Son Of Rambow (2008)

Set in the 80s, Son of Rambow, tells the story of Will (Bill Milner) , brought up in a strict religious family, forbidden to watch movies or TV or really get out much. This changes though when he meets Lee Carte (Will Poulter) , rebel of the school will attends. Carter is hoping to film a home made movie to enter into a local compettition, so they team together to make, "Son of Rambow".

Directed by Garth Jennings , who also directed Hitchiker's Guide to The Galaxy back in 2005. It opens with Carter sitting in the cinema watching Rambo, while smoking and taping the film. It gives you an idea of this character straight away. The two lead performances are fantastic full of slight comedic moments that could be missed, such as terms of phrase and also they both bring a great deal of physical comedy to their roles that really adds to the film. Carter's character in some ways is a little cliched, a confident kid, a rebel who is the clown of the class and troubleamker but roles are reversed in family life with specific reference to his relationship with his brother, it's nothing new but the acting performance by Will Poulter is fantastic.

I guess the film this has to be compared to, at least in terms of releases this year is Be Kind Rewind due to the narrative of making a film. It has all the charm of Be Kind Rewind and then some. It's very emotional at times, but not only that it's also Very Very funny. Let alone the filming of "Son of Rambow" but little moments like Carter standing with tomato sauce on his top to represent blood, standing in a field, then turning to a cow and saying "don't get too cocky this'll be on you one day" or something to that effect. One of the elements of the film i was worried about from the trailer was the character of the french kid who comes in an exchange deal with the school, the character's name escapes me now but the actor is Jules Sitruk. However he was one of the funniest in the film, not him as such but him and his Crew. He gathers a following of students at the school and the scenes with them are very funny jumping through hoops for him and anything he wants, just so they could be seen with coolest kid in school was very funny.

This film was leaps and bounds better than the closest british offering this year , St. Trinnians. Buckets more charm, an actual story with likable characters. The scenes where they are making the film are hillarious and well excuted.

It's also a well shot film, with brilliant shots of english country side, great filming locations for their home made movie, some interesting camera tricks (when carter throws the ball at will for instance) Theres a lot going on behind the camera in this film. The part animated sequences (such as Will's dream about the film) are awesome, help show the imagination of this character and further pull you in, a great idea.

All in all, their will be elements of this film you would of seen before, it's a bit Billy Elliot, it's a bit Kes, it's a bity Be Kind Rewind, and it comes together to make a well made charming movie that is an early highlight of 2008.

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007)

Tim Burton is my 2nd favourite director of all time (next to Wes Anderson) but even i was worried when i heard about his new project, and that it was going to be a musical. I knew nothing of Sweeny Todd's narrative or its themes, so to me it could of been anything. It could of been a cheesy musical, but luckilly it was not. It's a violent , epic story that burton was able to sprinkle with his own taste for the strange and unusual.

Sweeny Todd sees burton teaming with Johnny Depp for the 6th time. Depp pulls in a solid performance here, but he's not the only one here. Helena Bonham Carter delivers what i think was the finest performance of the film that added the humour and charm to the film. The interaction between the two was engaging and they worked together very well. Sacha Baron Cohen brings a short but memorable performance tro the film, his shave-off with sweeny is one of the many highlights of this movie. Alan Rickman plays the villian of the film with a quiet menace that is another wellocmed element of sweeny todd.

Now to my biggest fear, the music. I was suprised that i really enjoyed the musical elements of this film, ranging from the sinister / dark songs to the funny and quirky (By the Sea). Tim Burton was able to bring a sense of danger, elements of violence and humour when needed to these songs.

If i was going to point out something i didn't enoy it would be the romantic storyline between the character Anthony and Johanna. There i felt it starting turning into your conventional musical and slushy romantic storylines did not benefit this film at all.

All in all, Sweeny todd is a fantastic piece of work. Tim Burton has managed to create a visually appealing film, strong performances by all involved. Sweeny Todd has made a musical fan outa me ! (as long as they have violence and blood)

Semi-Pro (2008)

As i mentioned in my Talladega Nights review, Will ferrell has found his style, a arrogant character who was successful but has since lost his fame or skills and has to work his way back up (anchorman, Talladega Nights, Blades of Glory). I love Anchorman, one of my favourites of 2004. Talladega Nights i liked on first watch but lost its appeal on rewatches, then i really really liked Blades of Glory. However i think Will Ferrells style has finally worn off with me.

Watching Semi-Pro, i couldn't help but think that it was a shame that Dewey Cox didn't get more attention. One of the main issues with Semi-pro is that the story isn't solid, its a basic sport/comedy movie storyline, a team working towards one event. It's just slightly dull and formulaic. Usually even if i notice some cliches and basic narrative elements found in Will Ferell movies his comedic style pulls it through and makes it worth wathing, sadly this is too dull and he can't help it and comes off samey.

There were some funny moments but they came in set pieces rather than consistantly funny scenes. I'd rather have a film that has lots of funny jokes, than one or 2 REALLY funny jokes with the rest below par, which is basically what semi-pro is. My favourite scenes in terms of comedy were the puking scene, the gun scene and parts of the bear scene. Solid laughs there for sure. I also liked Woody Harrelson in this film, his character was prettygood and provided the romantic storyline.

All in all, it might be just be the fact that there has been so many of these types of movies (will ferrel basic comedy movies) that it was just unlucky in terms of order. However i'm pretty sure even if it was his first movie, it would seem dull.

Be Kind Rewind (2008)

Be Kind Rewind follows Mike (Mos Def) who works at a VHS rental store, Be Kind Rewind, for boss Mr. Fletcher (Danny Glover). When Mr. Fletcher Leaves for certain amount of time. Mike's friend Jerry (Jack Black) who was recently in a electronic mishap, has become magnetic enters the store, un-knowingly erasing all the tapes. Now to save the business they set out to re-create movies.

Be Kind Rewind is directed by Michel Gondry, whose former work includes Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind and Science Of Sleep. from other reviews and news One of the main critisms of the film is that the re-makes are the best bits with the rest falling short. Going into this film i hoped that was wrong and i would disagree but i don't. The re-creations are very funny and fun. In fact thats one of the main points, Gondry is known for his visual flare and off-kilt approach. In the re-make scenes thats where this is most evident, and the rest of the film is well...pretty plain. It's formulaic and linear in it's narrative, verging on clichéd. In fact if i hadn't known this was a Gondry film, was shown it then asked who i thought directed it, i would probably never of said Gondry. There were elements of the story i didn't like, the business being attempted to be closed down by TWO seperate groups of people was fairly uneeded. However it was mainly that it was very plain in comparrison to Science of Sleep or Eternal Sunshine.

It's not all bad. As i mentioned the re-makes are brilliant. The props used including a playmat with a cartoon style town on it to represent height and distance was hillarious, a front of a toy truck to represent King Kong's nose, and a green bag for slimer from ghostbusters add some hillarity and charm. Little moments such as cuts in the footage, showing mos def as slimer then cutting to show the same place with no one there then cut again to the next scene, displaying the rough / amature style of there films. Jack Black adds his usual sense of manic comedy. The best in the performances and scenes come in the subtle moments, such as Jack Blacks "For your consideration" cards. Certain scenes such as filming at night and stealing the projection scene are hillarious and add a lot of charm to the film.

There is a plot running through of an old jazz legend who lived in the city. The story seemed pretty pointless and kind of took the film into an overally mushy approach. The ending was pretty cliched in terms of the films tone, but i did enjoy the last moments, it seemed that Gondry was really tributing the power of film (and in many ways silent cinema if you take it from the crowds point of view)

All in all, its not as daring or visually interesting as science of sleep or eternal sunshine. The characters are fairly plain as is the narrative. However the re-makes, chemistry between Mos Def & Jack Black and little mmoents in the acting help this film and make for a charming film. It's pretty average but it's intention is harmless and if you can overlook some stale aspects of the film , its an enjoyable feel good film.

No Country For Old Men (2007)

-- Possible spoilers towards the end ---

The Coen Brothers' No Country For Old Men adapted from a novel of the same name by Cormac McCarthy Tells the story of Llewelyn Moss. Moss stumbles upon the aftermath of a drug deal gone bad. He takes the money that was left at the scene and becomes the target of a ruthless and relentless killer who wants the money and will kill anyone who gets in his way.

No Country For Old Men is a visually stunning film. The landscape shots that start the film with gripping narration / voiceover from Tommy Lee Jones character, Ed Tom Bell, have to be one of my favourite intros to a film, ever. Beautiful landscape, and brilliant voiceover by Tommy that instantly projects the sense of disbelief and worn down attitude that Ed Tom Bell has towards the world without even being introduced to the character, a truely brilliant intro. This is followed by a scene where we see Moss (Josh Brolin) hunting, and the landscapes are amazing.

Along with visuals this is a movie of scenes and performances. Another movie that comes to mind that relates to performances and scenes is True Romance. True Romance is really a pretty hyberbolic crime movie, a lot of glamour and over the top moments. What True Romance, which i think is a great film, had was great performances and scenes. Be it Christopher Walken and Denis Hopper creating a tense masterpiece in one scene, Gary Oldman doing what may be his best performance as pimp Drexl, or James Gandolfini & patricia arquette having an epic violent brawl, those scenes stuck out and elevated the film. As is the case here, First of mention would be Josh Brolin searching the aftermath of the drug deal. Later a scene in which Anton (Javier Bardem) is offering a gas station clerk a life or death coin toss, with comedic elements thrown in it brilliantly glides the line between intensity and darkly comic humour. The scenes in which anton tracks down Moss in his motel are brilliant and very tense, getting the sense that you just cant out run this guy because he is one step ahead all the time. Tommy Lee Jones is an actor i was never that keen on, i always felt his characters were slightly over the top, but he plays this so subtle, it's a truely brilliant performance. In fact thats an interesting point his character is so well crafted, that even though he is related and involved with the centre story, you really get the idea he has his own war with himself going on, one that may never have stopped, even after the credits, its brilliantly portrayed.

Some elements i wasn't too keen on include Woody Harrelson's character. His performance was fine but i didn't see the point of his character's inclusion in the film. If it had not been such a well known and charasmatic actor perhaps the role would of stuck out less but it just seemed odd. For me it didn't even play as "whose this CHARACTER he's a bit out of place" for me it was like "whats Woody Harrelson doing here?". I also think some more subtle elements may of taken some of the experience away for me, such as a lack of non-diegetic (ie score or music in general) i think subconsciously played on my mind. This is also a movie i plan to see again, because it takes a lot of attention, not one to drift away from, mainly due to only having one core story driving it.

I will talk for a moment or two about the most discussed element of the film, the ending. I don't want to spend too much time on it or dwel. Possible Spoiler ... :

I personally felt that Anton's exit, mixed with the open ended situation concerning the fate of Carla Moss helped the film, it reflected that life goes on. In terms of Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) 's final speech, well just as i said above, it was about life going on. Bell in many ways was the heart of the film, the entire mood of the film was there in that one character, he was out of touch and unhappy with the state of the world, a man high on principles, that is not going to just go away. I thought the abrupt ending was fine and again portrayed that the issues were still there, unresolved, which is true of life.

All in all, No Country for old men is a fantastic film. I had issues with some elements and there was something nagging on my mind in the film (probably the music issue) however this is a film of standout performances, classic scenes and beautiful cinetograhpy, a lesson in film making before your eyes.

Juno (2007)

Regular and keen readers of this blog will know that i am a big fan of the genre, if it is such a genre, of quirky comedy, and Juno falls into such a genre. Though unlike films by directora such as Wes Anderson, Juno, is more firmly based in a more familiar and real world. It tells the story of 16 year old high school student Juno, who is pregnant. she decides to give the baby up for adoption, it basically follows her journey with the hopeful adopted parents to be, her friendship/relationship with father and fellow high school student Paulie Bleeker and also focuses on her relationship with her dad and step mum.

I would like to first mention, almost as a side note that the film starts with a brilliant animated credit sequence that follows juno on her travels to the local store. A great way to kick of the film and provided for a hip and light starting tone for the film. Where this film succeeds the most is in its heartfelt moments. Some moments in this film are truely touching, and not only that but each subplot seems to have one moment where everything is about the emotions of these characters. Be it Juno's breakdown, Paulie's mis-understanding of the situation and naive approach, the father and step mother connecting with their daughter while remaining supportive and strong. It doesn't stop there, from the hopeful adopting parents, the woman, Venessa, some of the moments where we get the true degree of her need to be a mother again work brilliantly.

Where i feel this film takes some mis steps are within the charatcer of Mark, the husband of venessa. His character is not ready to grow up, still having dreams of playing in bands and being generally, cool. However it's his friendship with Juno where his character weaknesses show. The constant mention of band names and movies, saying stuff like "you haven't lived till you've heard ___" so on and so on. Something that Garden State in 2004 was guilty of. I even heard some tuts from the audience. It felt they were trying to hard to seem cool and cmae of as forced and un-needed. I understand that his character trait was a key to a future narrative point but i can't help but feel the constant name dropping came off as well...lame. I'm not also too sure on the overuse of cool lingo and street / teenage talk. Some of the so called hip short hand way of talking comes of annoying after a while. I just wish it tried less to key into the youth.

All in all when its not trying hard, it works, when it was trying hard, it didn't work and let the flow of the film down. As i mentioned i wasn't as impressed with others on page's performance, i liked her character in her tougher emotional moments but some of the sarky / quick witted stuff i wasn't too keen on. However this film has a heart, and these problems are secondary when to be honest what this film does very well is let the core story, a young girl facing a serious choice guide the film, with strong supporting performances from Jennifer Garner, Michael Cera and very strong performances from J.K. Simmons & Allison Janney grounding the film. Jason Bateman's (Mark's) story lets the side down though

Cloverfield (2008)

The lights go down and a booming sound hits the cinema, followed by a few more, then the film begins and straight away i was hooked. We pick up the film from the view of retrieved footage, that we assume was picked up by the government / Army with the case titled "Cloverfield" started at an area "once known as Centeral Park" this immediately sets up a sense of dread. Then it's followed by footage of a young couple who have just spent the night together, planning their day and traveling on the train. Then it flips between two characters planning a party. With the date at the bottom of recording changing it set up an idea that these two stories probably inter-connect but it was a brilliant idea to get you thinking. I was like "ok so thats like a month and a bit between the dates" getting the audience thinking, genius move. Setting up the emotional aspect and real human lives established a solid base to actually care about these people. It's funny because obivously i knew a monster had to attack at some point but during the party scenes, the interaction between the characters was so solid and engaging that when the monster did attack, it came as a suprise, i was like "oh yeah the monster". Actually part of me was like "damn i have to get used to a new film now" because i was worried the tone would change in terms of the characters. However it didn't when a character dies they take time to show how to effects the fellow characters. Obiviously they don't spend too much time on it, as it's a action movie with a monster, but it was enough and many other disaster movies wouldn't take anytime for the characters.

The monster itself (not too give anything away) well actually thats a good point. To go off on something else for a second. The viral promotional campaign was the main part of this factor. I don't feel right to mention the details of the monster because the viral promotion was so good that it kept you guessing. Whether it was slight glipses on trailers, posters, internet stuff (including fake myspace accounts for the characters) it was so brilliantly done, i don't want to ruin the suprise for thos who have not seen it. I will say that the action is tense and gripping. There is a moment where the monster strikes at a helicopter, emerging from smoke, it was made me jump and i challenge you not to do the same.

The director Matt Reeves had previously directed The Pallbearer. A quiet, dark romantic comedy. A brilliant film that i loved for many years (it's in my top 10 of all time) , way before Cloverfield was announced. However given the genre of this film, then contrasted with the genre of The Pallbearer, i was a little worried that it might not be carried off due to the staggering difference in tone. Don't be alarmed by that, this is as good as a disaster movie i have ever seen, the best i've seen in fact. He seems to of taken to it like a duck to water.

Before this turns into a lovefest i should point out that although i loved the film as a whole, there was one moment that i really did not like and was made for irritating by the fact it went against everything the rest of the film was about. There is a moment where Hud, the character who has the camera, is approached by the monster in a "he's behind you !" sort of manner. He turns and the charatcer looks up (as does the camera) it sticks on the monster for like 5-7 seconds. My issue comes two fold :

1. The camera angle was too prefect, if you were look at a huge monster you wouldn't be bothered about filming it, you'd look with your eyes

2. By seperating them and making it a face off between him and the creature, what that did was make it obivious these are the main characters, like the monster was like "i could go over there .. or maybe here where the stars are" where the rest of it was it was happening around them, for that moment it was happening TO them, which i have issue with.

All in all, those issues i had with it above, mainly made more prominent because i felt it went agianst what the rest of the movie stood for. However that was a small moment that i had issue with, because the rest of the movie was so brilliantly done. There is so much to like about this movie, but, the key reason for me is that after the film was done. I was silent, the rest of the audience was silent and i felt drained. It made me care, and to top that it was at the same time one hell of an exciting ride. A triumph.

Aliens vs Predator - Requiem (2007)

It's such a shame to see something you are a fan of butchered and ruined as much as this was. I make no excuses that i love pretty much all the first 4 alien films (yes even Alien Resurrection). I rank Aliens in my top5 of all time, and Predator in my top 30. However the situation in relation to Requiem gets worse, because we have to remember this isn't the first AVP film. The first one was bland, boring and cliched. This film was just out right wrong and horrible.

One of the saving graces of the first AVP in 2004 was that the action was pretty fair, but here, well i'm sure it would be good if we good see the goddamn thing. It's near impossible to tell which of the creatures is throwing the punch at any given time. Dull, dark and murky camera shots provide plenty of fustration for a fan of the alien/predator franchise (independently). Every Cliched music cue, every over the top action sequence its all here.

The crap doesn't stop with the mise-en-scene the general direction, the characters too. Whether it's the stereotypical (if you're in the movie "Grease") teen bully boys are tourment one of our leads with childish fighting and all that. The obiviously only there for male gaze teen female lead, and boy was the male gaze abused in this film. Oh and not too mention the "we're not trying to tap into and con exisiting fans because signourney knows when to quit" Riply-esque character, who falls for Hicks...oh sorry i mean Dallas....

All iin all this film was pretty damn poor in nearly every respect. With negative reviews i tend to keep them short because the film dosen't deserve much attention , even if all bad. On my other site i gave AVP2 a D- , with it being saved from an F because the fact at least it was another chance to see aliens / predator on screen. However this is the ONLY redeeming factor, seeing them on screen...when you can, when they're not just a grey blur of un-needed camera movement.

The Simpsons Movie: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Overlook The Weaknesses

When reading over my review of Futurama : Bender's Big score, Futurama was not fresh in my mind, The Simpsons was. More to the point how much i wrote about the Simpsons Movie...more to the point, how negativly i wrote about The Simpsons Movie. Now don't get me wrong, in terms of all out laughter, for me, Futurama won. However i can't help but feel i sold The Simpsons Movie short.

So, I gave it a rewatch. Don't look opon this article so much as a review, more of just a rant. A way of lcearing my mind on this film. On the rewatch i found jokes i missed the first time, second, third...yes my 4th viewing of this film. I think part motivation for me watching it so many times is that i'm such a simpsons fanboy , or at least for the old days.

Don't get me wrong though i still think it has MAJOR flaws. Flaws that i think are shared by a lot of die hard fans. In fact, thats one of the main issues. The Simpsons movie wasn't directed at Die Hard fans, it was almost pointed at people that had never seen it before. Evidence of this comes from the commentary on the DVD. They said that during test screenings, they had Milhouse more of a centeral part of the lisa storyline. However audiences didn't know the connection and that he had fancied her all the way through the TV show, so the angle was dropped and colin was made more prominent. I would of been so much happier if slight changes were made, why president schwarzenegger and not president Wolfcastle? As even the newset of simpsons newbies would make the connection between the Wolfcastle character and schwarzenegger. Why Russ Cargill and not Mr Burns? or a story involving Sideshow bob? I've expressed my issues before on the set piece jokes (chores, fishing) so i won't go no and on. Besides i seem to remember saying i felt i'd sold this film short right?

On the rewatch, There was far more i enjoyed about it, i've said what i didn't like so lets list what i did like

* A lot more of the jokes i seemed to enjoy this time ("Black thats the worst colour" "i like en now" "maybe we should kiss"

* Marge / Homer narrative though explored many times before, worked. Marge's video was especially effective.

* Bart's character really worked in the film and the journey he took was quite interesting, and it was good for him to be fairly centeral to the story as when the show first aired, he was the star, untill homer of course took over.

* it looks fantastic and really captured a cinematic sensability and feel.

-----------
MORE TO COME, WORK IN PROGRESS
-------------

Futurama : Bender's Big Score (2007)

Futurama is an interesting show in that it is different yet samey at the same time. The visuals look slick and colourful, it mixes drama with comedy (you only have to see Jurrassic Bark to see what i mean) however at the same time, it can still fall flat. A fair few of the characters are one dimensional. A few comming in for one liners (zoidberg) or main characters built on chatchphrases (Bender). I still remain that in it's day, at it's best, The Simpsons was the best TV show of all time, animated or other. However The Simpsons qaility has dropped to terrible levels, and i still find it hard to believe that when Simpsons was churning out near-crap, futurama, which was still performing on a more than solid level, was cancelled. When The simpsons movie came out, i must admit it was better than i expected. Some jokes were very funny, however most fell flat and i guess deep down it was more the spectacle of seeing them on the big screen that pushed the movie beyond the praise it deserved. The simpsons movie was made when simpsons was at a low point, Futurama movie was made when it was at a high point, and this movie proved it should of never left our screens.

Where Simpsons was lacking on belly laugh jokes, Futurama : Bender's Big Score did not. It brought joke after joke, many pushing the bounderies ("can i use your pen" "your tail was wagging") and giving it a wellcomed egde. The Narrative is both interesting and well played out, it moves smoothly while still allowing for off-beat comedy moments and direct away from what is a pretty dense and complicated narrative.

When i heard there were songs, i was so worried. However, if you too are worried, don't be. There's only Two and they are both brilliantly excuted and Very funny. Here we get wellcomed returns for characters such as bubblegum tate, barbados Slim and Zap. This film also opened my eyes to what a great character Fry is. I mentioned earlier that i feel Bender can sometimes fall too flat in terms of layers to his character, however Fry is, IMO, one of the richest characters on TV. Here the emotional thread of the film revolves around him, and his character really comes into his own. Through the series there was always that interesting angle that fry was dumb, yet passionate and though maybe not as book smart, had it over his future friends as he knew and missed a lot of the things in 2000. He is dumb but being redeemable by emotion and a sense of relatablitity.

What sold it for me totally was that i never felt Bender's Big score trited too hard. Where the simpsons movie would times take breaks to show one-stand alone- one liner or set piece (chores, lights out at moes ect.) however the jokes in Bender's big score i felt came more naturally and happened and co-existed within the narrative.

All in all, Bender's Big score is fantastic, belly laughs throughout, but more importantly mixed with a real emotional narrative thread. It keeps up where it left off, shame the simpsons did too, ay?

The Number 23 (2007)

It's funny when a favourite actor stars in a bad film. Sometimes it's an issue of the film being bad and not the actor's performances and in many cases this can lift the film higher than it deserves. Sadly, i can't say that for The Number 23.

The Number 23 is the story of Walter Sparrow who becomes obsessed with a novel that he believes was written about him. As his obsession increases, more and more similarities seem to arise. He becomes obssesed with connections between the number 23 and his life and decends into insanity while at the same time we see it from the view of his alter-ego in the story, "Fingerling".

The idea may seem an interesting one at a glance, hell i'm all up for a good thriller, shame this wasn't. The main reason is that the whole "23" thing was done to death, i mean any little connection to "23" it could make, it made. It went past ridiculous and entered into down right stupidity. Now back to my original point. I'd heard bad things about this movie before seeing it but had high hopes Carrey (one of my all time favourite actors) could help this film, sadly not even he could lift it above average. In fact his performance was an interesting one. He really throw himself into it but at the same time, you get the feeling that the people involved know this is madness and are hoping that it will do well by going in full force.

I did like apsects of the visual (gothic) style. i liked some parts of the film noir style, and the scenes involving fingerling. However, some of the twists taken in this film aren't good and really push the bounderies of believability. For instance, the story itself takes so many turns, from who wrote the book, a story involving a character in jail also mixes in with both the real time and fingerling story, which comes off as over the top and just too many twists. Not to mention a dog that is haunting carrey's character

All in all, i have to credit the enthusiasm of all involved. However enthusiasm could not save a film with a flimbsy story and too many plot twists. In fact the main flaw of this film is it tries to hard. There was a nice visual style there and a good idea, sadly done to death.

Re-casting Batman Villians.....

Batman forever & batman and Robin are known for some interesting cast choices. Mainly, Arnold for Mr.Freeze, which was totally stupid. So I would like to offer you some of my choices for people who could play batman villians if they were to appear in a Nolan version of Batman...

The Riddler

Michael Emerson

Steve Buscemi

Hayden Christensen

Tobey Maguire

=============================================

=============================================

(though i like the choice for TDK)

Two-Face

Josh Brolin

==========================================
==========================================

Mr Freeze

Patrick Stewart

Samuel L Jackson

Denzel Washington

Javier Bardem

Ben Kingsley

========================
=========================

Tha-tha-tha-thats all folks.

Most anticipated of 2008...

These are the movies i'm going to try and see.

BOLDED are the ones i'd run over my own cat for, and i like my cat, a lot.

--------------------
Already seen & recommend : The Great Debaters (Review comming soon in main section)
--------------------


Be Kind Rewind
A fan of Jack black, Mos Def , Gondry and ghostbusters! so this cannot fail, it's gonna rule!

Cloverfield
possibly rumoured "lost" connection makes me interested, along with the clever marketing.

The Dark Knight
I don't need to say anything here do i ? movie event of the year, hands down.

The Happening
I never saw "Lady in The Water" and don't plan too, as i've heard it's shit. However i'm a fan of sixth sense, Unbreakable and Village (signs not so much). Plus Zooey Deschanel is in it, so its a given that i'm gonna see it, but i'm in no rush.

Hellboy 2
The first film was a very nice suprise and set the bar high for the sequel, so should be good.

Iron Man
trailers look good, Ironman looks impressive, should be good.

Kung Fu Panda
pretty much just for the cast, film, not so much.

Meet the Spartans
spoof movies can be hit and miss, lets hope it hits.

The Poughkeepsie Tapes
Purely based on story outline on IMDB, could be a good horror / thriller, seems Se7en'ish

Rambo
iI was impressed with his return was Rocky, so no reason this should be poor

Semi-Pro
more of the same from Wil ferrel, but i'm still excited by the film and trailers.

Star Trek
Could suck major balls, lets hope not

21
Seems a bit like Smockin' Aces, probably will see it, again no rush

Wall-E
It's pixar, no other reason needed

----------------

I Am Legend (2007)

Here's a few things i look forward to within the movie world : The new Tarantino movie, the new Wes Anderson movie, anything with Zooey Deschanel in, THE DARK KNIGHT lol and aonther one of those things is, the new Will Smith movie. I realise he's been in more than his share of stinkers (wild wild west) but he's also been in some good ones (Men In Black, IRobot) and i've heard great things but yet not seen, Ali. So here we have I Am Legend, the story of the last surviving man in the world, after a outbreak of infection that turn humans (and dogs apparently) into zombie/vampire like creatures. Actually the casting of Will Smith is a pretty solid move, as the nature of this movie needs an actor with a lot of charisma that can hold the screen, as for the majority of the time, he's the only actor on it.

I would like to start by saying, as a movie going experience, i enjoyed this film, quite a bit. The defining factor being the following. In an age where shock value (if you can call it that) comes in gruesome and over the top violence (Saw series, Hostel, Wolf Creek ect. ect.) it was a wellcomed change of pace to see a sci-fi horror that used old fashioned delayed shock and "is it around that corner?!" style that is rare these days. In fact the last film i remember using that tatic was "The Others" in 2001. So i think it was a brave choice to shy away from all out violence and use a more psychological fear approach. The moments we are meant to care, be scared or be on the edge of our seat hit perfect (or at least for me) and i was involved in the film a lot more than i thought i would be.

There is also an interesting, yet only breifly covered in some ways arguement for Science Vs Religion in this film. Will Smith's science and a character he meets later, Anna represents religion. Anna has a lot of faith where Will Smith has lost all of his having been in this situation for so long. In the end it appears both come together to solve the issue. It was an interesting concept, that maybe could of been done a little further, but for what it was, was interesting to see play out.

However this film is not without it's short commings. For instance i'll have to agree with the comments on the CGI effects, though not totally. I agree that the CGI was, in terms of looks, was not up to scale with other movies of the genre. They looked more like something you would see in an episode of Buffy The Vampire Slayer and lacked a certain grand scale feel. However, i thought the capture and movement motion was fantastic, and in many ways helped over look a somewhat un-scary zombie/vampire thing. I have issue with some directions taken in the movie and explanation of the title "I Am Legend". Let me guide you to Wikipedia for the original explanation given in the book :

" he reflects on how the new society of the living infected regards him as a monster. Just as vampires were regarded as legendary monsters that preyed on the vulnerable humans in their beds, Neville has become a mythical figure that kills both vampires and the infected living while they are sleeping. He becomes a legend as the vampires once were, hence the title "I Am Legend "

I personally really like that theory but the film sort of ditches that theory. Instead, in this film, Will Smiths character takes certain action that allows a colony of surviving humans to live and rebuild. I feel ditching the original explanation takes away from the film. It does show he has killed many zombies at one point, but not directly pointing out that he is seen as a feared entity in the eyes of the infected. Instead going for, in my eyes, a weaker reasoning for the title.

There are some cheesy moments we have to come to expect ("butterfly") but it isn't played to much, and it has less sentimentality as Will Smith's character is seen to be wore down by the world he lives in and his character is fairly to the point, which is rare also for a big bankable star like Will Smith to play.

All in all, as i say i have some issues with it. However, as a shock film, it works. Will Smith brings the charisma you would expect. The CGI is a bit weak, but i was still able to look past it and enjoy the film. I do wish it was able to stay a little closer to the material. The film was edgier than i thought it would be. I would recommend this to sci-fi fans, it has some issues but Will Smith's charisma and high speed tense cinetography pulls it through.