Dredd

As a fan of the character here's hoping this will be good when it's released in September...

Robin Hood

I rented Robin Hood last night with a little trepidation.  Whilst I though Gladiator was fantastic, I had seen mixed reviews of this Ridley Scott / Russell Crowe pairing.

This film takes a grittier approach to the Robin Hood legend than some previous ones and certainly has some epic scenes but overall it just failed to capture either the magic or charm of some of the previous outings.

The story concentrates on Robin before he becomes an outlaw, starting with him as an archer in King Richard's army returning from the Crusades.  The initial castle siege is reasonably well done but with some unnecessarily OTT elements (and the start of the fiddling with history - although this has come to be expected in this sort of film).  Crowe goes on to reprise his Marcus Aurelius role (although with less depth).  It moves through some entertaining story development and battles scenes to the climactic battle which was rather a disappointment in my view and then to a rather rushed ending.

It's not difficult to identify some of the main failings of the film:

• Russell Crowe's accent - whilst this settles down a little later in the movie he can't seem to make up his mind which accent he is doing
• The landing craft (knight) - I don't dispute that there were landing ships in medieval times but the design of these just jars too badly
• Maid Marion as Joan of Arc - unnecessary and implausible
• King John - lacked the appropriate depth and complexity

As you can probably tell this movie was a bit of a disappointment for me and given the material and budget I felt more could have been made from it.

Star Trek

I managed to get along to see the new Star Trek movie a couple of weeks ago and I've now had enough time to reflect and confirm if my first impressions were right.

Having been a long time Star Trek fan it was with no little trepidation that I went along to see the new film at my local cinema. I'm afraid I'm one of those fans who thinks that none of the spin offs have been able to match the original and so a re-imagining of that was always going to be risky (remember Planet of the Apes?). But with JJ Abrams at the helm I didn't think it would be a complete disaster - but would it be Star Trek?

I need not have worried. The effects, as you might expect given the budget, were excellent. There was a good deal of action and it's pacing and engagement was such that I didn't notice the two hours or so slipping by. The casting is also first rate. I thought Zachary Quinto had the facial structure for Spock but he also backs it up with a good performance. Chris Pine is Kirk at his womanising, shirt ripping best and Karl Urban provides a decent McCoy if a little too much of an impersonation of the original. Simon Pegg, as Scotty, plays it for maximum comedy effect (possibly a little too much for some I suspect) but Sulu and Chekov are a little more two dimensional. I thought Eric Bana was a decent enough villain but not quite as menacing as the character could have been.

The Enterprise itself kept the original lines and a more movie than TOS bridge layout. I think there have been more elegant redesigns externally in previous movies but that's just a personal opinion. And I really want too sure about the powerboat style throttle control either.

JJ Abrams manages to combine action, some character development and plenty of cross references to the previous incarnations to keep the fans happy - which is no mean feat.

[SPOILER AHEAD!]

He also manages to reset the timeline so that he is not constrained by the huge body of pseudo history which already existed from the TV and previous movie outings and he does it in a manner that is entirely palatable.

Overall, I thought the movie was excellent and I shall be adding the DVD to my collection when it is released. It remains to be seen if this manages to kick start a new sequence of Star Trek movies and, if so, whether it will manage to replicate the strength of the Kirk-Spock-McCoy relationships which I think was at the core of the success of the original. But for once I am trying to stay optimistic.

Watchmen

Being a fan of a comic or graphic novel always provides an interesting perspective when it's translated into a movie. I really enjoyed Alan Moore's Watchmen and was a little apprehensive when he movie was announced. I finally got a chance to see it yesterday.

The film starts well but despite its length (160 mins or so) it still feels as though the second half was a little rushed. It sticks to the main storyline from the graphic novel pretty closely but drops some of the side elements; however, some pretty graphic violence has been added in a couple of scenes which, in my opinion, wasn't necessary.

Visually the movie is impressive, Zack Snyder has taken the graphic novel's artistic style and updated it a little but kept pretty close to the imagery. The choice of a less well known actors could have been a mistake but actually works pretty well although Malin Akerman (Silk Spectre II) doesn't quite rise to one of the key scenes.

Overall I came away with mixed feelings. If this has been the first movie of this type I would have been blown away by the visuals but following Sin City and 300 it simply can't make the same impact. In some places I thought that by deviating from the original and playing to the strengths of this new medium more could have been accomplished. As it is this doesn't really add anything to the original. A good movie but not quite great.

Hancock

As you can probably tell from previous posts I am a fan of superhero movies (although not all are created equal) and I also like Will Smith movies so Hancock had to be worth seeing.

This is a different take on the superhero genre and very much a movie of two halves. The first half is more of a comedy and the second drops the comedy for a darker feel. Each half works on its own, although the first is more successful in my opinion, but they sit slightly uneasily together.

Will Smith turns in a decent performance, the special effects are pretty good and there are some nice set pieces but overall the movie lacks that certain something that makes a real classic.

Movies for 2009

I managed to miss a couple of the movies I wanted to see this year at the cinema (although I'm hoping Santa might be kind and drop a couple of them on DVD under the tree!). But I hope to get a better hit rate in 2009. Here are some of the movies I'm interested in seeing:

Watchmen

When I originally heard about Alan Moore's Watchmen I really did wonder what people were going on about. Then I got a copy and read it - only then did I understand. It is a wonderful deconstruction of the super hero genre superbly told and nicely illustrated by Dave Gibbons.

I always have high expectations of comic book movies and was frequently disappointed but recently the movie people have really stepped up their game (of course there have been notable exceptions!). Hellboy, Sin City and 300 were all excellent with the latter two being an almost frame for frame conversion. So I have high hopes for this one!

Terminator: Salvation

The original Terminator movie made a real impact on me. I love SF and particularly time travel and both the story and imagery of that movie really hit the spot for me. The sequels haven't quite managed to recapture that initial impact but have been a decent extension of the concept and certainly better than some. I even have a soft spot for the TV show.

Christian Bale impressed me in Batman Begins (but less so in the Dark Knight which was really Heath Ledger's movie) so I'm wondering what his take on John Connor will be.

Star Trek

As a huge fan of the original series this movie could be very, very disappointing. I have some faith in J.J. Abrams through the Alias TV series which I very much enjoyed and the casting of Zachary Quinto as Spock seems pretty promising but have they really "got" Star Trek.

For me the key to Star Trek is the interplay between Kirk, Spock and McCoy combined with an interesting storyline. Spend too much time on the special effects and not enough on the characters and you get Star Trek the Motion Picture. Add too many characters and you get Next Generation (you also need to avoid having any characters that are too annoying!).

Will this one be a success? I'm hoping so but we'll have to wait and see.

Public Enemies

Johnny Depp as John Dilinger, Christian Bale as Melvin Purvis and Michael Mann at the helm - this promises to be an interesting movie.

Iron Man

I suddenly realised when I was writing the entry for The Incredible Hulk that I hadn't actually mentioned seeing Iron Man on DVD.

I wasn't sure what to expect from Iron Man, I had been a fan of the comic book character (not because I didn't like it but simply because I hadn't read any!) and comic book adaptations can range widely.

I needn't have worried as Iron Man turned out to be a decent addition to the genre. Robert Downey Jr. gives a solid central performance as Tony Stark and makes the character sufficiently complex. The special effects are excellent and the story moves along at a decent pace. I thought that the film would have benefited from a few more action sequences and that the climactic conflict could have been handled differently; however, it was certainly a fun time and I will be watching it again.

The Incredible Hulk

Following on from the latest Mummy film we watched the most recent incarnation of The Incredible Hulk. In contrast to the Mummy I hadn't been overly impressed with the previous versions as, whilst the seventies TV series had made a decent fist of it, the technology hadn't been there and the 2003 Ang Lee film Hulk was just missing something. So my expectations weren't high.

I'm glad to say that this version was, in my view anyway, a real step up. There were some lovely nods to the TV series (assuming you pay attention!) and the now apparently mandatory Stan Lee cameo along with a decent central performance by Edward Norton. Tim Roth is, as I have come to expect, over the top as the main villain but this is a comic book adaptation! I also liked the various links with Iron Man.

OK so it's not the greatest film ever made but it is an entertaining watch if you like comic book heroes.

The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor

I thought the first of the Brendan Frazer Mummy films (1999) was a lot of fun to watch. It was obviously a B movie with a blockbuster budget but it didn't take itself too seriously and had some wonderfully memorable moments. It wasn't Indiana Jones but worth watching nonetheless.

The second outing, the Mummy Returns (2001), didn't quite manage to capture the feel of the first film. Possibly because it was really the same again but with a bigger budget.

I managed to get to see the latest instalment, The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor, on DVD yesterday. It looked promising as they were moving away from Egypt to China and the addition of Jet Li and Michelle Yeoh was a good sign. Maybe my expectations were raised a little too high as the movie was a real disappointment. It's odd really as all the elements were there but they never seemed to come together convincingly. The special effects were good but there was nothing really new. The performances were even more wooden than normal (particularly the O'Connell's son Alex). The plot was a mess and the opportunities offered by having Li and Yeoh squandered.

A real shame.

Quantum of Solace

So I managed to get a day off (which makes up for some of the rather ridiculous overtime I have been working) and took my better half to the cinema to see the latest Bond movie, Quantum of Solace.

Having really enjoyed Casino Royale, I had high expectations of this instalment. The film starts where Casino Royale left off and right in the action with a car chase. The film has its fair share of action sequences but some of them were rather spoiled for me as the editing made them a little frantic. I like the changes of point of view to keep the tension up but there were a couple during which I was rather losing track of what exactly was going on.

Daniel Craig turned in another solid performance as 007 and I continue to see him as the best Bond since Connery. I like my "heroes" to have a dark side. There is little in the way of humour but I happen to prefer that to the slightly camped up Moore incarnation.

As with all Bond films the story leads up to a climactic sequence and it manages to stay just this side of "over the top" which is good. Some elements work less well than others and a couple of the villains are pretty two dimensional but I suppose that's to be expected.

Olga Kurylenko turns in a nice performance as Camile, another of the more modern female roles. Gemma Arterton, as Agent Fields, is pretty much just eye candy though.

The film has a 12A certificate which is a rating I simply don't understand. Either a movie is suitable for 12 year olds and upwards or it isn't. The idea that something like this is OK for younger children if accompanied doesn't make sense to me. There are some pretty violent sequences in this film, albeit not gory, but certainly not suitable for smaller ones IMHO.

Obviously the film lacks the novelty of Casino Royale and focusses much more on action and chase sequences which give the characters less opportunity to develop. But overall it was an enjoyable 110 minutes. I do wonder whether it is an essential cinema watch or whether waiting for DVD would give an equally good viewing experience. There are a couple of larger scenes but nothing that wouldn't translate pretty well to a decent wide screen TV.

The Dark Knight

I managed to get out and catch a showing of The Dark Knight a few days ago. As a Batman fan and having really enjoyed Batman Begins, I had high expectations for this movie, tempered only by my reservations regarding sequels. So how did it measure up?

Well, Heath Ledger is as good as everyone says as the Joker, the scenes with him are certainly amongst the best in the movie. Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman and Gary Oldman are all good but rather under utilised, in my opinion. But Batman himself has become somewhat two dimensional in comparison with the first movie.

There are some excellent action sequences, some great lines and some lovely imagery but overall the movie feels too long and the story isn't either cohesive or coherent enough to carry the length. This isn't a bad movie by any means but it could have been so much better. I will add the DVD to my collection (but then as I already have the risible Batman and Robin movie that doesn't mean much) but I think it was a missed opportunity as with a few changes it could have been great.

First iTunes Movie Rental

So now that we poor (in the sense of timing and selection but not pricing!) relations in the UK have iTunes movie rentals I thought I should try it out. The selection isn't all that extensive as yet (and a number of movies I would have loved to rent are only available to buy) but I did managed to find one that we wanted to watch.

I downloaded the movie entirely before we started watching, as we had timeos , I can't comment on the select and start straight away approach. The film played flawlessly. The picture quality was fine on our 32 inch LCD and probably equivalent to standard DVD levels. I am disappointed that HD movies are only available on the AppleTV (which hacks off those of us with Mac Mini media centres!) but since our TV is only 720p it's not a huge issue.

I can't say that I thought the 24 hour limitation applied in the States would have been an issue for me (though friends with very small children have said quite the opposite) it was nice to see that we have 48 hours in which to finish watching the film.

So overall the experience was pretty good. It's convenient and it works (no taking back scratched DVDs!); however, the pricing could have been better thought out. As I've mentioned before we have been getting increasingly poor digital reception so are in the market to watch more rented movies. If only the movies were cheaper we would probably be chewing through the available selection at a rate of knots. But with the pricing equivalent to DVD rentals (and without any access to special features etc.) there is a psychological barrier there - it just seems too expensive. If it was 99p for back catalogue films (of which they have plenty - which are showing for free on broadcast TV) I'd probably not worry about paying in order to get the convenience but at £2.49 I can't justify it.

Anyway, overall a good experience but the selection needs massive improvement, the pricing could be better and when are we going to be able to rent TV shows?

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

It was with a little trepidation that I took my better half along to see the latest instalment of of the Indy franchise, the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. I had really enjoyed the first three movies and was concerned that the fourth would be disappointing. I needn't have worried as, whilst it's not the best of the movies, it makes a good showing.

It's been set some time after the others, which fits nicely with Harrison Ford's age, but it does mean that the Nazi's have gone and it's the Reds that are the opposition. Cate Blanchett is a little disappointing as the main baddie but the others make a good fist of it and, whilst a couple of the set pieces are pushing things (even for pulp), the overall effect is very entertaining.

If you set your expectations at an appropriate level it's a fun way to pass a couple of hours.

Summer Movies for Me

I'm not usually a big fan of summer blockbuster movies and they are sequels too, which usually isn't a good sign; however, the trailers look interesting.

I was worried that the fourth instalment of Indiana Jones would be a problem given that time has moved on and Harrison Ford isn't as young as he was (are any of us?) but the trailer for the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull looks pretty good.

Next on the list is Hellboy II - the Golden Army. I thought Guillermo del Toro and Ron Perlman made a pretty good job of the first movie so I have high hopes.

Yet another sequel is The Dark Knight. The follow up to Batman Begins and the first Batman movie without "Batman" in the title. Whilst not everyone liked Christian Bale's performance in the previous movie, I enjoyed it and it was held together with an excellent supporting cast. I thought the approach in that film was nicely dark (my preferred approach to Batman) and I hope this one continues that trend.

Fantastic 4: Rise of the Silver Surfer

Following straight after Spiderman 3 we went on to watch Fantastic 4: Rise of the Silver Surfer. This series has a lot in common with Spiderman from my perspective; the heroes are just aren't dark enough for me. There's no doubting that the special effects are well done and the humour is certainly there but ultimately I like my spuerheroes to have a bit more edge.

Again there is enough here to keep you watching and Jessica Alba is always easy on the eye but Victor Von Doom is (as with the original) a desperately insipid villain. I liked the conflicted nature of the Surfer and some of the character interaction works pretty well but overall I'd say this was only a slight improvement on the original and doesn't make it to great status.

Spiderman 3

I finally got to see Spiderman 3 last night when a friend brought the DVD over. I've got to admit that I liked Spiderman when I was a kid and watched the cartoons on the TV but as I've got older I like my superheroes to have a bit more edge. Given that I only thought the original Spiderman movie was OK I approached this one with a little trepidation.

Overall it is an entertaining movie with some typical blockbuster special effects and new villains; however, I found it difficult to be interested in Peter Parker and MJ's personal life. When Peter's not Spiderman he's just too wet. The portrayal of his "darker" (quite literally in this case) alter ego was more interesting but still a little too light for my preference.

The villains were and major special effects were strangely unsatisfying and in some cases just too unreal.

So whilst Spiderman 3 keeps you nicely occupied for the whole film it drags a bit if you aren't interested in Peter, it has some nice special effects for the Sandman but overall it only falls into the OK category.

I Am Legend (Movie)

We managed to catch I Am Legend with Will Smith last night. Inspired by the 1954 book of the same name by Richard Matheson, the film recounts the tale of Robert Neville who is apparently the sole survivor of a pandemic. The film moves the location from LA to New York, has Neville as an Army doctor who may have contributed to the pandemic and, disappointingly revises the ending to a more Hollywood one.

The scenes of Neville traveling around a deserted New York are very effective and the interspersing of flashbacks to explain the situation helps break the potential repetitiveness of the "last man alive" story. Will Smith is good as Neville, slowly breaking down as he fails to find anyone else alive or a cure for the victims of the pandemic who didn't die.

The film certainly succeeds in providing some tense moments but fails to provide the depth of the book's story (often a problem with book/film conversions). My wife enjoyed it but hasn't yet read the original story (something I am recommending she does).

Obviously comparisons are bound to be made with The Omega Man starring Charleton Heston which is also inspired by the same book. Both films have their merits but clearly the advantages of modern CGI do help with the creation of the atmosphere in the later movie.

I Am Legend was entertaining and, whilst I understand why they may not have wanted to film the book ending, it did affect my overall opinion of the movie. Worth a watch.

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Movie

I avoided this movie when it came out as I was afraid it was going to be a big disappointment and so it was with some trepidation that I watched it on TV last night. And I was right to have been worried. If you're a fan of the radio show, the books or even the TV series I think this is going to be a disappointment for you. If you're not then it's a half decent, if a little bizarre, SF movie but might be a little bit inaccessible. Don't get me wrong the movie does have its moments, the special effects are up to scratch and some of the performances are pretty good but trying to cram the original story into this format means compromise. So if you had favourite scenes, lines or images from the previous incarnations some of them will be missing and coming from those it seems a little mainstream. If you haven't heard, seen or read the material before then I'm not sure what you'd think. There is some new material but it doesn't create a impact equivalent to the wonderful moments from the previous works unfortunately.

Overall not too bad an effort and I can think of worse ways to spend a couple of hours (listening to Vogon poetry for example) but if you want to get into Hitchhiker's I'd recommend the radio or the books and, if you need the visual input, the TV series didn't make too bad a stab at it either. Disappointing.

The Golden Compass

We went along to see The Golden Compass, the movie adaptation of Northern Lights by Philip Pullman (the first in His Dark Materials trilogy). I suppose I should preface this by saying that I haven't actually read the book - so I can't comment on how good an adaptation it is (or indeed isn't). My experience with book adaptations is pretty mixed with very few effectively capturing the novel - you'll have to judge for yourself I'm afraid. As a movie, however, The Golden Compass is jolly good fun. It is visually impressive with some lovely imagery of the parallel earth and some strong performances - particularly Dakota Blue Richards, who plays Lyra. I found the presentation absorbing and it managed to avoid the twee aspects of Harry Potter. On the downside it does feel like the start of something (and with the next instalment not scheduled for release until 2009 that's a little disappointing) and the ice bear fight has a rather brutal ending which is probably unsuitable to more sensitive children. But otherwise a very enjoyable film.

300

I managed to miss 300 at the cinema (our local multiplex never keeps anything I'd like to see for more than about 5 minutes!) but caught it on DVD the other week. I really enjoyed Sin City, which I know isn't for everyone but is an incredible translation, almost frame for frame, from the graphic novel to the screen, so I was really interested to see how 300 turned out.

300 is a film adaptation of Frank Miller's graphic novel of the same name which tells his version of the Battle of Thermopylae, the legendary stand by a small force of Greeks, led by King Leonidas and 300 Spartan warriors, which held off the enormous army of the Persian King Xerxes who was intent on conquering all of Greece.

Clearly the movie isn't intended to be a historical account of the battle and, indeed, nor was the graphic novel. Rather it is a retelling of the legend and so the massive amounts of artistic licence can be forgiven. Some of the accents are a little incongruous and the outfits are a little briefer than I suspect they would have been in reality and as for Xerxes well...

But the visual style of the film and the choreographed action sequences more than make up for some of the more "fantastic" elements. The style is quite different to Sin City but it has a real impact of its own and, as long as you don't watch it expecting a historical account but rather an interpretation of the legend you'll have a blast!