Rating: MMMMM

Director: Edgar Wright
Starring: Michael Cera, Kieran Culkin, Chris Evans, Mary Elizabeth Winstead
Running time: 112 mins
Cert: 12A

Last night I was lucky enough to get into a free preview screening of Scott Pilgrim Vs. the World, the new film from director Edgar Wright, who also co-wrote the screenplay of this comic book adaptation. That’s Edgar ‘Spaced’ Wright. Edgar Shaun of the Dead Wright. Edgar Hot Fuzz Wright.

So those were my reasons for being OH SO VERY excited about seeing this movie – I hadn’t read the comic book or kept up with the pre-production gossip online, instead I’ve just spent a couple of months treasuring the lovely warm prospect of a new Wright film, and hoping that makes me laugh halfway as much as his previous collaborations with the glorious Pegg and Frost team. As I’m still utterly buzzing 12 hours after watching it, any fans worried that the hop across the pond may have meant a move away from the quirky, charmingly silly humour his previous British comedies were characterised by- well they can just start getting ridiculously excited instead.

As you’d expect from the trailer, we follow Scott Pilgrim in each of his visually awesome battles with the seven demented exes. Afterwards, we all agreed that Michael Cera was absolutely the perfect match for Scott’s dialogue, which was often very, very funny, but made hysterical by Cera’s faltering, understated manner. So many throwaway lines keep coming back to me that on paper just wouldn’t, but were perfect little moments that took me by surprise. I never want to see him in another Judd Apatow comedy- they’re not bad, but it would ruin the memory of him in this infinitely more quick-witted film.

The supporting characters in Scott Pilgrim’s world are far more hilariously drawn that I had any right to expect. You’re whipped into the quick-fire sarcasm of his bandmate friends, (who are endearing and are refreshingly not teeth-grindingly quirky as in so many indie flicks) and this made me more than happy to suspend my disbelief when all the really silly stuff kicked off. And boy does it ever kick off.
The action fits surprisingly well into the snowy Toronto setting, provided you’ve left enough of your cynicism at the door. Rather than realistic martial arts, expect instead to be left gawking at the comic book-capery it does so well. As far as I could see, no actual blood and gore will be strewn about in the final edit, which is entirely in keeping with the tone of the film and something I’m quite relieved about. Gore is all well and good in its place, but I felt the increasingly tragic zombifications towards the end of Shaun of the Dead really jarred with the slapstick at times.

Another thing we were agreed on was that the humour was far less exclusive than other slacker comedies, or indeed action comedies we’ve all seen recently. While the whole film is essentially both a very funny computer game AND comic book up on the big screen, with in-jokes to tickle die-hard nerds of either persuasion, none of this stops anyone else laughing. It didn’t matter in the slightest if you didn’t know where a pixelated gaming sight gag came from (for there are many) came from, it was still funny to me and every other person who can’t even play Mariokart successfully. There aren’t jokes for the lads, and token ones for their girlfriends, there is just joke after joke that will leave both sexes weak and spluttering at the memory long after.

Scott Pilgrim sets out to combine action, comedy and romance and does a damn fine job of blending the three throughout so that no aspects feel tacked on. Romance does however suffer slightly from a lack of screen-time- although Scott battles each evil ex for the love of the apparently too-cool-for-anything Ramona, I did wonder what exactly was so great about her that he would get beaten up seven times in a row. But the relentless action and humour didn’t leave me much time to ponder this, or the other issue that has since started to niggle at me. Will anyone else agree with me that maybe having our hero fight the exes for ownership of his girl is a little off-colour? Feisty though she is, Ramona falls victim to the ‘Bella Swan paradox’- the story revolves around her, but it’s largely the blokes who get to do all the fun action stuff. There is a wicked girly fight (calm down) but Buffy this ain’t.

The music gives the fight scenes some real fire power in my opinion, and is as integral to the film as the offbeat ‘kerpow!’ and ‘zap!’ animations that pop up at just the right moments to punctuate the very ordinary Toronto. To those literally-minded/boring people who may complain that this, and the action sequences are too zany and unrealistic, I will say that the weirdness of Scott Pilgrim’s world all comes directly from how teenage and 20/30-something slacker gamers might view things from a sideways angle. They spend days and nights solving puzzles, arming up and beating each level, a pattern which is seamlessly integrated (God knows how, it’s an utter miracle) into this story. The end result is gorgeous on screen, even to my pixel-blind eyes.

Although Edgar Wright was sitting RIGHT THERE in the cinema as I left the post-preview screening market research interview, there was something I just couldn’t bring myself to go up to him and say. So here it is:

“Edgar Wright, your television and film work has given me so much joy and will be forever embedded in my life. So much so, that a like, if not a love for ‘Spaced’ is an essential requirement for any boyfriends, past and future- I am completely incapable of sleeping with someone who hasn’t seen ‘Spaced’ and laughed like a fool with me at it.”

Ahem. While I can’t yet declare the same obsession for Scott Pilgrim Vs. the World, it has pretty much blown his previous films out of the water. The same amount of love and attention to tiny funny details has gone into the film that made ‘Spaced’ so infinitely re-watchable. If Edgar Wright does not become a very rich man there is something very wrong with the world’s film viewing public.

Rating: MMMM

Director: Drew Barrymore
Starring: Ellen Page, Kristen Wiig, Marcia Gay Harden, Eve, Drew Barrymore, Juliette Lewis
Running time: 111 mins
Cert: 12A

Don’t be put off by the fuschia pink UK poster, covered in the faces of smiling women – this is not The Sisterhood of the Travelling Pants or any of that saccharine-soaked ‘girl power’ drivel (that in fact evokes the very opposite of female empowerment). Whip It is a kick-ass, feisty and intelligent sports movie that neatly combines multiple genre elements (pop culture comedy, family drama, teen romance) to create and warm and entertaining film that is full of what Americans call ‘attitude’.

Whip It centres around 17 year old Bliss Cavendar (Ellen Page), a disillusioned misfit resident of dead-end town, Bodeen, Texas. Bliss lives her life as put-upon waitress of kitsch diner the Oinkery and dutiful daughter, reluctantly  entered into beauty pageants by her mother (Marcia Gay Harden), a straightlaced postwoman who runs the Cavendar household as a tight ship.

On a shopping trip with her mother and sister in nearby city Austin, Bliss sees a flyer advertising a roller derby match – tough, scantily clad girls on skates speeding around a track, tackling and shoving each other violently in order to score points. Accompanied by best friend Pash, Bliss goes to the match and is immediately struck by the sport and particularly the women playing it – players with tough-girl names such as ‘Smashley Simpson’ and ‘Eva Destruction’. After the match, Bliss approaches one of the ‘Hurl Scouts’, Maggie Mayhem (Kristen Wiig) who suggests that she should try out for the team as they are looking for new members. A tentative Bliss attends the trial, demonstrating a speed on skates that surprises even herself, consequently making the team and becoming a Hurl Scout by the name of ‘Babe Ruthless’.

Whip It combines sports movie, broad comedy, coming of age tale and teen flick to great effect – it is a highly engaging, entertaining and moving  film –  one of the final scenes involving Marcia Gay Harden’s mother character in particular will undoubtedly moisten a few eyes, as will a piercing moment of betrayal. Also, the early stages of Bliss’s relationship with love interest Oliver are equally charming, as are the tender swimming pool scenes, shot to great aplomb by debut director Drew Barrymore.

The script too is funny, witty, warm and clever. Barrymore’s directing is excellent, particularly the aforementioned underwater sequences, demonstrating she has considerable talent not just in the fields of acting and producing. She has a clear understanding of her characters and her scene: the rough and ready world of womens’ roller derby, the action of which is deftly handled in exciting, adrenaline fuelled scenes on the track, with Bliss and her team mates speeding around, giving and taking ‘hits’.

Whip It is great fun, despite the fact it not being exactly original. It is however, thoroughly enjoyable, with excellent little moments, and a great balance between sport and character relationships. In terms of acting, Barrymore’s cast does well. Ellen Page delivers a likeable, convincing performance as main character Bliss Cavendar, as does Kristen Wiig who is really impressive, proving she is capable not only of hilarious deadpan comedy (Knocked Up), but proving she is a credible dramatic actress. Juliette Lewis is deliciously malevolent in the villain role of ‘Iron Mavin’, and  Barrymore herself gives a hilarious cameo as knuckle-headed Hurl Scout, ‘Smashley Simpson’.  The film’s supporting characters are also played very well – feisty best friend Pash (Alia Shawkat) is great, as is Bliss’s father, Earl (Daniel Stern).

All in all, Whip It is a great slice of easy-going American fun. Barrymore has not only made a hugely enjoyable film, but she has made the world of women’s roller derby accessible and interesting to a whole new audience – the heady mix of intimidating toughness, strength and machismo balanced with a female sexiness and power is thoroughly mesmerizing. And perhaps more importantly, the film bucks the girly teen movie trend in its closing act (not to give away too much) and proves that women’s lives do not centre around the wants and desires of men – they can be their own hero and go after whatever it is they wish. And who’d have thought all this from the little girl from E.T.? Get your skates on and see Whip It (if you’ll forgive the excruciating pun). Expect sales of roller skates and eyeliner to skyrocket.

Rating: MMMM

Rating: MMMM

Review of ‘geezer’ director Guy Ritchie’s adaptation of Arthur Conan Doyle’s classic character (and the world’s most famous detective) the inimitable Sherlock Holmes.

Director: Guy Ritchie
Starring: Robert Downey, Jr., Jude Law, Mark Strong, Kelly Reilly, Rachel McAdams
Running time: 128 mins

Infamous British gangster-thriller director Guy Ritchie’s take on the world’s most famous detective may not be the most faithful or accurate depiction of Arthur Conan Doyle’s Victorian detective, but his new Sherlock Holmes film is likely to be the most fun.
At the point in which the film begins, our heroes, the eponymous Holmes (Robert Downey, Jr.) and Doctor John Watson (Jude Law) are soon to be separated from being London’s brilliant and unrivaled ‘consulting detective’ partners by Watson’s impending engagement to his love Mary (Kelly Reilly). However, before the pair are to part ways, one more case must be solved – one that requires all of Holmes’ remarkable powers of deduction, observational skills and helping hands of Dr Watson. It is a case unlike any Holmes has ever confronted, apparently defying the laws of logic and science, one that terrorises London in a chain of strange and ritualistic murders and one that is seemingly orchestrated from beyond the grave by the recently deceased Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong).

The first point of praise for Ritchie’s film is that the plot of Sherlock Holmes is well conceived and structured, being complex and intriguing enough to be a believable case that Holmes and Watson have to solve, but straightforward enough for the audience not to be lost. Some parts are messy but never confusing, and the film as a whole is so damn entertaining that even the odd plot contrivance can be forgiven. There is a wonderful tension between the scientific and the gothic, capturing the tone and flavour of two Victorian phenomenons, coupled with a glimpse of the forward march of progress so omnipresnent in the late nineteenth century. The script is well written, clever and funny, is pleasingly lacking in the “me old china” -isms of Ritchie’s repertoir and perhaps more importantly, captures the brilliance and intelligence of Conan Doyle’s original character.

As is to be expected from a Guy Ritchie movie (in the face of his previous work, Lock, Stock, Snatch, Revolver), there is a certain amount of fisticuffs and bare-knuckle fighting in Sherlock Holmes which some might feel incongruous with the tone of the original source material. Surprisingly, however the inclusion of the violence is not to the detriment of the film – the scenes where Holmes takes on a prizefighter in a boxing match are coupled with a voice-over of him explaining his punches and techniques, presenting the violence as another facet of his detective skills.

In terms of performances, the central pair are without a doubt the stars of the show. Robert Downey, Jr. as Holmes is excellent, intensely likeable and very charming. Likewise, Jude Law as Watson is also very good. The two together are brilliant, exuding charisma and a fantastic physical comedy that elevates the film above being simply entertaining and makes in out-and-out fun – their bickering ‘old married couple’ act is very well done, to the point where the relationship becomes the heart of the film and the mystery plays second fiddle – this is not a criticism however as the friendship dynamic between the two men worked so well, being funny, poignant and enjoyable.
Mark Strong as the villanous Lord Blackwood is deliciously evil and suitably gothic but never descending into camp devilry, maintaining a malevolent sensibility that is genuinely creepy. The only piece of characterisation that perhaps doesn’t work as well as the rest is Rachel McAdams as Holmes’ female foil and ‘love interest’ despite her being a crucial part of the film’s climax.

Sherlock Holmes is a good, solid, enjoyable and hugely entertaining action blockbuster that packs as many laughs as it does punches – Downey, Jr. and Law’s comic timing is fabulous. Go see.

Rating: MMMM

Rating: MM

Review of James Cameron’s uber-blockbuster and long anticipated space adventure epic, Avatar.

Director: James Cameron
Starring: Sam Worthington, Sigourney Weaver, Giovanni Ribisi, Zoe Saldana, Stephen Lang, Michelle Rodriguez
Running time: 162mins

So, finally, after 10 years in the making and endless industry hype and speculation about the ‘pioneering technology’ behind James Cameron’s movie juggernaut, Avatar is finally with us. And is it worth the wait? Well, its sadly hard to tell. From the off, the visuals of the film are stunning and literally breathtaking in places, with sweeping and swooping camera angles presenting spectacular vistas onto the brave new world of Pandora. The creature design (while being at times somewhat laughable – some animals are just too weird to be convincing) is well produced, particularly the Na’avi people themselves, their skin and hair looking completely real. Similarly, the action sequences with their smoke, fire and explosions are also deployed with astonishing detail. If for nothing else, Cameron (or in fact Weta Digital, the effects house behind the Lord of the Rings trilogy) must be praised for the production value of Avatar – he has created an utterly real new world with exciting vegetation, wildlife and landscapes that need at least 4 pairs of eyes to really appreciate them.

However, the same cannot be said for the film as a whole. The first problem lies with the basic premise and plot of the film – one we have seen before countless times: indigenous population of resource-rich land is threatened by another greedy civilisation, one hell bent on taking the precious <insert valuable natural commodity here> from the native people. One member of the invading settlers becomes integrated within the native people (often becoming romantically involved with the most attractive female of the tribe), goes on an emotional and spiritual journey, eventually switching sides to fight against his old comrades – we all know the story, from films such as Dances With Wolves to Pocahontas. And this is perhaps the main fault with Avatar – the narrative trajectory is so familiar and predictable that for the most part the film is spent in anticipation of the next part of a story that we KNOW is coming. We know that Jake and Neytiri will fall in love 30 minutes before they do, we know that soon enough Jake will turn against his fellow marines – and this predictability has an intensely negative effect on one’s viewing experience, making it crushingly dull. Whole 10-20 minute sections of the film are completely needless, apparently there to enhance the audience’s engagement with the world of Pandora – with the result being the opposite. It must be said that with a more disciplined director and editor, a good 40 minutes could have been left on the cutting room floor, the probable result being a more dynamic and engaging film – parts are numbingly tedious, with an anticlimactic conclusion that comes 20 minutes too late.

Despite Cameron having successfully created an amazing and believable new world, the characters that inhabit it elicit little or no sympathy, even in their desperate hour of need. The sight of the tortured and homeless Na’avi people do not tug at the heartstrings the way that the hoards of Rohan women and children do in the final act of The Two Towers, and this has nothing to do with the Na’avi being strange blue alien creatures. The problem is posed by Avatar essentially lacking emotional depth and heart. For all the strained looks and pained faces of Jake, Neytiri and their tribespeople, it is hard to feel for them in the way the film suggests we do.

Cameron’s other major sin to be atoned for is his apalling script. The lines are clunky and stupid but their hackneyed sentiments are repeated, with most ‘one-liners’ being spoken twice or three times, effectively becoming very irritating mantras – “Get the hell outta there!!!” As with the predictable plot, the dialogue walks straight into pitfalls of cliche. Having said this, the actors do very well with the drivel they are given. Sigourney Weaver is as good as ever, as is Zoe Saldana as the beautiful Neytiri. Newcomer Sam Worthington is likeable enough in the leading man role of Jake Sully, but sadly lacks the charm and charisma needed to be convincing.

In conclusion, with all its promise, visual flair and attempts at being a ‘new film experience’ Avatar is disappointingly mediocre, demonstrating that looks alone do not make a good film. Despite its stunning surface, there is little underneath.

Rating: MM

Director: Alex Proyas
Starring: Brandon Lee, Ernie Hudson, Rochelle Davis, Anna Thomson
Running time: 97mins

Simply put, The Crow is a revenge tragedy from the mid 1990s that is more famous for the tragic and untimely death of its star Brandon Lee (son of Bruce, killed accidentally by a faulty prop gun) than for the film itself. Based on James O’Barr’s original graphic novel of the same name, the film tells the story of Eric Draven, who rises from the dead a year later after he and his girlfriend were murdered (on Devil’s Night, the night preceding Halloween) to wreak revenge on their killers. Guided by a mysterious crow, Draven goes on a rampage of violence that boasts one grisly death after another, signing the bodies with his talisman’s winged outline. One by one he crosses them off his list, but is impeded along the way by the new resident crime lord who does not take kindly to the systematic slaughter of his associates.

The film draws on the gothic genre with references to Edgar Allen Poe and features a delicious show-down in a church, yet despite its dark tone and even darker atmosphere and palette, The Crow is essentially a story of love – a backstory of Draven and fiancée Shelly is told through flashback where they are painted beautifully as a couple very much in love, brutally murdered the day before they were to be married – there are touching and poetic moments throughout, including a scene where Draven tearfully retrieves his lover’s engagement ring from a white-trash pawn shop. The film also boasts an intriguing sub-plot in alienated young teen Sarah who turned to Shelly (when alive) as a surrogate parent after being more or less abandoned by her heroin addict mother.

Sadly, as with River Phoenix and his role as Chris Chambers in Stand By Me, the late Brandon Lee’s performance adds a further haunting element to an already dark film. Had he lived, Lee would arguably have built on the talent so clearly on display here. As Eric Draven, he gives a commanding performance with a great deal of presence and energy. The film is dedicated to him and his partner Eliza, and is a fitting tribute to a young actor so full of promise. Gothic, violent, dark and cool with a killer soundtrack to boot, The Crow is a cult hit that should rank among the best of graphic novel adaptations – and as the perfect Halloween film.

Review of extra-terrestrial sci-fi thriller District 9 produced by Peter Jackson (The Lord of the Rings) and directed by Neil Blomkamp

Director: Neil Blomkamp
Starring: Sharlto Copley, Vanessa Haywood, Jason Cope, Louis Minnaar, David James
Running time: 112 mins

WARNING: This review contains PLOT SPOILERS

In District 9’s fictional 1980s, an alien mothership comes to a mid-air standstill over the South African city of Johannesburg, subsequently bringing an alien species to Earth – the residents of a far distant planet who soon come to make their homes in the city’s outlying scrubland, district 9. The human inhabitants of Johannesburg however become prejudiced, intolerant and aggressive towards the new alien immigrants, becoming hostile and giving them the slur of ‘Prawns’ for their Piscean appearance. This prejudice develops into outright social unrest, forcing the government to serve ‘eviction notices’ and re-house the aliens. However, as one might expect with moving an entire colony of people, the government’s plan is met with unexpected problems.

District 9 begins with documentary-style footage of the mysterious alien spacecraft coming to a halt over South Africa’s second city and talking heads discussing the social and cultural impact the alien visitors had on the country, thus presenting the film’s premise  - a plot which has many elements of a more pedestrian film but is never clichéd, having a certain quality of freshness about it. This is partly due to the distinct socio-political commentary that runs throughout the film, touching on themes of racial intolerance, discrimination and autocracy, the plethora of social problems still alive in South Africa in the aftermath of apartheid – a commentary which to this critic at least, is one of the film’s trump cards.

The other is the performance of Sharlto Copley as main protagonist Wikus van der Merwe – the head of the government led team in charge of moving the alien community from their homes in district 9 to what is effectively a concentration camp. Copley plays Wikus as essentially an everyman, but one for which there is great deal of of moral ambiguity, rendering him a more intriguing character as a result. The supporting players are also very good, in particular Louis Minnaar and David James. However, credit must go to the CG artists in charge of rendering the facial expressions and twitches of Christopher Johnson (the main ‘Prawn’ character), conveying as much emotion and inner turmoil as we see in his human (and non-CG) counterpart Wikus.

District 9’s shaky, steadi-cam driven visual style, while not being in any way innovative (seen memorably before in The Blair Witch Project and more recently in Cloverfield), seems fresh, unique and completely in keeping with tone and plot, making a perfect marriage between the two. The presentation of the Alien technology and weaponry is equally good, as is Wickus’ agony and visceral disgust at his physical transformation into one of the ‘Prawn’ species, presented in horrific detail that will have those more lily-livered audience members squirming in their seats. As thrilling as all this is however, the film loses pace in a tricky third act which plods along comparatively slowly compared to the rest of the film.

District 9’s climax sets up the possibility for a sequel naturally, in a subtle way that leaves room for the story to continue, an exciting prospect with a film this promising. A well structured, thought provoking, thrilling and thoroughly entertaining alternative to the regular Hollywood sci-fi gloss – hopefully in the future we might see a District 10.

Rating: MMMM

Rating: MMMM

Review of Michael Mann’s ‘biopic’ of the notorious American criminal, John Dillinger.

Director: Michael Mann
Starring: Johnny Depp, Christian Bale, Marion Cotillard, David Wenham, Stephen Dorff
Running time: 140 mins

In the 1930s, America was swept by a crime wave, with the notorious criminal John Dillinger (Johnny Depp) at the centre. Michael Mann’s new film follows Dillinger, his associates and a special team of Federal Agents – led by Melvin Pervis (Christian Bale) – in their attempt to take down Dillinger and his gang.

As with Collateral and Miami Vice, 2009’s Public Enemies is photographed digitally, a technique which tends to add a slight blur to the frames. In Mann’s two previous films this worked well, adding an aesthetic quality (especially the slick urban environment of Miami Vice) that when coupled with the predominant use of steadicams, gave a documentary feel. Sadly, Mann’s penchant for shooting in this way does not work well here. Public Enemies being shot with steadicams and on digital detracts from the overall style. The period setting causes the inevitable blurring to seem very out of place – as the film cannot possibly be a documentary the action therefore seems contrived and false. Mann can also be faulted for his direction, in that his actors sometimes deliver lines of dialogue that are barely comprehensible through being spoken too quickly, quietly or lost under heavy accents. The action sequences in the film whilst being very well executed are at times too lengthy and poorly lit to be engaging – one scene has two of Dillinger’s gang members running through a dark forest, pursued by the feds, all of which is very difficult to distinguish in the dark (although this near-blackness does allow for the gunfire to illuminate the characters’ faces which is a nice touch). However, these are minor setbacks in an otherwise excellent film.

As ever, Johnny Depp excels in a charismatic role – the real life John Dillinger was reported to be an engaging and captivating personality, one that Depp masters and delivers very well. Certain scenes present Dillinger’s charisma shining through a tough-guy persona, including a moment where Dillinger offers a woman a warm winter coat when he and the gang have just taken her hostage. It is in the scenes with love-interest Billie Frechette (played to sultry, sassy perfection by La Vie en Rose’s Marion Cotillard) however, that Dillinger is at his most charming. One scene in particular has a coquettish Billie in the bath, leaning her leg in an overtly erotic way, to which Dillinger responds superbly. This playful rogue behaviour is also in abundance in what is arguably one of the film’s best scenes, where Dillinger takes a visit to the Police department building and blithely walks around the special ‘John Dillinger Unit’, a whole detail of police assigned to tracking and apprehending him. Surprisingly enough, Depp outshines his co-star, super-ego Christian Bale as the latter portrays Agent Purvis with a lack of intensity or depth. This said, Bale’s performance may seem underwhelming in contrast to Depp’s maximised screen time and much of the plot given over to the romance between Dillinger and Billie Frechette (which may anger some audiences, eager to see the number of tommy gun battles so promised in the film’s trailer).

Public Enemies is yet another sterling addition to the already stellar Michael Mann canon, providing an interesting narrative trajectory, good performances, wonderful period details and costumes and the best insight into crimefighting in 1930s America since The Untouchables.

Rating: MMMM

Rating: MM

The first review originally written for Maz’s Movie Memorandum, of Michael Bay’s sequel to his 2007 summer box-office smash, Transformers.

Director: Michael Bay
Starring: Shia La Beouf, Megan Fox, Josh Duhamel, John Turturro
Running Time: 150 mins

As with most Michael Bay films and its predecessor, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is expectedly a triumph of style over substance. The film opens with a frenetic action sequence which gives way to some pleasing lighter scenes, involving the loveable (if somewhat unlikely) hero Sam Witwicky and his family. However, these scenes and other more character-driven moments seem few and far between in a film that is almost entirely composed of explosions and clouds of scattered dust.

Having said this though, the film is good solid summer fare, with a few witty lines here and there and enough charm to keep the audience interested. Where the film falls down however, is in the deployment of a troublesome third act, in which the film loses all sense of pace (the film feels 45 minutes too long) and in fact, narrative trajectory; it takes a monologue of exposition from a new old-man transformer (found and re-awoken by the protagonists at a visit to the Smithsonian Museum, of Night at the Museum 2 fame) to make things clear – a lack of clarity and obscure plot that this film shares with the original, something that Bay and his writers clearly haven’t managed to improve upon, despite a seemingly infinite budget. This, it appears has been spent entirely on visual effects, all of which are admittedly stunning, but are nothing we haven’t seen before.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen demonstrates that in a franchise, both premise and characters need an element of freshness to really succeed. Shia La Boeuf returns as Sam, a likeable enough character, but with far less to do than in the first Transformers film which certainly gave La Beouf more scope to develop the role. Perennial men’s magazine favourite Megan Fox also reprises her role of Sam’s love interest Mikaela, but seems to appear only in the capacity of the token gorgeous girl, wearing skimpy shorts and running around screaming for her boyfriend – her only saving grace being that she can hot-wire a car.

In this second outing of the Transformers franchise there seems to be far less dialogue between characters and much more time given to gratuitous action sequences with more transformers than one can really keep up with. And keeping up appears a hard task – in fact truthfully, staying focused is harder, as the film really does suffer from being just that bit too long. In all, for a summer blockbuster there is enough to keep audiences happy, but only just.

Rating: MM (add another if you’re a fan of the toys/cartoon)

Review of Push first published in a March 2009 issue Spark*, the newspaper of Reading University Students’ Union.

Director: Paul McGuigan
Starring: Chris Evans, Camilla Belle, Dakota Fanning, Djimon Hounsou
Running Time: 111 mins

The title of Paul McGuigan’s sci-fi thriller Push refers to a super power, of ‘pushing’ thoughts into the minds of others, which ‘Pushers’ Djimon Hounsou and Camilla Belle achieve throughout the film with often devastating results – Kira (Belle) uses her ‘Pusher’ mind tricks to force one of her captors into believing that his partner murdered his brother, when he in fact had no brother. ‘Watchers’ (Dakota Fanning being the prime example) can predict the future, ‘Sniffers’ (you guessed it) have a highly developed sense of smell. All of these super abilities are very well dealt with in the film, with the ‘Bleeders’ being the most visually arresting – the chase through Hong Kong market streets with tank after tank exploding with the pressure of the fish inside bleeding to death is an excellent touch. However, although the end result of the Bleeders’ abilities is effortlessly cool, the fact that the powers emanate from mad-eyed screaming men is embarrassingly contrived and laughable.

Chris Evans as Nick is as well-toned and handsome as ever, as is Djimon Hounsou (in a departure from the high-brow fare such as Blood Diamond and Gladiator). However, for arguably talented actors (Hounsou especially) both aren’t really given enough to do. The character of Nick lacks the depth and sympathy needed from a leading role, while Housou’s villain is only just saved from being two-dimensional. Camilla Belle is surprisingly good, perhaps atoning for the drivel that was 10,000 BC, presenting Kira as a strong woman dangerously caught up in a tangled mess of her own making (to say anymore would give away a plot twist at film’s climax). As Cassie the 13-year-old Watcher and unlikely sidekick to Nick, Dakota Fanning gets more and more irritating as the film goes on, apparently possessing the ability to cry whilst maintaining the same bored facial expression but never to look at all pained or sad.

Visually, the film excels, cutting between slick and grainy camerawork, making for an interesting and original visual style that seems more reminiscent of a gritty British drama than a Hollywood superhero movie. The effects are equally good, making clever and cool use of standard computer generated trickery (the two handguns that Nick manipulates into floating mid-air and following him is excellent) and more traditional effects such as different powders exploding in bursts of colour. McGuigan’s use of music is also very slick, using both contemporary and retro tunes to great effect. However, as is the worrying trend among many recent silver-screen outings (and in this case is more disappointing seeing as the premise and other aspects of the film are so promising), Push is let down by a poor and dull script and a rather messy third act that leaves the audience in little else than confusion. This aside, Push makes solid ground on which to hopefully build a better sequel (the end of the film suggests that a sequel must be on the cards, although in a deliciously ambiguous way).

Rating: MMM