So I sat down with my wife to watch a film that, quite frankly, isn’t anything like I would’ve expected. Here are the ‘labels’ for this film: “a Sandra Bullock movie”, sport movie ,true story… Sounding good? Ok, I’m being unfair, there’s no need to be sceptical. This movie has Sandra playing a rather unfamiliar role to fans of her usual movies – as my wife commented, “it’s a bit different to Miss Congeniality, isn’t it?”

So, prejudices aside, what is the movie really like?

A blooming great success, that’s what!

John Lee Hancock directs Sandra to a well deserved Oscar as the real-life ‘foster-mom’ of “Big Mike”, a homeless teenager, who is nutured by his new family and given a chance at greatness.

This is definitely one of my favourite movies this year (although I have seen a fair few crackers). The cast all do a fantastic job and are so touchingly believable that it really warms your heart.

Quinton Aaron plays the quiet, traumatised Michael Oher (pronounced like the “oar of a boat” – if you have a Southern drawl!), who does poorly at school and at reading, but who has a big heart and enough protective instincts to share around. He is necessarily understated in his acting, but he really plays it with style.

Sandra is, as expected, superb as a no-nonsense, always-gets-her-way, (but in the end) deeply sentimental mother. A real star turn – and this from an actress who I once said had never made a decent film (Two Weeks Notice aside!). Well done her.

Tim McGraw, Jae Head and Lily Collins play Sandra’s (Leigh Anne’s) husband, son and daughter. And I have to say I was quite impressed with young Jae, who did a super job for such a young kid. Directing kids in movies can be a really tricky job and getting them to be natural and not overact is a fine balance. Obviously some kids just have the aptitude and I am guessing that here is one to watch.

The story itself is one that includes sport, and is driven by sport, but this is NOT a sport movie. This is, at its heart, a family drama. A love story, I guess, in its purest sense, about a family that fall in love with a boy.

Now I am warning you here guys, there are moments where the more emotional amongst us may leak a little moisture from our eyes. Cuddles may be needed for spouses and partners.

I do feel that those tears are well justified. I am a caring chap and when something truly touching is going on onscreen I do get rather caught up in the moment, however I am also a little cynical of ‘weepies’ – that is, the type of film that is made with the intention of trying to wring every last tear out of your eyes. I cringe at them. I know their methods: the slow zoom in on the eyes, the building crescendo in the music (the strings are particularly good for this), long pauses before the inevitable lines. I will sit there, unamused and unmoved by these crimes against cinema, perpetrated by so-so directors, or ones that are one-trick-ponies. You have failed, my cheeks are dry, go away and make a good film.

This, however, is a good film. There was none of that anticipation of bad lines, the music is understated and used sparingly. The emotion, the intensity and the skill is there in the acting. They earnt the emotion and they earnt my money.

Great film, inspirational story and another one well worth a watch.

So to the score – my wife argued that if there is nothing wrong with it then it has to be a 10. A good argument and that is her rating for it. Mine is close behind. I feel that it is not just the absence of bad bits (in fact I’ll forgive one or two in an otherwise incredible film), but the inclusion of brilliance. For me this was a fantastic film and one that I will happily give a resounding 9 out of 10. (After all I don’t want anyone to get complacent…)

P.S.
For the record, this would have been a far more worthy Oscar winner than Avatar, but there you go.

Defendor is the story of a good natured simpleton named Arthur Poppington (Woody Harrelson) who, after a pretty traumatic childhood becomes disillusioned about the world around him and lives through his alter ego Defendor, a ‘super hero’ who fights for justice. With the help of Kat, (Kat Dennings) an opportunistic hooker – I know technically they are all opportunistic – Defendor’s mission is to find and capture the shady ‘Captain Industry’.

Sounds a lot like Kick Ass doesn’t it?! Well you may be surprised to learn that this was released almost a year earlier and was made for a fraction of the cost by independent film makers in Toronto.

Where Kick Ass relies more on entertainment and comedy, Defendor looks into the darker side of the average Joe superhero concept, think Batman Begins if Bruce Wayne didn’t have his money and resources… and dropped 50 IQ points. The interesting thing about the movie is that it’s the first of its kind to look at the rules and institutions in place to prevent such vigilantism and the ultimate consequences for a person like Arthur.

Where the film falls slightly is that Director Peter Stebbings (at the helm of his second independent movie) doesn’t quite bring everything together smoothly, there are some parts of the movie that stretch a bit too long and he seems almost scared to really delve into the darkness of Arthur’s character, painting over it with light hearted gloss where possible.

Woody Harrelson is incredible here; he has long been an advocate of Independent movies and in a year that saw him get an Oscar nod for the Messenger I really think he’s at the top of his game. He is utterly likeable in this role and whilst bringing his well practiced light humour still manages to convey the innocence and complexity of Arthur; a character who just wants to do good in the world. A nod should also go to Elias Koteas (Shutter Island) who in contrast is ridiculously hateable as corrupt cop Dooney.

I really do urge you to watch Defendor, it’s a funny, thoughtful and interesting take on a concept that Hollywood is currently flogging to death, it’s just a pity that due to the nature of independent film it has been overlooked.

8/10

Great, I could’ve read a book about ninjas or pirates, but I have spent ages reading about some dozy girl and some unpleasant sounding animals and grotesquely crazy characters.
(Please feel free to disagree with me in the comments – I am sure that Literature junkies will have much to say about the deeper meanings of dodos and flamingos in juxtaposition with playing cards. Or something.)

Misgivings about the story aside, I was genuinely interested to see what Timmy B (as no-one calls him) could make of this much-played-with trifle…

I was disappointed.

I was disappointed for several reasons. The first of which is due to the name. The film is titled Alice in Wonderland, but this is NOT another version of that beloved book. Actually I feel this is very bad marketing. How many people got the impression that this was just another retelling of Alice? Seriously. I recognised this fact in some reviews I saw at the time and had to warn-tell some people who had no idea. This is far better described by some terrible, numeralled, subtitled moniker like – Alice 2: Return to Underland

Secondly, this is not a kid’s film. Really, don’t do it parents. Your kids will be bored. And confused. And will also probably become upset. Genuinely. There might be damp beds afterwards.

The story (without giving too much away) is about a grown-up Alice who, having forgotten about her visit to Wonderland when she was a wee girl, is on the verge of being proposed to by a caricatured snotty young gent in genteel England. Alice then runs off for a moment’s contemplation and follows a familiar rabbit down a big familiar hole.

Cue the return to ‘Underland’ and a repetition of (or reference to) practically every event from the Alice books. To truly understand the story you have to have read the books (or watched one of the 50 or so film adaptations) – and if you have you will be thoroughly bored by the predictable and redundant storyline.

The difference from the originals is that in Alice’s absence the faintly, quirkily crazy characters have gone totally, proper-mad. And I don’t mean in a comical way. These characters are very unhappy. They have severe social problems. They are desperately, unhappily unhinged. This is not good.

The purpose of the story, it would appear, is for Alice to come and restore normality to their poor, pitiful existence. I won’t give away any more, but I’ll have to say I couldn’t see a positive outcome in what eventually occurred. Those characters all need serious help. I was left feeling quite distressed for them.

Ok, (calming down a bit) so onto the other aspects of the movie. The soundtrack was (predictably for a Tim Burton film) by Danny Elfman. Good, recognisably Elfman-ish. The costumes were well-planned, nicely colourful, inventive.

The acting, however, was a very mixed bag. Firstly there was the ‘new talent’ of Mia Wasikowska, who played Alice well. Good job by her, although her starring role was massively overshadowed in the listings (as is always the case in star-struck Hollywood) by Johnny Depp.

Mr Depp was his usual self (for better or worse…) and played the Mad Hatter in a very unique way – at times heroic, at times mournfully depressed and practically incomprehensible (some have commented on the Hatter’s similarity to a certain pirate…), and at other times reminiscing happily in a Scottish accent. Weird, yes, but interesting nonetheless. His make-up, however, I do still find quite unpleasant.

Crispin Glover was rather convincing – as expected – in another creepy-thin-man role…

Helena Bonham-Carter was well suited in her casting – the mad and angry Red Queen – and her oversized head didn’t actually seem very out of place. While I felt rather confused by Anne Hathaway’s White Queen, who I felt should have been a reassuring, positive influence, but whose obvious loss of grip on reality ended up making her seem too light-headed to be someone you’d really want ruling a kingdom – even one as repugnant and charmless as Underland.

The cameos were fun – Matt Lucas made a decent set of Tweedles, but the real gem was Stephen Fry’s excellent Chesire Cat. Certainly the high-point for me! He does have such a reassuringly nice voice.

Finally the special effects and design:
As you might expect most of the sets of the film were over-the-top Burton creations, which may work for stop-motion etc, but as green-screen sets I felt they were a little too abstract to really have confidence in. I wasn’t convinced by the dark and bleak landscapes. I didn’t like it, and didn’t care about the land they were fighting to save. Which kind of made the whole film quite pointless for me.

I am sad to report that this was a big mis-hit for Tim and Warner Brothers, as this playful reference to a cherished piece of English literary history is just too far off-piste.

All in all I’m glad I didn’t waste my money watching this at the cinema. Not one for the Big Screen, not one for the DVD player. More likely one for the bin.

3 out of 10

I have never been so early for a movie in all my life, I was first in the queue… First!!! Don’t get me wrong, I’m not the weird guy who camps outside the cinema and lives in his parents basement; just one of the many twenty-somethings that fell hook line and sinker for the awesome marketing campaign of Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. Mock me if you will but I was pretty excited when I got to sit back row centre for the first evening showing and even more so when the Universal logo appeared on screen resplendent in 8-bit old school graphics complete with cheap, tinny music. Anyway, enough of my geekiness and on to what we all want to know: Is Scott Pilgrim V.S the World really an epic of epic epicness!?!

British director Edgar Wright’s third movie sees him move away from the Pegg and Frost formula that gained him well earned kudos for Brit masterpieces Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz. Instead he has been handed an envious budget and free reign to adapt Bryan Lee O’Malley’s comic book series Scott Pilgrim vs the World; a story that sees young nobody Scott (Michael Cera) fall in love with the mysterious Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead). The bad news is that the only way they can be together is if Scott can defeat her seven evil exes… not an easy task when each one comes equipped with special powers. Throw in the affections of his high school girlfriend/stalker Knives Chau and attempting to make it big with his band the Sex Bo-Bombs who are “here to make you think about death and get sad and stuff” and Scott’s life is pretty complicated.

The first half of this film is a joy to watch, the laughs are constant, most of which go to Wallace, Scott’s gay flatmate (played by Kieron Clukin) who bumbles around the film dropping easily the funniest one liners. The way in which Edgar Wright moves frenetically between scenes is typical of his style but mixed with the plethora of quirky on screen visual commentary and it’s a completely new level. Whilst this may irk some and go over the heads of others, I think it’s a genius touch and makes for a really interesting watching experience.

The second half of the movie is all about the action as Scott valiantly battles Ramona’s exes in a number of match ups including a real life battle of the bands and a duke with Ramona’s bi-furious ex girlfriend. The exes themselves are suitably varied and Brandon Roth and Chris Evans come extremely close to stealing the show, but this is Michael Cera’s film. But he always plays the same guy in every movie right?! Well it can’t be said that he’s diverse but as Scott Pilgrim it all works perfectly. He brings his usual mild mannered goofiness and vulnerability to the role whilst adding a new cocky self assurance which makes for great viewing as Scott grows in confidence with each new fight.

The fight scenes themselves are a blend of stunning special effects and live action manga visuals that combine to make pure eye candy; but its here where my main beef with SP occurs. As unique and brilliant as they are Edgar Wright’s editing judgement was obviously clouded by love because the fights go on for so long that after a while they begin to bog down the movie and in turn slow the plot. I know some will love this but for me it was a bit too much.

This is a great movie and more importantly it’s a fresh idea, which in a time when remakes and origin stories are the norm it’s just nice to see someone doing something different (Christopher Nolan is an obvious exception). The acting is great, the script is brilliant and the visuals are stunning, throw in a rocking soundtrack (written and performed by Beck) and it’s an all out assault on the senses, but in a good way. That said, it won’t be to everyone’s taste and there should have been some harsher editing, if that were the case then this would be close to perfection… In a pop culture on crack kind of a way.

8/10

PLOT

Set in Ancient Greece, the King and Queen of Argos (snigger) denounce the Greek Gods and duly start a rebellion against them. Naturally Zeus (Liam Neeson) and his merry gang aren’t too happy about this and decide that human kind needs reminding just who the bosses are; cue sneaky Hades (Ralph Fiennes) and his mighty Kraken to destroy said Argos. Only fisherman-come-Demi-God Perseus (Sam Worthington) can stop the Kraken but to do so he’ll need the head of Medusa… and maybe a smile.

SUMMARY

Based on the myth of Perseus (In a Hollywood way) this remake of the 1981 movie of the same name, made so famous by the effects wizardry of Ray Harryhausen, goes the route of action action action. Don’t be fooled into thinking this is anything but a big budget movie with a penchant for angry yet impressive CG monsters, relentless battles and stern faces. As with his previous movies (Transporter 1&2, Unleashed and the hulk) Director Louis Letterier takes us on an express train of nonstop action with little time for breath, but this is a good thing right?! Well…In this case, no not really.

The acting is pretty standard and often poor, as with the original where Laurence Olivier goes through the motions playing Zeus so Liam Neeson follows his lead. Ralph Fiennes as Hades is suitably hammy/evil and puts on a good show, even if he does look like Jesus’ wheezy emo brother. Gemma Arterton brings the sass playing love interest Lo, a woman cursed with agelessness (although in Greek Myth she was turned into a cow). Sam Worthington is an intriguing actor but really doesn’t step beyond a grim determined pout here and as such I found myself secretly hoping one of the scorpions would just…well, eat him. A note of credit for Mads Mikkelsen who plays the grizzled warrior Draco, it’s just a pity that he, like all of the supporting actors, is underused and really only there as monster food.

VERDICT

This is a testosterone fuelled action movie first and foremost and here it ticks all the boxes, but without coupling this with likeable, well developed characters (see ‘300’ for a good example) CGI just isn’t enough. I mean, I like a good mythical slaying as much as the next person but after an hour it just gets boring! Oh and don’t even get me started on the title… What friggin’ Titans?!

5/10

I’m not gonna keep you in suspenders for long. This is definitely a return to form for those noble chaps (and chapesses) – and then some.

I have always loved the Toy Story films (who doesn’t?) and they are a great example of how a sequel can be every bit as good as the original, with many saying #2 was in fact better. However the first Toy Story film came out in ’95 and is now not visually as fresh as a lot of other 3D animation out there. Even so, the ‘Toy Stories’ are very much favourites of children and adults everywhere. The original vision and conception (which is SO Pixar, through and through) was to create an engaging children’s film which also totally engages the adults too. And unlike other kids’ films that have fun bits in for the parents too, these films have managed to uphold this tradition by doing it the ‘hard’ way – by creating such universal and emotive themes, that the adults get as much (or even more) from it than their littl’uns.

So, over a decade on, can a revived threequel still hold true to the same ethos? Absolutely, yes! Toy Story 3 is a wonderful, hilarious, thrilling, scary, emotional beast of a movie, that really is such a treat to watch.

My wife and I saw the film in 2D and am very happy that we did. The visuals were incredibly bright, crisp and ‘lifelike’. The textures are really improved on the sets, props and characters, but our favourite toys still look just like they should (despite a computer boo-boo at Pixar meaning they had to actually be created from scratch).

I have heard it said that this is also fantastic in 3D and I am sure it is – it was made in 3D, not getting it tacked on afterwards by the studio, so everything was planned out to get the most from it. That said, watching in 2D was not alienating, with no obviously made-for-3D shots that seem stupid in 2D (like poking spears, beaks etc at the audience).

As usual the attention to detail is exemplary, and the amount of Easter Eggs and blink-and-you’ll-miss-it moments are quite amazing – you will really be able to watch this movie over and over and find something new to smile at.

The storyline itself is, if I’m honest, a little samey – toys get lost/abandoned/in danger and have to be saved or found. We have seen this in the previous 2 films, however it IS a plot that works for the subject matter and is done in a new way here: Andy has grown up and is about to leave for college. He has to decide which toys to dispose of, keep in the attic or take with him. (Mix-ups, accidents and daring escapes ensue.)

This film deals with rejection issues, growing up, loss, love, faithfulness, friendship and fear. These are strong, and at times very powerful emotions, which we can all relate to. But the amazing thing is that through all the CGI, all the plastic faces and bodies of the main characters, we really FEEL those emotions. You will laugh, you will cry (I’m not too proud to admit it!), you will likely be a little bit scared by the screaming monkey or the Big Baby doll! Oh, but your kid’s won’t be traumatised.

Pixar know their stuff. They know camera angles, lighting, sound, framing. They are cinematic geniuses, and I don’t just mean in the realm of animated films… these guys are now creating some of the best films ever made. In any medium. Full Stop!

I genuinely think that it will be a HUGE MISTAKE if Toy Story 3 is not nominated for Best Picture in the 2011 Oscars – and at the moment it is a very strong contender to actually win it. That is how good this film is.

There are some breathtaking moments here – for sheer spectacle, or for quality of imagery and textures; for thrilling, funny, happy joyfulness; and for utter, heartbreakingly beautiful emotion. The ‘hands in the incinerator’ moment was one of those for me, and of course the ending.

I have to say that although I am an emotional chappy, I am also cynical of films that ‘try’ to make me cry. I’m not falling for it – I can spot their ‘sad’ music cues, the lingering framing on the eyes, the slow panning or zooming. If I don’t invest in a character or situation, I’m not gonna cry… I am never cynical in Pixar films. They have this incredible sense of quality, of the care and love poured into them by their creators that I really do invest in them. I love them and I want them to survive, to win, to succeed.

So the final verdict? (As if you didn’t know.)
I love this film, and I feel I am agreeing with Mark Kermode that the Toy Story films are now the greatest movie trilogy of all time! This is without a doubt a great film, a worthy completion of the Toy Story saga, and one of my favourite Pixar movies to date. It is my favourite of the Toy Story movies, and an exceptional piece of moviemaking.

Go and watch this now, whether you have kids or not.
10 out of 10!

PS
Did anyone else notice the reference to Miyazaki in Bonnie’s room? Teehee, I love this stuff!

Hi all! For those of you who don’t follow our Twitter shenanigans @androyd_films here is a whole bunch of good times from the last week all for your reading pleasure…

• Get behind this, please: ‘Expert defends Conan Doyle’s home’ http://gu.com/p/2tfv4/ip

• Daniel Radcliffe to star in ‘The Woman in Black’ a movie presumably about Bellatrix Lestrange http://bit.ly/cI1mpo he plays a wizard…

• Morning all!! It’s miserable weather so why not let Pegg and Frost cheer you up talking about their latest movie ‘Paul’ http://bit.ly/bHIzJ8

• Morning y’all! Check out this poll, do you agree? Personally I have been burnt by the Bacon far too many times… http://imdb.to/bTlgBt

• Inception film review is up!! Check out how many stars Andy gave it ==> http://wp.me/pPgoS-3T

• First trailer for ‘Due Date’ a road trip comedy with Robert Downey Jr. and Zach Galifianakis, looks brilliant!! http://imdb.to/d9Ry31

• Looks like Joaquin Phoenix, Adrian Brody and wait for it… David Tennant! http://bit.ly/cRxB3A I know who I would like to see…

• Marvel has said they will announce a new actor to replace Ed Norton as the Hulk in time for #comic-con who’s your bet?

• http://bit.ly/9wuqfp JW – Brilliant, Mel Gibson and Christian Bale enjoy a chat. “And we’re the two best freinds that anyone could have…”

• Interview with Scott Pilgrim star Michael Cera http://bit.ly/dpXv0o Is this a new type of action hero? Love to see him in the expendables…

• New teaser trailer for ‘The Social Network’ http://imdb.to/bfqkMt – Personally I hope the whole movie is like this…

• Am liking http://jezebel.com/5584818/the-periodic-table-of-swearing

• Check out what we thought about The Book of Eli… http://bit.ly/d9HIAZ Do you agree?! Let us know

• If you haven’t already done so, check out the trailer for RED http://bit.ly/anHjgx Great cast and looks fun! What do you think?

• Check out Empire’s clever road trip quiz, I got 9/14, oops!! http://is.gd/dp4S9

• A pretty good interview here with Ellen Page…http://bit.ly/90fdlf Check it out

• Ed Norton won’t be playing The Hulk Avengers, looks like Marvel are a bit miffed http://bit.ly/a0ZYSv

• Morning all!! Check out Andy’s review of Transformers 2 http://bit.ly/d9HIAZ spolier alert: This film will steal your soul!!

The Matrix brought an intelligent and thought-provoking aspect into the film-watching experience for hoards of action-movie fans. It also pioneered new and exciting techniques in motion picture photography. It was much imitated, much applauded and much aspired to. But it now does look a little dated…

Inception has been hailed by a number of critics so far as ‘the next Matrix‘. This is completely wrong.

Inception is certainly stunning in its visual concept, but not groundbreaking. Nor is it going to revolutionise the way we watch films. It will also not be imitated – mainly because the techniques are not new, the themes are not entirely daring or original. Many films are brought to mind that carry similarities: The Matrix does feature in this list, however more strongly reminiscent is Eternal Sunshine of The Spotless Mind, then Existenz, Johnny Mnemonic, Thirteenth Floor, and Abre los ojos (Open Your Eyes, cynically remade as Vanilla Sky – don’t get me started!!).

All this might sound like I didn’t like the film. Well you’re wrong (ha!) – I just wanted to get this in perspective.

Wow! Inception certainly is a spectacle. Chris Nolan has made his thoughts known on digital effects (and 3D) and lives up to his convictions by creating as much in-camera special effects as possible in this movie. The visuals are breathtaking at times and the gravity-shift sections with ‘Arthur’ are genuinely thrilling.

At times, however, I found the sheer quantity of gunfire to be a little repetitive and it lost the momentum a fraction, but other than that I was totally engaged for the whole 2 ½ hours (unlike the 11 year old boy sat next to me, who got confused by the plot and then, inevitably, a bit bored).

At the core this is a sci-fi heist movie, but one with a strong character-driven motive. Leonardo DiCaprio really acts his socks off to get us to fully engage and sympathise with his ‘issues’. The supporting cast are superb as well – clearly chosen for their intelligence as well as their acting talents. Ellen Page really impresses (again) and need I say how great Joseph Gordon-Levitt is?

Nolan has been working on this film for a decade and has constructed an assured, grounded premise that holds true to what we all have experienced and know of our dreams. His conception and construction of the expanded dream-world has been instructed through his own experiences of lucid dreaming – it is this sense that the writer and director ‘gets’ the subject matter that helps us invest intellectually in the rest of the film and accept the more alien concepts (like shared-dreaming). The story isn’t too complex, but is constructed cleverly with enough multi-layer interest to keep the attention level up (and warrant a second viewing methinks).

The story carries some psychological weight – although not too scary – and Leo’s character’s emotional journey is certainly the driving force through the film. If I had one main criticism it would be that it suffers near the end from plot vs subplot – a slight mismatch of what should be most important to us to see concluded.

I could also have sacrificed a little of the gunfire for a touch more back-story behind Joseph’s character and the 3 companies key to the plot – ok, so I’m being picky here.

But that aside, this was a really exciting, intelligently thought-out, bold movie. One that deserves to be applauded for its use of brain and emotions, and strong characterisation. It is a cinema experience that will be remembered for a long time by critics and the public alike. (Go and see it!)

9 Stars!

Plot

In Post apocalyptic America, Eli (Denzel Washington) must travel on foot across America to deliver the last known copy of a sacred book which may well hold the key to the survival of mankind.

Summary

So the story isn’t revolutionary but the look and feel that has been created by the Hughes brothers is brilliantly gritty and often far too recognisable for comfort (comparisons with the Middle East can be made). There are a few surprises chucked in for good measure and the film moves nicely along, providing a satisfying watch for most people (especially the scene with a crazed Michael Gambon).

As for the cast…Well is there anyone out there that doesn’t like Denzel Washington?! Is that a hand at the back of the class? No?! I didn’t think so… He is firmly lodged in the current crop of Hollywood legends after a career that has forged a path for African American actors (as Sidney Poitier did before him) to not only be considered for mainstream lead roles but to receive success at the box office. The Book of Eli has a massive religious grounding to it and Denzel’s own strong religious beliefs (he has never ruled out becoming a minister like his Father) really show through in this role and make the whole thing much more ‘real’.

The rest of the cast on the whole are pretty good; Gary Oldman is brilliantly hammy as Carnegie the evil ‘Mayor’ of a town of rogues who is one of the few remaining people who can both read (when we first meet him he is enjoying some Mussolini) and is aware of the book’s existence and power. Mila Kunis as Solara is fairly good (as well as being ridiculously good-looking) and it’s through her characters’ interaction with Eli that we begin to understand how important his mission is and the reasons behind it.

Verdict

This is a classic Friday/Saturday night movie with plenty of action, and for those that demand a little more it’s quite thought provoking in places and looks great. Where I have issues with the film is its failure to really delve further into the idea of religion as a possible rallying point for a race that is clinging to survival. After being the cause for most of the wars in history it’s an interesting idea to provide a situation where religion can start from scratch in a modern world. It almost feels as if the big bosses didn’t want to compromise their audience and so the idea gets pushed under the table.

At the end of it is a good movie that isn’t quite sure whether it wants to be an action movie or a climactic thriller and it ends up a little stuck between the two… Also the ending is a little rushed and whilst being quite clever it is entirely infuriating, is he or isn’t he?!?!

6/10

So I finally got around to seeing Transformers 2…

I just felt duty-bound to advise all of those who haven’t seen it yet, or were thinking their kids might like it, to AVOID IT!

I put myself through this tripe so you don’t have to!

In what is probably the best movie-rant I have heard him give, Mark Kermode gives a wonderfully uncompromising view (that I wholeheartedly agree with) about why this film is SO TERRIBLE!

And I quote: [Mark has] “lost patience with this” [it is] “a film with a rotten heart…”

Check out his (audio-only) review here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g__bQ-Y7D8Q

There really isn’t much I can say about this. It is the work of an appalling director with a leery, racist, money-grabbing, idiotic sensibility for what is good or even acceptable in film.

I give it 1 Star (because the sound efects weren’t bad).