Could You Kill Your Best Friend?

Film: Battle Royale
Year: 2000
Director: Kinji Fukasaku
Written by: Kenta Fukasaku, based on the novel 'Battle Royale' by Koushun Takami.
Starring: Tatsuya Fujiwara, Aki Maeda, Tarô Yamamoto, Takeshi Kitano, Chiaki Kuriyama, Sôsuke Takaoka, Takashi Tsukamoto, Yukihiro Kotani.
Running time: 108 min.

Two or so weeks ago, The Hunger Games came out. It seems like everyone saw it. And then everyone reviewed it. There were two words that appeared in every single review I read: Battle Royale. Every time I clicked on a review, I felt compelled to find those words and to see what kind of slam they had against The Hunger Games for 'ripping off' Battle Royale's premise. Unless, of course, I was reading a 'review' from someone in the target audience who had no idea that Battle Royale existed, or that Japan made movies, for that matter. Basically, here's the main crux of this The Hunger Games/Battle Royale situation: people who care about The Hunger Games probably haven't heard of Battle Royale; movie bloggers will always point out how similar The Hunger Games is to Battle Royale; and people who love Battle Royale are most likely to hate The Hunger Games, even without seeing it. I am a person who cared about The Hunger Games and was aware of Battle Royale, but I only just saw the latter last night. In all honesty, I really liked The Hunger Games, but Battle Royale was a far better movie. And that is where the comparisons shall end.

Cinema - Captain America: The First Avenger

Just like I did with Thor a few months back, I went into Captain America: The First Avenger without knowing much at all. Okay, so I saw the trailer a few times (as it was always attached to most of the movies I have seen at the cinemas this year), I knew that it was a part of The Avengers, and I also knew that it starred Chris Evans, who was my favourite evil ex in Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. Other than that, I didn't really know much about the character or anything. In fact, the only reason I went to see this is because it was an excuse to get out of Dannevirke these school holidays, and since I saw Thor in cinemas as well I thought 'why not?' The good thing is, this wasn't a shabby visit to the movies, that's for sure.

This must be the greatest story for those who are bullied. Our main character, Steve Rogers (Evans) is a bit smaller than the average male, and because of all his health problems and minuscule stature, no one wants to let him enlist in the army to kill some Nazis. Poor Steve is always beaten up and such, but he always fights back because he believes he has to fight for his right, which usually gets him trouble. He meets Dr. Erskine (Stanley Tucci), who miraculously lets him finally enlist in the army, and now Steve is well on the road to becoming a soldier. But you know what would make this weak boy even better? Dr. Erskine has a serum that will make him taller, faster and stronger...basically a super human. Now he's Captain America, and has the mission of trying to take down evil Nazi research department HYDRA, which just so happens to be run by Johann Schmidt, better known as Red Skull (Hugo Weaving). Oh, and let's not forget that this is a superhero movie, therefore there has to be a love interest, who comes in the form of Agent Carter (Hayley Atwell).

Now when I went to see Captain America, or any other movie of it's kind (in the cinema), I usually just try and have a good time. I really liked the film, but I do have to admit that it was nothing special. First of all, I felt like this movie could have been a lot more badass. As I said, I don't really know that much about the character Captain America, but I felt like he could have been a better brand of badassery. In saying that, he was a genuinely nice character, never wasting his new found powers and always knowing the meaning of fighting back. He makes for an interesting superhero, with his ultra fast healing times and whatnot. But the problem is the fact that he is invincible. He can't even get drunk. He's so bloody nice it hurts. Where Thor and Tony Stark have their arrogance, Steve Rogers has his niceness. The only thing that could count as a flaw is the fact that he is a little on the weak side, but that pretty much disappears once he undergoes that big transformation. The big transformation not only ends the flaws of Steve, but it also ends Stanley Tucci. Which really pissed me off. How dare he leave so early?

Anyway, aside from Captain America's perfection, I still found the character's actions pretty interesting. Especially because of the way he was used as propaganda for the US army. The 'Star-Spangled Man' sequence was a particular highlight of the film, mainly because it was done the old-fashioned way. This film really excels with it's 1940's setting. Like X-Men: First Class, this film dedicates itself to the time period it is supposed to be in, incorporating history into it. The way it is made is very old-fashioned, as if it were made in the 1940's, just with better technology. Even with that better technology, director Joe Johnston opts not to overload the film with CGI, which is a huge relief. The villainous Red Skull looks believable rather than over powered by computer graphics. The fight scenes all manage to look very realistic, instead of trying ever so hard to look good for the 3D audiences. But the best thing that the CGI does, which you actually can't even tell is CGI really, is the appearance of Chris Evans before he becomes a beast. We all know that he doesn't actually look as small as that, but the effects used will have you believe that he did once.

Performance wise, this film is very strong. Evans did a brilliant job in his role, I thought, even though there was definitely room for improvement in the character. Another thing I didn't like was the relationship between his character and Agent Carter. It was all very nice, but they didn't seem right for each other at all. In saying that, Hayley Atwell, one of the brightest young talents around, was really good in her no-nonsense role. Tommy Lee Jones is a hero of deadpan humour in this flick, definitely getting the most laughs. Sebastian Stan, who seems to be in everything I watch these days, makes for a nice, if a little dull sidekick. One person I could have done with more of, though, was Dominic Cooper as Tony Stark's daddy, Howard. Once I got over the fact that he could actually speak in a good American accent, I kept wanting to see his cocky character show up...which didn't happen an awful lot. But usually the star of the show in a superhero flick is usually the villain, and when the villain is played by Hugo Weaving, it's a double win. He's kinda scary with his Hitler-esque dreams and appearance. One thing I did have to laugh at was the whole "Heil HYDRA!" business. That was so silly it was funny.

A lot of people have compared this to Thor, mainly because they're the last installments in the longest trailer ever for The Avengers. I think I enjoyed Captain America a little more, but I do have to admit this was quite simple compared to Thor. There wasn't any father/son conflict, nor was the main character put through a significant emotional change. But people probably should stop comparing the two. They both stand up well as their own films, especially considering that they are just small features before the big presentation. I do have to say that now Captain America has come along and it was a damn good film, my expectations for The Avengers have sky-rocketed.

THE VERDICT: Captain America: The First Avenger has style and class in it's setting, an adequate use of CGI and some solid performances. Yes, you better be ready for The Avengers.

What I hoped for:

What I got:

Nicolas Un-Caged: Season of the Witch (2011)

Welcome to another edition of the sporadic new feature, 'Nicolas Un-Caged', where I, Stevee Taylor, a person who is very cool towards actor Nicolas Cage, tackle some Nicolas Cage movies. At the end of the review, I give Nicolas Cage a rating between 1 and 5 Nicolas Cage's, based on how crazy Nicolas Cage is in a Nicolas Cage movie. Did I use the name Nicolas Cage enough in that passage? Nicolas Cage.

All I remember about Season of the Witch was that it was once rated 1% on Rotten Tomatoes. Now, to me, you can't get much worse than being rated 1%. Because it means that, like, one person liked your movie. One lonely critic liked your movie. Which is more sad than nobody liking your movie, for some reason. So with it's star-power being reduced to Nicolas Cage and a slew of awful reviews, this movie was released in America, only scoring back around 60% of it's budget during it's release there. June comes around, and this movie pops up on DVD. I thought "no one has heard of it, so it won't be that popular." Boy, was I wrong. At work this past weekend, there were only two movies which people were demanding: True Grit (well done, Dannevirke) and Season of the Witch. Response coming back from the two was positive too. I can see why True Grit is so well-liked, because at least that is actually entertaining, but Season of the Witch? I just didn't see it.

I'm sure the popularity that this movie got this weekend didn't come down to Nicolas Cage being the top star, but because it is marketed as a medieval actioner. But really, this is a medieval borefest. This film is set in the times when the Black Plague was ravaging the land, and when witches were believed to be the cause of all of this. Old Nic, who plays Behmen here, embarks on a bit of a road trip with his buddy Felson (Ron Perlman) as they take a girl accused of being a witch (Claire Foy) from A to B. We go on a arduous journey across perilous terrain with them and we discover the truth about this supposed witch, along with finding the true courage which these fine men have.

It all sounds very majestic, but really, this is one cheap movie. The scenery is nice enough, even though it seems as if the camera made it look 100 times more dull. That doesn't do wonders for the story either. Believe me, I tried to stay with this movie. But you know how hard it is to stay with a movie that moves at the pace of a snail, takes itself far too seriously and doesn't even have the decency to give us a laugh or two to tide us over. I will admit, this movie isn't nearly as bad as it's 7% rating on Rotten Tomatoes makes it out to be. But yes, it is bad. The action sequences, which are few and far between, are less than exciting. I mean, when you first meet Behmen and Felson in a montage of their fictional fights, you do think that this might be a fun journey, because they look they might be a couple of jokesters. Between Nic wearing his serious face and Ron Perlman occasionally trying to lighten things up, the two never really gel, so we miss a couple of funny buddies that this movie needed.

The worst thing about Season of the Witch, though, is the fact that Nic isn't even remotely crazy in this movie. He never says anything that makes us question his sanity. He doesn't even make any weird screaming noises. Which is a great shame, because when you have a bad movie, something always makes you laugh. When you have Nicolas Cage in a bad movie, you expect to be rolling on the floor with laughter. But no, Season of the Witch is surprisingly tame. Which makes me wonder why Nic actually starred in this nonsense. Even though he may have turned into the worst actor in the world, he is above this B-grade horror schlock. He should know by now that we all enjoy him being slightly off his knocker, not sleep-walking through a movie with his one and only serious face on the whole time. One more movie like this, Nic, and you've lost your entire fanbase. I guess his hair did look impressive, though.

THE VERDICT: It's the kind of movie that should have gone straight-to-DVD everywhere, or better yet, been kept on the shelf. Season of the Witch is definitely not the most exciting movie, and Nic Cage isn't anything to laugh about, either.

What I got:

Nic Cage Crazy Scale:

Cinema - Thor 3D

or: The superhero movie season has begun...

One word to sum it up: Dazzling.

Around four years ago, I saw a movie called Transformers. I was basically forced into the cinemas against my will, because I would have rather watched Will Ferrell's latest instead of some movies with cars that turn into big things and shoot things. I couldn't possibly think of anything more boring. However, when I came out of that cinema, I couldn't help but feel I'd had the best time of my life.
It was then, I fell in love with going to see big, loud, funny blockbusters at the cinema.
(yes, Michael Bay changed my life, don't judge me)
I've seen a few big blockbusters since then...The Dark Knight, Inception, TRON: Legacy, The A-Team...to name a few. But none had the same experience as that Bay picture ages ago. That was until I saw Thor. In only my second go at 3D, I was dazzled by the visuals yet engrossed by the story; laughing along with it yet enjoying the great performances; and just having a good time but not being sucked in by any of the big, dumb crap that you usually find in a blockbuster. No, it's not life-changing, but it's a bloody good time, just like Transformers was all those years ago.

I, like many people, was probably looking forward to this the least out of all the upcoming superhero flicks. A movie about a guy who throws a hammer around? Please. I could think of more exciting things on a worm farm. However, while we'll have to wait and see what Captain America and such do, I think this is a fine start to the season. Because, while this movie may have a hammer throwing Norse God (played by Chris Hemsworth) as the lead character, it's actually more exciting than my usual worm farm hangout. In fact, it's more of a human drama examining a fractured family, along with a guy who has come from the top of the ranks to being like us powerless creatures on Earth (just with a few more muscles). And, like always, there is a cute love story thrown in, between MC Hammer...woops, I mean Thor...and that crazy ballerina from Black Swan...woops, I mean Jane Foster (Natalie Portman). All in all, the story is actually quite good. I've always imagined what it would be like to be a Norse God coming to the abyss of our world.

We all know that Kenneth Branagh is a bit of a Shakespeare guy. And we all wondered whether the Shakespeare guy could make a highly-budgeted comic book movie. Yeah, I was a little bit sceptical, I'll admit. But Branagh did a brilliant job. Sure, there were a few niggles with his crooked angles and the fact that some of the action sequences were too dark to see in 3D. Branagh, however, may be more at home directing a blockbuster than other blockbuster specialist are themselves. He plays with the budget to get every intended effect that he wants, and there's that feeling that he did it out of true love, which is what many other blockbusters miss. I was surprised at how well he handled the mind-blowing action sequences. The early action sequences in the fantastic looking realm were superb, and definitely left me with little words to say other than "WHOA!"

Another thing I was sceptical about was the casting of Chris Hemsworth in the lead role. I know he was in Star Trek and whatever, but I'll always remember him as the hottie from Home and Away (a.k.a Australia's worst soapie) who was always in the teen mags I used to read. Here, he's piled on the muscles and put on a right majestic accent, and is virtually unrecognisable from those days. I quite liked his performance, it may not be earth-shattering, but he was actually really good. If I was expecting a flat performance, he certainly didn't give one of those. There aren't really any stand out performances here. Natalie Portman was pretty sweet in the love interest role, but that was pretty standard. Anthony Hopkins was barely in the thing but he was cool while he was around. Tom Hiddleston was pretty good as the villain in the family, and I can't wait to see more of this actor. Stellan Skarsgard was around for the ride too, and got a few funnies for himself. Kat Dennings got the most laughs, though, with her perfectly adequate depiction of generation technology. I liked it how a few of The Avengers crew decided to come to the party, reminding us that this is a part of something much bigger. Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg) popped up quite a few times, even referencing Tony Stark ("That guy never tells me anything!") while he was around. There were a couple of uncredited cameos from Samuel L. Jackson, in character as Nick Fury, and the brilliant Jeremy Renner, introducing his character of Hawkeye. That was a stroke of genius.

On a whole, Thor is a film which doesn't break barriers. There is that feeling that the film never really completes itself as it should, and I do admit leaving the cinemas feeling a bit empty. But hey, if someone had trouble with Iron Man 2, then this would be a much better film to go to. This one isn't as elaborate, and it doesn't have an overcooked amount of characters. Thor just sticks to simple storytelling, like having the main plot partly revolve around a family who doesn't really act like a family, and having the arrogant warrior stripped of his powers (the stuff of the fairytales I read as a child). It's a fun ride, yet it all means something. I imagine, if this film was a little bit longer, then it could have reached the epic heights it should have reached. Once the film ended, I wasn't sure of what I thought of the film. But as I walked out, someone waiting in the line for the next showing asked someone from my showing how they movie was. He said, with an enthusiastic voice: "Brilliant!"
At that moment, I realized I agreed wholeheartedly with that statement.

THE VERDICT: While Thor may not be as epic as it should be, it's an amazingly fun ride, packed with dazzling visuals, lots of wit and a brilliant human story. Let's just say: you may wanna see this instead of Kate Hudson's latest.

What I hoped for:

What I got:

DVD--Shank

or: Gangs taking over the world. Woohoo.

One word to sum it up: Dull.

Shank was described as a 'film made for the youth generation'. Great. I'm obviously now too old to be considered as a 'youth'. In fact, a lot of the people in the 'youth generation' have been shown by this movie that they are not actually youth. Because, in short, Shank isn't a very good movie. And, to be honest, it's a very hard movie to like. I've seen many bad films in my lifetime, but no movie has ever pissed me off. That was until I saw this movie. That was probably because I don't ever want the contents of this movie to come true.

'2015. The gangs have taken over.' Such a daunting tagline for a movie. Well, the gangs have taken over, yes, but all they do is run around annoying other people, getting into fights with aggresive chicks on a bus and eating food straight out of the can. It is an interesting world that Shank takes a look at, but it is just the kind where all the rich people have been taken out and London is run by the stereotypical less well off people. So really, all you could possibly expect from it is a whole lot of swearing and a whole lot of people grabbing each others throats. The story that goes with this new land is one that is often told: avenging a brothers death. When one of the guys from a gang of survivors gets killed by a rival gang, his brother goes out with the rest of the gang to get revenge. Kids stuff.

It doesn't matter how many ways you could put it, the dull storyline within this film would have never worked since we've seen it hundreds of times before. But it was interesting how the makers of this tried to breathe life into it. Mo Ali, a music video maestro, obviously made a well-educated attempt at making a youthful film. He incorporates a very hip and young techno soundtrack with some fast and choppy direction techniques to make this appealing to the young folk. Unfortunately, his attempts are quite annoying. The music sounds exactly like everything I hear at school from people blasting it out from their phones. Yeah, it may be good for that, but it just doesn't work for the whole film. And the direction. Golly. Sometimes you just have to use things in moderation. Yeah, I like fast visuals and choopy editing and whatnot, but I would have rather had it done little by little instead of through the whole damn thing. Because, no matter how 'artsy' it is, slow motioning and fast tracking a whole sequence of irrelevant dancing for ages isn't my type of fun.

This is, unfortunately, British film making at it's absolute worst. While it tries to serve as propoganda for youth being more powerful than they actually are, it just shows, again, how ignorant we are. So, rather than being a film for the youth generation, it just annoys the crap out of the youth generation. The dialogue, too, is shonky, but thankfully, that is shafted thanks to all the sequences of highly stylized sequences of stuff. The cast is basically a whos-who of hot young Brit things. There were a few people from 4.3.2.1 in there, along with the beautiful Kaya Scodelario, who played Effy in Skins. Her role is small, but very shouty. Nothing really matters about this film, though. It seems to go by in a blur, since everything is so awful. There's no story to speak of as it is practically incoherent. And the end is pretty cheesy. I imagine that this film is just Eastenders, but in the slums with younger characters.

THE VERDICT: Shank is an awfully dull film, with painful direction and characters and dialogue.

What I hoped for:

What I got:

DVD--The Sorcerer's Apprentice

or: CAGE RAGE!

One word to sum it up: Dire.

You know what's worse than having Nicolas Cage in a movie? Having Nicolas Cage playing a thousand year old sorcerer. Especially when he has a hairstyle that resembles Brad Pitt's beard. I feel kind of sorry for the guy: he hasn't been decent in a decent movie in years; he got out-acted by a 12 year-old girl in Kick-Ass; and his latest, The Sorcerer's Apprentice, was stupidly released on the same weekend as Inception in America. Of course, it flopped. While The Cage and I don't have a very good relationship, there are still enough merits in The Sorcerer's Apprentice for him to be proud of.

Balthazar Blake (Nicolas Cage) is a master sorcerer in modern-day Manhattan trying to defend the city from his arch-nemesis, Maxim Horvath (Alfred Molina). Balthazar can't do it alone, so he recruits Dave Stutler (Jay Baruchel), a seemingly average guy who demonstrates hidden potential, as his reluctant protégé. The sorcerer gives his unwilling accomplice a crash course in the art and science of magic, and together, these unlikely partners work to stop the forces of darkness. It'll take all the courage Dave can muster to survive his training, save the city and get the girl as he becomes the sorcerer's apprentice.

The Sorcerer's Apprentice is a full length adaption of a segment in the 1940 classic Disney film Fantasia. Like most remakes, this film can't quite capture the magic, so to speak, and falls into the sad territory of failed Disney live action films. As if we hadn't seen enough CGI 'enhanced' fantasy flicks over the past years. The Sorcerer’s Apprentice adopts the same old plot, with the same old formulaic script. The only thing that stands between it being totally deflated is the occasional laugh, the always funny Cage Rage and some awesome effects. That should be enough to keep the whole family entertained...even if the older ones may find themselves wearily checking the time every few minutes. It's clear that this movie doesn't have a target audience, as it's innuendoes but immature story don't mix too well together. At least there is something for everyone, and there are moments which shine bright.

Jay Baruchel, who is perhaps best known for being Kirk in the raunchy rom-com She's Out of My League, takes the lead role in this one. I wouldn't say he was the best choice for the role, but I also wouldn't go as far as saying that he was awful, like everyone else thinks. I find him really funny, and he adds the certain pizzazz that this movie needs most. Nicolas Cage is, well...Nicolas Cage. He says some things with a little too much passion ("I CAN READ MINDS!" Yeah, great dude), or HE puts emphasis ON all THE wrong WORDS. He's bearable, which is always a good thing. Alfred Molina (An Education) is, as always, spectacular as the villain. Aussie actress Teresa Palmer is cute as the love interest, and serves as the most clichéd part of the film...which somehow works. If it's a family movie you're after, then The Sorcerer's Apprentice is perfectly adequate. However, those who seek for magic in this film will surely be disappointed.



THE VERDICT: Not as fun as a family movie should be, but it isn't terrible. The CGI isn't spellbinding, nor is the storytelling, just give it a little less thought and it will be an enjoyable film.

5/10

Cinema--Unstoppable

or: The runaway train.

One word to sum it up: Adrenaline.

Denzel Washington isn't usually my typical deal. Nor is a movie about a runaway train. The decision to watch Unstoppable only came after seeing the trailer before TRON: Legacy and an afternoon filled with nothing to do. I feel like that's what Unstoppable is perfect for: being an afternoon filler that is satisfying enough. I mean, it sure gets those bums on seats and mouths filled with popcorn and still have them reeling (in a good way), then Unstoppable succeeds in the almost impossible: being a worthy blockbuster.

Due to human error, a train is set off at a speed which rises up to 70 miles an hour, without anyone controlling it. The coporation that own the train try everything to stop it, before another train coming in the oppostite direction collides with it. Luckily, that train escapes without harm, but as the train approaches closer to a town and threatens to cause a toxic explosion because of it's speed, there are barely any options left apart from to derail the train, consequently costing the company millions. A veteran engineer (Denzel Washington) and a young conductor (Chris Pine) take it upon themselves to slow the train down enough to prevent it from destroying the town that awaits them.

Give Tony Scott a camera, tell him he needs to direct an adrenaline filled ride which involves a train, and he will shake everything up. Literally. The camera work is as shaky as hell, and zooms in on stuff that doesn't need to be zoomed in on (Exhibit A: the camera zooming in and out like 50 times during a phone conversation between Denzel and his daughter). Sometimes it's a little off putting, but because of all the other stuff that is going on in the movie, it's not really so much of a problem.

Unstoppable is tremendously entertaining, and it's hard to take your eyes away from the screen. After getting out of the cinema, it doesn't feel like you have just watched a movie. Instead, it feels like you've just witnessed exactly what this movie is, a runaway train and another train trying to stop it, basically without any of the movie strings attached. It's a weird experience, but it's also a very good one, thanks to it's intensity which pretty much reduced me to tears in the end. Sure, it won't win any awards, but who cares? When a movie can involve the audience in such away that you feel like you have an adrenaline rush sitting in a theatre, you know you're onto something good. It's just too exciting to ignore.


THE VERDICT: An intensified thrill ride which is edge-of-your-seat stuff, and refuses to let go until the end.

8/10

Cinema--TRON: Legacy

or: Style waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay over substance.

One word to sum it up: Lighty.

There are some things in life one may regret. You know, like, losing something important or crashing into a tree. I regret that my first 3D experience was TRON: Legacy. It could have been Avatar...it could have been bloody Yogi Bear for all I cared (okay, maybe that's pushing it too far), but no, it was Tron. Just so you know, I didn't hate the film...and I almost gave it a 6/10 rating. But thinking about it now, I'm wondering if it really deserved that kind of rating. Sure, it was pretty (I'm not sure which parts were 3D though), but it wasn't as amazing as that trailer I saw before Inception said it would be.

Sam Flynn (Garrett Hedlund), the tech-savvy 27-year-old son of Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges), looks into his father's disappearance and finds himself pulled into the same world of fierce programs and gladiatorial games where his father has been living for 20 years. Along with Kevin's loyal confidant (Olivia Wilde), father and son embark on a life-and-death journey across a visually-stunning cyber universe that has become far more advanced and exceedingly dangerous.

Let me begin by saying this: 3D is overrated. It just seemed to enhance the picture, whereas I thought it would be more in your face. However, I think the 3D kinda improved the quality of this film. I mean, it didn't add dimensions to the story, where it was needed most, but it added dimensions to the visuals, which is what I think the filmmakers most wanted. They wanted people to be wowed by all those lights-and don't get me wrong, I was wowed-but from a critical standpoint, that wasn't enough. As long as the effects were still there, it was like the script didn't matter, and like Kevin, it seemed to get lost to the point when the audience no longer cared to find it. I think the only time I was truly jumping for the joy over this movie was when CILLIAN MURPHY APPEARED ON SCREEN. I nearly choked on my popcorn I was so excited. Alas, he was only on there for a few minutes, and it was a shame he didn't stay longer.

TRON: Legacy isn't as bad as the critics may lead you to believe. Sure, they get caught up on the clunky script, and rightfully so-you may even find yourself doing that too. I admit I was entralled by most of it, which no doubt had a lot to do with the brilliant score from Daft Punk. Jeff Bridges was, as always, great, even though both of the characters he played actually looked nothing like him (Clu was way too young; maybe they were trying to emphasize Flynn's age just a tad). Garrett Hedlund was just the average modern guy. Michael Sheen was, quite frankly, a little scary. But I found Olivia Wilde to be the real star of the show here. She, afterall, had the task of being the nerdy dreamgirl from a computer game, and she succeeded in that.

As I said earlier, I was going to rate this movie 6/10. However, now that I've given it a little more thought, this movie really doesn't add up enough for me to think that it's still 'fresh'. It's a good blockbuster, I'll give it that, but it doesn't really stretch the limits of it's premise, or it doesn't offer any really astounding moments. Which is a shame, because it could have gone so far...it just chose to be so safe.


THE VERDICT: Great visual effects and music can't detract from the really clunky script, which seems to get lost somewhere between the point of entertainment and generic over-budgeted crap.

5/10

DVD--Tomorrow, When the War Began

or: World War III

One word to sum it up: Scary

I admit, I'll try to avoid Australian movies as much as I possibly can. While I side with their directors, who like producing thought provoking artistic features, what we've seen come out of the country in the past years has been nothing short of depressing. This year, I broke that by firstly watching Animal Kingdom, quite possibly one of the best movies of the year; then, like a lot of other teenagers, watched Tomorrow, When the War Began, the adaption of the first of John Marsden's hit series. I am part of the minority who haven't read the books (new years resolution #7), so don't expect some of that 'book to movie' comparison from me. I just want to say to all those sceptics who said 'it's only cool if you've read the books', I really enjoyed this movie.

Ellie Linton (Caitlin Stasey) and six of her friends decide to go camping in a remote place far away from their homes for a while. When they come back, they discover that their town isn't how they had left it. Their parents are gone, and there is no one to be seen. That is until they find everyone has been captured and sent to the showgrounds, sparking the beginnings of a war. The seven young adults must try to stay away from the enemy that has come upon them, but most of all, try and save their world and restore it to what it used to be, before it is too late.

The one negative thing I have to get out of the way first is the truly shocking acting. The cast is very inexperienced, as most of them have come from Aussie soaps like Neighbours or other Aussie TV programs. I read a review that claimed this movie was 'better when the cast stopped talking'. Well, that's a little harsh, but all the best moments do happen when the film is focussed on the action rather than the characters. If you can get past the acting, then you will be in for a treat. The first fifteen minutes are dedicated to being your average teen drama/comedy, and then from there on it turns into something you wouldn't expect from an Australian movie. Through the years, we have seen many films depicting concentration camps and the like from World War II, which have been quite scary. However, in one of the first scenes of war in this film, we see a concentration camp-like setup at the showgrounds, which is particularly scary because all of this could happen. Hopefully some people don't read to much into it.

This is the directorial debut from Stuart Beattie, who has written such films as Australia, G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra and The Pirates of Carribean series. This is a large scale project for someone with no directing experience to undertake, but he, like fellow Australian debut director David Michod (Animal Kingdom), manages to handle the film with the right kind of intensity and doesn't let things blow out of proportion. Could this mean the beginning of Australians taking on Hollywood? I hope so. Given the fact that it's not only action packed and dramatic but it is delightfully funny, too, with one liners like 'that's the biggest joint I've ever lit'. The end of this movie was a bit of a cliffhanger, leaving us with the promise of a few more films coming our way. Come 2012 and 2013, you'll be seeing a couple of sequels on your screen. Which is just as well, because Australia has shown us how great they are at making action films...and I want more of them.


THE VERDICT: Awful acting can't stop this movie from being as entertaining or as thought-provoking as it is, and it serves as a good adaption as one of the most popular books of all time.

8/10

DVD--The Expendables

or: Jurassic Park 4: The Fossils Come Back

One word to sum it up: Testosterone-fuelled

I admit, The Expendables wasn't really a movie which I had wanted to see. I mean, gosh, have you seen the cast? It's like Sylvester Stallone has manged to drag up every old man from the deathly hallows of straight-to-DVD-land and put them in this movie. What was he trying to achieve? Maybe a film which would be popular among those crazy kids from the 80's who like old fashioned violence with guys who are a little too old to be even holding a gun? Or maybe a film which would revive some of these old guys failing careers? No, I believe it was more of a film that was advertised as a gnarly actioner with a pretty good cast, so everyone would go and see it. Easy money, when you think about it, because I think Sly forgot to buy a story to go with all the explosions and gunfights.

Barney Ross (Sylvester Stallone) leads the 'Expendables', a band of highly skilled mercenaries including knife enthusiast Lee Christmas (Jason Statham), martial arts expert Yin Yang (Jet Li), heavy weapons specialist Hale Caesar (Terry Crews), demolitionist Toll Road (Randy Couture) and loose-cannon sniper Gunner Jensen (Dolph Lundgren). When the group is commissioned by the mysterious Mr. Church (Bruce Willis) to assassinate the merciless dictator of a small South American island, Barney and Lee head to the remote locale to scout out their opposition. Once there, they meet with local rebel Sandra (Giselle Itie) and discover the true nature of the conflict engulfing the city. When they escape the island and Sandra stays behind, Ross must choose to either walk away and save his own life - or attempt a suicidal rescue mission that might just save his soul.

Fun fact: Bruce Willis' name appears on the poster advertising The Expendables, but he isn't listed as being credited on the films IMDb page, or in the end credits, for that matter. So does that mean a cameo appearance is eligible for 'lead role status' based on the actors popularity? That is just one of the many questions arisen by The Expendables. Another thing I found on the films IMDb page is how many people have message boarded their love for this film. Now, I have nothing against that, or their opinions, but calling this the 'best action film of all time' is a bit of a stab in the dark. There are a lot of action sequences within this film which are nothing but brainless entertainment. But the way they are handled is less than impressive, and in all honesty, quite tiresome. Once the film gets to it's finale, it feels a little 'meh', even though it's undeniably action-packed.

My mother, who was looking forward to this film way more than I was, wasn't overly impressed by this movie either. I think this is down to a particular group of people. 15-50 year old guys, who watch films purely for brainless fun, will probably really dig this movie. Girls might if they enjoy this type of thing. However, on a critical level, this movie doesn't really give me anything new to rave about. Being a fifteen year old girl certainly didn't help it's case either. I guess, if you like action films, and want to see a less graphic version of Rambo, then The Expendables is definitely for you.


THE VERDICT: Old fashioned action sequences and mullets can't save The Expendables from it's brainless story, but enjoyable thrills almost can.

4/10

DVD--Scott Pilgrim vs. the World

or: Bam! Smack! Woohoo!

One word to sum it up: A.W.E.S.O.M.E.

Me, the self-proclaimed comic book movie nerd that I am, was going to love Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, no doubt about it. The saddest thing about this movie, though, was the fact that it was released to some amazing critical acclaim, and everyone inside movie-world was obsessed with it. Unfortunately, hardly anyone from outside movie-world went to go and see it in it's theatrical release, therefore it flopped. Luckily it flopped gracefully, as it's fan base continue to go on about it today on their blogs and other social networking sites. This movie deserves it. Please, people in the teenage to late 20's age group, don't make the mistake of not seeing it. Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is the most visually astounding movie we've seen since Avatar.

Scott Pilgrim (Michael Cera) plays in a garage band, Sex Bob-Omb with his friends. He dates Knives Chau (Ellen Wong), a high-school girl five years his junior, and he hasn't recovered from being dumped by his former girlfriend, now a success with her own band. When Scott falls for Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), he has trouble breaking up with Knives and tries to romance Ramona. As if juggling two women wasn't enough, Ramona comes with baggage: seven ex-lovers, with each of whom Scott must defeat in order to win Ramona.

Like this years earlier comic book movie release, Kick-Ass, Scott Pilgrim comes off as monumentally cool. But what Scott Pilgrim has over Kick-Ass is the way it is made. Instead of making another generic blockbuster, director Edgar Wright (responsible for such films as Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz) has adopted a video game style to aid the story. The whole movie maps out just as if it were a video game (no, not one of those fancy PS3 games that look real...it's more like 90s style), which helps stylize the violence and tone it down a little bit. This concept could have majorly failed, but under strict direction from Wright and carefully placed effects from the rather large visual effects, Scott Pilgrim is a major win. While it's script certainly isn't as stunning as the visuals, Scott Pilgrim is a virtually flawless and amazingly entertaining film.

Finally in a worthy lead role, Michael Cera (NOT the guy from Zomebieland and The Social Network...that is Jesse Eisenberg) hasn't shrugged off his awkward guy exterior he gained from Juno, but he is more bearable in this movie. I couldn't think of a person better suited to the role of Scott Pilgrim, and I'm glad we can see the guy kicking some butt instead of just being...awkward. The film is filled up with a great young ensemble cast, which includes the lovely Mary Elizabeth Winstead from Death Proof, Anna Kendrick from Up in the Air, Alison Pill from Milk, Chris Evans from The Losers and Jason Schwartzman from The Darjeeling Limited. How this film didn't get any recognition at the Golden Globes is beyond me. Not only is this one of the most all-out entertaining movies I have seen this year, but it's also totally deserving of any accolade it can get. I think I have found my latest movie obsession in Scott Pilgrim...or proof that I am getting nerdier by the day. Anyway, Scott Pilgrim is a must see for those who are open minded enough to take it's silly storyline seriously, because those people will be sincerely rewarded.

THE VERDICT: Why did no one go and see this wonderful film in it's theatrical release? Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is so visually stunning and funny that it deserves to be seen for it's great entertainment value.

10/10

DVD--Salt

or: The female Jason Bourne.

One word to sum it up: Popcorn-worthy.

It hasn't been Angelina Jolie's year. Both the movies she has been in this year, Salt and The Tourist were heavily publicized through tabloid magazines while she was filming them. That made everyone aware of these projects, but by the time they were released, everyone was somewhat disappointed (especially with The Tourist). However, despite it's many flaws, Salt is still a marvellously entertaining film, and a welcome return for Jolie back to what she does best: kicking butt. This may just be a huge star vehicle for her, but she manages to give it her all and her dedication is what makes this movie work.

Evelyn Salt (Angelina Jolie) is a CIA agent and highly respected by all, including her boss, Ted Winter (Liev Schreiber). Out of the blue, a Russian spy walks into their offices and offers a vital piece of information: the President of Russia will be assassinated during his forthcoming visit to New York City to attend the funeral of the recently deceased U.S. Vice President. The name of the assassin: Evelyn Salt. Concerned about the safety of her husband, who she cannot contact, she goes on the run. Winter refuses to accept that she is a mole or a double agent but her actions begin to raise doubts. Just who is Evelyn Salt and what is she planning?

If Jason Bourne was a woman, then Evelyn Salt would be the result. She's pretty much invincible and intelligent, seems to know everything that is coming for her, wants her identity back and has the strangest tactics. However, unlike Jason Bourne, Evelyn Salt is totally unbelievable. She jumps on to a moving truck, unscathed. She kills several people within a few seconds, unscathed. She leads a whole lot of people on a merry chase right through a city, unscathed. Okay, she doesn't look perfect by the end of the movie, but the scriptwriters often mistake the audience to be stupid and try to portray Salt as iron woman. Sure, she is very intelligent, but I doubt a woman of Angelina Jolie's stature could take that much bashing in a day. Anyway, whatever Salt does in this movie is pretty entertaining.

Salt doesn't keep you guessing until the end, mainly because it has so many plot holes it's hard to keep track of what message the movie is trying to convey in several points. Unfortunately, the ending leaves little to be desired, but also has the promise for several more sequels in the future. Will Evelyn Salt become the new hero for the future? I doubt it. This first movie is a little too popcorn instead of thought provoking. Hidden behind all those glorious action sequences is a confused plot which never takes the time to slow down and tie up all the loose ends. Anyway, Salt is an action film which doesn't rely on blood and gore and offensive language to try and entertain us. It just entertains us by being the average blockbuster, and you can't really ask for more than that.


THE VERDICT: Light entertainment makes for Summer popcorn fun, but Salt is never fulfilling in any way. However, Angelina Jolie does a remarkably good job of keeping this movie afloat.

6/10

DVD--Inception

or: Ya know...just one of my favourite movies.

One word to sum it up: Brain-frying.

Ask anyone who knows me, I absolutely adore Christopher Nolan. He is not only my favourite director of all time (three of his movies are in my top 5 favourite films), but he’s also the man who I aspire to be. With good reason, too. The guy is amazing. Not only did he burst onto the scene with Memento, a film which was backwards leaving the viewer’s brain fried, he also revitalized the Batman series with Batman Begins. In 2008, he made The Dark Knight, which was arguably the best film of the decade, and became the third highest grossing film of all time. But how could Master Nolan possibly top his success in 2008 with The Dark Knight? Easily. He releases Inception, a movie which he wrote, produced and directed himself, and managed to fry our brains again...and also restored everyone’s faith in the modern blockbuster.


So what’s Inception about? Well, it’s best if you just go and watch the movie, because it would take me at least three pages to explain the whole plot so you don’t get confused. I’ll give you this, though: Inception is a movie about people who can go into your dreams and steal your ideas. However, Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio), the most skilled ‘extractor’, is given the task of planting an idea instead of stealing one.

There’s no doubt that Inception is the film of the year. When I first saw it back on it’s opening day in July, I had never seen anything so beautiful, so challenging, so completely creative. I also managed to walk out of the cinemas in tears thanks to how amazing it was. Take it from me, I saw it three times in the cinemas (record), and loved it every single time. And I’m pretty sure the six friends who I took to see it all loved it too.

Why is Inception so great? It’s unprecedented amount of originality. I have never seen anything come close to this film, apart from maybe The Matrix. Inception is a multi-layered action packed thriller, which requires your full attention. If you take your eyes off it for a minute, you are guaranteed to miss something. But trust me, this is an easy film to lose yourself in, which makes it all the more satisfying at the end. The rotating hallway fight sequence that Joseph Gordon-Levitt finds himself in is awe-inspiring, as are the scenes where we see Ellen Page picking up the dream world by folding over Paris. It’s not only a visually stunning piece, but it is also an emotional one, too. The more we find out about Cobb, the more we care about his plight to get back to his family. Most of all, the end is possibly the best and most-talked about ending in recent history, but it also caused me to wonder about the line between reality and dreams. I felt like I dreamed I had seen Inception, because it’s sometimes too good to be true.

Inception has a wonderful ensemble cast. It has the relatively well knowns: a great Leonardo DiCaprio, a beautiful Marion Cotillard, a brilliant Ken Wantabe, even a couple of appearances from Nolan’s lucky charm Michael Caine and Tom Berenger. The rest of the cast is made up from some young actors who are equally as brilliant as the others: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Tom Hardy, Cillian Murphy and Ellen Page. Basically, with a cast like this and a director like Nolan, Inception is a dream. If there’s one movie you see this year, make it Inception. Unfortunately, it has been proved that the older generation don’t like it, but the younger generation will LOVE it. This is more than your brainless blockbuster. Christopher Nolan, again, has raised the bar in movies with Inception, and if he can top this with The Dark Knight Rises in 2012, then it will become clear that he is the best director who ever lived. Come Oscar time, Inception will be in for Best Picture, Best Director and Best Screenplay, no doubt about it.


THE VERDICT: The movie of the year. The greatest blockbuster in recent memory, an example of why Christopher Nolan makes the best movies. If you want to watch a movie that makes you think, then Inception is the grand-scale epic you should watch.

10/10

DVD--Knight and Day

or: Frivolous Fun.

One word to sum it up: Out-of-it.

I remember when I first saw the Knight and Day trailer at the cinemas. I think I could actually taste the popcorn becoming a lot more buttery when I saw it. To me, it's the epitome of a typical brainless popcorn blockbuster. My dad went to go see it while I watched Inception, and he hailed it as 'the best Cameron Diaz movie of all time'. Not that there are many great Cameron Diaz movies out there, but yes, Knight and Day ranks among the best. That's if you aren't opposed to plot holes big enough for King Kong to get through and the most silly action sequences ever.

June Havens (Cameron Diaz) is just a normal woman going about her day. She gets a flight back home, but on that flight she meets the mysterious Roy Miller (Tom Cruise), who happened to kill everyone aboard the plane. The next morning, June finds herself at home, with everything back to normal. But as the day progressses she is thrown into a mission with Miller, and has to work with him in order to keep herself safe. Things won't ever be the same for either of them.

Knight and Day has little substance, little style, but manages to be a bit better than the average blockbuster. Okay, so, some of the action sequences we see out lead characters in are a bit over the top and totally unrealistic, yes, but is it entertaining? It's amazingly entertaining. The movie has some of the best action sequences I have seen this year, and is nonetheless a film which is driven by it's star power. Don't let Tom Cruise put you off...he's actually quite good in this movie. Cameron Diaz shows us all that she has a good set of lungs and can scream louder than the usual damsel in distress. Surprisingly, Cruise and Diaz have a rather good on screen relationship, and the comedy comes out of their mismatched pairing.

The first half of Knight and Day sets off to be a comedy, and it does well at this. But the second half brings in the seriousness, which feels out of place when I felt I couldn't take the movie seriously. Unfortunately, things got a little tired as the movie progressed, and I started to see the cracks in this film. Sit back and enjoy the ride is my advice, because this is no doubt an enjoyable film. Hats off to the casting directors for getting Cruise and Diaz, and also my personal favourite Peter Sarsgaard in an action film. Knight and Day is no doubt just a blockbuster, but it can elevate itself past that status because of it's star power and out there action sequences, where we know that they aren't fighting 'just because they can' (ahem, I'm looking at you, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen).


THE VERDICT: Average blockbuster fun that offers few surprises, but is still as cool as Cameron Diaz.

6/10

DVD--Predators

or: Another year, another gory sci-fi actioner.

One word to sum it up: So-so.

Unfortunately, this weeks releases were practically all R-rated straight-to-DVD horror/action sequels (with the exception of Santa Paws, but was I going to watch that?!), and the only film which I had actually heard of was Predators. So I decided to give it a go, even though I have never watched any of the other films this one is based on/following. The most intriguing thing about it was that Adrien Brody was cast in the lead role. The lead role of an action film. Hey, count me in!

Chosen for their ability to kill without conscience, a group of killers, some trained and some who are not, must endeavour the alien race of predators that have set out to target them as prey. Dropped into the vast jungle of a distant world, these human predators must learn just who, or what, they are up against, and that their ability, knowledge and wits are tested to the limits in the battle of survival of kill or be killed.

First off, I just have to comment on the casting of Adrien Brody. On paper, it seems like a fantastic idea, because he is undoubtedly a great actor and should be able to play against type. He's good, but he is NOT an action star godammit! I actually couldn't believe in him as being a bad guy and he also waltzed around trying to recreate Christian Bale's voice when he is Batman. He was definitely miscast, and despite his best intentions, he could not pull of this role. Probably due to the miscasting of Brody, Predators suffers from several misfires and too often resorts to being like every other action film. None of the characters had been given any background, therefore they become quite stocky and extremely stereotypical action film characters. However, you do know when Danny Trejo comes on, shits about to go down.

Predators isn't by means great, but it is an average watch. It's definitely one of those movies that you watch if you are just looking for an overly violent nonsensical action flick to tide you over for 100 or so minutes. It's not unlike some other older sci-fi action films of it's kind, and makes for a pretty solid sci-fi for this year. Mainly, if you are a fan of other Robert Rodriguez produced films, then this is a good one for you. It's practically the same as all the rest, and doesn't branch out too far or ask too much of the viewer. In other words, Predators is an easy watch, and all you gore-loving fans will love this miscast average action flick.


THE VERDICT: Predators isn't great, but it's a solid sequel that's pretty easy to watch. Apart from Adrien Brody.

6/10

Classic--Reservoir Dogs

or: The action movie made up entirely of dialogue.

One word to sum it up: Talky.

After watching Reservoir Dogs, I came to the realization that I have now watched all of Quentin Tarantino's movies (okay, so I haven't watched Jackie Brown, but I barely knew that was in existence and it's not exactly easy to find). You know what? I am still in love with QT just as much as I was when I first watched Pulp Fiction when I was a wee twelve years old. Reservoir Dogs, his debut feature, is a clear example of why he decided to do his own thing and it worked, which is why he is one of the best directors around these days.

Six criminals, who are strangers to each other, are hired by a crime boss Joe Cabot (Lawrence Tierney) to carry out a diamond robbery. Right at the outset, they are given false names with an intention that they won't get too close and concentrate on the job instead. They are completely sure that the robbery is going to be a success. But when the police show up right at the time and the site of the robbery, panic spreads amongst the group members and one of them is killed in the subsequent shootout along with a few policemen and civilians. When the remaining people assemble at the premeditated rendezvous point (a warehouse), they begin to suspect that one of them is an undercover cop.

From it's opening scene, where we hear Quentin Tarantino's unmistakable voice trying to explain Like a Virgin, you can tell you're in Quentin-territory. This is going to be a ridiculously violent film which is basically driven by dialogue. Smart, sometimes untopical dialogue. I can't begin to imagine how new audiences would have felt back in 1992 when they watched this movie. I'm damn sure they wouldn't have seen anything like it. Quentin indulgently plunges into cinematic history by recreating iconic scenes from the movies you never saw. He basically brings homage to Hollywood, but his Reservoir Dogs is original and fresh, setting the standard for future Tarantino flicks. Anyone who comes out with a debut as bold as this one deserves their place in Hollywood's hall of fame.

Reservoir Dogs boasts a fantastic ensemble cast, which is made up entirely of males. It's hard to pick any stand outs, as they all take the script and digest it so well that it's like watching good cinema coming back to life. If I have anything bad to say about this film it's that like any debut feature, this film needed to be combed back a bit more, and definitely isn't as well put together as later Tarantino efforts like Pulp Fiction and Inglourious Basterds. Sometimes the non-stop dialogue gets to be a bit tiresome, but all in all, Reservoir Dogs changed cinema, and I am eternally greatful for that.


THE VERDICT: Quentin Tarantino dares to do what others couldn't, and succeeded. Reservoir Dogs is a one stop shop for great performances, insane violence, clever scripting and a homage to what cinema really is.

8/10

DVD--Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time

or: No, video games shouldn't be adapted into films.

One word to sum it up: Unsurprising.

Jake Gyllenhaal: Academy Award nominated actor, a critically sought after actor and also a very good looking one. So what the hell was he doing in Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time? Was it just an excuse for him to get beefier and get some more lady admirers? Or was it so he could fight a snake (because everyone wants to do that)? Or was it because he wanted to go into unknown and what should be condemned territory: the video game adaption? Because as far as I am concerned, this Jerry Bruckheimer action/fantasy mish-mash should have really been left in the Xbox console.

Adopted from the streets of Nasaf by King Sharaman of Persia, young Dastan (Jake Gyllenhaal) grows up amongst royalty and quickly earns his place as a mighty warrior and prince. As his brothers Garsiv and Tus plan battle strategies, a spy sends word that the Holy City of Alamut has been supplying weapons to enemies of Persia. Taking matters into his own hands, Tus orders an attack on the sacred city and upon its fall Dastan encounters the beautiful Princess Tamina (Gemma Arterton). When King Sharaman dies under mysterious circumstances shortly after, and Dastan is accused of his murder, he flees with the princess on a harrowing mission to clear his name. Learning from Tamina the true motives behind Alamut's invasion, Dastan must embark on a perilous quest to stop an evil mastermind's plot for ultimate power with a mystical weapon that can control the very fabric of time.

Ah...yeah. Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time was almost death-defyingly bad for me, only saved by whimsical performances from lovely leads Jake Gyllenhaal and Gemma Arterton. But even then, Gyllenhaal missed the mark, as in many places his over-blown muscles became the saving grace when his strange British/American/African/Asian accent fell through. This movie was kinda like a generic daytime soap stuck in the middle of a desert a few hundred years ago. Everything said is unfortunately badly written and passes off as something out of a Michael Bay movie. In fact, Michael Bay could have directed this. It was just another summer blockbuster which had money thrown at it instead of true thought.

Remember Clash of the Titans? Well, this movie ain't too unlike that one. It's filled with some 'what-the-hell is happening now?!' moments. It has a fight sequence which involve Jake Gyllenhaal and a snake (I think at this point I was pissing myself laughing. I mean, a snake? Seriously? That kind of stuff is for those outback snake wranglers). It uses sets which are totally computer generated that they still have the glow from the computer screen setting the brightness up a notch. It has Gemma Arterton. One thing this film doesn't have in common with Clash of the Titans is the fact that it is adapted from a video game and therefore doesn't succeed. I will keep this belief until somebody can recommend me a video game adaption which is really good. And that is just about as impossible as making me like Twilight.


THE VERDICT: Gives A Nightmare on Elm Street a run for it's money in being the worst movie of 2010.

2/10

DVD--The Losers

or: Ah...the winners?

One word to sum it up: Cool (as).

Even though I am always strangely drawn to adrenaline filled action films and comic book movies (I'm pretty sure like half of my Top 50 favourite movies are action films), I really thought I wouldn't like The Losers. To be honest, the name put me off a bit, and so did Zoe Saldana, who, thanks to Avatar, is now seen to be an international godess. Yeah, she's a good actress, but there's no need for her to walk around in films like she is Megan Fox or something. However, I secretly hoped for the day when I could use the following cliched line to describe the film: "The Losers is a winner!" I think that adequately sums it up.

The Losers centres around the members of an elite Special Forces unit sent to the Bolivian jungle on a search-and-destroy mission. But the team-Clay (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), Jensen (Chris Evans), Roque (Idris Elba), Pooch (Columbus Short) and Cougar (Oscar Jaenada)-soon find that they have become the target of a deadly double cross instigated by a powerful enemy known only as Max (Jason Patric). Making good use of the fact that they’re now presumed dead, the group goes deep undercover in a dangerous plot to clear their names and even the score with Max. They are joined by the mysterious Aisha (Zoe Saldana), a beautiful operative with her own agenda and capable of scoring a few points of her own. If they can take down Max and save the worlds at the same time, it’ll be a win-win for the team now known as 'The Losers'.

I really, really enjoyed The Losers. More than a girl my age should, I might add. It has everything the average action fan could want: a really cool direction style which takes some inspiration from the original comic to make it shine; a truly great cast who don't get lost in everything that is happening and actually remember to act; and, well, it's unrelentingly violent, which proved to be a little too much for me, but I'm sure others will absolutely relish in it. The characters are what really make this movie, though. They are all extremely different, which makes for a colourful ensemble which are a delight to watch...even if one or two times I didn't know why they were shooting at someone or blowing something up.

You wanna know why I really enjoyed The Losers? The character of Jensen, who is played by Chris Evans. He is hilarious; a super intelligent nerd who likes role-playing. Trust me, Jensen makes the movie. Of course, the film's success doesn't just lie with a single character, but if you remember anything from the movie, it'll be Jensen. And then you are likely to remember how awesome it is, how mind-blowingly violent it is, and if you're a guy, probably how hot Zoe Saldana is. It's not a movie which breaks boundaries in terms of action films, but it sure is worth the watch.

THE VERDICT: A fantastically made action films which does have a little too much going on, but ultimately satisfies the viewer thanks to a great ensemble cast.

8/10