimed it was fantastic and there were even a few 4 star accolades being dished out. So I decided to attempt to be mature (anyone who knows me will know that this is quite a challenge) and go to see it, surely I could watch a film and take it on it's own merits and not be concerned by how it compares to the source material.....



Well, as it goes, I didn't have to try very hard because the film bears absolutely no resemblance to the book whatsoever, the only things in common being the title and the fact that the action takes place in more than one country. Admittedly, the book doesn't really have a narrative structure (it's made up of interviews and reports from different people who lived through the Zombie War), so I accept that something had to give in that regard. Brad Pitt is Gerry Lane, a retired UN operative who, after the outbreak of the plague, is forced (in a very laboured and unbelievable plot development) to find Patient Zero, find the source, you may find a way of stopping this thing. This takes Pitt around the world, well, just to South Korea, Israel and Wales in what feels like a cross between Outbreak and a James Bond film. Action, exposition by someone dispensable and a clue, action in a different place, exposition by someone dispensable and a clue, action in a different location, repeat to fade. So there's the formula and I suppose it's one that has worked before and it has to be said that it does generally work here, it pushes the film along at a good pace, not pausing to give you a chance to think 'hang on, surely it takes longer than 30 seconds to fill a fuel tank on a plane' and 'why have they stopped to let Brad Pitt on and not the other people with him?'.

The film's main selling point is the action set pieces. They are very good and look lovely. It has to be said that there is a lot of pleasure to be taken from seeing Zombie's on this scale. The vast majority of the films in the genre focus on small groups of people (partly because budgets impose certain restraints) and the clashes with the undead are in confined, claustrophobic spaces which of course is part of the scare. World War Z's reported budget of $190m has given Marc Foster the opportunity to open everything up, the Israel sequence in particular stands out visually, sweeping long range camera shots of a Zombie onslaught. This hasn't been done before with Zombies. Having said that, it all looks too CGI. The opening scene where the outbreak starts, is a lot more effective as the effects are more tactile, cars crashing are real, people running are real people not CGI ants, the Zombies themselves are real until they leap on a victim and they get a little bit of extra zip with some CGI. It still doesn't have the same sense of panic and peril as the opening of Zach Snyder's Dawn of the Dead remake or even of the opening of the new PS3 game, The Last of Us. It felt a bit flat.....

Having said all of that about the budget and the scale, the parts of the film that are scary are when the action is scaled down and put in a confined space, such as the section on the passenger plane and the closing sequence in the World Health Organisation building. Those are the moments that you feel tense,  when your palms start to sweat. Maybe Zombie's don't need a big budget....

The film has a 15 certificate but I can remember absolutely no gore whatsoever. Perhaps it's a bit churlish of me to expect a bit of splatter and claret in a zombie film, some may feel it's not a necessity, but it did detract from the experience for me. It was really noticeable when the camera shied away from the things that a genre film wouldn't normally shy away from, a hand being chopped off by a knife for example, the camera was so keen to look away that it actually wasn't clear what was meant to have happened for a couple of seconds. The same applies when Pitt takes a Zombie down with a crowbar to the skull, only to have the weapon get stuck in the skull. Panic ensues as another corpse approaches, but the camera stays on Pitt's face, you can't even really see that he is trying to free up his crowbar. It's a minor thing I admit, but it really stood out to me. Shaun of the Dead was a 15 and I definitely remember Dylan Moran's intestines being ripped out and the camera not even flinching.

A major part of the book's appeal is the political aspect, it asked how would each country and religion react to a Zombie plague. For example the Chinese tried to cover it all up and censor any information that was released, the Catholic Church retreating to a town in Ireland where it's holiest place is. There are one or two moments where it seems that there was a script at some point, before the committees got involved, that tried to use some of these ideas, although it couldn't obviously criticise the Chinese, that's a good market to sell a film (See the recent Red Dawn remake). There is a interesting line about the North Koreans and the Israel exposition conversation has one or two interesting ideas, but that is pretty much the full extent of it.

It's also obvious that the third act was a complete rewrite, it feels like it's from a different film, although not necessarily in a completely negative way. It contains quite a novel idea on how to fight the Zombies, which you can tell probably comes from one of the writers of Lost, and has a tense stealthy action sequence. It also has Peter Capaldi which is a joy, although he doesn't swear which is a waste as far as I'm concerned. It also contains a wry little nod to slow Zombies which I quite liked (perhaps a Drew Goddard gag?). However, the fact that it is so different in tone from the rest of the film pretty much sums the whole film up.

It's a mess.

As the first real big budget zombie film, there's enough in there to enjoy, but there's also more than enough to leave you scratching your head and sighing with disappointment. Essentially, more through luck than judgment, they have thrown a lot of ideas at the canvas, so much so that some of it had to stick. Essentially, it's a decent enough action film that happens to have Zombies in it. Does it need to be seen at the cinema? Probably not, DVD will suffice (if anyone still watches those). It's very much left open for a sequel, and it has since been confirmed that there will be one as the figures on opening weekend were good, hopefully the second instalment will be a bit more intelligent and will at least attempt to channel the spirit of the source.

It seems that the makers of this film have taken the Zombie folklore too literally by destroying the brain.

If there is one lesson to be learnt by this, everyone should read the book. Did you hear that? Everyone should read the book.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN VAMPIRE HUNTER (2012 - Cert 15)

It's clear from the title that this film is probably only going to really appeal to a certain portion of the cinema population. It's in the 'Ronseal' sub-folder along with Cowboys v Aliens and Snakes on a Plane, although if truth be told there is a lot more substance to Abe Lincoln than most films that crop up in this genre. The trouble is there should have been even more depth than is actually on show.

I've read the source material, a book (part of the 'mash-up'genre) by Seth Grahame-Smith (the chap who also gave us Pride, Prejudice and Zombies). I recall reading it (in proper book form, paper and everything, before the Kindle entered my life), on the train in the morning people would peer over the top of their Steig Larsson or their Penguin Classic and sneer at my choice of literature. Clearly I was an idiot who could only absorb historical material if it's diulted with creatures of the night. What they didn't realise, because they would never think to actually read the blurb of the book, is that Grahame-Smith managed to take the incredible life of one of history's most celebrated men and apply vampirism to it, tackling important issues like slavery, the Civil War, revenge and loss. It also took real life events and gave them a different and very interesting spin, the battle of Gettysburg, the death of Edgar Allen Poe. It wasn't cheap thrills, genre, b-movie lit, this was a well researched, intelligent epic that packed an emotional punch. Perfect for a film you might think.



The first name I heard attached to it was Tim Burton. Perfect director, I thought, a nice gothically, historical touch. Safe hands for something that is obviously a bit left field. Then it transpires that he was buying the rights along with Timur Bekmambetov, director of Day Watch, Night Watch and Wanted. Not quiet so appealing...the concern of style over substance ominously creeping over me.

So what do we get? An interesting Burton-esque oddity, cleverly taking us through the life of Lincoln, or a flashy, CGI-laden piece cherry-picking the showreel action sequences from the book, patchworking them together with exposition? The truth it's, ironically, it's a bit of a mash-up.

We meet Lincoln for the first time as a young lad during the obligatory scene-setting flashback (after a nicely polished Washington monument gradually going back in time), before you know it you've had a bit of slavery thrown in your face and a relative of his cops it at the hands of a set of fangs. Fast forward and we see Lincoln in his adult form (Benjamin Walker), he's still not happy with the murder of a loved one and is still hell bent on revenge. Dominic Cooper's Henry Sturgess pops up to help him and to help us with a bit of background as to how vampires have come to inhabit the USA. Crucially, the character of Sturgess also sums up the problem with the film. In the book he was comfortably one of the most interesting characters and really drove the narrative along. In the film, he is restricted to a paper thin element of the plot that doesn't really seem to serve that much purpose. His origins in the book were a vital part to the origins of vampires in the story and a huge influence over Lincoln's decisions on his career. In the film however, the backstory is limited to something much more formulaic, stunted and unfortunately predictable. This diluting has spread throughout the film, some of the more appealing elements have not made it on to the screen. Abe's political career gets next to no coverage, the Civil War becomes an excuse for an action scene, Slavery is touched upon before we are taken off on a rampaging chase scene. The 'issues' seem to be like a hot potato to Bekmambetov, he just can't seem to dwell on it long enough to make it count.

That little splurt of negativity isn't the whole story though, because there is plenty here to enjoy. Walker's casting is an interesting one, at first he comes across as far from prominent in the role but as the film pushes along it feels as though he really grows in to it. It could be argued that it's fine acting, it's not Walker that's growing, it's his character and his performance should be applauded. However, it could be that Walker is just like the film, inconsistent. He is supported nicely by Dominic Cooper and Mary Elizabeth Wanstead as the love interest and Rufus Sewell continues the fine British evil tradition with a nasty pantomime turn that looks alarmingly like a young Roger Daltrey.

If there is one thing Bekmambetov knows how to do, it's action. He pulls it off again here. It has his customary digital glean that doesn't smack of realism but it tick the box for entertainment, although it's nothing we've not really seen before. The train scene deserves praise in particular.

It also has moments of subtlety, which only make the cack-handedness found elsewhere all the more frustrating. The film isn't afraid off killing someone off and these moments do have an emotional touch to them. A nice scene on a Civil War battlefield has a quiet sombreness to it and Abe's death (not a spoiler, you all know what happens to him in the end) gets a curt nod with a wry smile. Nicely done.

So, a mixed bag, but worth a watch, probably on DVD in all honesty. Plus I can't help wondering whether had I not read the book I would have enjoyed it a lot more. It's a shame that you can't erase all prior knowledge and pre-conceptions from your noggin when you go into a cinema, the world would be a much better place with plenty more surprises.

WHATEVER WORKS (2009 - Cert 12A)

Larry David. Is there anyone in the world better suited to play the Woody Allen character in a Woody Allen film? If you've seen Curb Your Enthusiasm, you'll know that David's grumpy, narcissistic, say-whatever-is-on-your-mind approach is perfectly suited to a lot of Woody Allen's writing. It seemed to me that Allen was on to a winner here, he's found something he's been after for years. You'd think he would be shouting it from the rooftops, he's found his muse, marketing this film until he's blue in the face. Instead, it made very little impact, causing barely a ripple. Released after the much talked about Vicky Christina Barcelona, and before Midnight in Paris (which is apparently Woody Allen's return to form and his best film in years - people forget that they said the same thing about Vicky Christina Barcelona). I know Allen is prolific in his output but you would still think that a film starring one of the most championed comic minds in the land would spark some interest?

It's a very small film. By that I mean that Allen isn't trying to add a location as a character, as he has been tempted to do with the other two films mentioned above and many others. Instead it's set in New York. It's not particularly ambitious. It plays to David's strengths, as Boris Yelnikoff he is misanthropic, grumpy, he hates people, he's critical of everything and he's terrified of getting sick. What Allen lacks in imagination in character creation he makes up for with cracking dialogue. He calls people mindless zombies, cretins, imbeciles. They become catch phrases that elicit a chuckle every time they are muttered. There are some wonderful put downs and observations, classic Allen in many ways, to cite them here would do them a disservice. 

It pains me to say it as a huge Larry David fan, but the early part of the film is let down to an extent by him. Much of the opening is him speaking directly to us, breaking down the fourth wall, lengthy monologues. Unfortunately, and I say this with a heavy heart, he isn't that good an actor. In Curb he is mostly improvising, and you can tell that he is, he's smirking and thinking on the spot. It works in the context of the show. In Whatever Works, Woody Allen is giving him his words, and the delivery is forced and stilted. It isn't natural and I found it hard to get past that. His character's limp is even alarmingly inconsistent.

As the film progresses though this becomes less of a problem. Partly because I got used to it, it became part of the many eccentricities of the character, but mostly because the scope of the film opened up a bit and other characters are centred on much more. Evan Rachel Wood is the love interest from Mississippi, Patricia Clarkson and Ed Begley Jr as her parents, Superman-to-be Henry Cavill as someone competing with Boris for the girl. All are substantially better actors than David and, sensibly, Allen lets them all do their thing. Rachel Wood and Clarkson in particular stealing the show. The former playing the epitome of ditsy South Country, while the latter makes what on paper is a totally implausible character shift seem the most natural thing in the world, all while continuing to be funny and interesting. 

To explain how the plot and various relationships develop wouldn't really be fair, there is some joy to be had from seeing it unfold and implode. However, if you've seen a Woody Allen film, you'll already know that. 

It's saved by a very short running time, 87 minutes, you don't have time to get bored and take issue with problems with the film. It's perfectly enjoyable, the funny lines are in there, the crazy characters pop up and cause mayhem, it's all as you would expect from Allen. It also saves itself by wrapping it all up with a nice message and an explanation of what the title of the film means. That is what has stayed with me, not the gags, not the lines, not the characters, certainly not Larry David's acting, but that takes us back to what the film is about - different strokes for different folks. Someone out there will love this, my girlfriend certainly did. Whatever works.

ELECTION (1999 - Cert 15)

Film Four is always good for chucking a little nugget my way. And so it was again, when I came across Election, the film where it all started to go right for director Alexander Payne. A lot of praise has been heaped on him of late for The Descendants (and Oscars in fact, one for his writing credit and a couple of nominations for best director and best film). I must admit that I've not yet seen that film, but it was Sidways which really put Payne on the map for me. A real man's rom-com, with a sneery, self-deprecating quality, something that I'm told is a feature of all of his films (except perhaps Jurassic Park 3, for which he has a writing credit - invested factoid of the day). That is one of the main reasons why I approached Election with high hopes.

High hopes that were thankfully met.

In today's politically troubled times, don't be put off by the title, it's not the sort of democratic process that you might fear. Instead it centres on a campaign to become High School President in full-on suburban Omoha. Matthew Broderick is Jim McAllister, teacher of the year who is in charge of the whole process. A very young Reese Witherspoon is Tracy Flick, irritating class boffin, know-it-all, overly ambitious, self centred but yet still popular, and is also the only candidate for President. That is until McAllister decides to get involved, and to teach Tracy a bit of a lesson, and convinces polite, popular and frankly dim, football hero Paul Metzler (Chris Klein - yes, Oz from American Pie) to run against her. You don't need to be a post-graduate in genre convention to know that things don't turn out quite how everyone would expect.

The high school election thing, particular to us reserved Brits, is a strange idea, and the oddness and unfamiliarity does serve well when it comes to comedy, but it has to be said that the plot isn't really the driving force of why the film works so well. It serves as a traffic policeman trying to keep erratic drivers in revved-up and unreliable vehicles on the straight and narrow. The drivers and cars in this case being the characters and the writing. Payne is mischievous in how he structures the film. It veers this way and that, you are never really sure who the narrative is fully focused on, therefore you never really know who you are meant to be behind. He also serves up some nutty, unpredictable and odd personas up on screen. The casting of Broderick is a master stroke. He still looks stupidly young (he would have been mid-late 30's at the time of this film), and you can still see him as Ferris causing chaos. Here though he is the institution, he is the bad guy. He's no Rooney though, there is still a cheeky rebellious side to his character, without it there wouldn't be an opposition to Tracy and the film wouldn't go anywhere. What you are effectively left with is Mr Bueller, this is what may have happened to Ferris (in fact this may make a superb double bill with Ferris). I've never been overly convinced by Broderick in the acting stakes but he is very good in this. Even when things start to go really wrong for his character, at home as well as at school, he proves that he is able to do the emotion as well as the cheeky, spritely joviality. 

Witherspoon is a strange one. Somehow, I really like her, yet when I look at her filmography, I realise that she hasn't really done anything that I really like, nothing that I consider much good anyway. Walk the Line I hear you say, yes she was decent in it, but it was predictably generic and that lessened her role. Water for Elephants? Ok, again, she was decent, but the film is instantly forgettable. So why do I like her? That question doesn't matter any more, because I have found a reason - Election. Despite her character being so nasty and irritating, she does it in an over the top and funny way, you can't help but like her even though you know that this character should be despised. Part of the appeal is that she isn't afraid to make herself look stupid, she's an attractive girl, but she will happily make stupid faces, chuck herself about and gurn until the cows come home. It's a performance that worked and got her noticed, she received a Golden Globe Nomination. It clearly helped set her on the path she is firmly on now.  

Witherspoon and Broderick are backed up nicely by Klein (doing the same thing he did in American Pie, safe and steady), Jessica Campbell as Metzler's vengeful and possibly lesbian sister Tammy, Phil Reeves doing the headmaster thing very well and Mark Harelik as McAllister's disgraced friend and former colleague. All of them, chipping in very well with humour, twisted bitterness and occasional oddities. 

Payne really gets the best out of his cast, but it's also helped by the skilled writing (he was nominated at the Oscars for best adapted screenplay). The snappy dialogue, internal monologues and voiceovers all all perfectly pitched, the laughs keep coming and the story zips along nicely. Diablo Cody is getting a lot of plaudits for her screenplay style in recent years, but it seems to me that Payne was doing it a long time before she ever was, and arguably, much better. 

If you've not seen it, it may be that this film passes you by, lost in the limbo of late night showings on Channel 4. Don't let it, seek it out, it's well worth it. 

CABIN IN THE WOODS (2011 - Cert 15)

I don't really know what to write about this film.

Luckily for me, the first thing I read about Cabin in the Woods warned me to go in completely unprepared, to have any knowledge of the plot would lessen the impact, ruin the surprise. It's like Christmas, that odd shaped present under the tree, you are dying to know what it is, you peel back the corner of the wrapping paper and have a sneak peak. You're chuffed when you find out what it is, it's what you wanted in your letter to the big man, but when it comes to Christmas morning, you go through the motions, you smile in the way you are expected to, the emotion is removed.

The week before the release of the Cabin in the Woods, I came across an article on the BBC website posing the question, 'Do Trailers Reveal Too Much'. As it's a subject I also feel very strongly about I started to read, only to discover that it started to go into the plot of Cabin in the Woods. I darted away from my desk, asking a colleague to close down my browser. Phew, that was a close one.

As I sat in my cinema seat on a chilly Monday night, waiting for the film to start, I realised how excited I was. I couldn't remember the last time I had gone to see a film I knew nothing about, I had not preconceptions, I hadn't seen the best bits in a trailer, I hadn't been drip fed images of the film from the marketing department and I hadn't had to endure the stars doing press releases about what their character has to endure. What's all the more impressive is that the hype of the film had been created by the very idea that it was best to not know anything about it. I suppose it's too much to ask the entire film industry to take note of that fact.

Anyway, as I said, I don't know what to write, I'm going to be very careful, I want to give absolutely nothing away (unlike a number of reviewers in the written press over the last week or so). I'm even taking the unprecedented step (for The Orca) of not including a trailer in the post.

Essentially the title gives away all that you need to know. It's about a Cabin in the Woods. That, to anyone who has watched a horror film in the last 40 years, should be enough to at least give an indication of what this is all about.

However, a collaboration between Joss Wheddon (Buffy, Angel and Serenity among his writing credits) and Drew Goddard (writer of Cloverfield and episodes of Lost) is unlikely to play by the rule book. What follows is pure enjoyment, a roller coaster ride that never lets up, but one that manages to take time to comment on the genre and what makes us watch horror films. It's funny, it's gory, its at times scary, and very importantly, it's clever. It the new generation's Scream.

I don't really want to tell you much more. I suppose I can touch on the cast, the stand out name is Chris Hemsworth (who with this and Thor, is becoming a bit of a guilty pleasure of mine), he is decently supported by Anna Hutchison, Jesse Williams, Fran Kranz and Kristen Connolly. No one is going to get an Oscar here, but it's what you would expect, the most important thing is that none of them are annoying.

Right, that really is your lot. All that remains to be said is that I urge you to go and see this. Yes, it may well be a bit of a marmite film, and I certainly wouldn't take your gran to see it, but you really should give it a go. The most important thing though is to approach it as I did, resist the urge to watch the trailer on Youtube, don't start reading a review in Time Out, don't even let your mates who have seen it tell you about it. Just go an see it, put your seat belt on and give yourself over to it. Don't resist it and you will love it.

CHRONICLE (2012 - Cert 12A)

Do you remember that first episode of Heroes? When we first meet Clare the cheerleader? Seen from a distance via a handheld camera she jumps from a great height and lands with a dull thud, only to get up straight away, crack her bones back into place and walk away seemingly unharmed. Remember that? Well Josh Trank and Max Landis, the director and screenwriter of Chronicle, clearly do, because their film is essentially an extension of that short scene (complete with the found footage premise - more on that later), while also asking what may have happened had Peter Parker been a stroppy teenager. 'With great power comes great responsibility'. What if that power falls into the hands of someone totally irresponsible?



Three high school mates (1 geek/social recluse, 1 class heartthrob/school president and 1 normal bloke) take a break from a barn rave and find a meteor in a hole in the ground. After the encounter they discover that they all have the power of telekineses (if you're not sure what that is, there is a handy explanation/blatant plot exposition in the film). As they begin learning how to use their powers it's all fun and games, messing about in the garden and playing practical jokes. It can't stay like that forever though, the dynamic in the relationships shift and it plays out like an angsty teenage drama. Only with teenagers that can move cars just with a thought.

I didn't go in with particularly great expectations, it's a rubbish name, the trailer did make it all look a bit silly. And I had reservations about the found footage thing, surely time has been called on that for the moment. Perhaps it was those relatively low expectations, but I came out surprised at just how much I enjoyed it.

It's not nearly as fluffy as the trailer and 12A certificate would suggest. It starts with the suggestion of one of the characters being abused by his father, a mother spends much of the film on her deathbed, this isn't light viewing. As the character's powers ramp up a bit, the film continues to get darker, violence is not remotely cartoony, people don't just get up after a punch, they bleed and stay down. The characters are interesting, fully fleshed out and well acted (Dane DeHaan, Alex Russell and Michael B Jordan (I wonder why he felt the need to add the middle initial...)). Despite the inevitable cliche or two and the occasional clunky dialogue usually associated with this type of film they never irritate or grate. In fact, it's quite the opposite, they all have a certain charm, particular in the light hearted section where they test out their abilities, they are genuinely funny. Once the barrier of character likeability has been broken down, the battle has been mostly won. Remember how irritating the opening scene of Cloverfield was? The smug personifications of contrivance walking around a loft party? That, thankfully, does not apply here.

It's far from original though. It clearly rifts, references and relies on a whole host of films, TV shows, comics and video games - X-Men First Class, Smallville, InFamous and Heroes to name some. I think that the makers of the film believe that their USP is the handheld cam/found footage device. However, as we have seen in recent years it's a tool that's powers are really on the wane, unless you do something really interesting with it (like with Trollhunter), it feels tired and worn. If you are going to use that device then you also need to really believe in it, and it struck me that Trank and Landis didn't. They deviate from it in two ways, firstly (I'll come on to the second later) by utilising a female character and her social media video blog to give a second 'eye view'. Unfortunately for Chronicle it is even more of an obstacle in suspension of disbelief than the usual irritant of the person behind the camera trying to justify why they won't turn the camera off - 'I've got to document this dude'. It created an immediate barrier between me and the content. I couldn't help but roll my eyes, and then it started to lose me.

Having said that, it didn't lose me for long. As we reach the climax the tone gets darker and darker and it is far from predictable. When it paused I was pleased to see that I really was on edge and eager to know where it was going.

Well I'll tell you where it went in the end.

For those of you that watched the first series of Heroes, do you remember how it had you all the way through, cliffhanger after cliffhanger, twists and turns, all the while hinting at and alluding to a climax of huge proportions, a face off between good and evil, a coming together of all of the powers that each episode cleverly unravelled and brought to the fore? Then you reached the end, and although it was good, it was gripping, and it did work, you couldn't help but wonder where the fizz, bang and wallop was. Well it was clearly put in the loft to be saved for when Chronicle would be made. Wallop indeed. This is also where the camera footage idea shifts again, all be it slightly and less disastrously. Wisely, the film-makers realised that showing what they wanted to show on one handheld camera was going to be a stretch and, frankly, a bit silly, so there is a collection of CCTV, news coverage and in police-car camera footage. It all works very well actually. Watching what you're seeing in silent CCTV is impressive to see and manages to have much more impact than you would imagine. Impressively, the film also has the conviction to keep the momentum of it's increasing darkness all the way to the end.

All in all, a much better film than I expected. An interesting, well executed (aside from a couple of gripes), exciting companion piece to the flood of big budget, glossy and daft superhero films streaming out of the studios.

Ideal for a double bill with X-Men: First Class.

THE HANGOVER: PART 2 (2011 - Cert 15)

The one thing that offends me most about The Hangover: Part 2 is the title. Not the whole thing (I am partial to a hangover myself occasionally), just the Part 2 aspect. Almost as if Todd Phillips really believes that this is something more than it is, a larger, epic story arc that this movie is just a fraction of. The Godfather this ain't.



Before wading in here, I've got to say that I enjoyed the first film. It was funny, with funny characters, particularly Stu and Alan (Ed Helm and Zach Galifianakis), and as a massive fan of Las Vegas, I've got a bit of a soft spot for it. Admitedly, further viewings of the film have seen my enthusiasm and patience start to wane but all in all, it was a good comedy. I felt the need to qualify that because I wouldn't want my hatred of the second instalment to be misconstrued as a sense of humour failure.

The real problem with Part 2 is that it just isn't funny. I did not laugh once. Not even smiled. Fundamentally this is a problem for what is billed as a comedy. The same formula of the first film is applied to a different location, Bangkok. Phillips clearly thought that losing the same character, but somewhere else would be a stretch too far so instead we lose Stu's soon to be brother in law a couple of days before the wedding. The same three chaps wake up, Stu, Alan and Bradley Cooper's Phil, in a bad hotel room in Bangkok and have to put the pieces together.While the wake up scene in the first film was funny, unexpected and felt a little fresh, on this occasion we know it's coming and it feels immediately tired. We have all seen pictures of the face tattoo, it's on the poster, in fact there was even stuff in the press about Mike Tyson suing because of it (well done publicity department). So a joke that may have caught us off guard, has instead been bled to death before the film has even started.

And that's the problem with the whole film. The same jokes are used again, Todd Phillips and his 'writing' team, believing that the fact that we know what's coming next will be funnier than actual jokes. The baby is replaced by a drug dealing monkey (yes, I know, on paper it sounds funny but I assure you that the reality is not. In fact, the spying monkey in the first Indy film beats him hands down). Mr Chow (Ken Jeong) is back again through arguably the most tenuous plot line ever conceived, Stu's taste for ladies of the night (not vampires) crops up again, as does a Mike Tyson cameo.

The writers then seem to lose even more confidence in their ability to write a good joke and send us on a nonsensical action plot where Paul Giamatti turns up to collect some cash and leave me wondering what on earth he is up to. Car chases, gun fights, double crossing all take place, relentlessly smashing me in the face to the point where I was left feeling completely numb.

I can't even be bothered anymore to continue to tell you how awful The Hangover: Part 2 is. It's not funny, it's not entertaining, it's not a patch on the first film and it stinks of a sequel made solely with cash registers in mind. Having said that, if that was the aim, it's succeeded. And then some. Hollywood is after all a business and this film has taken £34 million (the 5th most this year) at the UK box office alone, despite it suffering awful reviews and being terrible. The truth is that because of the success and widespread enjoyment of the first film, the second film was always going to rake the cash in, it just would have been nice if someone actually paused and considered making something good.

During his recent press appearances for the DVD release of the film, Bradley Cooper has said that a third is on the way, and, hold the front page, it may have a new structure. What that deviation entails has yet to be seen, but it could be a bold move, and if they bother to write some jokes, it could make amends for this monstrosity. It could of course just be shite as well.

MY WEEK WITH MARILYN (2011 - Cert 15)

I blame Judy Garland. It's all her fault.

Let me explain. Five days before my first trip to the flicks in a while (to see Marilyn) I went to Richmond Theatre to see a play that had done the rounds all over the country and a stint in the West End. It was called End of the Rainbow and shared a few similarities with My Week With Marilyn, the main ones being that they both attempted to show us a different perspective on a top female icon of the last century (Rainbow being Judy Garland and Marilyn obviously being Marilyn Monroe). Both were also set in London, chronicling a small portion of their lives as they hit the UK for work (a run of concerts and a film respectively).



Before I turn this into a theatre blog though, I must first concentrate on Marilyn and why it simply didn't work for me. I think I can boil it down to one problem, boring characters. Quite a big problem and I know what you're saying, Marilyn Monroe, how can she and the the film possibly possibly be boring? I don't think it can be blamed on the actors, Michelle Williams in the case of Marilyn herself. She certainly looked the part and sounded the part. She even moved like her, she clearly must have studied a lot of footage of Monroe as it looked very authentic. However, because the character is written without any depth whatsoever, it becomes a very flat impersonation more than anything else. We are meant to think that Monroe is insecure, delicate, misunderstood, a tortured genius. This is portrayed by us enduring what are effectively bloopers on set as she struggles with her lines without the help of a touchy feel director. Then with the kind words from fellow actors she perks up a bit. That's it. That's what the writer (Adrian Hodges) thinks counts as characterisation. Perhaps it's to be expected from a writer of Primeval. He has managed to turn a 20th century icon, a goddess into a dull, boring, woman. Then there is the other main character, the 'My' of the title, Colin Clark (played by Eddie Redmayne). Again, perfectly decent performance but the character just wasn't interesting. Much of the film is him in rooms, being told useful information by other characters, without any real explanation as to why a third assistant director on the film (effectively a tea maker) has become everyone's confidant. It doesn't feel as though he is pushing his own narrative, he is a passenger in the whole piece, but he really should be a driver. It makes his character feel bland. This consequently meant that the relationship between he and Marilyn just didn't resonate with me, it didn't work, and most importantly, I didn't believe it. There was constantly a sense that they might not both live happily ever after together, but I ultimately didn't actually care.

The two dimensional nature continues elsewhere. A whole host of good actors, Judi Dench, Emma Watson, Dominic Cooper, Toby Jones, Dougray Scott, Derek Jacobi, even my mums friend Karl Moffatt (yes, I am name dropping) try their hardest with very limited material, all figures that don't feel essential to the story, more incidental and an excuse to get another big name in there on the cast list. Only Kenneth Branagh as Laurence Olivier comes out with any real credit and satisfactory screen time.

Another problem is that it's simply too nice, too polished, not daring enough. Monroe's drug problem is shown by jars of pills by the bed, arguments are muted with lots of arm waving, no real histrionics. It feels middle of the road, lacking any punch whatsoever. Like David Haye brushing you across the face with a small bean bag. You expect more, you want more, it just doesn't deliver.

So what did Judy Garland do wrong? Nothing, quite the opposite, but that's the problem. Because Rainbow was so good, I think she may have contributed to ruining My Week With Marilyn. Admittedly the subject matter of Rainbow is a little darker in tone (it builds up to Garland's premature death at the age of 47) but it was much more subtle in it's portrayal of a fragile star, much more affecting and so much more interesting. Had I not seen End of the Rainbow, or had it not been quite so good, perhaps I would have enjoyed Marilyn more, because it's not a terrible film, I've seen far worse, it's perfectly ok, a fluffy, good looking, mildly amusing way to pass an hour and a half. Unfortunately though, it's nothing more than that.

CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER (2011 - Cert 12A)

With The Avengers project Marvel Studios really seems to have got the knack of the Superhero genre. It's found it's place, it's voice. It's the perfect compliment to the art house film sensibility that Christopher Nolan's Batman films have created. While Nolan seeks to arguably stimulate first and entertain second, with Iron Man (not so much Iron Man 2) and Thor, Marvel's Louis D'Esposito leaves us in doubt as to what his sole aim is. Glossy Friday/Saturday night blockbuster entertainment. The films that The Fantastic Four yearned to be. Fun, exciting with a nice solid emotional foundation.




The pitch perfect series continues with Joe Johnston's (Jurassic Park 3, Jumanji) Captain America. It's the usual brand of comic book nonsense, although this time it's USP is that it's set during WW2. A digitally reduced (in size, not there ladies) Chris Evans plays Steve Rogers, a weedy American kid who is desperate to fight in the War, only to be refused because he's not fit enough, and he's, well, tiny. A sinister German doctor picks him for a special project by the US Army, to create the ultimate soldier (not Universal Soldier Van Damme fans). The lesson here of course is that a real hero is not necessarily the strongest man out there, but the most determined, the bravest. It clearly lacks the depth in theme of The Dark Knight and even Rami's Spiderman films but it's done in such a way that it doesn't feel laboured, it just works. Pitch perfect once again you see.

Despite the period setting, Hitler is not the bad guy. This isn't Tarantino after all, it's a Superhero film. Instead we have a rogue wing of the Nazi party led by Hugo Weaving's Johann Schmidt (Weaving evoking the nastiness and pantomime villain-ness of his agent in the Matrix), AKA The Red Skull, intent on winning the war and ruling the world, aided by Toby Jones' brilliant scientist. Yes I know what you're thinking, this is quite a cast, with some proper thespians. It doesn't stop there either, Tommy Lee Jones does his thing as Colonel Chester Philips, Hayley Atwell as the love interest, Dominic Cooper as Howard Stark. A lot must be said about these big names adding a good deal of gravitas to the piece, but they aren't just turning up, saying some lines and taking their cash. They all put in good performances, the bad guys have the most fun but Atwell manages to avoid being annoying which is no mean feat in these films where women tend to be there for eye candy and plot development. All in all, good stuff from the cast lifting it above other special effects laden drivel.

I use the word laden, although that is harsh. There are obviously effects there, and when they pop up they are impressive, but it doesn't feel heavy on the CGI. In fact, brace yourself, the effects seem to be used for the benefit of the film and not just for the sake of it. The most impressive use is in the downsizing of Evans for the puny Steve Rogers. It's certainly very impressive and not at all distracting, which is an achievement in itself. If there is a criticism to be had of the action and effects is that it takes a hell of a lot (no pun intended) from the two Hellboy films, metal machinery that has an almost supernatural and magical quality.

It's a clever film as well, a 15 minute chunk of which explores the role that propaganda plays in a war and what it really means to be a hero. For example, can good be done fighting the war at home. It's a lot more thought provoking than you expect and it did catch me off guard. In a good way, like eating a posh kebab. It has an unexpected quality. There is also a lot of joy to be had in experiencing this film as part of a bigger picture, a cinema universe created by Marvel studios. We know that it's working towards a grand stand finish, there's plenty of in jokes such as seeing Tony Stark's (Iron Man) dad making his name as the weapon developer that we only hear about in the Iron Man films, we wait for Sam L Jackson's one-eyed Nick Fury to turn up and we wait to see how on earth Captain America ends up in the present day (spoiler alert - tenuously).

Captain America feels like a continuation of the other films, which is as it should be. This is not really a sequel and it's certainly not a completely stand alone film. This is shaping up to be one of those rare breeds, something that can be released as a box set and feel as though that's how it's meant to be. Apart from Hulk staring Edward Norton, we'll forget about that one.

Roll on next summer. Bring on The Avengers.

Oh and if you're wondering, It's probably my favourite of the Avengers films so far. It goes in this order:

1. Captain America
2. Iron Man
3. Thor
4. Iron Man 2
5. Hulk

THE TROLL HUNTER (2010 - Cert 15)

I recently went to see Apollo 18 and in my review I was quick to pronounce the 'found footage' film dead. Although I did lay down the caveat, unless the makers of a film manage to do something new or interesting with the formula. And Norwegian André Øvredal has managed it with The Troll Hunter.

It all starts off as you would expect, a message on the screen introducing the film, explaining that tapes were found containing a whole load of footage and the following is what was cut from all of that celluloid. So far so seen all before. What follows that message is not at all what I would have expected, much more than I had hoped for (and from the trailer my hopes were high) and it all left me wanting more. Much much more. In a very, very good way.

We start off following three students who are trailing Hans, who they think is a bear hunter (played by Otto Jespersen). He has become a bit of a mystery in local circles, he travels in a caravan and is kitted out with a load of gear that all seems to be a bit heavy handed, even for bear hunting. Interview attempts are refused gruffly, they wait bored as he sleeps by day and heads out on the road at night. That is until one night they head deep in to the Norwegian forests and get caught up in an exchange between Hans and the creatures he's really hunting. Trolls. Yes, Trolls. 


The whole film is played with a completely straight face. Any disbelief that trolls really exist is quickly disposed of, as everyone accepts that this is a monster that we have to live with. There is a Troll Security Service, a shadowy FBI like division that is tasked with keeping them away from populated areas. The Troll Hunter Hans talks of myths (or what we think of as myths) as scientific fact, for example he talks of rapid calcification rather than turning to stone. It's this serious take on what is all grounded in fairy tale stories that bring the laughs, deadpan delivery of such stupid lines can't fail but bring a tickle. Then you have the trolls themselves. They look great, a few quid has clearly been spent on the effects (a budget of £3m is reported) and the film makers are proud of them. This isn't Jaws with only fleeting glimpses of what's involved, we see the monsters in all their glory very early on. There is no disputing that there is a cartoony quality to their appearance, and once again, when this is up against a tone that is so serious without any nods or winks to camera, it is genuinely both fun and funny. 


It isn't all fun and games though, there are some genuinely scary moments. As you might expect there are plenty of jumps (easy to pull of on the handheld camera), but the scenes where the trolls are on the rampage are really exciting. They are massive hulking creatures and we are with the little people and their handheld camera. There is an impressive scale to it all. There are also one or two unexpected moments of unsettling violence (that you don't necessarily see, you actually hear) that do catch you off guard. Just when you get the sense that this is a fun, friendly romp, a bit of death and destruction comes along and makes you think twice about where the film is going. It just doesn't let you settle.


Otto Jespersen really deserves a hell of a lot of credit. He is really the only person on screen for any proper length of time, and the whole thing hangs on his performance. He nails the Quint-like character and then some. He gets all the best lines, never smiles and gets to be a bit of a hero at the end. If he didn't get it so right, the film would have fallen over very seriously. 


The Troll Hunter is an absolute blast, it ticks all of the boxes, fun, funny, scary, it really puts you through the mixer. Its probably summed up best by it's last 5 minutes, going from barnstorming heroics, to sombre conclusion but then still finding the time to tack on some explaining at the end containing the biggest laugh of the lot.


The found footage film can live on, especially if André Øvredal has anything to do with it.

BATTLE LOS ANGELES (2011 - Cert 12a)

With titles such as LA Noire, Heavy Rain, Grand Theft Auto 4 and the Uncharted series, the video game industry is pushing the boundaries of what that particular medium is capable of. The games are now extremely cinematic in their outlook and development, they have fully developed narratives, rounded characters with depth and emotion, in other words your actions, as the gamer, have consequences. It's come a long way since Pong. With the incredible sums of money generated by the games developers and distributors, many people have commented that it has the potential to even become the new cinema. So while people who make the games are striving to improve plots, hiring well known screenwriters, actors and directors, cinema needs to do something to stop the supposed shift from popcorn to the joypad.

Battle Los Angeles appears to think that cinema should do the same thing in reverse. While games aspire to be cinematic, Jonathan Liebesman wants cinema to be emulate the formula that have made games so successful.



This isn't a gripe at the overuse of CGI. Yes, there is a lot of computer generated effects in the film, but that's the way things are now. It's a film about massive alien spacecrafts attacking the earth, you expect these to be created with a few clicks of a mouse. In fact, the effects are very impressive, possibly some of the best I've seen, all for a relatively modest budget of £70m.

No, my complaint is that the film seems to have been structured just like a video game. It's as if someone applied tracing paper over the game blueprint and completely copied. Action, dialogue, action, dialogue, action, dialogue. I appreciate that this is the general state of big budget blockbusters, that's no different from Transformers, Indy or Pirates, but it's the quality and purpose of the dialogue between bangs that is the problem. It's there solely to introduce the next piece of action, setting up the next mission or level. If anyone has played a video game, like Tomb Raider for example, you will know that in between stages there is a 'cut scene', which basically comprises of poor acting, a number of cliches, all culminating in a 'now we need to go and get this thing and put it in that thing'. End of cut scene, off you go. That is exactly what Battle Los Angeles is like, but with cranked up cliche. Characterisation is kept to a minimum, instead the marines are lifted from any story involving marines we've ever seen. Aaron Eckhart, the lead (looking bemused as to why exactly he is doing this (money of course)), has a back story involving Iraq and losing a team of soldiers, blah, blah, blah, do we think he might reprieve himself and exorcise those ghosts? This collection of marines also appears to be the most annoying set that could have been found or created. A number of 'not really knowns' struggle with Christopher Bertolini's useless script. The grunts from Aliens this is not. It's gratingly irritating, formulaic, exposition, nonsense that serves only to get in the way of the alien bashing, which is another facet that looks at (and steals from) video games.

When our marines first encounter them, they are sneaking through claustrophobic LA streets, darting in and out of houses, the camera leaping about from one point of view to another. Yes, just like a First Person Shooter but with photography that could have been lifted from The Hurt Locker of the Green Zone. Liebesman has clearly been playing Call of Duty or Resistance, because he has served up as FPS film. At first it's quite exhilarating and tense, there is something quite interesting about an alien shoot out that feels and looks like an Iraqi war film, but set in the States, but it all wears very thin, very quickly. You play video games to feel involved, watching Battle Los Angeles is like sitting their watching someone else play a game that you have no interest in. It's boring. What is also unforgivable is that at first the aliens seem to need hundreds of bullets to kill them, then our heroes discover what part of the body is weakest. Once that happens, only a couple of bullets are required to dispatch, no matter how far away the shooters are. The menace completely vanishes and the aliens become an annoying part of the scenery.

Does it do anything well? I did like the fact that there was no story set up with the aliens before it all kicks off. It is very much filmed from the view of the marines, and they are thrown straight into it without any warning or real intelligence. I presume that is true to many of the missions that they undertake, they wouldn't be party to all of the facts. Unfortunately, Liebesman and the script don't have the conviction to carry on with this, instead the reason for the invasion is speculated on in television and radio reports, completely falling out of sync with the rest of the film. It simply doesn't fit. It smacks of film makers patronising the audience, presuming that we would not be able to cope without some sort of background.

I had looked forward to this, I love a monster film, I love a big budget popcorn churner, it looked like it might be an interestingly gritty glimpse at a war that human kind could really lose. Instead, it's a shallow bore of a film without any emotion at all, very rarely excites and never engages.

THE INBETWEENERS MOVIE (2011 - Cert 15)

I must admit that when this project was first announced it didn't excite me. Don't get me wrong, I'm a massive fan of the television series (if you haven't seen it by now, you really must pull your finger out) and it's accurate observations of being a teenage boy inter-spliced with gross out humour that never fails to shock and bring laughs, but a film version? Really? We've been here before, On The Buses and Kevin and Perry Go Large are British examples, the disappointing X-Files film is another that springs to mind, where something has been lost in translation to the big screen. Sitcoms work in brilliant 25 - 30 minute bursts, they aren't baggy, the story lines have to be concise and the writers can focus on the laughs. Treble or quadruple the length and all of sudden everything becomes bogged down with plot and concept and it loses balance. I feared for The Inbetweeners.

Then I saw the trailer. Ordinarily for a comedy, they try and pack the best jokes into the preview, if that was the case with The Inbetweeners then we were in a lot of trouble. If that was the best that the four chaps could muster then a baggy plot is the least of our worries, it just wasn't going to be funny. That trailer and my reservations meant that I had firmly decided that The Inbetweeners was one where I would be waiting for DVD, I've only got so much free time to get to the flicks (jobs eh?).



Then word began to spread and money began to be spent. I didn't hear a bad word said about it, from both critics and the man and woman on the street, it was top of the UK Box Office for four consecutive weeks, raking in almost £40m in that period. That's more than The Hangover 2 and the fourth Pirates film. Third biggest film in the UK this year, behind the final Harry Potter and The King's Speech. Whether it's good or not, that is a remarkable achievement for something that started life as a little know sitcom on E4.

So I gave in and went to see whether it was worth all the fuss. And I have to say that it is.

The film sees boys finish sixth form and Simon dumped by his sweetheart Carly. Surely the only way to get over her is to go to on holiday with the boys? The almost formulaic decision to move the setting to a trip to Malia brought groans of derision and only increased my reservations, but it must be said that it was an inspired choice. It's a rite of passage for us growing up, it's part of our quest for independence. And all boys holidays bring about funny stories....

The best way to sum it up is that it really is just like the television programme. What would you expect, the writers and usual director all being retained. As a result it never really feels cinematic, apart from an opening short that goes from the sky into Simon's bedroom. That never really matters though as the sentiment behind it has not been lost, the edgy gross out humour is there, the foul mouths are there and the awkward comedy that us Brits are now famous is present and correct. Most importantly it is funny. The jokes in the trailer that I didn't think worked, were now funny, put them in a context and you have laughs. The big set piece scenes fit nicely, although never really living up to those key moments from the TV series. The characters are as we remember them, Neil dim-witted and enthusiastic, Simon is the usual wet lettuce and overly eager to please, Jay continues to talk the finest vintage BS that you could imagine and our narrator Will still exasperates as to how he ended up in all of this, despite the fact that he secretly loves it. Many people have commented on just how perfectly The Inbetweeners encapsulates what it's like to be a teenage boy, but as a bloke who has done these holidays, it's incredible just how authentic some of it feels. The roles of PR's getting us into clubs, the matching t-shirts, the transfer from the airport, the hotel lottery, being stuck at a family pool, it's all perfectly observed and much of my enjoyment of the film must be put down to how it all reminded me of a time long gone by.

As the outpouring of word of mouth and positive reviews have turned into a tidal wave, people have started to claim that the film is our answer to American Pie, and I've got to say that I think just doesn't really give it the compliment it deserves. The Inbetweeners has a but more of a soft side than it's American comparison and the numerous sequels and imitators. There are some really nice moments in it, as the boys go from arguing and making up, that really are quite sweet. I particularly liked an exchange between Neil and Will, the posh one asking rhetorically what the point of it all is, only to receive an unexpected answer that was just what the doctor ordered. There is nothing like teenage boys making up, all grunts and limp handshakes.

It's not just about the four chaps though is it? It's about their hormonal hunt for women. And it's the women, the group of four girls that are the object of the boys' affections, that did irritate me a little. Not that there is anything wrong with their performances, Laura Haddock, Tamla Kari, Jessica Knappet and  Lydia Rose Bewley all doing a decent job, but what doesn't work is that they are all clearly out of the chaps' league. There is just no reason why the girls would be susceptible to the advances, particularly when all the boys do is offend or act like the chocolate teapots that they are. I know that The Inbetweeners isn't completely grounded in reality, but the girls are completely out of sync with the caricatures that the majority of the characters are.

Despite all of that, come the end of the film when everyone lives happily ever after, that is all forgotten and I was completely sold on the lessons that the boys had learnt, which I think is down to the brilliance of the creations of Will, Simon, Jay and Neil. There is a history there, 3 series before the film, we know those characters and we've been through a lot with them, it's that affection that carries the film through the occasional stretches without any chuckles and had me forgiving any misjudgments.

It's not perfect, but it's yet another great look into the trials and tribulations of being a teenage boy in the world of fishbowls, boat parties and sex on the beach. It's nowhere near as bad as I thought it would be, in fact it was far better than I feared, with a very unexpected sensitiveness to it. Traces of a couple of very tiny, barely noticeable, tears were not what I was anticipating.

APOLLO 18 (2011 - Cert 15)

Right then, here we go again. It's found footage time once more, although this one does have the nice and clever tagline of 'There's a reason we've never gone back to the moon'. It also has the benefit of being set in space, the isolation of being nearly 240,000 miles from home and the claustrophobia of space suits and cramped space vessels. When you think about the fears that can be played and preyed upon with just those premises alone, I'm surprised that we haven't been here sooner.



The set up is the same as with all of these films - the following footage was posted on lunartruth.com, blah, blah, blah. Three men on a top secret trip to the moon, during the Cold War era, to see what the Russians are up to with their own space programme. The film is made up of a combination of handheld cameras and cameras inside the spacecraft, and it all follows their trip up into Space and onto the moon. Little glimpses of the characters are attempted but it all falls flat and quickly falls into the cliche category. But that doesn't matter really does it? The reason we watch these films are for when it all goes tits up, we want the scares, the jumps.

We don't have to wait long for things to get a little bit creepy, although you do have to wait a while for the scares. In fact, I'm still waiting. Through the Russian angle of the plot, our astronauts (well two of them, one is left orbiting the moon in the main craft) hit the surface to set up surveillance equipment so they can monitor the Commies to their heart's content, and it's while they're wandering around that we have to sit through the now usual slow build up of 'occurrences'. What's that in the background? Why is that on the moon? What does that mean? It does admittedly have an air of mystery, but without a real creep factor (like with Blair Witch for example), it is all grows a little tedious very quickly.

Then the proverbial hits the fan. There is a nugget of an interesting and original idea in the actual threat, somewhere in there, but it's executed in a way that we have seen many times before, you can go through the sci-fi horror checklist, many elements of Alien and Event Horizon sticking out the most. In fact, the video game Dead Space, whose success was so reliant on it's nods towards the genre and it's conventions without any real originality, seems as though it contributed one or two ideas here. There are a couple of jumpy moments, which don't really take much to pull off these days, especially with a dark room and a handheld camera, but you can see them coming a mile off. Even with the nice tension-building touch of one of the astronauts being in a pitch black crater with only the use of a camera flash for intermittent moments of light, you know it's coming and it takes the edge away from it.

There is a conspiracy plot in there as well which doesn't fit, and trying to explain something like that in a film that is meant to be tacked together with blocks of footage feels contrived and out of place. The acting by the cast of unknowns is efficient at best, I was never entirely convinced of the characters and because of the format the terror isn't something that is really conveyed through facial expressions and delivery of dialogue, it's more screams in space helmets. They do a fairly average job with what they are given.

As it builds towards the finale I was anticipating a big pay off, the mystery coming together and leaving something with me as the credits roll, just like Blair Witch and the fella standing in the corner, but it never really gets there. This flat ending is pretty much synonymous with the rest of film. It's all made pretty well, it looks polished but for a budget of £5m for this type of film you would expect that. Perhaps the best way to sum it up is to go back to the Russians, more precisely, Russian Dolls - there are a number of layers to the film, all look and seem decent enough and nicely made, but ultimately at the centre of it all, it's empty and not at all satisfying.

Found footage films aren't dead (check out The Troll Hunter), but if film makers aren't going to do anything new or interesting with the idea, then don't bother.