"It happened again..."

Film: The Hangover: Part II
Year: 2011
Director: Todd Phillips
Written by: Craig Mazin, Scot Armstrong & Todd Phillips.
Starring: Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, Zach Galifianakis, Justin Bartha, Ken Jeong, Paul Giamatti, Mike Tyson, Jeffrey Tambor, Mason Lee, Jamie Chung, Sasha Barrese. 
Running time: 102 min.

Let's get this all cleared up: I loved the original The Hangover. When I saw it, I thought I'd died and gone to comedy heaven. I was so taken by how clever it was. I know it off by heart because I've seen it probably over 30 times. And yes, I do admit that for quite some time I believed it was my favourite film of all time (it's still in my top 100, number 84 to be exact). So when I heard that this was much of the same, I thought I'd be okay with it. I mean, I loved the original material, so I should love what comes after, right? Wrong...oh so wrong. The Hangover: Part II opens with the exact same scene, with just about the exact same words. From then on, I thought that things might change, and maybe I'd be in for the same sort of fun, but still have a film that could have it's own uniqueness. Nothing changed. It was the same thing, just in Bangkok. And that really rubbed me up the wrong way.

DVD--Paranormal Activity 2

or: Notveryscary Activity 2

One word to sum it up: Ummmmmmm.

There are some movies out there which are very overrated. Back in late 2009, or whenever the first Paranormal Activity came out, people were clambering under seats and ordering higher paranormal security around their homes because the movie freaked them out that much. Yeah, I admit I was sorta scared by it, but then again I was watching it in the middle of the day with chronic tonsilitis so I wasn't really in the right frame to be scared out of my boots. When I got Paranormal Activity 2 out I decided I would watch it in complete darkness, just because I felt like a 'fearless bastard'. I thought I'd have nightmares for months. Unfortunately, it was lucky if I even jumped a centimetre while watching this.

There basically isn't a lot to explain about Paranormal Activity 2. If you have seen the first one, then you probably don't need much of an introduction to the second one. It's a prequel, and all that differs between this one is there is a whole family involved, there are flasher cameras and there is some creepy activity in the pool. Other than that, it's just a whole lot of doors slamming and a lot of boring research. And I'm sure it's 95% hype, too. But I do have to admit, I got very protective over that baby. When there's an infant involved things are always scarier.

One of the problems I had with this film actually had a lot to do with the first one. I've heard that there are like three different endings to the first, and I saw the one where *SPOILER ALERT* Katie is killed by the cops after she kills her boyfriend. She is alive in this film (obviously, but at the end after that event happened) *SPOILER ENDS* I guess it just depends what ending you get. Another problem I had with this movie which stemmed from it's predecessor was the fact that this just felt like a rehash of the first one. It was like someone went through with a checklist: "Ooooh, they jumped at those slamming doors! Put that in!" "Let's drag that person around without anything physically seen doing it! That scared the crumbs out of them before, let's do it again!" Yeah, that kinda stuff is scary if you are experiencing it, but it isn't very scary to watch, over and over again.

I've heard stories of people being beside themselves in fear of this movie. I guess it's either watching it in a cinema or being in a room full of shrieking girls which would do the trick. Unfortunately, watching this in my lounge with my mother who fell asleep in the first 20 minutes and my demonic cat darting in and out of visibility probably didn't ensure the scariest viewing experience on my part. Instead, I was quite bored. I mean, I am easily scared. Well, I am terrified of cracks on the street, if that counts for anything. But I wasn't scared at all. The whole coolness that the first one achieved was undone by the fact that this film used six different cameras which were all very high tech. It just ain't cool unless it is low budget. I suspect that this film is just riding on the success on the first, which leaves me to wonder what the third one will have in store for us. Hopefully, a lot less talking and a lot more doing, that's for sure.

THE VERDICT: Fan of the first one? This is worth a look. Haven't seen the first one? Don't bother. Just watching it to pass time? It ain't scary. Scared of doors slamming? This will be the scariest movie you will ever see.

What I hoped for:

What I got:

DVD--Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps

or: Sequels that come a long time after.

One word to sum it up: Disappointing.

23 years was all it took to bring Gordon Gekko back to our screens and rattling off his philosophy of greed being good to anyone who will listen. How could you go wrong with that? Well, being the modern Oliver Stone, who last directed the sadly failed George Bush biopic W., there has to be some way of not doing it the right way. Those expecting full on Gekko in Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps will be sadly disappointed. Instead, he becomes a supporting player to a love triangle between Shia LaBeouf, money and Carey Mulligan.

In 2001, corporate raider Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas) completes a prison sentence for money laundering. No one is there to meet him. Jump seven years: Gekko is promoting his book, his estranged daughter Winnie (Carey Mulligan) is a political blogger engaged to Jake Moore (Shia LaBeouf), a hot-shot Wall Street trader, and an old nemesis of Gekko's, Bretton James (Josh Brolin), devours the firm Jake works for. When Jake's mentor takes his life, Jake wants revenge and Gordon may be the perfect ally. With the fiscal crisis of September 2008 as background, can Jake maintain Winnie's love, broker a rapprochement with her father, get his revenge, and find funds for a green-energy project he champions; or will greed trump all?

The performances in this are all fantastic. Shia LaBeouf takes the lead role in one of his first performances since that movie Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. He gives it his all, and carries those lulls in the script quite well. Carey Mulligan, who was Oscar nominated for her performance in An Education, puts on a perfect American accent and steals the show...like always. Her and LaBeouf had excellent chemistry, which made their somewhat ordinary story easier to watch. Josh Brolin, the star of Jonah Hex and upcoming True Grit, takes another role of a villain, and, as always, plays it quite well. But we all know that the star of this movie is Michael Douglas. His Golden Globe nomination was well deserved (also was the standing ovation he received for beating cancer). He makes Gordon Gekko as scary as he was in the first film, and even though he is a supporting character, he still makes the film.

Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps is a fine sequel which even after 23 years of being off screen, Stone still finds ways to connect with the last one. We see Gekko's rather bulky 'mobile phone' and a cameo from Charlie Sheen as Bud Fox. The one thing Stone didn't carry through was the intense drama. The story is overrun by the soapie story of Winnie forgiving Gekko. Its nice to watch, but sometimes it feels like it belongs to another film, and just ends up making the runtime a little longer. In saying that, the very modern direction from Oliver Stone makes this movie worth its time. It has everything that could make a movie: great performances, great direction, quite a clever and intelligent screenplay. It just should have been better, thats all.


THE VERDICT: Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps is a slightly long performance driven piece all about money. Fans of drama will definitely go for this.

6/10

DVD--Shrek Forever After

or: It's ogre...finally.

One word to sum it up: So-so.

Shrek was probably the best movie from my childhood. When we all first got a glimpse of it in 2001 it was a movie that we watched over and over. It was also probably the first movie I knew all the words to as well. Shrek 2 was pretty awesome too, seeing as it was made by the same director: New Zealander Andrew Adamson. Come 2007 when Shrek the Third came out, without Adamson directing, the series lost a lot of momentum. So when news was spread that there would be a Shrek Forever After, I couldn't help but feel a little skeptical about this project going ahead. While it was better than I expected, no one seems to be able to capture the magic like Adamson did, and the last two films in the series have nothing on the first two.

A bored and domesticated Shrek (Mike Myers) pacts with deal-maker Rumpelstiltskin (Walt Dohrn) to get back to feeling like a real ogre again, but when he's duped and sent to a twisted version of Far Far Away--where Rumpelstiltskin is king, ogres are hunted, and he and Fiona (Cameron Diaz) have never met--he sets out to restore his world and reclaim his true love.

Dreamworks is no Pixar. The studio can't seem to be able to capture the essence of what a child wants in their animated movie. They like to hire stars to sell their movie instead of getting more experienced voices who are better at doing the job. Also, their movies are a little too dark and violent, instead of being light entertainment which truly touches the heart. Shrek Forever After is trying way too hard to make up for the losses of Shrek the Third and strive for the excellence that was in the first two. In doing that, it tries to copy It's a Wonderful Life, a movie which the young ones have probably never heard of. It fails in trying to be heartwarming, and passes off as generic stuff which isn't easy to care about. Let's just say, this ain't no Toy Story 3.

On the flip side, Shrek Forever After is still pretty enjoyable. Shrek, Fiona and Donkey have been characters which I have grown up with, and despite the mishap during Shrek the Third, I'm still not ready to part with them. They still remain as charming as ever, and the fact that they don't know each other in this one allows the viewer to see some of the magic that we can remember from the first one. Dreamworks is also all about the funny, and Shrek Forever After delivers hilarity often that it's impossible not to like. It's a hard goodbye to our favourite ogre, but then again the series didn't really go out with a bang. However, the kids will love it, and that's all you could ask for.


THE VERDICT: So much better than the last one, but still not as good as the first two. Shrek Forever After is an adequate final chapter with plenty of laughs, but it really could have been better.

6/10

DVD--Step Up 3

or: Ahhhh...the wonders of 3D on a laptop screen.

One word to sum it up: Dancey.

People my age, especially around these parts of the Earth, are really into these dancing movies. I suspect it's because it doesn't require much thinking and it's all about the 'gangsta' music and break dancing. Step Up 3 is no exception to that rule. However, it offers more spectacular dancing because it was made in 3D, which isn't so spectacular on a laptop screen where I had slushy thrown at my screen. The dancing is pretty much the only thing this movie has going for it, but the subpar acting and overly cliched story are made somehow bearable.

A tight-knit group of New York City street dancers, including Luke (Rick Malambri) and Natalie (Sharni Vinson), team up with NYU freshman Moose (Adam G. Sevani), and find themselves pitted against the world's best hip hop dancers in a high-stakes showdown that will change their lives forever.

The trilogy of dancing films have grown so far apart that it has become apparent that these films are being made as money spinners and light entertainment for those who can't be bothered watching an actual film. They're basically a showcase of dancing talent and people doing some pretty spectacular moves that we would never see randomly in the real world. Neither of the sequels have anything on the first one, which had more story than dancing, but this third installment proves to be pretty good. The story is pretty slight, but then again, some of the themes interwoven into this movie are inspiring; not only for dancers, but for film makers too. Luke's little documentary making proves that there is always a way to start, and I guess if he was real then he might have a future in film making.

One of the problems with Step Up 3, however, is the way it tries to be a musical. I mean, no one really runs around jumping off stuff in the name of dancing. Or starts dancing to the tune of an ice cream truck, for that matter. It just makes this movie so cheesy, and unfortunately very strange to watch. I don't expect huge doses of realism in this type of movie, but those scenes seem so out of place. The acting in this film could have been better, but it is understandably hard to find people who are that good at dancing and are also good at acting. The dialogue, too, isn't too great, but who cares? The dancing is bloody amazing, and that somehow makes up for most of the films flaws.


THE VERDICT: Not thought provoking or fulfulling in any way, but provides light entertainment and a visual spectacular for the younger generation.

6/10

DVD--The Twilight Saga: Eclipse

or: The death of the sanity of young girls.

One word to sum it up: Lacklustre.

Again, if you happen to be a fan of The Twilight Saga: Eclipse, then this is a good place for you not to be. I am most definitely not a fan of this atrocious romp about vamps and wolves, mainly because of it's gross love story and off the mark writing and direction. Also, teen magazines seem to overload on this shit, which has actually turned me against some of the girls (and middle aged women) who like it. What the hell is wrong with you? Eclipse isn't a film, it's just a reason to waste our time looking at some poofy vampire, a stoned girl and a guy with a body made of steroids and a face which hasn't reached puberty yet.

Bella (Kristen Stewart) once again finds herself surrounded by danger as Seattle is ravaged by a string of mysterious killings and a malicious vampire continues her quest for revenge. In the midst of it all, she is forced to choose between her love for Edward (Robert Pattinson) and her friendship with Jacob (Taylor Lautner)...knowing that her decision has the potential to ignite the struggle between vampire and werewolf. With her graduation quickly approaching, Bella is confronted with the most important decision of her life.

Let's see...people who love the series to death, own the entire book series, have walls plastered with posters of R-Pattz and Taylor Lautner, and have plenty of Twilight memorabillia, they will love this third installment. People who have never seen the series before won't understand it and therefore won't get quite a kick out of it. People like me, who are just following the series for the hell of it, will find themselves laughing at this movies helplessness and immaturity. Almost everything about it is wrong. Apart from the fact that this is a slight step up from the horribleness that was New Moon.

David Slade's direction is welcomed when it comes to handling the action sequences (and, thank God, there are more of those), but even they are reduced to being laughable. Sometimes I wonder if these guys have ever watched any real vampire films (if there are any)...because I don't think that vampires are made of cement. But again, despite the new director, we are seeing more soppy and almost creepy direction when it comes to the love scenes. Another thing that goes wrong in this film is the overstuffing of characters who do not need to be there. Yeah, they were in the books, but they just don't work as well in the movie. It's like asking the entire cast of Valentine's Day to be in one scene together and to know each other as if they were best friends. In other words, it doesn't work.

I can't review this film without going on about the three leads. Kristen Stewart may have once been talented, but it's like Twilight killed that talent. I feel kinda sorry for her, because people will forever know her as Bella Swan and won't recognize her much better work in the likes of Adventureland and The Runaways. But even then, her heavy reliance on blinking and pushing her hair back is just a tad annoying. Robert Pattinson basically has no future now. He'll forever be that creepy Edward Cullen, and while that may be good for his bank account and popularity, it won't be good for the future of his career. Enjoy it while it lasts. Taylor Lautner is just an example of a hot young actor who never had a future anyway. He's not particularly good in this (I mean, who is? Apart from Anna Kendrick), and I'm guessing people only like him because of his looks. What makes it worse is the lacklustre material that these actors feel obligated to drone out with little or no inflection, making this a boring two hours. Unless you take the piss out of it. Now that makes this movie worth watching.


THE VERDICT: What do you want me to say? It was awful. But it was better than New Moon, so it deserves extra points for that.

4/10

DVD--The Girl Who Played with Fire

or: New director, way different sequel.

One word to sum it up: Inferior.

I, amazingly, really enjoyed The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, for the utterly fearless and brutal film that it was. Even though I don't really get the whole craze over the books by Stieg Larsson (they're average, but not as great as everyone makes them out to be). However, with my enduring excitement to watch The Girl Who Played with Fire, I came out quite disappointed. Mainly because the slight soft-porn theme this movie took on and the detached direction from Tomas Alfredson, who doesn't have a patch on Niels Arden Oplev.

After spending a year abroad, Lisbeth Salander (Noomi Rapace) returns to Sweden. She calls on her court-appointed guardian to remind him, in her own way, of his promise to submit satisfactory reports on her behavior. Mikael Blomkvist (Michael Nyqvist) continues as an editor of Millenium magazine and they are onto a major story about prostitution and trafficking in women from Eastern Europe. When the investigative journalist working on that story is killed, the police announce that Lisbeth is their prime suspect. Lisbeth and Mikael work independently trying to find who is behind the murders. They not only learn the identity of the culprits but also some of Lisbeth's family secrets.

The biggest thing that this series has going for it is it's heroine, Lisbeth Salander. Most heroines we see these days are beautiful and sexy, go around shooting evil and never really have a back story. Lisbeth, on the other hand, is tomboyish and likes goth makeup and clothing; instead of shooting evil, she makes sure they suffer as much as she has; and the more we go into the series, we learn about Lisbeth's painful past and what she has done for female liberation. Therefore, Lisbeth is not only a very interesting watch, she is also iconic and stands for a reason. The perfect thing about Lisbeth is that she was brought to life by the amazing Noomi Rapace. My message to Rooney Mara: you have shoes three times the size of Bigfoot's feet to fill.

Not only does Noomi Rapace continue to give good performances in the series, she also has great chemistry with Michael Nyqvist, who plays Mikael Blomkvist. This, unfortunately, is part of the undoing of The Girl Who Played with Fire, as they spend most of the movie apart. Though learning of Lisbeth's background does make up for that, the sex-trafficking story seems so distant from the rest of it that I couldn't help but feel a little bored. It's not just the deficiencies in the story which keep this movie from being as good as the first. It's the strange direction from Tomas Alfredson, which at points felt either very doco-style or very home video style. He fails to pack to punch that the first one had, and I don't know if that's whether the material was just better, or if it's because of the big change. Despite all this, Rapace and Nyqvist keep things going, in a sequel which can't live up to the first one, but still proves worthy.


THE VERDICT: The Girl Who Played with Fire is a fine installment to the Millenium series, but the new director and slightly mediocre material.

6/10

DVD--St Trinian's 2 & the Legend of Fritton's Gold

or: So gangsta.

One word to sum it up: Stupid.

What do you get when you put Rupert Everett taking on multiple roles (mainly as a woman), every young British actress playing a stereotypical teenage character, a story about brats in a school which is pretty far from reality, and some added 'star power' from Colin Firth and Gemma Arterton? St Trinian's 2 & the Legend of Fritton's Gold, of course! Oh right...you probably didn't know there was another on the cards. Or you probably didn't even realize there was a first one in existence. But fear not, you haven't missed much. Only if you're a real fan of British comedies made about a whole lot of brats who attend a school which doesn't look like a school at all.

When Celia (Juno Temple) finds an old ring in the library at St. Trinian's, the girls all become very interested in it. It's then that they find out that the headmistress, Miss Fritton (Rupert Everett), is related to a famous pirate. The new head girl, Annabelle Fritton (Talulah Riley), leads the charge into finding treasure which could save their school. They follow riddles and clues until they can finally get to the mysterious treasure left behind by Captain Fritton (Rupert Everett). But they can't do this without the evil Lord Pomfrey (David Tennant) getting in the way.

St Trinian's 2, just like the first one, was an absolute hoot. Mainly because they are so stupid they are funny, and you can't help but laugh at the misfortune of some of these girls. The 'Posh Totties' and the 'Gangsta' kids were absolutely stripped of all dignity, and were given what an adult would presume teenagers like them are actually like. But hey, at least this film doesn't try and give an insight to a teenage girls life...because we all know how boring that is.

The film is extremely 2 dimensional. The story, the characters, even the actors, all sound and feel really 2 dimensional. But that isn't the worst part. The worst part is that this is a film which is basically a propaganda for feminism. And it's made mainly by men. From the girls trying to take down AD1 (a female hating organization) to the awful final 'twist' (I didn't know whether to laugh or smack myself on the head with a sledgehammer), everything about this film reeks of feminism. You may think that I would like that since I am a female, but this movie stretches that theme out to it's absolute breaking point. It also doesn't help that we have absolute brats representing the fairer sex, either.

Again, St Trinian's 2 adopts a lot of young British starlets and shoves them into this movie, which they don't require talent to do. Many of the original cast have left, leaving the admirably talented Talulah Riley and Tamsin Egerton to carry on the tradition. They can't save it, nor can Rupert, Colin or David Tennant. Gemma Arterton reprises her role briefly, but it's clear from the very beginning that she just wants to get out. No one is trying very hard, but that's okay because this movie doesn't ask for much. The excessive use of slow-mo doesn't exactly help their case, either. It kinda leaves the viewer behind to ponder at it's stupidity.


THE VERDICT: Has some awful scripting and a less than appropriate ending. Just forget it's serious and laugh at it's stupidity...it gets to be quite an entertaining yet extremely unnecessary sequel.

4/10

DVD--Toy Story 3

or: The best animated film ever made?

One word to sum it up: Heart breaking.

It's all over?

I may have once been skeptical about the making of Toy Story 3. To be honest, I thought it was just made to be a cash cow and one of those movies which tries to revamp the whole series by being 3D. Being made 10 years after the last one? That was an odd move, too. But after watching the first two the nights before watching this one, I really, really, did not want the series to end. I enjoy the small things in life, and the Toy Story franchise is something which I enjoy much more than a younger kid probably would. Seriously, anyone who doesn't feel some kind of emotion at the end of watching this is a clearly a very cynical person. Toy Story 3 is the best (and you know there are a lot of good ones) movie to be made by Disney Pixar, end of story.

Andy is now 17 years old, and is off to college to start his new independent life, leaving Woody, Buzz, Jessie and the rest of the gang to ponder their future. When they discover they are moving to Sunnyside Daycare, they are happy that they will be played with again. Unfortunately, they find there are two awful horrors that they experience while living at Sunnyside: the kids aren't as nice or gentle as their former owners and the other toys at Sunnyside are setting out to make life miserable for the gang. The toys must plot an escape plan so they can get out of Sunnyside, which proves to be no easy task.

Toy Story was great. Toy Story 2, to me, was still good but lacked the charm that the first one had. However, Toy Story 3 blows them both out of the water. There's always that feeling that a third movie will be the worst of them all, but this one seems to be the extremely rare exception. We are introduced to new characters, and we also have some real villains this time, which helps make the movie more exciting. I mean, Lotso, the strawberry scented bear, and the slightly mishandled baby doll were enough to give me nightmares. I actually got really frightened in some of the scenes in this, but that's what makes this movie so great.

2010 has been a seemingly bad year for movies. However, this, Inception and The Social Network are three movies which have gone down in history for their service to their genres: animated features, sci-fi actioners and biographical dramas respectively. Over the years, we have seen so many great animated features, particularly coming out of the amazing dreamworld that is Pixar. Toy Story 3 definitely tops them all. It has that edge over them: taking something ordinary like a toy and making them extraordinary; amazing computer generated animation that isn't bogged down by the fact it was made in 3D; a hilarious script which both young and old will have a laugh at; but most of all, it has that emotional edge that comes from the fact that we genuinely care about these characters. We've all had a toy which has become our best friend. We all wished so much that they would come to life. Call me a little kid, but I actually felt sorry for the toys I have locked away in my closet after watching this. And the end of this movie made me feel so sorry for them that it just brought out the little kid in me.

In the last five minutes of this movie, I couldn't help but bawl my eyes out. There were so many emotions: nostalgia, moving on, happiness, sadness, optimism...but most of all, I hated that it had to end. Any fan of the series will probably feel the same as I did. My recommendation is that you watch the first two reasonably close to watching this one. It's one of the best cinematic experiences I have ever had. Look at it this way: Toy Story 3 is perfect for any age. It's just an all-round perfect movie. I don't mean to overhype it for you, but there it is. Toy Story 3 will win Best Animated Picture at the Oscars next year, will even get a nomination for Best Picture, and will go down in history as the greatest animated feature ever made. It really is as great as everyone says it is.

Woody, Buzz, Jessie, the rest of the gang: I will miss you loads!


THE VERDICT: I LOVED this movie. Doesn't matter how old you are, Toy Story 3 is a classic and a must watch for fans of the trilogy.

10/10

Classic--Toy Story 2

or: The fantastic dud of the trilogy.

One word to sum it up: (still) Memor-iffic

Why do I hail Toy Story 2 as the fantastic 'dud' of the trilogy? Well, while it is still very, very good, I didn't find it as charming as the first one, or as (insert amazing description here) as the third one. But don't worry, there was no way I was going to hate Toy Story 2, as it makes up what may be the greatest trilogy of all time. It still has everything the first one has, but suffers from the sometimes inescapable second-movie syndrome.

While Andy is away at summer camp Woody (Tom Hanks) has been toynapped by Al McWiggin (Wayne Knight), a greedy collector and proprietor of Al's Toy Barn. In this all-out rescue mission, Buzz (Tim Allen) and his friends Mr. Potato Head (Don Rickles), Slinky Dog (Jim Varney), Rex (Wallace Shawn) and Hamm (John Ratzenberger) springs into action to rescue Woody from winding up as a museum piece. They must find a way to save him before he gets sold in Japan forever and they'll never see him again!

I was so happy when I found that Toy Story 2 has the same formula as it's predecessor, and uses all the tricks in the bag to make us really root for these characters. In most sequels, they will always try to overblow the franchise and get more than they did for the first one. It's like reinvesting money just to get some more interest, but most of the time that investment gets lost in the mail or the finance company goes bankrupt. That's not the case with Toy Story 2. It's a wonderous sequel, and really holds its own in the trilogy. Come to think of it, the trilogy really holds it's own among every other film. They all have that warmth and honest emotion we never see in a kids movie; also a message which isn't thrusted in front of our faces, but is put in there with such subtlety that we can't help but love the movie.

Again, the computer graphics are amazing, and this is really the benchmark of animated cinema. Sure, the 2D sketch animations by Disney were great, but Toy Story 2 ensures that we all like Pixar's computer generated animation. And we do. Film doesn't really get much better than this. However, if I have one thing to say about this fluffy sequel, it's that this get's a bit too melodramatic, and doesn't have the same happy/emotional edge that the first one had. But given that minor issue, the rest of the film is enjoyable, well composed, and definitely one of the best examples of why Pixar makes the best movies. Yes, they're even better then the live action ones.

THE VERDICT: A great sequel, with all the charms that one could expect from a Toy Story movie.

8/10

DVD--Sex and the City 2

or: Grumpy old women in flashy clothes.

One word to sum it up: Bloated.

Once or twice I may have said--and this was very early in the year--that I was looking forward to watching Sex and the City 2, mainly because I liked the first one. However, upon seeing critics coming out in droves and absolutely trashing it, I really wasn't that interested in seeing it. I mean, seriously? A movie with four whiny middle-aged women wearing designer clothes and totting around in high heels living in fantasy land while the rest of us live in reality? The first one did well considering it was 'The Godfather of chick flicks'. Look at it this way: Sarah Jessica Parker is aging, and we no longer care for her and her friends exploits. They really over-cooked the big screen transition, and with news of a third one being in development, I think they are going to burn this series out.

What happens after you say 'I do'? Life is everything Carrie (Sarah Jessica Parker), Samantha (Kim Cattrall), Charlotte (Kristin Davis) and Miranda (Cynthia Nixon) ever wished it would be, but it wouldn't be right if life didn't hold a few more surprises. This time in the form of a glamourous adventure that whisks the women away from New York to one of the most luxurious and exotic places on earth, where the party never ends and there's something mysterious around every corner. It's an escape that comes exactly at the right moment for the four friends, who are finding themselves in the traditional roles of marriage, motherhood and more. After all, sometimes you just have to get away with the girls.

Sex and the City 2 isn't as exciting as that 'synopsis' made it out to be. The main plotline of the whole thing is Carrie taking a break from Big and the 'boring old married couple' life she thinks she is a part of. As you can imagine, stretching this rather thin plotline out over 140 minutes (about the length of Inception...imagine that) is like trying to tie an average size rubber band around a truck. The first few minutes shine, but unfortunately this easily becomes chick flick heaven and an average borefest. Here's some of the most exciting things that happen in the film: Liza Minnelli sings a few songs (!); Charlotte breaks down and thinks the nanny (played by Alice Eve who has a pretty spot on Irish accent) is going to have an affair with her husband; Carrie goes back to the old apartment (!); Penelope Cruz!; We go to Abu Dhabi in luxury; and well, the credits. Seriously, guys, what went wrong with this movie? You do know that not everyone isn't as into watching the lives of the well off in New York, especially when they have grown as annoying as these four ladies have? Scratch that, I still like Charlotte.

The moral of the story is: if you want a good girls night in, then get Sex and the City 2. If you think you can handle 140 minutes of nothing but the same women dealing with strange problems that you may not have cared about in the first place, then get Sex and the City 2. If you liked the first movie and the TV series, then you may still want to watch this movie. However, the best parts are still the clothes, which are thrown at the four women like they are clothes horses. I do have one strict message: ladies, don't drag your boyfriend/fiancee/husband into watching this. I can guarantee they will not be happy with you. This movie was only ever intended for women, and, unfortunately, I couldn't stomach this 140 minute piece of girl-power. Even if it was a bit better than I thought it would be. Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeease, don't make a third Sex and the City. For the sake of womanhood.


THE VERDICT: While it isn't as bad as some critics made it seem, Sex and the City 2 is still a very overcooked sequel, which seems to lose itself in it's bloated running time. Sarah Jessica Parker has truly lost her mojo.

4/10

Memories...

This scene in Inception made me bawl my eyes out. No I just about felt the same as I did when watching it. WARNER BROS. wants to make an Inception sequel.

No.

Just NO.

Seriously, it will fail...especially because I doubt Chris Nolan will be back to direct it. He wanted the end to be a 'did it or didn't it' kind of thing. We want to leave it that way. Seriously, if this ludicrous idea gets the go-ahead, well have some shitty director and possibly a straight-to-DVD title and probably about seven sequels.

Just coz it made money, doesn't mean we need another one. We could watch Inception a million times without getting bored. So, no, it won't please anyone.

Even though I heard some stupid pissed off people at the cinemas saying 'I hope there is a sequel' just because they wanted to find out if the spinning top dropped or not. Save us all the horror of an un-Chris Nolan'ed sequel and think of the answer yourself. That's why it was made that way.

Lots of love,

Stevee

xoxo

Rewind--28 Weeks Later...

or: Days turn into weeks...for no apparent reason.

One word to sum it up: Gory.

I wouldn't have watched 28 Weeks Later..., the sequel to 28 Days Later..., had it not been on TV one night. I mean, the first didn't exactly demand a sequel, and seeing that it was directed by someone other than Danny Boyle kinda put me off a bit. Horror sequels, in my mind, barely ever work because they go for the whole 'let's be bigger and better than the first' aspect instead of actually worrying about viewers tastes. While 28 Weeks Later... doesn't try too hard to be better than the first (because it's damn near impossible to try and emulate what 28 Days Later... achieved), it still can't capture what made 28 Days Later... great and uses excessive gore as a replacement.

In the country nearby London, Don (Robert Carlyle), his wife Alice (Catherine McCormack) and a few survivors live hidden in a farmhouse. When infected people break in the house, Dan panics and does not help his wife to escape, running away and leaving Alice trapped inside the room. Twenty eight weeks after the outbreak that annihilated the population of Great Britain, London is considered safe and the British survivors return under the coordination of the American Army, that keeps the city under permanent surveillance. The teenager Tammy (Imogen Poots) and her younger brother Andy (Mackintosh Muggleton) travel back from Spain to live with their father Don in London. They miss their mother and decide to escape to their old house to retrieve pictures and some other personal belongings. However, they find Alice surprisingly alive and the Army brings her to the base. After some blood test, the biologist Scarlet (Rose Byrne) discovers that Alice is a carrier of the lethal virus and somehow has immunity to it...

The problem with 28 Weeks Later... is that it focuses way too much on being a gory zombie horror than a fight-to-survive humanist horror like the original. Don't get me wrong, it is a fine sequel. But sometimes, like most sequels do, it left me wondering why they made a second installment in the first place. 28 Weeks Later... does a good job of capturing London reconstructing itself after the outbreak, and plunges the viewer into a labyrinth of safety-that-isn't-all-that-safe. It makes itself become a survival guide for if these events actually really happened, and I'd imagine if they were make packs on outbreak survival, this movie should be right in there.

Sometimes it feels scary and original, continuing on with the real looking zombies and thrilling zombie/human chase scenes. Other times, it feels like it's trying too hard to be the original. It kept playing 'In the house-In a heartbeat' during action sequences, which didn't feel right because that song was perfect for the climax in 28 Days Later... The direction is also trying to be like Danny Boyle's. Truth is, only Danny Boyle can do something so visionary. It is a solid sequel, and raises some questions about our future and what could happen, but lacks the humanism that made the first one so great.


THE VERDICT: A lock, stock and barrel horror which is both gory and cleverly scary, but of course, it isn't as good as the first. Danny Boyle could have made it better.

6/10

Thoughts I had while working in Blockbuster for a week...

Seriously, working a video store all week, it really gets your game up. Like, I had to clean every shelf in that shop, and I kept finding all these movies I had no idea existed. Same with the trailer loop disc...there were all these trailers for these movies which I once had no interest in seeing, but then the trailers made them look kinda interesting. So here are some things I noticed and things that happened in my week of labouring to pay my Dad back for all the money I spent on my holiday...

Aaron Johnson is frickin gorgeous.


There were two trailers of him on the loop disc: Nowhere Boy and Kick-Ass. I knew exactly when they were coming on, too (Nowhere Boy after New York, I Love You and Kick-Ass after Iron Man 2), so I would stop what I was doing and just watch them. Like one of those chicks who like to gawk at Robert Pattinson every time they see something mildly like him within a ten metre radius of them. Okay, so maybe I wasn't kissing the TV screen or anything...but Aaron Johnson is simply...perfection. Oh, and he has a really good Top 5 Favourite Movies too...check it out! He loves Tarantino and Fincher! I think I just fell in love with him...again.

Rob Schneider just...pops up...out of nowhere.


Particularly in teen movies, looking like a real perve. Just look at the posters for American Virgin and Wild Cherry. And while we are on the subject of American Virgin...well, I haven't seen it, but, by judging by it's DVD cover, there are three reasons why I don't want to see it:
1. Jenna Dewan, on that cover, looks strangely like Katie Price.
2. I'm pretty sure I have seen it all before in another movie.
3. Why is it called American Virgin? I mean, I get that the chick is a virgin, and she's American, but is that supposed to mean that she is the only American virgin? I just don't get it.

People still wanna watch Robin Hood.


It has been out for like, two weeks? And people still go up and grab it as soon as they walk into the shop. God knows why. I mean, surely that cover with Russell Crowe's face isn't that appealing, is it?

Sex and the City 2 looks like it has more CGI than Avatar.


Like, in some scenes, Sarah Jessica Parker's face looks like it is going to fall off, and she looks a little too old to be wearing whatever it is she wears in that movie. Kim Catrall, however, looks like a person who has been attacked by photoshop and is stuck like that. And seriously, did we need a movie about whiny middle aged woman in Abu Dhabi? No. But despite all this, I am looking forward to watching this movie upon it's DVD release next month. Coz, you know, I can RIP IT TO SHREDS!

The horror section is always a mess...


...but I make the time to dig up Let the Right One In and display it in the most prominent way. That movie has rented out a lot since we I got it. That movie wouldn't have been in the shop if it weren't for me. I ordered it for myself, got sick of waiting and found it elsewhere, and then it just turned up in the store so they had to put it out for rent. It gives me such pleasure when I see it isn't there.

Sequels happen.


I, until last month, was totally unaware of three sequels which happened. The first one was Stomp the Yard: Homecoming (do we have to talk about how ridiculously stupid the cover looks?), a movie which they had ordered 14 copies of. And guess what?! The most I ever saw rented of it was one copy. One copy per day...loads of profit. The second was St. Trinians II: The Legend of Fritton's Gold. It features Rupert Everett making jokes about Lady Gaga, Colin Firth being 'sexy' with a soaked shirt, the guy off Doctor Who, Gemma Arterton with a longer version of the hairstyle she wore in the first film, Talulah Riley who was Eames in Inception, girls screaming, a big dance off somewhere in Britain, slutty outfits, and the annoying dumb chicks who have this 'oh my God' thing. Sounds like good fun. Not. And last, was Camp Rock 2: The Final Jam. Looks like pure Disney crap and exactly like High School Musical 2...but in a camp! Unfortunately, I had the song off the trailer stuck in my head all day, which I'm pretty sure contributed to my agonizing migraine.

Nicholas Hoult is really cute.


Once, when I had come into work before the shop opened, the TV was turned on and the first thing that came up was Nicholas Hoult in the trailer for A Single Man. I felt so special. Then I had to explain the movie to one of the people who I work with what the movie was about. Which pretty much failed, because there isn't a right way to explain that movie. She told me that someone thought it was strange, and my happiness from starting work to the cute face of Nicholas Hoult was kinda deflated. Oh well...I guess A Single Man just really isn't Dannevirke's thing.

AAAAAAND...for the most exciting thing that has happened all week (apart from getting the Inception script, of course)!


So, I just read The Accidental Billionaires by Ben Mezrich, and it's fair to say, I am obsessed with the Facebook story (that and I am writing an epic article all about Facebook for the local paper). I am also in love with Jesse Eisenberg and Andrew Garfield at the moment. I have been wanting to see The Social Network ever since I found out that David Fincher was directing it (because I couldn't quite process that thought). Even more so seeing all the rave reviews it's getting. But it wasn't set to be released here until November 25th, which would suck for me becuase I would be going on a stupid school camp then and wouldn't be able to see it until ages after. However, today, I found out, that the release date had been pushed up a couple of weeks and it will be here on November 11! Which means I don't have to wait so long! Trust me, the countdown has already started...
(Dear Movie God, if only Never Let Me Go's release date could be pushed up...maybe four months? I have to wait 10th February 2011 to see it...and I'm not sure my Andrew Garfield obsession can wait that long. Amen.)

DVD--Iron Man 2

or: Sequels do work. Sometimes.

One word to sum it up: Awesome.

I'm a huge fan or anything and everything that Robert Downey Jr. is in. So it was only natural for me to be a huge fan of Iron Man. But sequels always worry me, as the only sequel I have ever seen that is better than the first is The Dark Knight (my favourite film of all-time). Iron Man 2 isn't as good as the first one. However, it manages to keep the coolness of the first (which is probably because of Robert Downey Jr.) and is actually a really good sequel. Honestly, you couldn't really top the first Iron Man, no matter how hard you'd try.

With the world now aware of his dual life as the armored superhero Iron Man, billionaire inventor Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) faces pressure from the government, the press, and the public to share his technology with the military. Unwilling to let go of his invention, Stark, along with Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), and James 'Rhodey' Rhodes (Don Cheadle) at his side, must forge new alliances--and confront powerful enemies.

The Iron Man franchise really would be nothing without Robert Downey Jr. He makes the unlikeable character of Tony Stark somewhat likeable, and also takes great pleasure out of mocking the character and the billionaire image, which is where the film gets most of it's laughs. The first film was explosive, and this second installment is even more explosive. That's what is to be expected of an action sequel, but Iron Man 2 dares to set itself apart from other action sequels. It has a smart script, a wonderful cast and inspired direction to thank for that.

The film isn't really just about a superhero trying to make the world a better place. It takes a look at someone trying to make world peace, someone trying to make more war, and also the lives of the rich and famous. Jon Favreau, while not as technically talented as Christopher Nolan in making action films, does a fantastic job of setting up busy sequences and sends the viewer on an adrenaline rush easily. Iron Man 2 has an enlargened ensemble supporting cast. Gwyneth Paltrow and Clark Gregg are still there. Don Cheadle takes over Terrence Howard's role as one of Stark's closest friends. Scarlett Johansson comes in for a role which basically meant nothing and I'm pretty sure she was just there for eye candy. The two biggest stand outs were Sam Rockwell (the brilliant, underrated actor from Moon) and Mickey Rourke (the scariest fossil-looking man I have ever seen), who played great villains, making this movie different from the first (the only villain was Jeff Bridges, really).


THE VERDICT: Iron Man 2 is an action packed and explosive sequel, which doesn't disappoint. Robert Downey Jr. makes the film worthwhile, along with an awesome cast and script. Can't wait for the next installment, The Avengers to come out in 2012.

8/10

Classic--Kill Bill: Vol. 2

or: Seeking Revenge...Bloody Revenge.

One word to sum it up: WTF?!

I did watch the first Kill Bill back in early 2008, and I was surprised by how much I actually remember from it. I leapt at the opportunity to watch Kill Bill: Volume Two, as it is one of the only Quentin Tarantino movies I have never seen (the other one being Reservoir Dogs, which I have seen half of). There isn't really an explaination as to why I, and others, admire Tarantino so much. You just do. His films are beasts of nature.

The murderous Bride (Uma Thurman) is back and she is still continuing her vengeance quest against her ex-boss, Bill (David Carradine), and taking aim at Bill's younger brother Budd (Michael Madsen) and Elle Driver (Daryl Hannah), the only survivors from the squad of assassins who betrayed her four years earlier. It's all leading up to the ultimate confrontation with Bill, the Bride's former master and the man who ordered her execution!

This movie, though filled to the brim with some pretty outrageous gore, is just a non-stop enjoyment-fest. If you don't enjoy this movie, then there is something wrong with you. Quentin knows what he wants from this movie: he wants it to be fun and show off some amazing martial arts skills, but he also doesn't let it get too out of hand. Uma Thurman, too, makes The Bride a character we should care about, and is a hero that should be merely respected because she is trying to make a better life for her daughter...even if that means killing a few people to do that. Kill Bill could have turned out as some cheap rip off of other revenge flicks, but luckily, with a solid performance from Uma and some human touches intertwined within all the gore and fighting, it manages to make a phenomenon.

When rating this film, I guess I should consider that it's part of Kill Bill: Volume One and the only thing that seperated these films was their running time. Together they make for (no pun intended) bloody good action films, that serve as a reminder that a QT homage to a certain genre isn't a cheap rip off. It's a total reinvention. Quentin knows how to make a good film, thanks to his excellent dialogue skills and ways of making stupid turn smart. Sometimes his brain will get the better of him, but that's not the end of the world.

THE VERDICT: A totally awesome action flick that is as good as the original, though a little less action packed and more dialogue-filled. Not that that's a bad thing. Satisfactory for fans of the first film, too.

8/10

Back to the Future: Part III

I know it has been a while since I watched the other two, but I have finally gotten around to watching Back to the Future: Part III. Let's just say, while it is a worthy sequel, it is not a patch on the first, or the second for that matter.
Stranded in 1955 after a freak burst of lightning, Marty (Michael J. Fox) must travel to 1885 to rescue Doc Brown (Christopher Lloyd) from a premature end. Surviving an Indian attack and unfriendly townsfolk, Marty finds Doc Brown the blacksmith. But with the Doc under the spell of the charming Clara Clayton (Mary Steenburgen), it's up to Marty to get them out of the wild west and back to the future.

At the start of this film, I thought it was going to be pretty stupid because it's portrayal of the west was very much like what you see in every other parody. However, once you get over how stupid this film looks on the surface, it is really enjoyable and entertaining. These films become like old friends to you, as you become well aware of what to expect from them. Forget the 3D antics of other films...the Back to the Future films are the quintessential family films that entertain every generation.

While this film feels tired in some places, it does manage to capture the essence of it's predecessor. Unlike many sequels do, this film references the first films a lot so all of the films tie in together. Instead of feeling like three films, they feel like one big film split into three. Michael J. Fox is the best example of teen stardom in the 80's-early 90's, and these films make sure his legend lives on and isn't forgotten in this day and age. While the effects may be dated, this film will never go out of fashion.

Not as good as the ones before it, but is still entertaining.

6/10

Day 01--Sequel that should not have been made...

There are so many sequels that shouldn't have been made. Here's just a short list of some (which I haven't seen) that really shouldn't have made it to the screens at all.

• S. Darko. Like, seriously? Just about a decade after the first masterpiece was made, and then they decide to make another one? Stupid people with too much time on their hands.
  
• Saw 3, 4, 5, 6, and 3D. I can understand them wanting to make another one after the success of the first one. But then making more and more? Whoever is responsible for them must be one sick-minded person.


• The Twilight Saga: New Moon and Eclipse. I know they had to be made because they were part of a book series, but I don't like them. In fact, over half of the world doesn't like them. Yawn.


• St. Trinians II: The Legend of Fritton's Gold. I actually didn't know there was a sequel until a few weeks back. Totally, totally unnecessary. I mean, not a lot of people liked the first one anyway. Myself included.


• Sex and the City 2. I have a feeling this could be the next Saw franchise...


• Step Up 3D. When a movie ends with '3D', you know shits gonna go down. I am so sick of these dance movies!!


• Shrek the Third and Shrek Forever After. Once the Kiwi left the franchise, that was it. The first two were enough.

But what, in my books, is the 'SEQUEL THAT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE'?

There's two, actually.

Psycho II & III

No Alfred Hitchcock, no movie. These movies were exactly like every other slasher movie in the Eighties...gory, horrible effects, and full of screams and sex. Whereas the first film (and what should have been the only film), was a crafty horror filled with suspense and kept you guessing right til the very end. Coz once you know who Norman Bates really is, the rest just gets boring. I don't even know why anyone would want to make those films.