Awake

Awake (2007) starring Hayden Christensen, Jessica Alba, Terrence Howard, and Lena Olin.

Before...well the trailer was a muddled mess of confusion. It started off in fantastic fashion, but then it decided to reveal the whole plot of the film, including all the little twists. To say I was shocked would be an understatement and because of this I did not hold out much hope for the film. Rest assured I will not do spoilers without warning ever!

Clay Beresford (Christensen) is a genius of finance secretly in love of his mother's secretary Sam Lockwood (Alba). Clay has a complex, expecting recognition from his mother Lilith Beresford (Olin) that he is as capable as his father was, and he needs heart transplantation. When Clay finds a donor compatible with his rare blood, he requests his friend Dr. Jack Harper (Howard) operate him under the protest of his mother that wants the famous Dr. Jonathan Neyer responsible for the procedure. On the eve of his heart surgery, Clay marries Sam and during the surgery, he experiences an "anesthetic awareness" that leaves his conscious but paralyzed. Clay witnesses the dialogs in the room and discovers dark secrets about his surgery.

So having already seen most of the plot in the trailer, I kinda knew what to expect, which was rather disappointing. The plot was confused and jumbled, the director/writer seemed thoroughly confused about how to garner sympathy for characters when writing. There is a severe lack of sympathy garnered for Beresford, and that is not without trying. The first half hour of the film is focused around attempting to draw out sympathy for him, but it is a dramatic failure.

Onto problem number two...the crux of the movie...the raison d'etre of the plot. The fact that a person stays awake during surgery should be horrific and terrifying, instead what we get is an initial bit of shock theatre followed by a gentle amble with Christensen's voice over being used to push the plot forward. The use of anaesthesia awareness is used as nothing more than a plot device, what Joby Harold could have done more with it I have no idea. I think if you are trying to use a plot device simply because it sounds like a good idea you need to stop, think about the impact, think about the story relevance and realise that if there is no substance to it, throw that idea in the bin!!

Acting...the acting is actually not that bad, not good, but not bad. Christensen is unable to garner any sympathy for the character but you cannot put the blame on him for that, that is Harold's poor script. Alba is actually really good ...



*SPOILER WARNING*

...in her split personality role. I was actually really surprised when it was revealed that she was involved with the plot to kill Beresford and it is testament to her acting that I was surprised.

•SPOILER OVER*



Howard played the role as if he was on auto pilot, not putting enough to show the amazing actor that he can be, as critics thought with his role in Hustle Flow, and Olin was mediocre at best.

Overall there are just far too many plot falls that surround this film for me to enjoy it. I almost switched off half way through, but for the sake of my readers I kept going, so I could give you my honest review about the film and here is the resulting mark out of five...

★★☆☆☆

Ghost Town

Ghost Town (2008) starring Ricky Gervais, Téa Leoni and Greg Kinnear.

Before...Ricky Gervais taking lead in his first film, with his comic potential...surely this film has a lot of potential. However reviews were mixed, but none saying it was awesome. It was either rubbish or it was ok. Therefore I was going into this film with mixed feelings. Potential but will it live up to it?

Dr. Bertram Pincus (Gervais) doesn't like people very much. In fact, the antisocial dentist does everything he can to avoid interaction with other human beings. Unfortunately, he gets more than he bargained for when he is released from the hospital after undergoing a standard procedure: he can see dead people, and they can see him. Suddenly, every ghost in New York City wants Pincus to help clean up their unfinished business. Dapper Frank (Kinnear) is the most persistent ghost, badgering Pincus to help keep his widow, Gwen (Leoni), from making a big mistake from marrying the wrong guy.

Well let's start with negatives...if you don't like Gervais' on the edge of pc humour then this definitely is not the film for you. The film is at times painfully funny. His character is played to perfect, mainly because it seems Gervais is playing himself.

The plot seemed slightly convoluted. The writing, however, was very clever. There were times when I thought it was shying away from the plot, but seconds later you realised that it was doing this to create a surprise around the corner. It is just a real shame that it trips and stumbles through the plot in a rather awkward way.

However, the acting however is fantastic. Gervais is realy good in his role of Pincus. There is definite sympathy that you feel for him as the film progresses and in that light it is a credit to the way in which David Koepp writes his character. It almost feels as if Koepp focused so much on Gervais' character that he almost forgot about the other characters. Leoni's and Kinnear's characters, for instance, do not seem to be as fleshed out. The sympathy that is squeezed out of these characters seems forced and unnatural.

The film is a funny and amusing film. It is heart-felt and funy but what it does not do is make you feel connected enough to the characters. It is a real shame, as from the start it really had the potential to be great. The faults unfortunately are what drives this movie away from being both a 5 star and a 4 star film. There are holes in both plot and character development that left me feeling as if with a different writer and director maybe it could have been so much more...

★★★☆☆

On reflection...

This is not a film post but instead an explanation...after reviewing Burn After Reading today I decided to read back through all of my posts, and in doing so have have that I rated one of the films too harshly. What do I mean? Well in re-reading my Little Children review I found that there was nothing in way of criticism I could make about the movie. The acting was faultless the plot brilliant the direction superb...all in all I realised that if I am to review films I need to check that I am reviewing them fairly. There needs to be more than just a gut feeling about why the film shouldn't get 5 stars...it needs to have a reason. From now on I will be more critical and ultimately fairer in my approach. Thanks for reading!

The F.O. xx

Burn After Reading

Burn after Reading (2008) starring George Clooney, Frances McDormand, John Malkovich, Tilda Swinton and Brad Pitt.

Before...I was expecting a laugh out loud hysterical romp of Coen brothers proportions. I love the Coen brothers and the fact that they can toy between dark and sinister (No Country for Old Men) and intelligent slap stick comedy (The Ladykillers) shows how brilliant they are. The cast is brilliant and from seeing the trailers I was expecting a lot from Brad Pitt. So lets plunge into the movie review, shall we!

Osbourne Cox (Malkovich), a Balkan expert, is fired at the CIA, so he begins a memoir. His wife (Swinton) wants a divorce and expects her lover, Harry (Clooney), a philandering State Department marshal, to leave his wife. A diskette of Osbourne's musings falls out of a gym bag at a Georgetown fitness center. Two employees there try to turn it into cash: Linda (McDormand), who wants money for elective surgery, and Chad (Pitt), an amiable goof. They try to sell the disc back to Osbourne, who has a short fuse, then they visit the Russian embassy. To sweeten the pot, they decide they need more of Osbourne's secrets. Meanwhile, Linda's boss likes her, and Harry's wife leaves for a book tour. All roads lead to Osbourne's house.

Although it wasn't as hysterically funny as I thought the trailer had it as being, this is definitely not a bad thing. The plot is far more complex and intelligent than I could have hoped for, which is silly as other Coen brothers films are as slick and as stylish as this one is. The script and plot of this film is fantastic and in my view faultless. As people have noted though, this isn't your classic Coen brothers film, there is no character that stands above the rest in the moral stakes. All of the characters have their faults, and that for me is what makes this film so endearing. All of them are realistic, you can actually imagine meeting these characters, though I am not sure you would want to as they are complete and utter fools and jerks.

It seems that these actors were made for these characters, and in me doing my research for this review I found that this was the case. The Coen brothers wrote each of these characters with each of these actors in mind. And it is a testament to their writing that you don't actually see the actors playing the characters, but instead you see a fantastic story unfurl in front of you. Pitt and Clooney are the two stand out roles in this film for me, it is their excellent comic timing that makes this film for me. The other actor that stands out for me is JK Simmons, in more of a cameo appearence. He is hilarious!

Initially again, I was thinking of giving this film 4 stars but as I have done in the past, I now am looking back over this review to find sufficient faults to take away that one star. The only one I can see is that it is not classic Coen brothers, but for me that isn't really a fault, it is a blessing. Now in that I am not saying that the rest of their films are awful it just goes to show that they can step out of their usual routine comedy films and still produce this gem of a movie. And so for that I'm giving it...

The Incredible Hulk

The Incredible Hulk (2008) starring Edward Norton, Liv Tyler, William Hurt and Tim Roth.

Before...was really looking forward to it. I do have a soft spot for anything comic related really. What more I knew that this had a brief cameo with Robert Downey Junior's "Tony Stark", which makes me extremely excited. Basically, what it comes down to is that I am a geek, a connoisseur, but still at heart I am a geek. I want to have high expectations of this film, it should be fantastic...note SHOULD. However, even though I am really nervous that, as with all comic book movies the plot/director/actors most of the time get in the way, but my geeky excitement definitely has got in the way!

Depicting the events after the Gamma Bomb and therefore after the first film. On the run, Bruce Banner (Norton) is struggling to rid himself of his gamma-infested monster. When General Ross (Hurt) tracks him down, Banner escapes but finds no respite – his girl Betty Ross (Tyler) has moved on and super-soldier Emil Blonsky (Roth) is becoming obsessed with his green alter-ego.

Let's start with the concept that has been thrown around about this film. This is not a reboot, this is not a take 2 at doing the Hulk. The film's intro shows that we are picking up where the last one finished. This is a major misconception that has annoyed the heck out of me since I have watched the film. There is no reworking of the film that Ang Lee set up, however there is a definite move away from the emotional torment of Banner and more a focus on the Hulk, which can only be a good thing.

Norton, and Roth...for me two of the best actors of their generation and to have them heading off against each other in a movie, BRILLIANT!! Both these actors play their roles with such intensity and realism. The onscreen rivalry between these two works really well.

*SPOILER AHEAD*





What's more is that if a sequel does rear it's head there is the possibility that Roth can return as his character isn't killed off, which is fantastic news. I am always highly annoyed when directors feel the need to kill off comic book characters, where can you go after killing off a character....grrrr!!






*SPOILER FINISHED*

Anyway, I digress, the film is action packed and definitely packs a punch. The surprising addition to this movie, in my eyes, is Liv Tyler's Betty Ross, who she plays with empathy and charisma. It feels strange to say this, but I think that this is one of Tyler's best acting roles to date. People may be shocked by this statement considering

a. it is a comic book movie OR
b. the fact she has been in Lord of the Rings, Stealing Beauty, and Onegin (3 highly rated movies)

It is her role in connection with Hurt's role as General Ross that creates the backbone of this movie for me. It is these characters that form the emotional angst that Banner, Blonsky, Ross and Ross all go through. Whoever said that comic book movies can't do characters was seriously wrong. Comic book movies had a bad rap a few years ago, thankfully with films like Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk they are getting their groove back, just like Stella did.

This film weighs the action against the character focus and definitely wins out for me. Although not perfect this film was throroughly enjoyable...let's hope they do another sequel!

★★★★☆

The Duchess

The Duchess (2009) starring Keira Knightley, Dominic Cooper, Ralph Fiennes and Charlotte Rampling.

Before...for me there was a real emotional connection even before I saw it, as part of it was filmed at Clandon Park, where I am having my wedding reception this summer. I had also heard fantastic things from a whole variety of people. So I went into it with a lot of hope and excitement, which is a strange thing to say about a period drama.

At the age of 17, Georgiana Spencer (Knightley) is the belle of the ball and rapidly falling for Charles Grey (Cooper), but soon she is married to the Duke of Devonshire (Fiennes). She soon realizes that hers is to be a loveless arranged marriage, sorted by her mother (Rampling), and her only purpose in the arrangement is to provide her husband with a male heir. She hasn't much good fortune on that front, producing two daughters and having several miscarriages as well and it is many years before she succeeds. What relationship she does have with her husband breaks down completely when he begins what proves to be a lifelong affair with her best friend, Bess Foster. She does make a life for herself, becoming quite active in politics, where she rekindles an affair with up and coming politician Grey.

The Duchess of Devonshire was seen as one of the first It girls, and her life has often been compared to Lady Diana. Her life was a whirlwind of parties, drinking, gambling and clothing, all done to complete extravagance. Years later though she was a broken shell of the woman she once was.

The acting in this film is fantastic, each actor plays there role wonderfully. Knightley plays the role of Georgina to absolute perfection, if at any point I thought that she could not act this proves me wrong on so many levels. She portrays the highs of Georgina in stark contrast to the lows of her life. Fiennes plays the role of the Duke of Devonshire excellently, as does Ramplings mother, and even Dominic Cooper does well.

The plot is fantastic, it delivers the right amounts of fun and frivolity with the stark contrast of the depression and break down later on in her life. It is the small observations of the film that make it brilliant. The costumes are wonderful, the back drop is stunning, everything about this film to me screamed award winner and yet in only got 5 awards, including and Oscar and a BAFTA for costume design.

Everything fits together so well and yet something holds me back from giving it the 5 star rating, I can't pin it on any thing, but I do know that it is in the last act of the movie that it loses its drive. Can we connect that with the point that Cooper returns to the screen or is that being too harsh on him? This film is wonderful, there are no two ways about it. Well worth a watch, make the time for it!

★★★★☆

Eagle Eye

Eagle Eye (2008) starring Shia LaBeouf, Michelle Monaghan, Billy Bob Thornton, Rosario Dawson and Michael Chiklis.

Before...what was I expecting? Well from the little that I had heard about the film I was expecting an action packed chase movie. I was expected a thriller that would be intelligent and a few surprises in store.

Following the death of his twin brother, Jerry Shaw (LaBeouf) is framed as a terrorist. Arrested by the FBI, he is sprung by a female caller and coerced, along with a single mum (Monaghan), into going on a dangerous mission. FBI Agent Thomas Morgan (Thornton) is hot on both their tails as he tries to lock them both up for good. Air Force Investigator Zoe Perez (Dawson) is investigating the death of Jerry's twin and comes head to head with Morgan. Defense Secretary Callister (Chiklis) is trying to sort out a military mess up.

Well the film certainly was action packed, it was dramatic sequence after dramatic sequence. The thrills did not let up the full two hours and that partly was the problem. It felt like two episodes of 24 back to back, but with none of the relaxing bits in between. Every once in a while you think, a break must come soon, but it never did. Relentless is being too kind, I feel.

Having got the real major problem I had with the film out of the way, what made me enjoy the film? Well, although it was relentless the action was very well done. The stand out sequence for me was the car chase near the start of the film, a stunning sequence that showed off the directors (DJ Caruso) flair for action sequences.

On top of that, the actors were fantastic. They were all charismatic and slick in their portrayals of the characters. The character and actor that stood out for me, unfortunately did not get the onscreen time he deserved, and that was Chiklis. His role as the Defence Secretary was fantastic, however it is the relentless nature of the plot that leaves his acting in the film's wake. For me, that lies at the blame of the director, which I am extremely reluctant to do.

The director is one I am a fan of, and that is after having done ony one film of any note, in my view and that film was Disturbia (a take on Rear Window). Until I read Empire's film review again today I hadn't realised that Eagle Eye was a take on North by Northwest. It seems he is trying to give modern takes on Hitchcockean films and the idea of that for me is heresy. However, now having seen two of his attempts at doing it I am impressed and considering I am such a big fan of Hitchcock that is a real compliment. However the flaws of the action in this film are too much to deal with for me and for that reason...

★★★☆☆

Star Trek

Star Trek (2008) starring Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Eric Bana, Simon Pegg, Karl Urban, Zoe Saldana, John Cho, Bruce Greenwood and Anton Yelchin

Before...I had high expectations of this film, with JJ Abrams at the helm how could it go wrong. A fan himself of the series he seemed to want to create an origins story of the crew, something that hadn't been done before. Although I had high expectations of the film that does not mean I was not nervous about certain things, eg the trailer showing Spock getting very angry indeed...surely that is not right?!?! Anyway although I was nervous about a few thins I still was thoroughly excited at the prospect of a reboot of a series!

James T Kirk (Pine) has grown up in his father's shadow. George Kirk died at the helm of USS Kelvin saving countless lives in the process. It is only when Captain Pike (Greenwood) pulls him out of a bar brawl where Kirk is fighting over Uhura (Saldana) and suggests that he joins Starfleet. Kirk does and one of the first people he meets is Leonard "Bones" McCoy, the two become quick friends. Spock goes against his fathers wishes and joins Starfleet instead of the Vulcan Science Academy. We also are introduced to Scotty (Pegg), Sulu (Chou) and Chekov(Yelchin). The bad guy involved in the film is Nero, a Romulan intent on getting his revenge on Starfleet.

From the start of this film you can tll it is going to be different to other Star Trek films that have come before. Not only do we get so much back story you feel giddy with excitement, but you also are given action-sequences that are relevant to the plot. The action-packed plot is the first Star Trek film that presents us with meaningful sequences, whether it is George Kirk being attacked by Nero or a young Kirk being chased by a cop. Each of the action sequences has relevance to the plot, and for 127mins the tension and action-packed feel is kept up brilliantly. If you are wanting a film where you can pop to the loo half way through this is not the film for you.

Not only is the action brilliantly choreographed and flows excellently but JJ Abrams has created characters that ooze charisma. Each and everyone of the core characters have been fantastically written and as a way of introducing a lot of characters. A fantastically stunning introduction movie, the only other movie that did it this good was X-men. Not only is it able to cope with a large and varied cast but also each of the characters is presented in a way that does not diminish the rest. The only character that doesn’t get as much on-screen time as he could have is Chekov. The time that he does have on-screen portrays him more as the comic role. Although in the original movies he did have this role, I would be intrigued to see him developed more as a character as the films progress. Yes you did just read films. Each of the characters has signed up for at least three films, though they are all dependent on whether they do well or not, but going on how successful this first one is becoming I look forward to Star Trek reboot 2 and 3!

The film balances action and plot perfectly, however I know that there is still room to improve more, especially as the audience gets to know the characters more. And because there is room for improvement that is why I am giving it 4 stars. Like with X-men, I look forward to Star Trek 2 in the hope that it can match the heights that X2 brought!

★ ★ ★ ★ ☆

Holes

Holes (2003) starring Shia LaBeouf, Sigourney Weaver, Jon Voight and Tim Blake Nelson.

Before...I had heard good things about this movie, but that still did not still my nerves about the filming of a book. It seems it is hard thing to do to make a good film from a book. I don't know why as books are fantastic source materials. Such rich characters and more developed plots than most movies...I suppose the problem comes when trying to fit those plots into a palatable movie form. However I hadn't heard much about the plot and was expecting some sort of Critter's-esque movie for the Disney generation, and that is a great concept. As I say I this had the chance of being brilliant, but then again...

Stanley Yelnats (LaBeouf) is found guilty of stealing a pair of shoes from a famous sports star from a charity auction, however, he didn't do it. The judge sends him off to a Camp for delinquent boys. When he gets there he meets 'Mr Sir' (Voight) and Dr Pendanski (Blake Nelson) two of the assistants to the warden (Weaver). The delinquent boys are ordered every day to dig holes 5 foot diameter by 5 foot deep because apparently it builds character. This doesn't settle right with Stanley. When one of he boys finds something in his hole the warden drives out and orders them to dig up the whole area searching for something in particular. What are they digging the holes for? Why is the warden so secretive? And what makes Stanley's family so unlucky?

If I had seen this on relsease in 2003, after seeing it I would have happily put money on Shia LeBeouf becoming something big. The charisma and charm that make you smile and want to take him home and give him some proper food, not the beans that he is fed at the work camp!! With him carrying the weight of the film on his shoulders it shows signs that he will be able to continue to be the star that he has turned into today. LeBoeuf is actually one of those stars that makes me think now "Oooo that movie could be good." Silly? Maybe but lets look at the evidence...Holes, I, Robot, Constantine, Disturbia, Transformers, and even Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (Yes the movie was crap but it certainly wasn't his fault. He played a James Dean-esque role VERY well I thought). And then there is Eagle Eye, which is supposed to be good too! :)

Anyway I don't want this turning into a focus about one actor, so back to the film. His role in it is great. A loveable rogue who is against the evil Warden Walker (Weaver) and her two henchmen, Mr Sir and Dr Pendanski. Voight's character tells people to call him that and we only find out his name near the end of the film, and with this being as un-spoilerific as possible i won't say anymore! :)

Tied into this film is a historic back drop which is done brilliantly. Disney enjoys creating movies with a historical back drop...see National Treasure and National Treasure: Book of Secrets for evidence on that!! In my view this film does the historical part of the story better than either of those two combined. It draws you in without lampooning itself, with both National Treasures seem to do.

All in all, I thoroughly enjoyed this film. It was funny in all the right places, it had its balance of action too. The one problem with this film is a problem that crops in most Disney movies. The level to which they go to turn up the sentimental feelings is clumsy and over clichéd. However having said that this one does it better than most that go down that route. A throughly enjoyable movie, and I can understand why they put it on over the Bank Holiday weekend as it is one that will draw in both the adults and the children. We could have another Disney classic on our hands!! :)

★★★★☆

I'm Not There

I'm Not There (2007) starring Cate Blanchett, Ben Whishaw, Christian Bale, Richard Gere, Marcus Carl Franklin, Heath Ledger and Kris Kristofferson.

Before...I was nervous about this movie. Little bit of background now...movie magazines/newspaper reviewers are split into three camps generally, and here I am stereotyping majorly:
- You have the blockbuster lovers. Those who will give good reviews to the big budget movies because they are enjoyable.
- You have the art house lovers. Those who hate blockbusters and give good reviews to the little known films.
- And you have those that give reviews to a good film regardless of whether it is big budget or art house.
Now with I'm Not There the reviews the reviewers were split down the middle. Some people thought it was brilliant. Other people thought it was truly awful. What made me nervous was the fact that there was no blockbuster/arthouse reviewer split. People from all camps had opposing views about the film. Although an intriguing and enchanting idea, I kinda feared the worst, because it was going to be a marmite movie. No-one could just think it was ok.

6 different incarnations of Bob Dylan are presented on screen: an actor, a folk singer, an electric guitarist, the old man, the boy and the poet. The events are drawn from both Dylan's life as well as from his songs. Embedded within are pieces of historical importance that changed Dylans life and it is presented in a very esoteric way.

When I first heard about it, the idea of getting 6 actors (4 men, 1 small black child and a woman) to play the different parts of Bob Dylans life I thought that it would be a disaster. However, Todd Haynes (director of Far from Heaven and Velvet Goldmine) has created a piece of cinematic brilliance. Bob Dylan is a very enigmatic multi-faceted man, and I'm guessing Haynes thought that no-one would be able to play each of those facets unless you got Dylan himself. So turning to 6 different actors is a piece of brilliance on Haynes' part.

The tone of the film is that of a laid back chilled out groove that eases you in and emerses you into the music of Dylan. It glides easily from one actor to another, with perhaps the two stand-out performances coming from what I thought would be the two mistakes in the casting. When I initially saw Guthrie (Franklin) running across the field towards the train I felt a pang of fear. "What has Haynes done? How can he think that a child could portray Dylan?" To say I was wrong would be a massive understatment. Franklin plays Dylan in his early years with such charisma and brilliance that you almost forget he is a child. Franklin's performance is what drew me into this film and I am happy to admit that I was wrong about thinking Haynes had got the casting wrong.

The other stand-out performace is from Blanchett, who plays Dylan in his electric years, the resemblance in both looks and demenour is almost spooky. She plays Dylan's inner conflict perfectly. She draws out his confusion and frustration about being famous as well as the torment of having people criticise him as he pushes forward into playing electric rather than the folk songs that he is so well known for. She thoroughly deserves all of the nominations and awards that she got for this role, as Blanchett is incredible.

The flow of the movie is complex and yet completely fluid. The different stories wrap and fold in and out of each other so deftly and stylishly. Each of the different actors is able to portray different faces of Dylan so well and the style of film-making is adapted around each character in turn.

This film shows how a layered film can work and how the director of a film can create a world that is as significant now as it was in the past. For me in creating a film about an artist who claimed to have changed America, Haynes has created a film that has challenged the way I think about film.

Admittedly if I hadn't been a fan of Dylan's work beforehand it wouldn't have enchanted me in the same way, however from where I am sitting this is film making at it's best.

Transporter 3

Transporter 3 (2008) starring Jason Statham, and Robert Knepper.

Before...well it's a transporter movie...so in some ways relatively low expectations. I expect action packed sequences and car chases and a couple of classic fights. But not much more. Considering the first two were thoroughly fun and enjoyable my expectations were slightly higher than they would normally have been for a threquel.

Frank Martin (Statham) gets pulled into another transporter case, which he initially refuses to do when Johnson (Knepper) asks, when the man he recommended drives his car into his house. The new twist to this film is that he is fitted with an explosive device that if he gets too far away from the car he will blow up. As always he is not told what he is transporting and he asks no questions about the deal...that is until...

When you see the name Transporter on the side of the box you automatically know what to expect. It is gonna be slightly cheesey, action packed and tongue in cheek. This is a film that should not be taken seriously and ultimately because of that you watch it in a different light than you would with Little Children, or Psycho. It is a fun actioned packed movie that hits the mark with the car chases. The stand out piece of the film is where Statham chases after the car on a stunt bike...he falls behind too far he blows up...tense and fun. Good work Stath! ;)

Although not the best film in the world by a long stretch, but at the same time i enjoyed it more than Wolverine. Admittedly I waited the whole movie for the awesome fight sequence. The first film produced the Oil fight...amazing. The second film produced the hose pipe fight...even better. The third film....this film...produced the strip tease fight...oh. It just didn't hit the mark but I am sure for the female viewers of the film enjoyed it.

The big bad guy in this film in my view is the best actor in the film. He is chilling at times and you kinda see that he enjoys playing the bad guy. The problem in acting comes when we are introduced to Valentina. Until she takes drugs she is a passable actress. After however she becomes an annoying nuisance. A pain in the neck, an awful waste of space.

So although short, this review is to the point. Highly enjoyable and good fun. A mindless movie, not as good as the other two though.

★★★☆☆

X-men Origins: Wolverine

X-men Origins: Wolverine (2009) starring Hugh Jackman, Liev Schreiber, Danny Huston, Will i Am, and Ryan Reynolds.

Before...excited would be an utter understatement. Reynolds as Deadpool was the most exciting prospect I had heard in a long time. He was the PERFECT casting. In interviews he himself had said how much he loved the character. A film with Jackman as Wolverine, Schreiber as Sabretooth and Reynolds as Deadpool surely means perfection...right?

James "Wolverine" Howlett sees Thomas Logan, Victor Creed's father, kill Thomas Howlett his father. In an act of vengeance James' bone claws come out, for the first time, and he drives them into Thomas Logan's chest. With his dying breathe he tells James that he is in fact his father. As they both grow up Creed and James Logan (he changed his name in honour of his dead father) and become part of an elite government team. The team is run by William Stryker (Huston) and as well as Logan(Jackman) and Creed(Screiber) the team contains Wraith (a transporter), The Blob (superhuman strength), Bolt (controls electricity), Agent Zero (expert marksman) and Deadpool (sword wielding merc) (Reynolds). After seeing far too much death, Logan leaves the team. He finds a gf and lives a happy life with her...until that is Sabretooth kills her to punish Logan for leaving him. Logan teams back up with Huston who covers his body in Adamantium, helping him to become indestructible and to take his vengeance on Sabretooth...

So plot...to put it mildly it is a confused and jumbled mess. Crammed with far too many characters the film tries to give the fans exactly what they wanted, and because of that they fail to concentrate on getting the best out of the characters. Wraith, Blob, Bolt, Agent Zero, Deadpool, Wolverine, Sabretooth and Gambit. If this was an ensemble like X-men was thenit would be ok, but the fact there are 8 characters trying to vie for top mutant means that the world Gavin Hood created collapses around them.

Another problem I have with the film is the killing off of superhero's, I won't say who for the sake of spoiling the movie, but I just hate when movies have to resort to killing off characters without much reason. There are comic books that succeed in not killing off characters, Daredevil springs to mind immediately. So why does this movie feel it necessary to do the same?

Focusing in on the wrong characters...another failure of this movie. Deadpool is a fantastic character and Reynolds is PERFECT in the role. I cannot think of a more perfect casting at the time of writing this. The wit and the charisma that he puts into his role is astounding. Particularly due to the fact that he is only in the film for 10-20 minutes at the most.

What more can I say about this film? Actioned filled? Yes. Fun? Yes. But worthy of using all of the mutants...no absolutely not. Hood in my view has almost destroyed the universe that Wolverine is in. Thankfully I know it will make enough money to produce sequels and spin-off. I know for a fact that there is a Deadpool spinoff and a Wolverine Origins sequel too in the pipe line. Lets just hope they choose another director, and scriptwriter for those films.

All in all I was highly disappointed in this film. It just didn't hold together well at all. Here's hoping for the future.

★★☆☆☆