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.

WALL-E

It would take a brave man to stand up and argue that there is a greater animation studio than Pixar, over the past 12 years they have delivered nine feature films and on every single occasion have delivered a gem. Even the weaker outputs in their repertoire (most notably 2006's 'Cars') still stand up as fantastic films in comparison with those of their competitors. Every single one of their films has delivered financially and been embraced critically, therefore you may forgive the company for resting on their laurels and playing it safe, but not Pixar, they are risk takers and innovators. WALL-E presents their biggest risk to date, a sci-fi epic with an ecological subtext which is essentially a love story between two robots who do not speak. This is not a film you would expect a major studio to make, in an industry driven by revenues you sense that for any other studio the risk would be too big, but thank you Pixar, for what you have created with WALL-E is pure inspiration.

Andrew Stanton is the man at the helm this time around, his CV reads extremely well with screenplay writing credits on 'Toy Story', 'A Bug's Life', 'Toy Story 2', 'Monsters, Inc.' and 'Finding Nemo', and for all but 'Monsters, Inc.' he also came up with the story concept. To add to that he also directed 'Finding Nemo' (Pixar's best flick that didn’t feature Woody and Buzz), so yes it is pretty impressive and you sense that WALL-E might struggle to be in safer hands. Stanton, again responsible for the concept, writing and direction, tells the story of WALL-E (Waste Allocation Load Lifter Earth Class) who is the last of his kind cleaning up Earth's un-recycled waste in the year 2815, 700 years after the humans left on executive starliners as the planet became uninhabitable. Our hero WALL-E is left with only a cockroach for company until EVE (Extra-terrestrial Vegetation Evaluator) arrives and they embark on one of the greatest sci-fi/rom-com’s ever told.

The film is at it's best when on Earth, the animation is spectacular for a start but the real joy is watching WALL-E go about his day-to-day tasks of cleaning and collecting with his little cockroach friend. It is fascinating that so much character and personality is created in a little rusty robot that can only manage two or three words, he is without a doubt the cutest character Pixar have created to date. Ben Burtt deserves great credit for creating the sounds of WALL-E - he is of course famous for crafting the beeps of R2-D2 in those rubbish Star Wars films - they bring the little 'bot to life and are instrumental in the character's success. He is a fantastic creation as a robot and the animators make sure they capture every single one of his features for great comic effect in the child-friendly slapstick routines. WALL-E is certainly Pixar's cutest creation and this is clear from the get-go, but when EVE is introduced and our little hero becomes infatuated by her you simultaneously fall in love with WALL-E and want one for yourself.

The lack of dialogue is barely noticeable - and what an achievement that is in a children's film - and furthermore when Fred Willard becomes the first live action actor in a Pixar film you barely bat an eyelid, such is the reality of the world Pixar has created. When things take an inter-galactic turn and heads towards the human spaceship, ‘The Axiom’, the film initially lulls slightly and you fear that the classic you were watching is gone for good. It never does really returns to the heights it was at on Earth until the very last scene but that is because the start is so good it’s almost impossible to match. The introduction of the humans works well but they lack the charisma that the WALL-E does and only when we get past the transition stage in the narrative and the focus comes back to the robots does the film regain it's footing and delivers a fantastic adventure for Wall-E and his amore, complete with unadulterated excitement and heartbreaking emotion.

The environmental undertones are controversial and unexpected for a mainstream children’s film. On the one hand you may commend it for teaching the young viewers of our responsibility to our planet to treat it well and the value of a good diet and exercise, on the other you may criticise it for scare-mongering and leftist ideas that are arguably too dark and cynical for children. The world that is portrayed is one in which a huge organisation (Buy 'N' Large) has taken over every service on the Earth and after the mess they have created becomes too much they abandon it for a luxurious life in space. In space humans have become obese de-generates who are too fat to walk or even eat anything that hasn't come from a straw. However, the deft touch that Stanton has applied to these topics is key - they are there for the audience if you want to take notice...if not just sit back and enjoy the cute little robot. There is of course also the hypocrisy of the huge company that is Disney (who now own Pixar), lecturing us on the dangers of big business and obesity while they are taking hundreds of millions of dollars by sitting children in front of a screen - and this should not be forgotten.

Whether you agree with the film's underlying message or not, it will not affect your enjoyment. WALL-E is a masterpiece which is not only a front runner for next year's Best Animated Feature at the Oscars but also for Best Picture - it really is that good. The piece possesses a fantastic charm throughout and successfully bridges the gap between entertaining children and entertaining adults. There are some hilarious moments, some touching moments and by the time you're done watching you won't have many aww's left in your system. It is tough to say whether this is Pixar's greatest film to date, it is certainly their greatest triumph in animation and innovation terms, but the behemoths that are the Toy Story films are still a force to be reckoned with. Regardless, it’s my new favourite and a film which I plan to see again and again, the DVD is on my Christmas list already!

Verdict: Magical! If Pixar keep raising the bar at this rate the possibilities are frightening. It definitely whets the appetite for the next two on the schedule - 'Up' and 'Toy Story 3'!

The Mist

It has taken eight months for 'The Mist' to descend onto British cinema screens since it debuted in America last November, and has already made it onto DVD stateside. So why have we been made to wait so long? Well it's fair to say that the US audience didn't really take to Frank Darabont's latest Stephen King adaptation, grossing only $25million, our friends across the pond struggling with it’s downbeat ending. The final scene is, well, it's not the cheeriest...in fact it may be one of the most heartbreaking, depressing and downright bleakest endings to a film in recent years. But don't let that put you off, after all, this is a horror movie, you wouldn't expect it to leave you feeling all warm and fuzzy inside.

Darabont's previous takes on King novels have included 'The Green Mile' and 'The Shawshank Redemption', not a bad track record. He saturated both of those pieces with an overriding sense of hope, 'The Mist' chews up that hope and spits back a cocktail of pessimism and despair. The film follows David Drayton (Thomas Jayne) and his young son Billy (Nathan Gamble) who are trapped in a local supermarket alongside members of their small-town community, when the titular mist surrounds the store. All matter of horrible creatures, great and small, begin to emerge from the mist in true B-movie style, the threat of the monsters becoming more real and more terrifying with each confrontation.

Trapped, afraid and confused, the shoppers wander towards 'Lord of the Flies' territory as human nature's less favourable aspects come to the fore and we are forced to ask ourselves: Is the greater danger posed by the beasts outside, or the beasts within? Granted this is not the first time that this avenue has been explored, but when done as well as it is here, it rarely fails to raise many important issues and questions about the darker side of the human condition. This is personified by the deeply religious Mrs Carmody (Marcia Gay Harden), her fundamentalist beliefs and crazed rants slowly but surely gain her supporters amongst the wayward flock of shoppers. At times you may question such a deranged character but Harden's portrayal is fantastically intense nonetheless.

Such patent digs at organised religion however and exceptionally thinly-veiled digs at the Bush administration that are peppered throughout the script are shortcomings that needlessly divert attention away from a gripping horror story that otherwise rarely relents in pace and terror. There seems little need for such subtext and the lack of subtlety in it’s deliverance at times grows thoroughly exasperating. Apart from that the film excels and you can barely believe that it was received so badly by the US public. Sorry America, but you got it badly wrong on this occasion. The final five minutes are worth the extra eight-month wait alone, let's hope that we can show it the appreciation that it deserves.

Verdict: A fantastic example of mainstream horror on a smaller budget and the latest on the ever-growing list of successful Stephen King big-screen adaptations.

Hancock

Albeit rather clichéd and horribly over-pitched in it's marketing campaign, 'Hancock' is not your average superhero movie. It has its darker elements, it has its more comedic moments, it focuses on character far more than most and forgoes the lengthy final fight sequence that ordinarily typifies the genre. Will Smith is John Hancock, a down-and-out drunk with anger management problems and super-human powers, however he has no idea where he got them from or any idea how to use them responsibly. It is only when he meets PR consultant Ray (Jason Bateman) and his wife Mary (Charlize Theron) that he begins to realise that it might be time to improve his image and turn his life around.

Will Smith is a very rare entity, an actor who almost guarantees box-office success yet also providing performances that make the Academy sit up and take notice. At first glance, Hancock may not have seemed one of the most enticing of Hollywood's outputs this summer, but when one realises that it is Smith at the helm then all that changes - such is the likeability and staunch proficiency that he yields. It is tough to imagine anyone else playing John Hancock once you have seen Smith's portrayal, and nigh on impossible to imagine anyone playing him any better. He finely balances the drunken, bitter and sarcastic Hancock with the more dependable hero he will inevitably become, whilst hints of the earlier (arguably more interesting) side of Hancock's personality remain throughout.

Wry humour perpetually crackles through Hancock's crude dialogue; whether it be his interaction with children, criminals, cops or his supporting cast - Theron and Bateman. Scenes between Bateman and Smith particularly sparkle, their mismatch relationship is established early and works an absolute treat. Bateman's role is reminiscent of his character in Arrested Development, Michael Bluth, imbued with an awkward naivety and will to do good, so hats off to the casting director for their choice here. Theron is initially slightly less convincing as Bateman's wife who is less than thrilled to meet Hancock, but as the story unwinds she improves vastly as the script and plot gives her potential to do so (answering any questions as to her earlier performance along the way).

'Hancock' is thoroughly grounded in the real world, far more than any other superhero movie to date, and the only point when this aspect actually lets the film down is in the villain department. There is no Green Goblin here, no Joker, Magneto or even a Lex Luther...all we are given is a few thugs and a bank robber with ideas above his station. For some, this may ruin the film as there is no obligatory half-hour, city-destroying, climactic sequence between the hero and his nemesis, for others (myself included) this may be a welcome change. Instead we have a carefully structured plot, slowly revealing the truth behind who Hancock is what he must do to make the transition to archetypal hero. The back-story to Hancock is fascinating and the twist in the tale propels the story into its final act just as you may be beginning to wonder whether it has run out of steam.

What could have been a parody/farce similar to 'My Super Ex-Girlfriend' has been transformed into a thoroughly entertaining watch via a script with fresh ideas and top-notch performances. Where some will criticise it for fraying the edges between being a lightweight action-comedy and a more orthodox superhero flick, I would praise it for blending these two facets superbly and maintaining its edge of originality. The closing sequences may be a bit of an anti-climax, but this, thankfully, is not enough to knock Hancock off his stride.

Verdict: Possibly mis-marketed and as a result of which Hancock will surprise you - in a good way. Will Smith, yet again, does not disappoint.

The Escapist

For Parisian-born writer-director Rupert Wyatt, 'The Escapist' is clearly a labour of love. Shot on a small budget, with little to no margin for error during filming, the fact that it has clinched a mainstream release is something in itself. Key to this achievement was Wyatt securing Brian Cox in the lead role, giving the film a recognisable face and an established actor to boot - Cox was reportedly offered only a supporting role initially but told Wyatt it was his time take centre stage. Wyatt duly obliged and ultimately we have a feature that follows Frank Perry (Cox) who is serving a life sentence and decides to break out upon receiving news that his daughter is seriously ill following an overdose. What ensues is a wonderfully cut piece of filmmaking, as action splices between Frank's incarceration and the attempted 'prison break'.

When one thinks of prisons in cinema, what immediately springs to mind are the likes of 'The Shawshank Redemption', 'Prison Break' and a string of other American productions. Think of British prison and you struggle to get past 'Bad Girls' or 'Porridge'. This is what makes 'The Escapist' such a breath of fresh air, it's a new slant on a neglected genre that brings pure grit and brutality to the table, a realism sadly missing from many of its peers. A dark and grim milieu permeates proceedings, conveying superbly the danger facing the characters in the prison itself and also the claustrophobia of the escape effort. Unfortunately this sometimes leads to scenes appearing badly lit but this is a minor flaw in the cinematography, and one almost expected considering the film was made in only five weeks.

Frank is joined in his escape by Brodie (Liam Cunningham), Viv Batista (Seu Jorge), James Lacey (Dominic Cooper) and Lenny Drake (Joseph Fiennes) who all provide fine support for Cox. A strong British cast is rounded off Damian Lewis whose chilling portrayal of Rizza, the prison's top convict, is reason to see the film alone. Wyatt also brought in 200 real ex-cons to star as extras, coupled with a distinct lack of wardens this further adds to the menace, especially in a savage sequence involving Lacey and Tony (Steven Mackintosh). Cox, however, does steal the show. His performance is sublime, near-flawless, whilst endearing Frank to the audience he subtly reminds the us that this man is a criminal and is not to be taken lightly.

If 'The Escapist' achieves nothing else it should secure Brian Cox more leading roles in the future, his repertoire certainly extends beyond the perpetual supporting actor he has become. It will also hopefully lead to more opportunities for Wyatt, a promising young British talent. Not that this film itself is to be forgotten as just a stepping stone, it is a thrilling ride throughout; flashes to the break-out attempt ensure things continue at a strong pace, never losing grip of your attention. The final scenes are touching and your jaw will hit the floor as the penny-drop moment finally arrives. Ultimately, Wyatt has created a fine example of British cinema that is surprisingly refreshing, proving once again that everybody loves a good prison break.

Verdict: Cox may not have the looks of Wentworth Miller, but he can certainly act him off the park. British prison has never looked, felt and sounded this ugly - and that is its charm. Wyatt surely has a brighter future ahead.

Sex and the City: The Movie

Brace yourselves, this could take a while. Sex and the City: The Movie, as if I need to inform you, is the spin-off from the hugely successful HBO series that became a cult hit around the globe. The film picks up where the show left off but four years have now passed, Carrie (Sarah Jessica Parker) is in a relationship with her long-term love interest Mr Big (Chris Noth), Miranda (Cynthia Nixon) is balancing family life with a full-time job, Charlotte (Kristin Davis) is still married and has adopted a Chinese daughter whilst Samantha (Kim Cattrall) is enjoying a successful career in Los Angeles. And that is where the 145 minute-long advertisement begins.

I'll admit this now, I was never a huge fan of the television series. Over the years I have caught maybe five or six episodes of the show and they were not to my taste, however, I hadn't ever been really offended by them. Minutes into this vacuous affair I was well aware this was all about to change. Let me make this clear, SATC is not a film to be disliked on gender grounds, it is a film to be disliked if you have a shred of intelligence and moral fibre.

Sexism is prevalent throughout, every male character in the film falls into one of three categories; dumb, homosexual or an utter bastard. The foremost male characters partake in adultery, a light spot of jilting and the other (the nice one) is barely seen or heard from. As one of the only three men in the cinema, I at points wondered whether I would make it out alive. Why confine sexism to men, when women can be offended too, albeit far more subtly. What the film tells you, in it's infinite wisdom, in the opening sequence is that women are interested in only two things: "love and labels". So clothes and men are all that women really care about, how charming, and there was I thinking this was going to be a showcase of female empowerment.

Here comes my second 'ism' of the review, consumerism! This production mustn't have cost HBO and New Line a dime, not with all the cash they must have received from the likes of Vivienne Westwood, Louis Vuitton, Chanel, Prada, Versace, Gucci, Swarovski, Apple, Vogue, Starbucks, Mercedes, Nike and Dior...to name just a few. The product placement is brash and unmissable, not only do they pop up on screen but they are rammed down the viewers throat by close-ups and character endorsements, it is simply vulgar and a crying shame that the products are also allowed to influence the plot. In such testing economic times these placements are not just crass, they are insulting.

Humour is sadly lacking through the entirety of this film, something I did not expect. I'll throw away a few man points here and admit that I have found moments in the television series amusing, mostly from Cattrall and Davis, these moments though were tragically missing in action during the big screen version. Gags are reminiscent of those in a brainless teen comedy; it becomes crystal clear when the biggest laughs are extorted from overgrown pubic hair, a woman soiling herself and a dog that likes to hump things, that it's going to be a difficult two and a half hours (and believe me, that time does not pass quickly).

Heaven knows how a show that lasted six seasons can have four lead characters so vastly undeveloped. All four are so self-absorbed and superficial that it really strains one to wonder how they have endeared themselves to millions of fans. The actresses clearly know their characters inside-out, and to their credit, all of them appear un-phased by the change in format. The stand-out performance comes from franchise newcomer, Jennifer Hudson, as Carrie's assistant. She is the shining star in this morbid affair, doing a fantastic job of making some terribly written scenes almost watchable.

The character arcs for the four protagonists can be summed up in a sentence each, but I won't bore you with such trivialities. Each character starts happy, gets upset, blames men, blames themselves, cheers up and has a happy ending. It is quite a remarkable feat that so little happens in such a long film. Surely there is a reason the usual rom-com/chick flick rolls in at around 90 minutes, why add another hour when the plot plainly does not warrant it? So at the end of this torrid ordeal, let us all keep our fingers crossed - because there have already been rumours - that this is the last we see of Carrie and Co on the big screen.

Verdict: Awe-inspiringly bad, the absolute epitome of cinematic bilge. An extended and hugely inferior version of the television series. Avoid at all costs!

The Incredible Hulk

Let's clear this up right from the offset, 'The Incredible Hulk' is not a remake of Ang Lee's 'Hulk' (2003), neither is it a sequel, the film is billed as a reboot of the franchise - which quite frankly means that it is a little bit of both. The film picks up five years after its disappointing predecessor, complete with a brand new cast, director and slightly altered back story. Confused? Don't worry, it's easier from here on in.

To it's credit the film isn't concerned with what has come before, Hulk's past being explained fleetingly yet effectively in flashes during the opening credits. We are introduced to Bruce Banner (Edward Norton), alter-ego of the titular character, hiding in Brazil from General Ross (William Hurt) who wishes to use him as a military weapon. The early scenes set the plot up well and introduce the Hulk early which will delight fans frustrated with the last film.

Norton deals with his role capably but one can't help but feel short-changed by an actor who has played the dual-personality role so well in 'Fight Club' amongst others, yet the script gives him little chance to convey this inner-conflict. Things really take a turn downhill when love-interest Betty Ross (Liv Tyler) is introduced. Tyler and Norton enjoy little to no chemistry, their dialogue seems forced and the occasional attempts at humour fall dreadfully flat. Tyler is distinctly insipid and struggles to match the efforts of her fellow cast-members.

Banner transforms on four occasions during the course of the film and provides us with three prolonged sequences of Hulk-smashing action. Hulk's nemesis is The Abomination (Tim Roth), alter ego of the stereotypical English/Russian villain Emil Blonsky. It is their final showdown which provides the best action, including the piece de resistance as Hulk uses a car as boxing gloves. But here in lies the films greatest flaw, neither The Incredible Hulk of The Abomination look even slightly like the actors playing them, consequently all we are treated to is two large CG-blobs having a big of a ruck on the streets of New York.

Bringing Hulk to the big screen, as proved before, is a difficult job and director Louis Letterrier has made an admirable attempt but yet again Hulk fails to shine, albeit for different reasons. Die-hard fans of the comic book and television shows may feel more satisfied with this version but for most viewers this will likely disappoint. Perhaps it is time Marvel accepted that although Hulk is a fantastic character with copious potential, that potential does not translate to the big screen.

Verdict: Hat's off to all involved for trying something different and having the guts to change things completely. Commiserations for not pulling it off.

Wanted

Timur Bekmambetov, director of the Russian fantasy 'Night Watch' and it's sequel 'Day Watch', makes his Hollywood debut with the release of 'Wanted', a film loosely adapted from the comic books of the same name. The premise; everyman Wesley Gibson (James McAvoy) is torn from his monotonous life in order to follow in his fathers footsteps, joining The Fraternity, a league of super-assassins.

McAvoy is thrown into action at the deep end, an actor we are used to seeing play mostly strong character roles, at first seems an unlikely action hero. But the Scot embraces it well, his transition from office loser to super-assassin is seamless, a performance we have come to expect from a man destined for Oscar greatness. Angelina Jolie and Morgan Freeman also provide solid support as Fox and Sloan respectively, adding A-List appeal to the blockbuster. Sadly, however, the casts' strong performances are about the limit to this films believability as the plot becomes so far-fetched that you simply pass caring.

Wanted sacrifices a potentially intriguing plot in favour of action, succumbing to the now irresistible urge of a plot twist (and a thoroughly predictable one at that) to give the story any life whatsoever. One cannot help but feel that the film could have been so much more had it struck the balance between it's visuals and it's narrative more effectively. There really isn't much to the story whatsoever, what does exist spirals so far out of control that the final scenes become utterly irrelevant and at some points laughable (exploding rats, anyone?).

The film's bias towards action ahead of plot may on the one hand be it's downfall, but on the other perhaps it's saving grace. The film certainly looks beautiful and the action flows flawlessly, each sequence building at a perfect pace with the climax to said sequences never disappointing. Wanted can also boast it's own signature action shots, following bullets forwards and backwards through the heads of the hapless targets is brutal yet brilliant and the 'pulsating camera' is innovative if not slightly headache-inducing.

Where Wanted quite clearly would like to be compared to, and reach the heights of a film like 'The Matrix', it really struggles to get anywhere near. It can be more accurately compared to a copy of Heat Magazine; it has the glossy exterior and the big stars, but look a little closer and there's no real substance and will just be tossed aside and forgotten about by next week.

Verdict: Whether it be car chases, curving bullets or Angelina Jolie's naked behind; Wanted certainly looks superb. It may not hold your attention to the very end, but a decent, if not forgettable watch.