Eragon

Well, me and "the gang" went to see this on Saturday, with the intention of having a meal afterwards which, despite the valiant attempts of Kirsty, looked rather unlikely as we'd not managed to book anywhere. And then I had to go and read the reviews of this film......whoops.

"Not as good as the book."
"Bloody awful transition to film."
"A travesty given the source material."
and so on....

Well, I thought to myself, I haven't read the book, so maybe it's a case of Harry Potteritis. And I have to say: I think that's the case. Of the eleven of us, only one has read the book. He thought the film was bloody awful. The rest of us were suitably entertained for a couple of hours. Still; how much attention he was giving to the film is debatable, since he was there with his new girlfriend and they sat on their own, near the back, youknowwhati'm sayin'?

So, the basic plot: Young poor farm boy living with his uncle discovers he has a destiny and special powers, goes off to battle the evil empire which is ruled by an ex-guardian of peace who turned on the other guardians. Boy goes off to find the rebels in hiding, on the way rescues a princess from an impenetrable fortress during which his mentor gets killed and in the end, he has a big fight with another person with powers who likes black and has a terrible complexion.

Hang on a minute.........

As one of our group¹ pointed out: What are the odds that a boy with a name only one letter away from dragon, would end up as a dragon rider? Must be a million to one shot!

There are a few annoyances with this film, the biggest for me being that the armour that the rebels make for the dragon and prop up against a wall bears no resemblance what-so-ever to the armour that the dragon actually wears. This wouldn't be so bad if not for the two scenes being about two minutes apart. And Eragon learns how to ride a dragon and master magic a little too fast for my liking. I usually prefer such things to take a couple of month's hard study, but he learns everything in about a week.

The battle sequences are impressive and I liked the idea of seeing the battle from the dragon rider's perspective, which I've not seen before. The blurring and twists and turns really bring the movie out. Jeremy Irons is bloody good in this. Given the last film to have dragons and Jeremy Irons in it was Dungeons and Dragons, I was pleasantly.....surprised is not the word; pleasantly relieved to find he was enjoyable in his role.

And then came John Malkovich. Scenery chewing is not even close to describing his acting in this film. At the end of shooting, I don't think they needed to break the set. I think they just starved John for a couple of days, then locked him in the studio and left him to his own devices. Also: what kind of idiot keeps a dragon behind a curtain? That's just cruel and one hell of a fire risk. Health and safety'd have him in an instant for that one.

Overall it's not a fantastic movie like Lord of the Rings (which it SO wants to be), but it's a good yarn and the dragon looks "boke" as I believe one of the young gentlemen in the audience said.

In summary: The general consensus is: If you've read the book, AVOID. If not, then you'll probably like it.

OQ: 'It doesn't look so bad from up here...'

OOQ: 'I swear to god if she turns out to be his sister, I'll vomit in three different colours...' ²

Score:

Film: Somewhere between a C+ and B-, so probably a C++ or B-- which are actually equivalent on the Saxon Film Scale.
Book: Ain't read it, can't comment.
L'amoré: Ahh...

Trivia: Alex Pettyfer (he played Alex Ryder in Stormbreaker) was offered the role of Eragon, previous to the casting of Ed Speleers. Pettyfer says he turned down the role partly because Eragon was being filmed in Budapest and he's afraid of flying. From IMDB.com In a film about riding the backs of dragons, I find that priceless! However most of the trivia seems to be about people who were offered roles and turned them down.

¹ Yeah, it was me, actually. You guys know me so well.....

² Yeah, that was me too.

Mission To Mars

You know, I'm going to be honest here. I actually enjoyed this film.

Right up until the alien turned up. Sweet lordy may! A more "Disneyfied" alien I have yet to see. Even worse than the beings at the end of A.I. Yes that bad. It could not look more like Bambi if they'd tried, and I'm not convinced this wasn't the intention.

This film has taken a lot of heat. In fact, it's been called the worst film about Mars ever made which, given its competition, is some achievement. The other main problem critics have is that it tries to have too many plot threads woven through the film, so that each one is less well explored. However other classics of science fiction, like 2001 have managed that and I think Mission to Mars is trying to aspire to that. It's definitely an homage to 2001, the shape of the spacesuit helmets gave that away, plus it does have the same number of acts, both culminating with the final reveal.

This film starts out as hard science fiction. Laws of physics are obeyed, there's no alien menace and the only difficulty the crew have to overcome is the natural hostility of space and the universe in general taunting them.

I can forgive a film attempting hard science fiction a lot of faults. As the name suggests, it's hard to make a good film this way. Without an antagonist, the action can become dull. You aren't allowed to suspend the laws of physics, no matter how "cool" the stunt you're filming would be if only gravity would bugger off to the pub for a pint for a few seconds. The spacecraft here look real. They look like exactly the sort of thing Nasa would send to Mars (if a tad on the flimsy side). The spacesuits are bulky and uncomfortable, exactly what you'd expect.

So I can forgive the plot holes, the lack of a secondary orbital insertion engine on the ship (don't give me that look, it's a requirement on all Nasa manned spacecraft) because a landing on a planet in less than ideal conditions is a staple of science fiction. I can forgive the lack of a fuel leak alarm on the spacecraft, and even the fact that the leaking fuel can't ignite in space (there's no oxygen). I can even forgive the biggest plothole of all, which is: You can save Tim Robbins¹.

But it's that bleeping alien. It totally spoils the ending. You could edit it out entirely from the film and that sequence would still work and still act as the catalyst for Gary Sinise's decision. It makes you notice all the other little glitches that otherwise, you'd have ignored or just put down to poetic licence, like the air tubes on the suits mysteriously disappearing when they take their helmets off inside the face. But when that alien turned up, the film jumped genres. There are several films that have jumped genres, and do it spectacularly well, but this isn't one of them.

The only way to describe the impace of this alien turning up to a non-science fiction fan is: Imagine if Red's last line in Gone with the Wind was

"Frankly my dear, I love you. Let's re-marry!" ²

That bad.......

Score: D+ Mostly because of the alien

OQ: "Prepare to abandon ship" Wasn't really sure if this was from Tim Robbins or Brian de Palma.

Trivia: Who would have thought that a character with the name of Woody would end up stiff and hard in space?

¹ Google it, there's loads of sensible and practical ideas to save him.

² Yes, I know this was a joke in the Simpsons. "Edited for Seniors" version of the film, and Moleman says "Did that film used to have a war in it?" before being escorted off by the orderlies.

Bad Boys 2

This is actually the first time that I've seen this, despite rather liking the first one.

Will Smith and Martin Lawrence return for this by no means by-the-numbers sequel. The language has become even more obscene than the first film, the story equally as insane and the stunts look like they drove a dump truck full of cash up to the stunt director's house, up ended it onto his driveway and said "Go nuts."

For sheer entertainment value, this ticks all the boxes.

Insane stunts	Yes
Constant swearing	Yes
Slow mo bullet effects	Yes
Gun fights galore	Yes
Mad car chases	Hell Yes

Total popcorn movie, one that falls apart immediately if you try to analyse it or look for continuity errors (there are lots, even I spotted a few without trying). For sheer entertainment value, it's hard to fault it. Delivers on both action and plot, if you like both in large, unmanageable potions that leave you feeling bloated. Kinda like normal food portions in American restaurants.

Basic plot: Does it really matter? It's just a vehicle to have as many gun fights, car chases and explosions as possible, yet these never feel forced.

Clichés: Plenty. From the police captain with "so much brass up my ass that I can play the Star Spangled Banner, " to the police partner is leaving but hasn't told his partner yet, to the kidnapped police officer's family member precipitating an insane rescue attempt that ignores little things like international sovereignty, reasonable force and the laws of physics.

Body Count: 51

OQ: That was reckless, that was stupid, and that was dangerous. [pauses] I'm telling Mommy.

Score: A Solid C+, verging on a B-

Trivia

Scenes from the movie were filmed at the "Bird" house in Delray Beach, Florida. The mansion stood nearly completed and vacant for years before it was purchased. The new owner advertised in Variety for a movie company to use the mansion in a movie and blow it up. When the filming was done, only the swimming pool was left.

Two different Ferraris were used to make this film, the two models have very little external differences. The car you see most often is the more powerful 575M Maranello, however, the director, Michael Bay's 550 Maranello was used for really daring stunt work. The producers had to receive emergency relief of the manatee protection laws from Florida Governor Jeb Bush to hold the high-speed boat chase in the Miami River.

The MacArthur Causeway, the main route to South Beach in Miami, was shut down for several days for filming. This caused literally thousands of people to have to go miles out of their way to get to and from Miami Beach in early August 2002.

Henry Rollins has, in this spoken word performances, recounted the circumstances under which he received his part in this film. He showed up for an audition for the roll of Spinner Dunn in Death to Smoochy (2002) unkempt, with a single page torn out of the script and in a really pissed-off mood. He proceeded to shout at Michael Bay and Jerry Bruckheimer after they kept him waiting while they had lunch. He didn't get the part, but this pissed-off act was exactly what they were looking for for this movie and he got the part.

Flushed Away

It's never a good sign when you have to sit at the keyboard for a good minute and a half trying to remember the name of the film you've seen at the weekend. I must be tired.

Let me start off with a gurn. This is different from a rant, in ways that will hopefully become clear later. I could put up with the scene in the Aeon Flux trailer that isn't in the film, because there could have been a last minute edit there, I could just about put up with the line in Pirates of the Caribbean 2 that isn't in the film, even though it's a corker. But this film's trailer features two characters who aren't in the film at all, and completely changes the setting for the scene!!!!

Having said that, this film is brilliant. I honestly couldn't tell if this pure CGI, or CGI and plasticine. It's made by DreamWorks and Aardman Animations, so it could be either really. According to IMDB, this is Aardman's first pure CGI film, done because water look terrible in plasticine.

The stars of the show are the slugs. From their impromptu musical numbers, to physical abuse slapstick, to just comedy background characters. There's some pure genius in here for the kids and the adults. You'll never look at Angel Delight in the same light again.

It's the age old tale of boy gets lost, boy meets girl, girl helps boy, boy goes home, boy misses girl and finally, boy saves girl from apocalypse.

Among the surprise cast, you'll find: Hugh Jackman, Kate Winslet, Ian McKellen, Jean Reno, Bill Nighy, Andy Serkis, Shane Richie, Kathy Burke, David Suchet, Miriam Margolyes and Rachel Rawlinson. Well, I was surprised.

Score: B

OQ:

Toad: You find my pain funny?

Le Frog: I find everyone's pain funny but my own. I'm French.

Spike: Any last requests?

Roddy: Yes. Could you fly, quite suddenly, off the boat, screaming like a girl?

Spike: What? [Is jerked off the boat by a cord]

Spike: AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Trivia: (from IMDB.com) Factual errors: At one point in the movie, an animal is loosening a cap on a threaded pipe, but they are turning it clockwise, which tightens for right-handed threads. When the cap comes off, it does show a right-handed thread. What sad lonely person noticed this?

Star Wars Holiday Special

I was in half a mind about this. On the one hand, as a responsible citizen, if I don't tell you about this, you won't look it up and won't see it. On the other hand, as a responsible sci-fi fan, if I don't mention this, you might just stumble across it and watch it unprepared.

This is the single most cringeworthy, unpleasant, over the top, badly thought out pile of bantha poodu that has ever been committed to film. It ranks as one of mankind's worst crimes. It is the most soul destroying pile of tripe you'll ever see. It makes 'The Core' look good in comparison. People who have seen this have commented afterwards "Jar Jar wasn't that bad really..."

I know some people reading this will be thinking "Oh it can't be that bad. I'll watch it for myself and see."

Don't!

Every review of this I've seen says the same thing:

1. Don't watch this alone. You'll need emotional support.

2. Don't watch this sober. You'll need a buffer against the horror.

This TV special was made at possibly the worst time possible. Carrie Fisher was in the midst of a manic depressive low and Mark Hamill had just finished face reconstruction surgery after a car accident that almost killed him. As a result he looks like he's doing a bad Adam Ant impression.

And then Carrie Fisher starts singing.
To the Star Wars theme.

How bad can that be, you ask?

Put it this way. If she was singing on the Titanic while it sank and there was a choice between a two minute wait for a lifeboat seat or jumping into freezing cold water, I'd have taken a dive into the water, closely followed by all of the ship's rats.

Having seen this, against the advice of my friends, I can see why George Lucas tried to destroy every copy in existence. If he came round tomorrow asking for volunteers to round up the last few wild copies of this, I'd gladly sign up, even if it meant listening to the same damn Indiana Jones joke every night around the camp fire.

Can I say anything good about it? Probably not. It does foreshadow both Boba Fett's appearance and the ill fated (and now non-canon) Droids series. However, if you love Star Wars, please please never watch this. I know that's asking a lot, to take my word for it. But trust me, you'd thank me if you knew what I'm saving you from.

Score: Z - - The lowest score possible on the Saxon Film Score rating system

OQ: Make it stop!.....Make it stop!!!

Star Trek: The Motion Picture

This is getting scary. There's only one other review of this film anywhere....and it's Parsons'ses.

Saw this again over the weekend. Why do we insist on watching films on the telly that we already have on DVD? It's bizarre. I kept wanting to rewind the film to catch bits I'd missed. However, I was finally, finally, after all these years as a Trek fan, able to pin down exactly what it was about this film that annoys me. There must be a word for that experience; seeing a film over and over and over again, and only when you're half paying attention do you realise what the fault with the film is. But I'll get to that later.

This film should have an acknowledgement in it's credits: This film would not have been made without the kind assistance of George Lucas. Not because ILM were involved in the special effects (although I'm fairly sure they were), but because this film was only made because of the huge reception that Star Wars had received from millions of people who had suddenly discovered they were closet sci-fi fans and didn't even know it! Paramount decided that they needed to get on this sci-fi thing and make a film. Dusting off their archives they discovered a little gem, a little known sci-fi series that had done poorly on initial release but had achieved cult status through syndication.

Then the problems started. First, they couldn't agree on the script. Roddenbury wanted to make his "The God Thing" (this would eventually become Star Trek V), but was eventually shouted down. As a result, there wasn't as much time to refine the final script as the writers wanted, and sadly this shows. Then the s...stuff hit the fan. Having handed over a chunk of money to a special effects team to make the new ship and all the "external" special effects, the execs never bothered to supervise the work. As a result, they turned up to watch the final version of these scenes and were appalled. The effects looked worse than the original TV series. So another firm was brought in at the last minute to redo the work. As a result, most space shots have been paid for twice, which is why there are so many of them; the lingering shots of Kirk inspecting the re-fitted Enterprise is a prime example.

But then the film got started. And was immediately in trouble. It's probably a strange metaphor that the ship gets into trouble as soon as it goes into warp. The film never goes anywhere with it's premise. Fans soon dubbed this "The Motionless Picture."

So what exactly is it about this film that's a problem?

Well, the story of an intelligent probe searching for it's creator had already been done by Star Trek (NOMAD, anyone). However there's only so many stories you can do in sci-fi without repeating yourself. Look at the basic plots of the Bond films.

And there are too many shots of the new Enterprise. These are irritating, but also show you the brand new ship. A lot of people forget this was the first time fans saw the new ship, and it does look good.

Well, the script / acting ain't great. Spock turns up in the most enormous sulk you've ever seen. And even though the whole docking of the courier is impressive, even at the tender age of 12 when I first saw this I was asking "What's wrong with the transporter? Come on Kirk, you haven't got time to muck about with this!" The operator on a monitoring station saying the cloud is "over 80 AUs in diameter." Now I'm fairly certain that few people today know what an AU is, and I'm damn sure that even fewer knew back in 1979.

And a sexy hot female lead, who's bald? Whose idea was that?

No, it was the uniforms. The uniforms were unforgivable. Shades of grey and grey-ish blue pyjamas. Bleugh! They really distract from the action, because everyone looks the same. Absolutely terrible.

Right, time to score it then...

Annoying Goof Count: Two. As usual, they forget that anything spinning clockwise seen from behind will be spinning counter-clockwise when seen from the front. Also goes for reflections.

Score: C+ on the Saxon Film Scale. Good film, could do better.

OQ:

Kirk: Bones, there's a... thing... out there.
McCoy: Why is any object we don't understand always called "a thing"?

Trivia:

Courtesy of IMDB. The story of how this film got to the big screen is almost as interesting as the story itself (some fans say more so). Paramount was already in the advance stages of preparing a new Star Trek series called: Star Trek Phase 2 when Star Wars was released. Wanting to make a film, but not wanting their contracts with the actors to lapse, the studio mounted a campaign of propaganda and misinformation, even asking for script submissions for a show that was never going to be made. A lot of the sets are those for the new series, notably the bridge. In an act of sheer comedy mismanagement Uhura's communications earpieces are the only original props from the original TV series. They were dug out of storage when it was realized someone had forgotten to make new ones for the movie.

However, Leonard Nimoy held out. This was later to come back to haunt him. Headlines of "Nimoy says he hates Star Trek" bounded, but in fact the truth was that he wanted Paramount to settle a lawsuit for unpaid royalties for use of likeness (notably in a famous Heineken advert which shows Spock with droopy ears drinking a beer and having the ears restored and him thinking "Illogical..." In his own words: 'The royalty cheques were so small that when they stopped coming in, we just didn't notice.'

Paramount was desperate to either get Nimoy to sign or re-cast his part. The director saved the day. Robert Wise was convinced to accept the position as director by his wife, who was a huge fan of the original Star Trek television series. She convinced him to campaign for Leonard Nimoy's return to the film.

Persis Khambatta became very emotional about having her head shaved for her role. She kept her shorn hair in a box for a time and asked Gene Roddenberry to take out insurance in case her hair didn't grow back. It did.

And if you think the theme sounds familiar, it is. Gene Roddenberry loved the main theme from the score so much, that he reused it for "Star Trek: The Next Generation".

And how versatile is James Doohan? Not only did he invent the Klingon words spoken by the Klingon ship's captain (Later, linguist Marc Okrand devised grammar and syntax rules for the language, along with more vocabulary words, and wrote a Klingon dictionary.) but he also came up with the Vulcan words heard during the Kolinahr sequence. The scenes were originally shot in English, and when it was decided to change the dialogue to Vulcan, Doohan wrote lines that fit the existing lip movements. Some of the subtitles were rearranged to make this less obvious. His sons Montgomery Doohan and Christopher Doohan are extras in the film.

And speaking of extras:

In the scene where Kirk addresses the crew prior to launching, much of the crew were extras who were noted Star Trek fans, including Bjo Trimble, co-organizer of the letter-writing campaign that kept the original Star Trek alive for a third season. Most of their checks went uncashed; Harve Bennett said that they were probably framed as souvenirs by the fans.

For the DVD release, the producers toyed with the idea of digitally inserting a shot of the NX-01 Enterprise (Jonathan Archer's ship from the prequel series "Enterprise") into the rec room scene where Decker shows Ilia a display of previous ships named Enterprise. The idea was eventually dropped, possibly since the shot would not be able to be seen clearly anyway (the pictures were not easily legible onscreen). The NX-01 would have replaced the shot of the 'ringed' S.S. Enterprise - which eventually appeared on "Enterprise" anyway (in the bar scene in the episode "First Flight").

In the original version of this story, "In Thy Image", Captain Dylan Hunt goes up into space to confront a probe that has been enhanced by an alien civilization. When the probe realizes that Dylan is a member of NASA, the group that created it, it shuts down, having received its answers. This basic premise was retained for the finished film, with the exception that in ST:TMP, Commander Decker merges with V'Ger when he gives the probe the signal, and V'Ger transforms into a higher state rather than shuts down. "Dylan Hunt" never became part of the Star Trek universe, but later got his own as captain of the Andromeda Ascendant in Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda.

The Prestige

It's so frustrating to see this film, and not be able to tell you anything that happens in it. Because everything would be a spoiler. But the simple explanation is: Two 19th century stage magicians are friends, something happens, and then other things happen because of it.

Previous reviews are all correct: everything is relevant.

Saxon Top Tip: Do not take a drink into the cinema. Go to the bathroom BEFORE this starts and don't take any noisy food in. And consider going for the latest showing to avoid the noisy kiddies going to the loo every five minutes. Because if you miss anything in this movie, you'll be lost and confused later.

That's not to say that you need to remember a lot of what goes on. It's just that later in the film, certain events will occur and you'll go "Ooohhhhhhhh....."

OQ: A kind of wet crunching noise, which was my brain going through a paradigm shift.

Score: Solid gold B+

Casino Royale

Well, after an almost disastrous false start, my friends and I finally managed to see this last night. I know preambles are frowned upon, so I'll say it very quick.

Basically we agreed to meed at Omni and buy tickets there, but the 1630 and 1700 shows were already sold out, so we had a drink and a meal before the 1930 one, but that one only had six seats left and we had seven people with us, and since the Slug and Lettuce took ages to bring us just our drinks, we booked the film at Cineworld for 1750, but only after Frazer booked it because the voice recognition system on the phone couldn't recognise Mark's south african accent, which meant we only just got there in time and had a nice meal afterwards in Old Orleans which was all a way of celebrating Mark's birthday, for which I forgot to buy him a card.

So, first impressions of the film. It's damn good.

How good? Well, let's put it this way. Casino Royale has made more in it's opening weekend than any other Bond film in history. And I can see why.

Daniel Craig is Bond. I totally bought the character. And that's not easy. Bond is a well established character, but this film is taking it back to the beginning of his career, stripping away all the refinements and alterations that were made to the character over the years.

What can I tell you without giving too much away? It's grittier. ......That's about it, actually.

Let's put it this way: there's swearing. Any more would spoil it, and you deserve to see this film with no spoilers.

Judi Dench is to be commended. She's totally re-created M for this role. None of the verbal jousting with Bond, no tongue in cheek humour from her. She tells him to get on with his job and makes the consequences for his failure all too clear.

Does the film stand up to repeat viewings? Ask me tomorrow, I'm seeing it again tonight courtesy of the movie club. I was tempted to buy a red carnation or something so people will spot me tonight (8pm showing), but anyone going tonight will be able to recognise me. I'll be the one in the black jacket looking lost and confused and not entirely sure what to do with his hands.

Score: A- Why an A-? Well.....damn it! I can't tell you without it being a spoiler! This is intolerable...

OQ: Yes. Considerably....

"Sorry about that. That last hand nearly killed me..."

I can't believe they wrecked five Aston Martin DBSes making this film!

Daniel Craig definitely brings his own interpretation of Bond to the screen. He's not emulating any of his predecessors. This is Bond without the sophistication, without the refinements and without the gadgets. He makes far fewer one liners and is more violent. None of that one-punch-and-he's-out nonsense here. Fistfights are bloody and violent.

The film definitely breaks the Bond Film Formula. There's a nice twist on the bloody eye opening sequence, and the film's ending is a lot less clear cut. It's a brave move, but I believe they've pulled it off.

The Departed

Not being a huge Scorsese fan, I went along not entirely sure what to expect. Well, I knew what not to expect: no Hollywood ending, no 'happily ever after' and no pandering to the audience. But also, I knew to expect an excellent cast. DiCaprio, Damon, Wahlberg are excellent. Nicholson doesn't steal the show, which was pleasant and both Martin Sheen and Alec Baldwin are brilliant in their supporting roles.

The film does cut from calm and relaxed dialogue to scenes of violence with little or no warning, and being a Scorsese film if you don't know what the terms "blow back" and "brain splatter" mean, you soon will.

Be warned, this is a bit of an arse number, being around two and a half hours long. However, it never bores. There are no moments in this that I recalled looking at my watch. It's very enthralling.

Having seen it, I now know what my friend meant when he said there are three places they could have ended this. At the first one, I do recall thinking "They can't end the film like this!" I remember an interview with Scorsese years ago where he said he doesn't shoot films, he shoots real life and real life is messy, and that's certainly what comes across in The Departed.

The final scene will make you gawp like goldfish who's just jumped out of his bowl, only to discover this wasn't such a hot idea after all.

Score: B+

OQ: BANG!

Plot holes: Only one that I noticed. Unfortunately it was stonking huge.

Sneakers

Yet another film that's only got one other review in the team room (Link). Hey, am I destroying a whole load of Googlewhacks here? Is the environmental protection agency going to be pounding down my door for destruction of the natural habitat of the Googlewhack¹?

Sneakers: The American name for trainers, or slang for Spies. It's probably why it's almost unheard of in the UK, despite having sterling performances from Robert Redford and Sidney Poitier. In fact, this is one of the few Robert Redford films that I actually watch.

It's got some of the best and most humorous dialogue I've seen in a movie. It's sort of like a buddy movie, but with six 'buddies' Dan Aykroyd is on top form in this, delivering lines like 'Uh, Whistler, I hate to tell you this, but you're blind.' totally dead pan. And no man alive does cool quite like Sidney Poitier.

Basic plot: A box exists that can crack any encryption code out there. Two NSA agents hire Redford's band of sneakers to steal it. But is everything what it seems? And what exactly is SETEC Astronomy?

If you are a history buff, or know your history of hackers, there loads of trivia hidden (and in plain sight) in this movie. IMDB has most of it.

However this film also demonstrates that movie composers are lazy² and prone to copy themselves. Listen to it, and you'll hear the soundtrack to Apollo 13.

Score: B- Slightly dated concepts of computers and networks, but more than compensated for by being cool as...

OQ: 'The one thing I can't do is hurry.'

Trivia: Prof. Len Adleman is one of the three mathematicians who invented the RSA (he's the "A") cryptosystem, currently the pre-eminent method of encrypting any form of data in the world. Adleman served as a mathematical consultant on the film, and as well as providing technical guidance to the film, he also spent several days constructing the slides Janek displays at the college symposium on "unbreakable codes" (which took Adleman a considerable amount of time to create using primitive early-'90s computer graphics technology).

He waived his fee in exchange for allowing his wife to meet Robert Redford, since she had a huge crush on him. (Aww...ain't that sweet.)

However, director Phil Alden Robinson then had the slides transposed as oil crayon scribbles, on account of the notion that "that's what a regular mathematician would have done". Adleman later remarked that this was indeed true and what he would have done, and would have saved him days if only he'd known. From IMDB

¹ Did you know you can't 'Google' anymore? You can 'perform a Google', or 'go a googling' or even 'rip him a new google.' Google have told people that they cannot use the word Google as a verb any more. Which is a shame, because the phrase 'Google his ass.' is going to be sorely missed. Somehow substituting Yahoo or MSN in there, doesn't seem to work. I'm going to have to fall back on my patented 'IMDB his ass.'

² IMHO. My opinion, not Standard Life's, the club's, the committee's or the board's. There, that ought to satisfy legal.

The Shadow

The Shadow! Oh man, I love this movie. 'Who knows what evil lives in the hearts of men? I know.....'

Where else could you have Ian McKellen and Tim Curry in the same movie? And Neelix! (Ethan Phillips in an uncredited cameo). Although I would say Ian McKellen was criminally underused, spending most of the movie in a zombie like state. Sort of like my friends when I'm talking about Star Trek. Tim Curry uses his patented over-actacting ability to act his ass off¹. And it didn't spoil the movie. In fact, it positively helped it! But it's really Alec Baldwin that makes the role of The Shadow his own, it really makes the film for me. I'm not an Alec basher, I think that given the right role, he can be excellent.

For me, this film is far superior to others of its ilk like The Phantom, Dark City and dare I say it: Dick Tracy. Everything seems to work for it. The cast is just spot on. Serious enough that the supernatural elements are taken for granted, yet with enough tongue in cheek for the comic elements to work. The soundtrack is excellent, dark overtones and light ditties.

Special effects, like the Shadow emerging from his own shadow pinned to the wall still look excellent, even today. For a film from 1994, this is quite something.

There's only one question left to ask really. Why the hell isn't this already in my DVD collection?

In a nice and refreshing change, the bad guy isn't dead at the end of the movie. It's been said that the Batman franchise got into trouble (Joel Schumacher kind of trouble) because they kept killing off the bad guys.

Score: B- Would have been a B+, but for ITV4's inept advert breaks that come at the worst possible time during the movie.

OQ: 'Oh, that knife...'

Margo Lane: We need each other.
Lamont Cranston: No we don't.
Margo Lane: We have a connection.
Lamont Cranston: No we don't.
Margo Lane: Then how can you explain that I can read your thoughts?
Lamont Cranston: My thoughts are hard to miss.
Margo Lane: And why is that?
Lamont Cranston: Psychically, I'm very well endowed.
Margo Lane: I'll bet you are.

Lamont Cranston: I'll see you later
Margo Lane: Hey, how'll you know where I am?
Lamont Cranston: I'll know

Margo Lane: Oh, God I dreamed.
Lamont Cranston: So did I. What did you dream?
Margo Lane: I was lying naked on a beach in the South Seas. The tide was coming up to my toes. The sun was beating down. My skin hot and cool at the same time. It was wonderful. What was yours?
Lamont Cranston: I dreamed I tore all the skin off my face and was somebody else underneath.
Margo Lane: You have problems.
Lamont Cranston: I'm aware of that.

¹ Does anyone else wonder just how much they had to rein in Tim when they were shooting The Hunt for Red October? I'm guessing: a lot.

Who?

No this isn't a question, it's actually the name of a film. As I mentioned in my review of Capricorn One, this is the other 70s sci-fi thriller starring Elliot Gould. Ahh, the 70s... Back when Elliot still had most of his original hair.

I'm writing this review in the vain hope that if you ever spot this on TV, then I will have saved you from wasting about 93 minutes of your life. If that happens, I do expect at least a thank you from you, if not a small bar of chocolate. To think that I once thought The Core was a bad film. It has nothing on this film.

Where do I start? Certainly not at the beginning, because the narrative style doesn't support such an obvious starting place. Doctor Lucas Martino has been behind the iron curtain for several years and is being returned to the Americans. Don't ask why he was there, or why they're returning him, because you'll never be told. To make matters more complicated, he has been in a horrific car accident and has had his entire head and left arm replaced by metal.

That's about as sensible as the plot gets. It had some potential for a good thriller, because the Americans can't be certain he really is Dr Martino, so they don't know if it's safe to send him back to the top secret Project Neptune, since he could be a Soviet spy. Oh, and don't ask what Project Neptune is either, because that too is an equally unfulfilled inquiry. The reason it fails as a thriller is because you're constantly distracted by the man's ridiculous head. And it fails as sci-fi, partly because it's a weak film premise, but mostly because of the man's ridiculous head.

There's absolutely no tension in the film at all, people mostly react in fear at first, but after a few minutes, they are chatting away to him like it's the most normal thing in the world. If it was a film made in the 70s, but set in the future when such prosthetics were more common, this would be understandable, but this film is set in the 70s.

Then there's the visual effects for the make-up, which looks as if they went all out on budget and employed the same person who invents things for the kids to make on Blue Peter to design, build and apply the prosthetics, or as I call them: the pathetics. A more obvious pappier mache and silver spray paint job, I have never seen. It's something of a minor miracle that the other actors can keep a straight face while delivering their lines. During one of the more boring parts (and there's more than a few), I even wondered if perhaps there was a stage hand just out of shot periodically killing puppies to keep the mood sombre. I half expected to see "Puppy Exterminator" in the credits.

And finally, there's the flashback to the Soviets planning the whole thing, which completely ruins the actually ending where you don't know if he is a spy or not.

I wonder if the makers of this film realised that it's name would eventually become so ironic, because after watching this, I had only one question: What?!?

Score: So low, it's actually managed to fall off the Saxon Film Score. Lower than an F. I'd give it an F, but only in the school definition of F, like my friend Tom who managed to score an F- on a maths test.

OQ:

Alternative Titles: Also know as Robo Manor The Man with the Steel Mask (Europe: English title) (video title)

If you really really want to know, he isn't a spy. He's the real Doctor Martino. There was a plan to disguise a spy as him and send the spy back, but that spy died during the operation, so they had to send the real Doctor back. He then gives up all hope of returning to his former life at Project Neptune and becomes a farmer. See: I told you it wasn't worth it.

The Queen

I can't help but notice¹ that Symon from my company's film club and I share a similar fondness in films. We tend to like and dislike the same movies. If I was a girl, and he wasn't spoken for, and I was a girl², there'd be serious chemistry there. Then again, who want's to date someone who's exactly like them? That'd be boring. I want a woman who challenges³ me intellectually.

Have I not got to the film yet? Sorry.

I agree with most of Symon's review. Why then am I writing another one? Simply to say that if Helen Mirren doesn't get best actress award at the Oscars for this film, then there is no justice in the world. Seriously, at times I caught myself thinking "How did they get the Queen to appear in a movie about herself?" She's that good.

This is an excellent film about a troubling time for the royals. It's fairly sympathetic to their situation, showing that they just didn't know how to react to the situation and were for some reason unable to distinguish the difference between the public and private Diana. There's a gentle and fabulous balance between serious, sombre and humourous tones in the film. It opens with Queen Elizabeth II talking to her portrait painter, with her complaining that she's never been able to vote.

The film is full of detail and shows events in a new light and is what my dad would call "a quality product"

Score: A solid B+

OQ: Symon has, as usual, found the best line in the movie. It raised a few laughs from the audience. I'm going to steal it and use it myself, because I can't think of any better ones that don't involve swearing.

Aide: Prime Minister, it's Gordon on the phone for you.
PM: Tell him to hang on.

Although there is another one that's almost as good, when Blair is defending the Queen to his press secretary. I can't remember the whole thing, and it would lose something in the translation. Go and see the film for yourself, you'll see what I mean.

Trivia (Courtesy of IMDB): At the film's premier at the Venice Film Festival, Helen Mirren's performance received a five minute standing ovation.

¹ I've been to New York, I have to sound like Carrie from Sex and the City in at least one of my reviews

² I know I've already mentioned that. I just think it's important.

³ When I say challenge, obviously I mean long discussions about the nature of existence, and not Carol Vorderman's Sudoku Challenge. Although I have just recently got into Sudoku. Man, is that addictive.

Capricorn One

I say major spoilers in the same way as saying "It sinks in the end" is a spoiler for Titanic. You should know, and if you don't know, where the hell have you been for the last 30 years?

My all time favourite 70s sci-fi thriller starring Elliot Gould. Top marks to the first person to name the other 70s sci-fi thriller starring Elliot Gould.

This was made during a time when space was big. In films, I mean. Space has always been physically big. It's far superior to that Gene Hackman one with the Ironman spacecraft stuck in orbit, where the film makers guessed about a craft that was eventually known as the space shuttle. Their version was a two man thing, not much bigger than a Mercury capsule and red. Red for heaven's sake! Still, the "little burst of flame" for the thrusters always made me laugh. And the detante in space! Cracks me up every time. Can't remember the name though.

Anyway, returning to Earth: Back to Capricorn One.

I must admit, I only really "got" the ending for this last night.

For everyone who doesn't know, the plot is based on the myth about the faked moon landings, except this time, it's with Mars. The reason for the fake is that, as all parts of the vehicle were farmed out to contractors, the life support system is sub-standard and will kill the crew less than four weeks after launch. To avoid a public relations disaster (and more importantly to avoid getting their budget cut), Nasa decides to go ahead with the launch, just without the astronauts and fake the whole landing part.

After his Nasa friend disappears¹, Gould (a journalist) gets involved and sniffs a rat. Then he drives his car into the river.

What I didn't get until last night was: Nasa's plan was to return the men safely. They didn't plan on killing them.

The actual spacecraft does go to Mars. Just without the crew. When re-entering, Nasa deliberately bumps it off course, so they have an hour and a half to fly the men out to the pod, put them in and disappear sharpish before search and rescue finds them.

However, an actual disaster strikes the re-entry vehicle when it's heat shield detaches and the craft breaks up. Nasa then has a problem that it can't afford for the men to ever be seen again, which leads to a great scene with them in a locked room.

Walker: Where are we?
Brubaker: We....are dead.
Willis: Oh hell, and I was such a great guy too.

Add a cameo from Mr Kojak himself, Terry Salavas, a chase scene with a bi-plane and two helicopters, the musical score, and the final scene at the funeral service for the men, and it's a cracking little gem of a film.

Interestingly, this film appeared before the "fake moon landings" story really took off, and some people believe this inspired (or fuelled) it.

Score: B-

OQ:
Meep-meep-meep-meep-meep
Boooooooooooooooooooooooo
Beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
(from the disastrous re-entry)

Lt. Col Peter Willis: Hey, Dr. Kelloway. Funny thing happened on the way to Mars.

Robert Caulfield: Look, when a reporter tells his assignment editor that he thinks he may be on to something that could be really big, the assignment editor is supposed to say: "You've got forty eight hours, kids, and you better come up with something good or it's going to be your neck!" That's what he's supposed to say, I saw it in a movie.
Walter Loughlin: You're not crazy, I'm crazy. I'm crazy for listening and I'm crazy for saying what I'm about to say. I'll give you twenty four hours to come up with something. Not forty eight. I saw that movie too, it was twenty four.

¹Literally. They're playing pool in a bar. Gould gets a mysterious phone-call at the bar, and when he comes back his friend is gone. His phone is disconnected. And there's a strange woman living in his apartment.

An Inconvenient Truth

'Probably the scariest movie you'll see this year.'

They're not wrong.
I was so absorbed, I forgot to eat the M&Ms I'd bought.

This documentary is basically a slideshow presentation (quite an engaging one) that Al Gore has been giving over the last 20 years or so, interspersed with a few excerpts from his life, anecdotes and quotes from television appearances.

And yet.....it's one of the most compelling things I've ever seen. I used my new unlimited card, on which I am doing a very good impression of Dr Zoidberg. I mention this because Al Gore uses a scene from Futurama to explain global warming. He doesn't spend long on it, he doesn't pander to his audience. What he does do is show that humans are having an effect on their climate, that this effect is progressive and that politicians (particularly American ones) don't seem to be in any rush to solve the problem.

There is so much that he covers, in an engaging manner, that it's hard to summarise this film in a short review, and I don't want to tell you the whole story, because he does it so much better than I ever could. Really, you should go and see this yourselves. Hell, everyone should see this film.

But there are three key points that really stood out for me.

One was him on the cherry picker, having to manually extend a graph of CO2 and temperature, because it wouldn't fit on the huge projection screen.

Another was him showing the graph of car efficiency over time, starting in the 1960s. European cars all get much more efficient over time. I'm not kidding when I say that the US car line barely rises. Then he shows that the line politicians have that "Chinese cars could flood our market if we made our cars more efficient (and therefore more expensive)" is wrong, since US cars can't be sold in China (or that many places outside the US) because they don't meet the emission standards.

And the third was him showing how much the sea level will change if even half of the Greenland ice shelf collapsed.

This film probably won't tell you much that you didn't already know. But it's presented in such an energetic and engaging manner, that it really is very watchable. As I said I completely forgot my M&Ms and didn't even realise I was hungry until I left the cinema.

Score: A. I've already asked Play.com to notify me when this becomes available on DVD and I've already placed an order for the book.

OQ: We have everything we need [to solve the climate crisis] except the political will.

The Sentinel

I know that preambles before getting to the review are frowned upon, so I will forgo the disaster that was my attempt to buy an unlimited card at Cineworld entitled "Proof of bank details? What are you on?", with the caveat that I've now got something that not only serves as proof of bank details but also acts as a handy slapping device if they give me any more bother.

So, The Sentinel. Michael Douglas, Kiefer Sutherland, Kim Basinger. It's a modern thriller with a twist. That twist is that it's actually thrilling, and kept my attention all the way through. After I saw the trailer, I had a good idea what the twist was, but I was way off. And although the basic plot is a very old and cliched horse, here it has been given a new lease of life, possibly through performance enhancing steroids.

Important bit. Did I like it?: Yes. Particularly impressive given how annoyed I was as I entered the cinema (see preamble at the top).

I'm not going to write a long review, it's not necessary. The Sentinel is an enjoyable film, that kept me engaged all through. My mate's wife would not like it, but then she does make Columbo look like an amateur. She can spot plot twists, endings and bad guys at a hundred yards. I enjoyed it, and I'm glad I saw it.

OQ: Crystal!

Score: B- Not sure it would end up in my DVD collection, but enjoyable none the less.

There are a couple of annoyances in the film. For one, the 'bad guys' motives are never really explained. The traitor in the organisation should have been exposed long ago and his betrayal/bargain is never explained properly. However these are minor annoyances. Eva Longoria has a very obvious wardrobe continuity error. You may say I'm nit picking there, but the reason I noticed it was that Kiefer mentions her attire, then seconds later as she leaves a crime scene, her top has changed for no apparent reason. I was also distraught to discover that www.continuitycorner.com appears to have closed down. I used to contribute fairly regularly to the site, but now all that's there is an advert saying the domain name is up for sale.

Spaceballs

First, a confession: I love this film. I'm not a huge Mel Brooks fan. I didn't like Blazing Saddles, but I giggled like a schoolgirl at Robin Hood: Men in Tights, but that might have been Cary Elwes. He's fantastic in anything I've ever seen him in: The Princess Bride, Hot Shots!, he's even been in The X-Files!. Why hasn't he won an Oscar yet?

For me, this is the ultimate parody film. Brooks takes everything to exactly the right level of over the top. The spaceship that keeps coming and coming over the camera, the radar operator, jokes about the size of the ship, combing the desert, the Spaceballs merchandise, Dark Helmet playing with his dolls, Princess Vespa with the gun, John Hurt's cameo, ludicrous speed!

The ludicrous speed and the abandon ship scenes are among my favourite.

As usual, I bought this on DVD and then some git brought out the Special Edition, knowing about my refusal to buy the same film twice1.

I was very disappointed that whatever channel I saw this on last night had butchered it so badly. The cuts were harshly done and quite obvious. I can understand why the first part of the line 'F***, even in the future nothing works.', but why was John Hurt's chestburster scene cut? It's hilarious and not even remotely gory by today's standards.

Score: B++ Because it keeps getting better and better with each viewing. There are so many great lines, it's really hard to choose just one, so I'll give you the start of my favourite sequence.

OQ:
Who made this man a gunner?
I did sir, he's my cousin.

Fun Trivia: George Lucas' Industrial Light and Magic constructed the lightsabers for the film. An uncredited Julie Pitkanen does the voice of the Self-Destruct Countdown and does an able Majel Barrett impression. She was the film's script supervisor, in fact appears to have been a script supervisor on all of Brooks' films. One of the ships parked at the diner is the Millennium Falcon from Star Wars. 1 I am so mad about the 'Ultimate James Bond Collection' because I already own the entire lot. But there's two rays of sunshine there: 1. They may be ultimate, but the packaging sure ain't. Falls apart easily. And 2. It's only a matter of time before the 'Definitive' version comes out that trumps the ultimate.

Armageddon

What a pile of tosh this was. Excellent! I love bad movies. Well, most of them.

Only a very forgiving person can really enjoy this movie. You have to forgive the dodgy physics, which are almost as dodgy as those in 'The Core.'¹ You have to forgive the dodgy acting, which is almost as dodgy as that in 'The Core.' And you have to forgive it for having Ben Affleck in it, which is just dodgy².

Plot: There isn't one. It may have gotten lost during production, perhaps written on a restaurant napkin. Or it may have seen Ben's Unholy Acting TalentTM and run away to hide.

Stand-in plot: Giant rock spotted, heading for Earth. NASA has loads of strategies for dealing with this sort of problem, the trouble is they all require at least a year's advance warning. And they've got fourteen days. Brief pause for a change of trousers and someone comes up with the solution: Nuclear weapons!!

Now, this movie illustrated the whole thing about movie studios copying each other's plots to an insane degree. Their reason is that movie scrips come in, get looked at and shelved and then made years later, so the Red Planet / Mission to Mars thing happened because someone decided that the year 2000 was going to be all about Mars, so the Mars stories were dusted off and made into full scripts. This can mean that two scripts are written which are both based on the same original pitch made to the studio.

Armageddon was the first time I can remember audiences turning around to the studios and saying: B*****ks. You're clearly ripping off each other's ideas³.

There's a lot of Hollywood hidden code in this movie. For example:

Plot device: Retro-jets that hold the crew and the vehicle down on the asteroid and 'simulate' gravity
Translation: We couldn't afford to use wire-work and the subsequent air-brushing to remove the wires.

Plot device: Someone's got to stay on the asteroid to blow it up.
Translation: Quick! Distract the audience from the fact that a nuclear bomb can't generate that much delta-v inside the rock!

Plot device: Paris get nuked (huzzah!)
Translation: Well, we're not going to destroy an American city, are we?

Score: You're having a laugh, aren't you?

OQ: 'Colonel William Sharp, United States Air Force ma'am. Requesting permission to shake the hand of the daughter of the bravest man I've ever met.'

OOQ: Huuurqh!! <--------the sound of me retching.

¹ Never EVER watch 'The Core' because it will be four hours of your life you'll never get back. Two hours wasted watching the movie, and two hours wasted ranting about how crap it is.
² I've heard it said that Ben's lack of acting ability is made up by his good looks, which is why he's popular with the ladies. Well, I'm sorry, but my gib isn't cut that way, so I don't know what you're on about.
³ For legal reasons, I'm required to state that this is In My Honest Opinion (IMHO) and does not reflect anyone's opinion.

Miami Vice

It's never a good sign if you can spot a plothole from a trailer, I thought as I saw a trailer for Snakes on a Plane. Surely, you'd just fly to lower altitude, blow open a door and turn off the cabin heating. The cold blooded snakes would freeze to death, I thought, before adding 'And don't call me Shirley.'

I feel a blog entry coming....

So, on to the film. I wasn't sure what it was about this film, but right from the start, it just felt hincky. It wasn't until the end credits rolled that I realised there weren't any opening credits. None at all! Which was a bit bizarre.

One of my friends had already commented that Crockett and Tubbs¹ don't talk to each other much, because they are good friends who've been together for years and they don't have to talk all the time. It's not a buddy movie, and I appreciate that. Michael Mann is doing something that's breaking away from the mainstream. What dialogue there is tends to be full of slang and acronyms which you either get or you don't. Perhaps if I'd seen this when it was a TV series, I would understand it better. But I was too ickle to watch when it was on TV and if the TV series had as much shooting, swearing and shagging, I'd have ended up like Ainsley from my school, and that ain't pretty².

And this leads it to the main problem. I spent so much time trying to understand what Crockett and Tubbs were saying, that I didn't really feel anything for any of the characters. I'm a guy, I can't think and feel at the same time³. My brain doesn't work like that.

The film itself is fantastically shot, a real eye to detail from the director there. One thing that had been mentioned to me prior to seeing this is the attempt to capture the real chaos of a gun fight, and I think Mann succeeds in this. Everyone in the audience winced during one or two moments in that fight.

But in many ways, I felt the same way leaving this film, as I did with Lost in Translation. A beautiful film, but no discernible plot. The only difference was Translation made me feel just as claustrophobic as the characters, which is why it ranks highly with me.

There were two gratuitous male butt shots, which I frankly didn't need to see, but these are compensated for with gratuitous female nudity, which was embarrassing because I was with a friend.

And I'm worried that there will be a new category at the next Oscars. Best Supporting Mullet. First Tom Hanks, now Colin Farrell. I swear, if the mullet makes a come back, I'm going to shoot myself. Some things deserve to die, and they're all from the eighties⁴.

Score: C+

OQ: There really aren't any, it's not that sort of film.

¹Anyone else getting a mental image of that woman from the League of Gentlemen? 'Are you local?'
² A short, spotty, sex obsessed ten year old boy. And he was ginger. Every time he opened his mouth, out poured a stream of the most offensive, depraved language you've ever heard. Sort of like Tourettes, except it was ALL THE TIME.
³ Similarly ladies, never try talking to your man when he's, how can I put this?....On the job. Because no man has enough blood to run both organs at the same time.
⁴Especially Timmy Mallet.

Moonraker

Why? Why did I watch this? It was on ITV4 or something last night. I mean, why? It's not like I don't have every single Bond film ever made, including the "non-canon" Never Say Never Again. It's like a compulsion, or something. I was half watching while I explored a Quantum Leap website I'd just found. By the way, I now have a new mobile phone ring tone....

I missed the opening sequence with the shuttle being stolen, but I think I now know where Bryan Singer got the idea for his shuttle sequence for Superman Returns. Hmm....

This film was accused, rather unfairly I believe, with jumping on the Star Wars bandwagon and changing the setting to space. But this isn't really fair. Not that it isn't true, clearly it is. But it's unfair because everyone was jumping on the Star Wars bandwagon. Lucas' creation was responsible for the resurrection of Star Trek, great parodies like Spaceballs and plenty of other films that would never have been made otherwise. Some of them were highly experimental, but they helped push the envelope. Hell, Star Wars is pretty much single handedly responsible for the modern special effects industry, because one man refused to believe that certain effects were "beyond the range of what's currently possible."

Anyway, this film has the best name for a Bond girl in my opinion, but maybe that's just the way my mind works. The usual high jinx, fabulous stunts and locations and the lack of a Bond car made up for by the introduction of the short lived Bond boat. Add in the return of Jaws and you've got one of my favourite Bond films.

This is the Bond film with the best line ever. See the OQ.

Best Bond Bits:
Bond falling out of the airplane without a parachute.
The Bond boat.
The pheasant hunt.
The cable car sequence.
The overly elaborate Bond death traps.

Score: B

OQ: 'I think he's attempting re-entry, sir.'

My Super Ex-Girlfriend

Isn't it always the way? You buy your single ticket online, resigned to go and see a movie on your lonesome, destined to spend two hours in a dark cinema trying not to think that Miss Right might be passing by the building right now...

And then your friends totally surprise you by inviting you to a different showing as a group day out! So I went back to my website, only to find the tickets are non-refundable.

Grrr.

Weeell, I'd wanted to see this movie since I saw the first trailer. And once I saw the second trailer, I really wanted to see this movie.

The men in the group were a bit worried at the rather high female-to-male ratio in the audience. 'Psst! It's a chick flick!' I whispered urgently, only to be ignored by Grant who was playing with his i-Pod and showing Kirsty the video of "The Internet is for Pron¹"

Oh, by the way: top tip. never ever put Skittles into ice-cream as a sprinkling topping. Those buggers turn nasty when they get cold.

The movie does start in a bit of a clichéd way. Kinda cheesy soundtrack and fly-by shots of Manhattan, and a by-the-numbers bank heist thwarted by G-Girl. But I think this is a red herring, designed to deliberately throw the viewer off guard. It quickly steps into telephone booth, dons it's regular, everyday clothing, and goes back to it's job at a major metropolitan newspaper. And it's off! Matt Saunders meets G-Girl's mild mannered alter-ego on the subway, chats her up and she ends up breaking his bed. But in a good way. Luke Wilson does snivelling coward pretty convincingly, but then he's got reason to be scared. Uma Thurman is very good as the psycho ex-girlfriend. The tagline of this movie is "He broke her heart. She broke his everything." Boy howdy!

I think we all owe Anna Farris a big apology. She's a far better actress than I gave her credit for. Not that I would cast her in the re-re-re-re-remake of Pride and Prejudice, but when it comes to comedy: that girl has got it nailed!

Eddie Izzard turns up, and does subtle menacing in a comedy rather well. Not over the top or anything. And Rainn Wilson plays the sex obsessed best friend very well. Hey, is he related to Luke at all?

Score: B- Because it's a great film, I had a laugh with some mates, but Miss Right didn't show up. Must have been delayed on the train, or something...

OQ: 'I WARNED YOU MATT SAUNDERS!!!!'

¹I've misspelt that word on purpose.

V For Vendetta - A Play.com Warning

Yeeeeeee-ouch!

That, the noise that your intrepid reporter in the field made while opening his parcel, as he gave himself a paper cut. Under His Fingernail!

Agh, ooh %&@£! Oh you %&$%@#! $%#@ $%#@ity %$&#! Ooh, that smarts!

It was pretty much my own fault. Too much of a rush to get this open and in the DVD player. Was it worth it? Hell yes! I really love this film. It's built around a conspiracy and a question, and while you may spot the conspiracy quite early on, it's still wonderful to watch it all fall into place, like a domino rally. The question is one of the things that I find most interesting. Is a man who kills and bombs in retaliation against a government a terrorist, if the government he seeks to overthrow is itself corrupt and fascist and guilty of much worse sins?

My favourite quote was, is, and ever shall be: "No, what you have are bullets, and the hope that when your guns are empty I will no longer be standing, because if I am you will all be dead before you've reloaded."

But this film and a few others make me sad. It's yet another film that I initially saw knowing absolutely nothing about the source material, and I really enjoyed it. I felt the same way after watching Serenity (I watched Firefly afterwards). Makes me realise there must be hundreds and thousands of good stories out there in various formats that I haven't enjoyed and don't have time to go and find out about. Ach well. That's what reincarnation's for.

One word of warning: Buy the special edition, as the special features on the standard disc consists of the making of documentary, and that's it. No photos, no trailers, nothing. And the making of doesn't have a Hugo Weaving interview, which was disappointing.

Score: A++ for the film C+ for the special features.

OQ: I'll leave you with another cracking bit of dialogue from the film

Evey Hammond: 'Who are you? '
V: 'Who? Who is but the form following the function of what, and what I am is a man in a mask. '
Evey Hammond: 'Well I can see that. '
V: 'Of course you can. I'm not questioning your powers of observation, I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is. '

Stormbreaker

They say there are three signs that you're getting older.

1. Finding your first grey hair.
2. Hanging art in the bathroom.
3. Going to a "Teenage" film under the illusion it's going to be good.

This weekend, I've hit all three targets. (If it was at work, my manager would be ecstatic)

Eyebrows
Some classy Clint Eastwood, Sean Connery and Michael Caine black and white prints
and
Stormbreaker

Off I toddled to Cineworld (which is now my local cinema) with the knowledge that; hey, at least it isn't ned central. (By the way, where is ned central? Just so I know where it is and know to avoid it).

The opening ads should have been a clue. Frosties with that annoying kid. Trailers for The Ant Bully. And then there was the audience. The group of teenagers behind me kept talking all through the trailers. This was to be a sign of things to come.

I had thought that a film with so many big names: Ewan McGregor, Bill Nighly, Stephen Fry, Micky Rourke, Robbie Coltrane couldn't really go wrong. After all, the last thing I saw Stephen Fry in was V for Vendetta (actually that was the last thing he was in - it should be winging it's way to me as we speak).

And then Jimmy Carr turned up. My god, that man can't act.

Each star, even Bill Nighly to a certain extent, is only playing a brief cameo. Missi Pyle plays to her usual stereotype and Mickey Rourke looks almost bored playing his part. I was expecting more from Sophie Okonedo (last seen as Charlize Theron's rebel friend in Aeon Flux), and the "twist" was as weak and malnourished as the script. Certain characters have no right to exist. For example, Jimmy Carr's character does nothing to advance the plot. I'm a strong believer in "Nimoy's Law": If a character doesn't do anything to advance the plot, they shouldn't be in the movie. It's why he wouldn't play Spock in Star Trek Generations.

I have no idea how this film will play over the pond. I suspect: badly. Alex sounds like he has either a silver spoon in his mouth, or a rod up his ass. He speaks what is known as "BBC English." This adds to his annoyance factor. And the film appears to be set in that fantasy land called "England" where everyone plays cricket and drinks tea.

Are there any redeeming features? Well, the humour is pretty damn good, if you're into that kind of thing. It's very similar to the slapstick from Shrek 2, or even Pirates of the Caribbean. Less highbrow, more physical humour. It gave me a few laughs anyway. That pigeon had me in hysterics.

And the stunts are excellent looking. This film is supposed to be the most physically taxing ever on a child actor, and I can well believe it.

And it's nice to see Alicia Silverstone on screen again. Jack is sooo hot¹.

But the script has serious problems. There are large gaping plotholes. The villain's motives are extremely weak, and it's not clear how he could get anyone else to help him execute them, let alone organise his own private army. It's kind of like the adventures of James Bond junior, but not as smart.

They introduce a love interest then completely ignore her for almost the entire movie. I get the feeling that this film got seriously butchered in the editing room. Whether that was to force it into a neat ninety minute slot like the postman forces parcels into my mailbox², or whether this was to try to salvage what footage they had into a movie, I don't know.

Score: C+ An average movie, dragged up by the humour, physical action pieces and Bill Nighly. The man's a god.

OQ:

Darrius Sayle: 'It reminds me of myself.'
Alex Rider: 'It's 99% water, has no brain and no anus.'

Actually the OQ would have been "SHUT THE FUDGE UP!" followed by the sound of me hitting the teenage monsters behind me, but sadly, I'd left my ned beating cane in the house.

Alan Blunt: "We don't trust him."
Alex Rider: "Why not?"
Alan Blunt: "Well, we don't trust anyone. It's sort of what we do."

¹Jack is her character's name!
² Eh? Eh? Nice metaphor, huh? Well it's copyrighted by me: £1.50 a use. Disclaimer: This film's review may have suffered due to the fact that the film I saw immediately before it (the day before) was Superman Returns. What do you mean: again? Yes again! For the third time. And it's still good!