The Hangover

If there’s a film that will be sold on word of mouth alone this summer, it’s The Hangover. With a funny but unspectacular trailer, a plot (guys go to Vegas for bachelor party and crazy shit happens) that seems overly familiar, and stars who are relative unknowns there’s nothing to suggest anything hugely promising. But those who have seen it can surely testify that it’s a 24-carat piece of comedy gold, for once you can believe the marketing moguls...we have been graced by the sleeper comedy hit of the summer. On closer inspection it shouldn’t actually have been that surprising, Todd Phillips occupies the director’s chair and his previous output includes such hits as Road Trip, Old School and Starsky and Hutch. ‘The Hangover’ though easily surpasses those by merit of providing regular and consistent laughs amidst backdrop of a frenetic and unrelenting morning after.

The problems most comedies face are that they have to put all their best laughs in the trailer, so by the time the film comes around the funniest parts lose their impact and the rest of the film is disappointing in comparison. This is a problem The Hangover sidesteps masterfully. Yes we know they wake up with no memory of what went before; there’s a baby, a tiger, a chicken, a missing tooth, someone’s married a hooker and (in an unsurprisingly bizarre cameo) Mike Tyson turns up...but these moments, albeit hilarious, aren’t what make the film tick. The heart of the film is in the chemistry between the three leads; Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu (Ed Helms) and Alan (Zach Galifianakis) are likable and identifiable enough for an audience to go along with events that could quite easily in another context seem ridiculous. Alan in particular is a character that could really grind your gears if he turned up in certain films, as part of the affable trio however he grows on you immensely.

This success may partly be credited to casting unfamiliar faces but the actors themselves deserve huge credit. Cooper may already be slightly familiar to some and is undoubtedly a star in the making (having been cast this week as Faceman in the new A Team flick), Helms is best known for his stint in the US version of the office, Galifianakis though has come completely out of the blue and it wouldn’t be at all a surprise to see him follow a career path similar to Seth Rogen’s post Knocked Up. The missing groom Doug (Justin Bartha) also deserves an honourable mention for slotting effortlessly into the group when around, it’s a shame the plot requires him to go missing for the most part. There’s also perfectly pitched cameos for Heather Graham, Jeffrey Tambor, Ken Jeong and best of all Rachael Harris who is magnificently vile as the hapless Stu’s wife.

Phillips has no qualms puts his characters through the wringer, there’s one shocking revelation after another as the people, animals and events they encountered the night before come back to bite them on the ass during the search for Doug. As the audience know as little as the characters do the reactions ring true, they suspend disbelief as colossally silly events are only matched in magnitude by the sound of laughs in the theatre. The Hangover never quite lets up - the laughs even continue way into the credits - so it should come as no surprise that a sequel is already being planned. Having come up with something so fresh here the producers will have to be careful not to suffer from a hangover themselves the second time around.

Verdict: Brilliant chemistry and a few plot tweaks make The Hangover better than you could possibly be expecting going in. It’s funny from start to finish and is guaranteed to have you leaving the cinema with a smile on your face.

Quantum of Solace

Quantum of Solace? Well it's certainly an interesting name I suppose, very different. Seems like a bold choice for a Bond film but I'm sure it will all make sense once I actually see the movie. And Marc Forster's going to direct? Well that's a strange choice, he doesn't seem the most likely candidate to direct a big budget action movie. But then again, he is a decent director and I'm sure they wouldn't have hiredhim if he wasn't up to the job. So this is going to be a direct sequel? Well they've never done that before, I didn't think there were that many loose ends to tie up from Casino Royale. I guess they must have one hell of a story ready to tell if they're going to follow directly on........ What you have just experienced is an insight into the many thoughts running through my head some months ago now as the Bond announcements began to arrive. There were so many doubts, but so much faith inspired by the brilliance of 007's previous outing. Agonisingly, however, it seems my faith has gone unrewarded.

It's quite easy to see where Quantum of Solace has gone wrong by comparing it directly to Casino Royale, because everything the previous film did right seems oddly lacking this time around. There's not even any real need to go into the product placement, there's much worse to rant about this time. Let us start with that name, Quantum of Solace, hardly sounds like a Bond film does it? Where the name Casino Royale gives off a suave and sophisticated vibe , Quantum of Solace comes off rather piffy and dull. And does it make any sense in context with the movie? Well in a word, no. There's one tenuous link thrown in at the end with a throwaway remark about the bad guy's organisation being called Quantum, but that's as far as it goes. By the same token then why not call the next film 'Pickle of Madness', so long as the baddies go by the name of Pickle then it will make just as much sense. They couldn't even work the name into the theme tune, speaking of which, isn't up to much cop either.

There's no doubting that Casino Royale's plot was riveting, lifted almost word-for-word from the original Ian Fleming novel it was both thrilling and involving. And by pitching an almost perfect action to character ratio every scene seemed to serve a purpose in the development of the story. So with such a strong base to build upon and written by the usually reliable Paul Haggis, why does the whole affair seem so vacuous. It's easy to fall into the trap of finding the plot confusing wondering whether you just don't get it, but before long it becomes abundantly clear that in fact there is no plot to get. The one vaguely comprehensible strand is Bond's search for revenge and the truth concerning his fallen love Vesper, this strong spine alone should have been sufficient to build a great story around but it never materialises. It is entirely possible that 007 has fallen foul of being rushed through to beat the writers strike, which if is the case is a crying shame.

With the plot not up to scratch there's a reliance on the action sequences to deliver more bang for your buck, and they do arrive thick and fast. There's a car chase (a rare aspect in which Casino Royale failed to deliver), a speedboat chase, a plane chase, a foot chase and more fights than you can shake a stick at. It's here where Forster emphatically fails to make his mark, and despite having Bourne alumni Dan Bradley in charge of the second unit, the inspiration taken from that franchise wanders too closely to poorly executed plagiarism. The gritty realism is retained but the camera moves too fast this time to see what's really happening, the first person experience is gone. There's little need to care about the men Bond were fighting, last time everyone mattered and it meant you felt every blow. The weak narrative thread makes the sequences seem pointless story-wise little more than time-fillers, their purpose for Bond often remaining unexplained.

Now admittedly Le Chiffre wasn't the best villain in Bond history but he did serve a purpose, a genuinely despicable guy who represented the evil 007 was facing even at the lowest rungs of the criminal organisation. This time Dominic Greene (Mathieu Almaric) is the face of evil, a bigger player than anyone in Casino Royale. Unfortunately the worst thing he seems to do is raise the price of a utility bill, hardly the most villainous act you'd suspect him to be capable of. Almaric is a good actor but faced with a poorly constructed character and few memorable lines he's facing an uphill battle. Also on the weak side are the Bond girls, Agent Fields (Gemma Arterton) and Camille (Olga Kurylenko) may be good looking but there parts are minor, insignificant and uninteresting. The real Bond girl turns out to be Judi Dench's M in a beefed up roll, her relationship with Bond is definitely significant and possibly the only meaningful one in the movie. Dench, as it turns out, is fantastic. Her performance is almost show-stealing, M's scenes are always the ones that bring the best out in Bond.

Craig's Bond was praised upon his debut - on the most part anyway - the phrase 'best Bond since Connery' was thrown around wildly (but in my opinion accurately). His arrival marked a reboot of Bond, an origin story that should see the character develop into the character we have grown to know and love. The question always was, could he sustain it? Without any shadow of a doubt he does, without him this would have been one of the weakest Bond films to date but his performance is superb and makes the piece watchable. The script doesn't help him and hands him hardly half as many one-liners as Brosnan had, but his embodiment of Connery's Bond with an earlier inexperience and edge of malice is a joy to behold. The aforementioned scenes with Judi Dench sizzle with a chemistry unrivaled by many of the best Bond girls, the lust replaced with admiration and respect. Daniel Craig is the key now to this franchise, as long as he is present no Bond film will completely flop. He is a powerful presence and a reason to keep faith that the next installment could live up to, or even improve upon, the standard he greeted us with.

Verdict: Hugely disappointing, all the elements are there for success but are squandered. Thank goodness for Craig and Dench who despite this episode make it impossible not to yearn for another installment.

Burn After Reading

"Jesus, what a clusterfuck!," exclaims the brilliant J.K. Simmons' CIA superior in the final scene of the Coen brothers latest, in all honesty he's not too wide of the mark in summing up a comedy which teeters on the edge of the incomprehensible. For the Coens this is the light relief section of their familiar serious to screwball one-two,'Burn After Reading' arriving only nine months after the Oscar winning neo-Western noir 'No Country For Old Men'. As that was widely regarded as their return to form then it may be sensible to expect that this latest offering may be back up to the heights previously reached by 'The Big Lebowski', 'Fargo' and 'Raising Arizona', sadly this is not the case.

The action unfolds in Washington D.C., kicking off at the C.I.A.'s Langley headquarters where Ozzie Cox (John Malkovich) reacts angrily to a demotion and quits his post. As some sort of misguided revenge he decides to pen some reveal-all memoirs which by a twist of fate end up on a lost disc in a gym where they are found by employees Chad (Brad Pitt) and Linda (Frances McDormand). Chad and Linda soon find themselves blackmailing Ozzie and offering the information to the Russians. Meanwhile horny Harry Pfarrer (George Clooney) who is sleeping with Ozzie's wife Katie (Tilda Swinton) and later Linda, who he meets through an internet dating site, becomes well and truly embroiled in the madcap antics. It's certainly confusing as a whole but in true Coen style everything seems to make some strange sort of sense as you're wading through. Similarities may be drawn with Lebowski then when it comes to a wacky storyline, but the charm, humour and central characters struggle to match up to The Dude and co.

Easy laughs are extorted as each character is initially introduced and we see the famous faces playing against type and reputation. Thus there are some great moments early on which arrive quick and fast, Malkovich cracks a superb Morman gag in the opening scene. However, as things progress and the plot becomes more and more zany the laughs become more and more sporadic. There's a limit to how many times an irate John Malkovich can be funny, Clooney's seediness soon runs out of steam and although one of the best Pitt's simple routine eventually grows dull. The problem is that the characters just aren't iconic enough or lovable enough to stick with for the duration, and it tends to be the brilliance of character more than anything that makes you stick with the Coens through the moments of confusion.

It's not that 'Burn After Reading' isn't funny, far from it, there are just as many chuckles gleaned here as in your average comedy. But that's all it is, average. I spent a while wondering whether it would be fair to criticise the Coens for making such a lightweight film in the wake of 'No Country For Old Men', after all, don't they deserve to have fun every once in a while? But it's hard not to accuse them of wasting their talent. We know that they're capable of creating cinematic masterpieces whereas any recent comedies have merely seen them stumble. Will we have to endure another 'Intolerable Cruelty' or 'The Ladykillers' in return for a 'Millers Crossing' or a 'Blood Simple'.

In a year when Hollywood has really struggled on the comedy front 'Burn After Reading' may be made to look better than it actually is. What may have slightly elevated it above some of it's weak competitors appears to be simply a small injection of intelligence into the script and, more notably, star power. To it's credit, a brief running time keeps things slick and without filler, the electric pace allowing for a lot to be packed in. There's rarely a poor moment, yet rarely a brilliant one. Had this been made by less prolific directors the tone of this review may have been more upbeat, but instead there's an overriding feeling of disappointment.

Verdict: There's fun to be had early on but it struggles to develop into more than a one-note joke.

Gomorrah

It's only in the closing moments of 'Gommorah' that the magnitude of what you've just seen really hits home. This is no glamourised gangster flick, it's an expose into one of the most brutal criminal organisations in the world. Just before the credits roll, director Matteo Garrone proffers some facts about the real-life Camorra organisation, one which is split up into numerous warring clans. Over the past thirty years they have been responsible for some 4000 deaths (more than any other single criminal or terrorist organisation), they earn their money through illegal activities within mainstream business sectors which is then invested into numerous more legal activities (stretching as far as an investment into the rebuilding of the World Trade Center) and they hold a monopoly over the illegal dumping of toxic waste which has poisoned farmlands and exponentially increased cancer rates in the region. This is just the tip of the iceberg, but it goes a long way to helping the reality of the preceding two hours sink in.

If you've never heard of the Camorra before, I'd suggest that you're probably not the only one. The Naples/Caserta-based group are surprisingly widely unknown. Perhaps this is largely down to a fear of exposing the truth, the author (Roberto Saviano) of the book on which the film is based was forced to flee into police protection. The film barely appears to try to dramatise the non-fiction source material, in fact the piece has an almost candid atmosphere, like that of a documentary. The camera follows the various characters like a grim voyeur, never reveling in yet never shying away from the most vicious and violent of events.

We are invited into Gommorah's Neopolitan heartland via five individual and interwoven story strands, each encompassing and highlighting a different aspect of the Cammora's far-reaching illegal activities. Arguably the most affecting is the thread following Gianfelice Imparato's Don Ciro,a man who seemingly serenely goes about visiting the families of imprisoned Camorra members to pay them reparation money. He is a man trapped in a highly dangerous and undoubtedly unwanted position, a victim of the stranglehold that the Camorra has over so many people in the region. Trapped is a word that can be used to describe virtually everyone we meet throughout, it is impossible for them to escape the Camorra's clutches. It's a far cry from the gangster lifestyle we're used to seeing through the eyes of Brando, Pacino and Liotta, this is an existence that few wish to be (or survive to be) part of.

The other stories show slick businessman Franco (Toni Servillo) running the aforementioned toxic waste dumping business and Salvatore Cantalupo's tailor, Pasquale, who is caught up in the violence after offering his services to Chinese fashion rivals. It's quite clear that this is a group with its fingers in many pies, and though some of their fund-raising may be legal it is built upon a foundation of intimidation and manipulation. Gomorrah also casts an eye upon the lure of crime for the young and impressionable, scenes eerily reminiscent of African militia groups show the lengths these children are forced to go to when they become involved with the Camorra.

The most enjoyable moments - in a film for the most part which is to be admired rather than enjoyed - are during Marco (Marco Macor) and Ciro's (Ciro Petrone) scenes. The two young upstarts aim to join the gangster lifestyle but operate outside of the Camorra but the (despicable yet unnervingly likable) pair inevitably find trouble. It seems that everybody involved does, there's rarely a moment free of threat in the carefully slow-paced proceedings. There is no crescendo, no tidy ending, for all this really is occurring and will keep occurring in a town where all the really matters is blood, money and power. This is the bleak but slowly resonating message that Garrone unflinchingly drives home.

Verdict: Agonisingly close to the 5-star mark, however, despite it being a fantastic piece of filmmaking it's far from an enjoyable experience.

You Don't Mess With The Zohan

You never know quite what to expect with an Adam Sandler film, or more accurately which Adam Sandler is going to turn up. There's the serious Sandler of the excellent 'Punch Drunk Love', the solid Sandler of 'Click' and '50 First Dates' or the silly Sandler of 'The Waterboy' and 'Little Nicky'. Unfortunately whichever Sandler does turn up it's likely that Rob Schneider and his unique brand of humourless comedy will be close by. In the form of The Zohan, Sandler is unquestionably in silly mode, a format which has yielded mixed results for him in the past. It's usually a question of whether he toes the line or just goes all out, both can be successful but the middle ground is dangerous territory.

The Zohan is the greatest Israeli counter-terrorism agent the world has ever seen, his arch-nemesis is The Phantom (John Turturro), a Palestinian terrorist. Following a showdown between the two, Zohan fakes his own death and travels to New York to follow his dream of becoming a hair stylist and making the world ''silky smooth''. Renaming himself Scrappy Coco, the only job he can find is in a Palestinian salon on a street divided into Palestinian and Israeli businesses. Trouble surfaces when Zohan is recognised by a cab driver Salim (Schneider) threatening Zohan's new-found success.

Unfortunately with Zohan, Sandler has ventured too far into the aforementioned middle ground, as ridiculous (in a good way) that The Zohan is the constraints of the storyline stunt the comedic potential. Sandler is used to playing this sort of role and unsurprisingly becomes The Zohan with ease but the bland supporting characters leave a lot to be desired. Emmanuelle Chriqui is perfectly fine as the token hottie/love interest, Turturro's diluted version of Zohan is solid and even Schneider isn't as terrible as usual. But they're all just there, underdeveloped and uninteresting characters that only serve to highlight that this is all about The Zohan. There are some genuine laughs garnered from the Israeli but all too often these are the start of a long baron patch, the next laugh arriving with a sense of relief rather than satisfaction.

Where Sandler does earn some kudos is in his sensible handling of a potentially dangerous subject matter. The Israeli conflict is not an obvious source for comedy but the 'war is stupid, why can't we all just get along' message is conveyed well and any jokes made at the expense of the warring parties are thankfully far from offensive. This may be the film's saving grace, there is at least some thought behind the madness and it's commendable that a mainstream comedy should even attempt to tackle such a heavyweight issue. It would have been far easier for Sandler to pump out another vanilla comedy like last year's 'I Pronounce You Chuck and Larry', the next target surely must be to make a comedy with a message...that's actually funny.

Verdict: It's not great but Sandler's made far worse in his time. However, it's unlikely to be rivalled as the Israeli conflict comedy of the year.

The Dark Knight

Whether it be due to Heath Ledger's tragic death, suggestions of a posthumous Oscar, box-office records tumbling by the day, assault allegations made against Christian Bale, the protracted viral marketing campaign or maybe because it is the sequel to the hugely successful 'Batman Begins' - there can be no doubt that 'The Dark Knight' is the most talked about and most eagerly anticipated film of the year. The level of hype has been intense and although ultimately 'The Dark Knight' can't quite live up to the (arguably unattainable) levels of expectation that have been created...it doesn't fall too far short.

We return to a Gotham City much changed from the one we left in 'Batman Begins', the mob are beginning to fall thanks to the efforts of our masked vigilante hero, it is very much a city at a crossroads. Bruce Wayne is hoping that his cleansing of Gotham’s criminal underbelly will soon be over so that he can hang up his cape and hand over crime-fighting duties to the new District Attorney, Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart). But in their desperation the mob turn to the mysterious Joker (Heath Ledger), a fearless anarchist who thrives on the existence of Batman and provides him with his toughest test. The Joker operates outside Batman's comfort zone, Gotham's noir daytime turns stereotypes on their heads as Ledger's villain terrorises in a light that Batman will never stray into.

Director Christopher Nolan has created a complex beast; an action movie with ideas. So in amongst the motorbike chases, truck flipping, buildings exploding, bank robberies and murders there is a genuine sense of intelligent filmmaking and a complexity that is notably lacking from it's contemporaries. The word 'hero' is not a straightforward term and Nolan plays on it's ambiguity as he questions as to whether Batman is inadvertently creating more problems than he is solving. Is Batman the hero that Gotham needs, wants or deserves? As well as citing Michael Mann’s ‘Heat’ as inspiration, much has also been drawn from the various Batman graphic novels. Ironically this is a film which has been hailed by critics as less a comic book movie than a 'crime thriller', when actually it is one of the most heavily influenced by it's source material.

The lead characters are also carefully constructed - in what could effectively be described as a battle of the masked freaks. In 'Batman Begins' crime created Batman, in 'The Dark Knight' Batman has created crime. The characters of The Joker and Batman are carefully balanced and their symmetry is superbly crafted. Inevitably Heath Ledger does steal the show, his performance is irresistible and every bit as iconic as his Brokeback role. It's not so much that he overshadows Bale, far from it, but his screen presence is electrifying as he creates possibly the most charismatic criminal ever to grace our screens. Perhaps the most fitting tribute one can place upon his performance is that he not only matches Jack Nicholson's execution of the same role, but renders it almost forgettable.

But this is very much an ensemble piece (which is precisely why we should be talking about Ledger for Best Supporting Actor, not Best Actor) and Bale displays once again why he is to Batman what Connery is to Bond. He suitably encompasses the three sides of the character, Bruce Wayne's playboy pretence, the real Bruce Wayne and The Dark Knight himself. Aaron Eckhart most notably is superbly cast and hasn't had the credit he deserves for the role, while Gary Oldman returns in usual fine form. The weakest cast member from the predecessor, Katie Holmes, is gone and has been replaced in the role of Rachel Dawes by Maggie Gyllenhaal. I had high expectations for the actress whom I am usually a great fan of but sadly she disappoints in unsuccessfully trying to recreate Holmes' character whilst also attempting to make the role her own.

Despite a running time of over two and a half hours the plot never lags and despite brief spells of incoherence Nolan's story arc pushes all the right buttons. However, it's not all plain sailing. There is a severe lack of emotional depth in the characters which is highlighted most clearly after a key twist towards the end of the second act, in this respect Nolan's ideas got the better of him. The social experiment sequence also seems misplaced and unnecessary which unfortunately weakens the impact of Batman's final showdown with The Joker. And on a slightly different note, whoever was responsible for Batman's voice needs to go to their room and think about what they did, because that grating voice was simply excruciating. I shall not however sign off on a sour note. It is a fantastic film. It is a fitting epitaph for Ledger. It does deserve the box office and critical success. It is the greatest comic book movie made to date.

Verdict: Everyone should and probably will see it. Not perfect by any means but wonderful nonetheless. The prospect of another sequel would be mouth-watering, Johnny Depp as The Riddler anyone?

Donkey Punch

A donkey punch is a sexual practice which involves the penetrating partner punching the receiving partner in the back of the neck during intercourse to try and cause involuntary muscle spasms in an attempt to increase the intensity of the penetrating partner's orgasm. So there you have it, from the title of the film you know exactly what to expect, and that's sex and violence aplenty. This all comes about after three holidaymaking girls from Leeds meet four lads in a Spanish club and it’s not long before they take their party onto a luxury yacht. After consuming a vast amount of alcohol and a concoction of drugs, naturally, an orgy ensues – it is then aforementioned donkey punch is administered, with deadly consequences.

The film sets up rather well, the opening sequences are soaked in sunshine and are riveting despite the lack of likeability of the characters. The story is constructed seamlessly and when the horrific incident does eventually occur there is a chilling feasibility to the tale, after all isn't this what youths might do on holiday...drink, do drugs, have sex (just minus the touch of death mid-orgy). The relatively unknown cast are all competent, albeit hardly stretched (Tom Burke is particularly enjoyable as the odious Bluey), and after half an hour you're enjoying Olly Blackburn's edgy debut. However, the donkey punch does not only deliver Lisa (Sian Breckin) a killer blow, but it also delivers one to the film as it struggles for the remainder of it's running time.

As the boys make a series of bad decisions, starting with dumping the dead body in the ocean, everything seems almost too perfectly set up for a bloodbath, in stark contrast to the first act. Every plot point veers the narrative closer and closer to the inevitable violence and when it does erupt 'Donkey Punch' merely treads over familiar ground. Even the deaths are unimaginative and sometimes unintentionally amusing, there were too many times that I found myself laughing when I'm sure this wasn't the filmmakers' intentions. You can't even reserve too much sympathy for the victims, none are blameless so even the nicer amongst the bunch of 'slags, chavs and slimeballs' you won't shed a tear for.

Verdict: Starts well but gets lost when things look set to get tasty. Half of a good film only serves to highlight the steep decline, although both the cast and director show signs of greater potential.