Movieblaze

Starring: Steve Carell, Paul Rudd, Zach Galifianakis, Jemaine Clement, Bruce greenwood, David Walliams, Stephanie Szostak 

Director: Jay Roach

Writer(s): David Guion, Michael Handelman

Cinematography: Jim Denault

Original Score: Theodore Shapiro

Running Time: 114 Mins.

Taking a highly rated French Comedy/Farce, Le Dinner De Cons, and remaking it for an American sense of humour is nothing new, witness The Birdcage, Three Men and a Baby and Father of the Bride, all films that retain the main crux of their inspiration if not the general Gallic tone which is often a little more quirky and in the case of Le Dinner De Cons maybe a little too dark for a mainstream audience as once again bar the concept little remains to tie one film to the other. This could be perceived as both a plus or a negative depending on your view of the original, however my feeling is that so few people will know the origin of the story that this fact will matter little meaning that Dinner For Schmucks really deserves to be taken on it’s own merits…and let’s face it, how many films are truly original!

The first thing you need to know (and almost definitely will know if you’ve seen the poster) is that this is a Steve Carell/Paul Rudd film, directed by Jay Roach (he behind Austin Powers and Meet The Parents), great comedy credentials from the off, in that respect it is fair to say expectations are high and despite Carell’s recent slump (Date Night, Get Smart) it is alway a joy to see Brick Tamland and Brian Fantana reunited. These are two actors that have instant comedic chemistry, much like any of the frat pack do, and a film that stars two or more of the said comedy troupe can generally wring hilarity from the weakest material. But weak material this is not, often it has a tendency to turn to slap-stick for laughs but these fleeting moments are always met with a great punch-line or some witty banter that makes the more physical humour all the funnier, see Carell’s attempts at playing dead for a perfect example of this!

The setup is one that has literally endless comedic potential, on a very broad spectrum, satire, farce, slapstick, but mostly stupidity and wringing fun from it in the best possible way. Tim seeks promotion in work as a high-flying ad man but to make it to the seventh floor and seal his place in management he must attend and impress at a dinner held by his boss, the titular dinner, told that each guest must bring a partner with extraordinary skill (read: idiotic) so that these men can make fun at their expense, as Tim frets about who to take and whether to go at all, a remarkable person, Barry (Carell), seemingly falls onto his lap (well actually he hits him with his Porsche)…and so ensues a frantic day leading up to the dinner that takes in attempts at reconciling Tim with his fiance, sealing a big business deal and discovering there is more to Barry (clichéd but inevitable) than Tim originally imagined.

Sounds like a potentially trite tale of self discovery, and in some senses it is, Barry has his own issues and Tim discovers that really he has the capacity to be a bit of an arse (to put it mildly) but the plotting and pacing are so well handled that it is a breeze and any heart-felt moments flow with the film rather than jar as something funny always ensues. It must be said that Carell makes this film with a step away from the everyman type’s he has been playing lately and going back to his Brick Tamland dumb roots, something he does all too well, Barry is a hugely likeable yet inevitable funny guy and that is thanks in part to the script but largely because of how talented Carell is. But he isn’t the only one keep the laugh quota exceptionally high, Jermaine Clement (Flight of the Conchords) and David Walliams (Little Britain) each have their time to shine delivering self-loving monologues or in Walliams case putting on a funny Swedish accent and looking perma-tanned. If it doesn’t sound like the most cerebral comedy, that’s because it isn’t but I’ll be damned if it doesn’t make you laugh.

The highpoint comes at a dinner, if not THE dinner, as Tim and Barry meet with Walliam’s Swedish client, and Barry decides to “help” by bringing Tim’s stalker, a very funny setup that unfortunately tops the final dinner (which was oddly omitted from the French version) stacked to the rafters with eccentrics (inevitable) there are laughs to be found but Zach Galifianakis is not as funny as he needs to be when up against Carell meaning that in the end laughs are lost in favour of a woman impersonating a dead lobster, if that all sounds a little bit odd, a little bit stupid and most importantly a little bit funny I can’t recommend this to you enough, all that and I haven’t even mentioned the mice…!

VERDICT

Dinner For Schmucks reunties Paul Rudd and Steve Carell, if that is a tasty comedic thought to you consider yourself treated for this is every bit as funny as you could wish.

Starring: Noomi Rapace, Michael Nyqvist, Lena Endre, Sofia Ledarp, Peter Andersson, Micke Spreitz

Director: Daniel Alfredson

Writer(s): Jonas Frykberg, Stieg Larsson (novel)

Cinematography: Peter Mokrosinski

Original Score: Jacob Groth

Running Time: 129 Mins.

This second part in the movie adaptations of Stieg Larsson’s Millennium Trilogy succumbs to the well know difficult second album (or film in this case) syndrome, how to follow an original that kind of came out of nowhere to become a massive critical success and a great financial one too considering the relatively tiny budget, all this and the fact that it is a subtitled Swedish film makes its success all the more surprising. Carrying all that weight of expectation now that The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo was freed of first time around is The Girl Who Played With Fire, acting as both sequel to Dragon Tattoo picking up approximately a year from that film’s end, and even more difficult as the mid section to a trilogy, in itself a tricky one by nature as you still need to have a beginning, middle and end amongst what is essentially all plot.

Even the best of trilogies have struggled with this inevitable plight (Lord of the Rings, Back to the Future) so it comes as little surprise that The Girl Who Played With Fire is something of a failure in this respect, but like those films if enjoyed with a view to it being just that, a mid-section, and accept that there wont be any kind of culmination or answering of big questions there is some really entertaining stuff to be found within. Like Dragon Tattoo there is an attempt here to tell an investigative type of tale, this time a sex-trafficking ring. ultimately this thread of the film is the weakest whereas in its predecessor it was the elegiac melding of the bigger arc and the intrigue of a great psychological thriller.

The main issue is that the two characters who we spent a great deal of time growing affection for, and interest in the dynamic they had is all but lost here as they are kept apart for all but 2 minutes of the entire film, a narrative issue tied up in being faithful to the books it may well have worked well on the page but onscreen all that great chemistry is lost. Weaving in and out of both Lisbeth (Rapace) and Mikael’s (Nyqvist) attempts at both uncovering the truth behind the trafficking ring and realising that Lisbeth herself is very personally linked to the case.

In this respect it is interesting as we learn more about why Lisbeth is such a disturbed individual but ultimately this all leads in rather generic thriller territory (something Dragon Tattoo largely avoided) this is partly down to the editing from TV mini-series to film for a cinema release but also to the rather slack direction, mostly plot intercut with a flurry of action that is not particularly well staged (a boxing fight here, a brief car chase there) and worse still comic-book pulpy elements creep in which seem somewhat out-of-place, i.e. the arch-villain who is scarred beyond recognition, the side-kick heavy who has a rare condition that renders him impervious to pain, and the last straw an escape from a shallow grave to wreak revenge, it is at this stage that Lisbeth has become less the intriguing figure of Dragon Tattoo and closer to some kind of James Bond/Superwoman hybrid, I have a feeling Stieg Larsson wasn’t aiming for this tone when he wrote the books!

Alas for all its flaws it is a very watchable film, the interest remains enough as the film ends to yearn for a conclusion and the hope that Lisbeth and Mikael will share more screen-time in favour of the cheap theatrics and character types next time around, there is a gripping story in there somewhere, let us hope that it can be teased out in the closing chapter making good on the promise of Dragon Tattoo, for The Girl Who Played With Fire is the messy but fun Hannibal to Dragon Tattoo’s great Silence of the Lambs, heres hoping The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet’s Nest is more like Manhunter and less like Red Dragon in the basis of that analogy!

VERDICT

As a standalone film The Girl Who Played With Fire doesn’t quite work, and as a middle chapter we lose a lot of what made it’s forebear so great, enjoyable enough but we can only hope for more chemistry and less theatrics in the final chapter.

Starring: Michael Cera, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Kieran Culkin, Chris Evans, Brandon Routh, Anna Kendrick, Jason Schwartman 

Director: Edgar Wright

Writer(s): Michael Bacall, Edgar Wright

Cinematography: Bill Pope

Original Score: Nigel Godrich

Running Time: 112 Mins.

It is unlikely that upon watching Scott Pilgrim vs The World many of the audience members, bar the hard-core comic-book geeks, will be aware of the credentials of the story, based on a graphic novel this is effectively the last super-hero film of the summer is a sense starring the year’s (possibly even the decades) most unlikely and witless hero. Aside from the source material this is literally essence of geek drip fed into celluloid, directed by Edgar Wright (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz) and starring a who’s who of new talent fronted by Cera and supported by Superman (Routh), Captain America (Evans) AND Jason Schwartzman no less amongst many other soon to be superstars. You would be hard pushed to find a stronger ensemble for this kind of material, but wait theres more, much more for this is all knowledge you will have before even seeing the film…

So to the film itself, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World concerns its titular character’s efforts to woo the love of his life Ramona (Winstead, this is not as simple as it may sound, for Scott to be able to date Ramona he must defeat her 7 evil-exes, all of whch in the bigger picture means Scott Pilgrim is a rom-com with added battles, a lot of added battles. Plot is almost inconsequential though as what director Edgar Wright is all about is presentation and style, style is a word bandied around a lot when dealing with the term auteur (surely the highest accolade for a director) and if imprinting your film with a unique “look” qualifies you for that status Wright is a director deserving of it, with Scott Pilgrim only serving to clarify this if there were any doubt in his past work.

James Cameron recently made a valid point that recent film classics are those that push boundaries and dare to be different, not such much in narrative but stylistically. citing 300, Sin City and Transformers as modern classics, many will likely argue this point but there is little denying the spectacle and sheer amount of envelope-pushing those films did collectively, and I would promptly add Scott Pilgrim vs. The World to that list, let’s face it boy has to fight for girl and true love is the oldest story there is, all of which makes taking this story and seeing it like never before something of a filmic miracle.

So what makes this such a special film, worthy of ranking as a classic, to cite it as simply a cinema experience like no other sounds like a cop-out and nigh on unbelievable yet that really si what it is, the first 10 minutes ease you in, slow compared to the breakneck pace of the rest of the film each character is perfectly set up, given ample screen-time to find their way into your heart, a must for a rom-com to succeed, the leads are cute as a button (Ramona and Scott) yet as with all rom-com’s the best “com” comes from the support cast, which here is expansive and epic considering the not so epic running time.

That the evil exes themselves are expertly cast and stand out with only the one chance to get it right is something of a miracle (there isn’t a duff one in there), but it is Kieran Culkin that steals the (comedy) show with his one-liners as Scott’s gay room-mate Wallace, it is he who keeps Scott, and the audience, grounded while all else is fantastical. But fantastical is good, the fight scenes and indeed the film as a whole is fed through an 8-bit computer style lens that sees Scott “get a life” have a “pee bar” upon going to pee (of course), and most significantly in fights sees each evil ex battle take a different form whether is be straight out punch up or a fight between “amp” monsters that has a touch of the Pokemon about it. Coming into the film at a steady pace and phasing no-one much like the musical numbers in Moulin Rouge, this is a world that could quite possible all be occurring in our lead characters mind…

Employing multiple split screens, on-screen prompts and Batman style “kapows!” and a very geeky/quirky tone, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World won’t be for everyone, in fact it will likely form a great divide of lovers that “get it” and those who don’t, in fact anyone over 35 might be better off staying well clear, however for all those that are willing to open their mind to something refreshingly new, you will not be disappointed, movie, comic-book, music and gaming geeks alike!

VERDICT

Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is unique in the best possible way, it wont be for to everyone’s taste but if you’re willing to open your mind to a new cinematic experience you might well find yourself enjoying a modern classic that I anticipate will get better with each viewing.

Starring: Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham, Jet Li, Mickey Rourke, Dolph Lundgren, Randy Couture, Syeve Austin, Bruce Willis, Arnold Schwarzenegger

Director: Sylvester Stallone

Writer(s): Dave Callahan, Sylvester Stallone

Cinematography: Jeffrey L. Kimball

Original Score: Brian Tyler

Running Time: 103 Mins.

It sounded like an action-film fan’s wet dream, Sylvester Stallone (currently enjoying a career revival of sorts thanks to Rocky and Ra,bo sequels that were actually quite good) decided to assemble a who’s who of action stars for what he pegged as the ultimate action film, so we have the old 80′s heavyweights (Stallone, Schwarzenegger, Willis, Lundgren, Rourke) alongside more recent action stars (Statham and Li) and a handful of newbies such as UFC’s Couture and the WWE’S Austin, heck if he’d manage to round-up Van-Damme and Seagal The Expendables really would have the whole set of action man top trumps. Alas minus those two this is no shabby line-up, in fact if you were a director of explosions and fisticuffs you could ask for little more, and deliver a lot.

Sadly Stallone squanders most of what he has for a film that doesn’t so much seem unsure as to what it wants to be, rather he just lazily gives us what most of these guys have done of late and give us a below-par action-adventure that would be better placed on the bottom shelf of your local blockbuster. Okay so this may seem a little unfair and yes it probably is better made than Lundgren and Austin’s last DTV efforts but Stallone while hardly a great director is capable of more, and you would have thought between them the cast could have found a little more chemistry than the feeble attempts that are mustered between Stallone/Statham, Stallone/Li, Stallone/Lundgren, Stallone/Rourke, notice a pattern, if this seems monotonous wait until you see the film.

Opening with a sequence aboard a boat there is no sense of time, place or what the hell is going on, badly lit it is only when after 10 minutes of shaky-cam we can make anything out that the realisation of what is happening kicks in, to a degree, for while Barney Ross’s (Stallone’s) crew is a group of mercenaries none of them seem to work as a unit or have any kind of camaraderie with one another, and worst of all they are not seen together again until the film 30 minutes bar a brief exposition at the  midpoint. This leaves one of the years flimsiest of plots with plenty of time to spend getting to know characters individually, not necessarily a problem if your characters have chemistry or (fundamentally for an action film) something exciting to do, The Expendables has neither.

Stallone can act, this we know, but he looks bored here and bar a few quips with Statham his relationship’s with these men he supposedly relies upon as friends as well as colleagues is non-existent, and each scene serves to provide time with he and another member almost as if this were a set-up for a bigger adventure, which never comes. Statham is given a pointless and hugely clichéd (the order of the day here) subplot involving a girl, one of two token women with no characterisation again this would not prove to be a problem were there chemistry of characterisation elsewhere. One need only witness each and every scene with Jet Li featuring a line about his height to see how lacking and tired the script is, something which only seems to reach for something more in Rourke’s pivotal “acting” scene, it is to his credit that of all the cast he emerges as the most likeable alongside, more surprisingly perhaps, Lundgren as a renegade Expendable.

To its merit there is little drag during the relatively brief running time despite all the negatives which serves to prove that watching explosions and punch-ups really are like chewing gum for the eyes, but once the finale comes you might well crave some classic action especially after the film’s high-point, a geek pleasing exchange between Stallone, Schwarzenegger and Willis, three heavyweights who are capable of so much more than this bottom shelf fare.

VERDICT

The Expendables takes a hell of a lot of prime testosterone and squanders it into a messily directed selection of fights and explosions that are strung together with fruitless attempts at characterisation, something of a shame given the promise and hardly the searing action spectacle we hoped for.

Starring: Elisabeth Shue, Christopher Lloyd, Eli Roth, Richard Dreyfuss, Ving Rhames, Kelly Brook, Jerry O’Connell

Director: Alexandra Aja

Writer(s): Pete Goldfinger, Josh Stolberg

Cinematography: John R. Leonetti

Original Score: Michael Wandmacher

Running Time: 89 Mins.

There seems to be some argument surrounding the massive growth of 3D in film, and at one end stand Cameron, Zemeckis and Spielberg, the most highly regarded directors, men with whom 3D, it is said, is a tool for enhancing the viewing experience to give depth to a film, to draw you in, no gimmicks here I’m afraid just lots of swooping around an alien jungle. On the other end of the spectrum we have the idea that 3D is for exploitation, the whole reason it existed to begin with, as a way of further scaring the bejesus out of audiences all the way back to the 40′s and 50′s in its crudest form, then again in the 80′s and once again now with the likes of My Bloody Valentine and Piranha in order to have blood, limbs and vomit hurled out the screen into your lap, and multiple breast shots thrust into your face.

Well, I have to say messr’s Cameron, Spielberg and Zemeckis, I’d take blood and breasts over supposed “depth” any day. This is not something that suggests my shallow, male, nature (well maybe just a little), rather it suggests I want a 3D film to be gimmicky for 3D is first and foremost a gimmick and really rather pointless if not exploited and on this count Piranha is actually a better film than Avatar…yes I said Avatar, for I like my 3D glasses  to serve a purpose other than for a muted-coloured forest that actually looks more impressive in plain old 2D (HD of course!), something I would hazard a guess cannot be said about Alex Aja’a Piranha.

Two whole paragraphs on 3D may seem a little overt, really we should be over it by now but the point is that Piranha is as enjoyable as it is largely owing to its third dimension, and has been marketed as such, this is more than a film it is a 3D event film despite a post-3D conversion implemented much more slickly than that of Clash of the Titans, exploitative as you like and chock full of gore those than walk in to the cinema with the right mindset will have a joyously exploitative time. The cast all know that this is hardly high art yet play it relatively straight with the odd knowing wink to the audience peppered throughout the script, again not exactly unique by any stretch of the imagination but aware of its tone, a tone that Snakes on a Plane would like to have achieved yet failed.

Plot really is of little consequence, suffice to say if you have seen the trailer you’ve seen all you need to know as a fissure on the bed of Lake Victoria releases some ancient piranha just days before the “famous” lake party that sees many buxom blondes splashing around in the lake while Jerry O’ Connell’s porn director attempts to direct his latest smut-fest, it is a non-stop barrage of kills strung together with memorable performances and little in the way of plot, but it just works through sheer absurdity.

Cameos from Richard Dreyfuss and Christopher Lloyd are the high points, Lloyd proving a particular delight, but everyone bar Shue who is saddled with the dullest role, are given a moment to shine with kudos going to Adam Scott for becoming an unlikely action hero, the piranha themselves have more in common with Gremlins (a good tonal comparison too!) than they do anything else that could pass as scary, for jump-shocks are the order of the day rather than any genuine jolts. This being an Aja film the deaths are plentiful and gratuitous as you would expect, using the unique stripping of flesh the piranha use as a novel way of using physical effects to the max.

Aside from the gore the big talking point here is likely the equal amount of flesh (naked and female) on display, a staple of the genre is would be classed as borderline pornographic if it wasn’t so hokey, that said which male viewer is going to complain at a naked Kelly Brook performing underwater ballet with a high-profile porn star and in 3D no less. And quite frankly if that last sentence doesn’t make you smile, for whatever reason, Piranha 3D and its kitsch charm is likely going to be totally lost on you, high art this is not, and neither does it purport to be.

VERDICT

Piranha 3D provides a true tongue-in-cheek cinema experience, for those of you who write it off as rubbish, you just don’t get it…it is supposed to be, parody at its best with more boobs and gore than you can shake a stick at, you’re either going to buy into it, or…well you get the idea!

Starring: Nicolas Cage, Jay Baruchel, Alfred Molina, Teresa Palmer, Toby Kebbell, Monica Bellucci

Director: Jon Turteltaub

Writer(s): Lawrence Kenner, Mark Rosenthal

Cinematography: Bojan Bazelli

Original Score: Trevor Rabin

Running Time: 111 Mins.

Every once and a while a film comes along and sweeps you along with its cheer sense of fun and enjoyable escapism that you struggle to find anything wrong despite many glaring flaws should you dissect or dig too deeply into the film-making prowess on display. That The Sorcerer’s Apprentice is one of those film’s comes as little surprise given it comes from the king of enjoyable escapism, Jerry Bruckheimer, his is a brand, a mark, a sign that represents what the multiplex should be all about, having fun and really enjoying a film and upon leaving the cinema having a big smile on your face…even if later the same evening you can’t quite pinpoint specifics as to why!

As Bruckheimer has stepped away from the more adult fare of the 90′s such as The Rock and Con Air and has tailored his films to the family demographic, starting with the first Pirates of the Caribbean and building on that with action romps such as National Treasure and this years Prince of Persia it was never going to be long before he found a project that dealt with wizards and magic in a much more refined sense, similarly Cage is a star that has worked with Bruckheimer umpteen times and has also similarly moved into more family friendly fare, with this in mind it would seem a natural course of events to expect Cage to realise a fully fledged sorcerer in his inimitable eccentric style.

Johnny Depp was handed the role of Jack Sparrow and similarly made the character his own, Cage surprisingly chooses not to do his wild eyes schtick rather he opts for a classic mentor take, incredulous and stern with wisdom that hints at his super-old age. As The Sorcerer’s Apprentice proves a little crazy-Cage goes a long way and a nod or wink here or there gives the character more than enough eccentricity, not a classic performance by the man then in that sense but certainly a well-judged and one full of fun that will undoubtedly rub off on the audience, an audience who here is represented by Jay Baruchel’s titular apprentice.

Baruchel has proven himself a hugely likeable lead and here this proves to be no exception, unfortunately his character is a little less rounded than you might hope as scripting is not The Sorcerer’s Apprentice’s forte, rather casting is, bringing an otherwise pedestrian script to life (other than Cage and Baruchel) is a handful of great character actors including Alfred Molina and soon-to-be-a-megastar Toby Kebbell, the latter being the perfect foil and evil half to Baruchel in spirit having tremendous fun with an egotistical conjuror while Molina takes any eccentricities Cage left at the door and runs with it.

The final leg in this particularly joyous adventure is the excellent use of effects, there is little doubt that the budget was sky high for this and it is all up there for you s=too see, a dragon here, a flying eagle there, and many magical showdowns between sorcerer’s everywhere. Blended perfectly throughout the (largely convoluted) plot, spun off from a segment of Disney’s Fantasia no less and given more than just a passing nod, you are given little time to consider much more than what a joyous event is occurring onscreen in front of you, a sniffy critic with no sense of spectacle (or humour!) could find fault aplenty alas this was never designed to win over the critics, something that makes escapist cinema all the better for it….the perfect counter balance to all the seriousness of Inception!

VERDICT

If what you want from a film is enjoyment there is little doubt that The Sorcerer’s Apprentice delivers in spades, however seek fault in what is intended as pure pleasure and you will likely find it though this will not be down to the cast who are all in on the spectacle and dare I say…magic!

Starring: Angelina Jolie, Liev Schreiber, Chiwetel Ejiofor

Director: Phillip Noyce

Writer(s): Kurt Wimmer

Cinematography: Robert Elswit

Original Score: James Newton Howard

Running Time: 100 Mins.

Ever since the (largely unprecedented) success of the Bourne franchise Hollywood studios have been falling over themselves in attempts to repeat the formula, and while Bourne’s main competition/forefather the Bond franchise flounders in developement hell due to MGM’s legal wrangles now would seem as good a time as any to challenge the crown of “big action blockbuster featuring a spy”. Some would argue Knight & Day attempted a similar feat earlier in the summer but the truth of the matter is that that film was a different beast altogether, more concerned with self mockery at the expense of its star and the genre that it was at forging the way for a sequel.

On the other hand Salt leaves its film as wide open for a sequel as ever I have seen, even down to the point I would warn people of this fact…Salt should well have been called Salt:Part 1 for there is very little resolution to be found upon the close to the stage where I literally couldn’t believe the film had ended as anti-climatically as I had just witnessed, this kind of ending is usually reserved for the poorest or the poor in the horror genre. Not only do we end up with a set up for another film rather we are left literally hanging with an incomplete story-arc in this one, 2 thirds of a film if you will, something made all the more frustrating given that the poor box-office receipts in the U.S. means we are unlikely to ever see the conclusion!

Missing conclusion aside Salt provides an entertaining, if rather pedestrian take on a story that is very mush rooted in the 80′s when the Russians were Hollywood’s villain of choice, hence all the stereotypes are present and correct along with the dogged agent chasing our hero/anti-hero and a last-minute turn-coat/reveal that was predictable from the first frame. The most intriguing thing about Salt is the title, fir those not in the know it is the surname of Angelina Jolie’s supposed deep as you can get under-cover agent, and as for the question posed by the tagline “who is Evelyn Salt?”, it is a quandary that is posed throughout the film and the one of two things that will keep you entertained as the answer is never really clear, right up until the anti-climax.

As for entertainment value, director Noyce is not too shabby a director and old-hat at this spy stuff, a Jack Ryan veteran (Clear and Present Danger and Patriot Games) he knows how to stage a set piece and up the action ante suitably, ,meaning that Salt (thankfully) spends little time letting you think about what is happening, jumping from chase scene to shootout at a frantic pace that clearly wants to ape Jason Bourne’s escapades while not quite capturing that level of sheer brutality on the whole, there are some rather inventive kills and as ever Jolie is a convincing action woman giving it her all.

In a week that sees testosterone overtake the cinema in the form of Stallone’s Expendables, if that film represents the more brutish side of 80′s action Salt would like to be the cerebral one…alas on that front it doesn’t really succeed, especially where a little light-heartedness would have gone a long way as Salt (both film and character) take themselves far too seriously in a film that has a rather unbelievable plot.

VERDICT

Salt is a by the numbers spy film that never strives for anything more, not necessarily a terrible thing as the action delivers as do the actors, but stereotypes and a frustratingly inconclusive finale leave you with a bitter taste and struggling for memories of anything, well, memorable.

Starring: Tom Cruise, Cameron Diaz, Peter Sarsgaard, Viola Davis, Paul Dano, Jordi Molla 

Director: James Mangold

Writer: Patrick O’ Neill

Cinematography: Phedon Papamichael

Original Score: John powell

Running Time: 109 Mins.

It’s no secret that Tom Cruise, once the world’s biggest movie star, has fallen out of favour with both critics (and perhaps more importantly) audiences alike. No longer the box office draw he once was he now seems to be clutching at straws in an effort to win back those who once loved him through stabs at serious and sombre historical thrillers (Valkyrie) that one can only imagine he hoped would attract awards buzz but ultimately didn’t, and desperate attempts at comedy that seem cheap and deeply unfunny, the Les Grossman character from Tropic Thunder who it seems is due his own film…bad idea by the way!

Clearly Cruise has realised this lightness of touch and self-parody in some senses after the Oprah debacle and all his scientology waffle is more endearing to audiences than the serious Cruise of old, or indeed the straight action star (weak M: I-3 takings tolling the seeming beginning of the end despite it being his best film in years), so what does Cruise do…choose to star in Knight and Day, a film that is every bit as action packed as any Mission: Impossible but is so crammed full of a knowingly self-referential nods to the audience we are as in on the joke as Cruise is while he flashes those pearly whites, or that’s the idea.

But wait, there’s more, you need a third leg for this formula to work, a romantic catalyst to drive the “plot”, who else could compete with the Cruise grin, why Cameron Diaz of course! An actress with the same wattage that Cruise (used to) have, and a smile to match. Plot wise that is all you need to know, for the everlasting battery that everyone is chasing is simply a macguffin and the sole reason for all the globe-trotting on offer, there are as many countries for your ticket price here as in the biggest Bond films and the set pieces to match.

If all this sounds rather pedestrian, it is because it really is, Knight and Day is as safe a bet for a film as you can get in terms of entertainment, there is set piece after set piece, be it on foot, by car, motorbike, plane, helicopter…you name it the likelihood it’s in there. Now if it sounds tired to you, then you will hardly be bowled over but if you’re willing to sit back and take in the scenery it is likely to be a ride you will like, however this hinges on one thing…Cruise. Whether you buy into his self parody as either fun or smug is the deciding factor here, for this is his show as Diaz acts as mere bystander (literally in some cases).

The first half of the film follows this frothy but fun formula to a t, hitting the right note of action/comedy/spectacle well but as the story (unwisely) takes precedent over character we are spiralled down into a case of set piece for the sake of set piece and a plot idea that kept us guessing is dropped in favour of the usual chase to save the day and you are likely to be reminded of similar, but much better films amidst a tone that upon its close seems confused having diffused a little of that goodwill the first hour built up. 

So based on this evidence there is life in the old dog yet, just maybe not in a project that starts out as perfect summer fun and culminates, tellingly, in a load of bull(s)!

VERDICT

If you succumb to the Tom Cruise school of self-parody Knight and Day should prove a blast for you, even if it does lose track of it’s goal upon the films final third with nonsensical plot overtaking fun characters.

Starring: Jaden Smith, Jackie Chan, Taraji P. Henson, Wenwen Han, Rongguang Yu

Director: Harald Zwart

Writer(s): Christopher Murphey, Robert Mark Kamen

Cinematography: Roger Pratt

Original Score: James Horner

Running Time: 140 Mins.

Check out that running time, 140 minutes for a family film, bloated by many films standards but to sustain a story (a remake no less) that concerns a the titular kid learning to do kung-fu (not actually karate inexplicably) in order to gain respect from the bullies who are the current bane of his life. all helmed by a director, Harald Zwart, whose last film was The Pink Panther 2, hardly inspires confidence does it … but before you walk away sighing know this, The Karate Kid (2010) is actually a very good film and against all (low) expectations manages to be one of the summer’s and almost certainly the years, most enjoyable films.

Taking only a loose plot from the original Karate Kid around which to hang its reimagined tale, which means basically that all that remains is the kid learning kung fu to get the girl and beat the bullies, the running time would suggest a bloated number of sub-plots, not true, what we have is an in-depth story revolving around Dre (Jaden Smith, very much channeling his father in the best possible way) learning both the skills and life lessons from Mr. Han (Jackie Chan, for once given the chance to act as well as kick-ass) while trying to get the girl and accept his new life in China with his mother (Taraji P. Henson).

The build up to Dre and Han actually getting down to some kung fu is leisurely but never dull, it allows us to get to know Dre and come to really feel for his plight, Smith is as likeable as his parentage would suggest, and some of the expressions and mannerisms are like watching Will Smith had he been acting 30 years ago. But simple comparison is not nearly flattery enough, Jaden is a talent in his own right proving to be believable and avoid the annoying cute kid pitfall’s all at once, he has swagger but not enough to seem cocky, and there is a frailty there that makes his plight as believable as you could expect, something which you couldnt never really say of Ralph Macchio who never really convinced as a “kid”, let alone anything else.

But the Yin to Smith’s Yang is Chan as Mr. Han, filling Mr. Miyagi’s iconic shoes in spirit if not in name, Chan is quite frankly a joy to watch, and save for one scene is spared comic fight scenes in favour of actual acting, something that I can say I’ve never seen before. Portraying the wise master would have been easy enough but there are layers in his acting you would never expect, a troubled man with a troubled past is cliché rule-book 101 but it is handled deftly and when the reveal comes out there is a scene that really deserves to go down as one of the years best, demonstrating the fragility of Chan and the maturity (that is never precocious) of Smith.

The final, and perhaps most surprising, leg of this tripod of success is Zwart, the direction (witness the sweeping shots of China married with the iconic shadow kung-fu scenes) and pacing are spot on, and while some may claim the finale is rushed I would argue that the film is less about the final fight and more the lessons learnt along the way and the journey there. That said the fight scenes, which as plentiful enough without seeming shoe-horned in, pack a real punch (helped along from a great sound mix) you feel Dre’s pain every time he gets knocked down, and there is a sense of danger there that was never really present in the 1980′s version.  

VERDICT

The Karate Kid 2010 should have stuck with it’s original name, The Kung Fu Kid, for this is a much better film than its predecessor, full of heart and genuine performances, deserving of a stand-alone status, in fact a Harald Zwart sequel is a more than welcome prospect this time around…

Starring: Liam Neeson, Bradley Cooper, Sharlto Copley, Quinton Jackson, Jessica Biel, Patrick Wilson

Director: Joe Carnahan

Writer(s): Joe Carnahan, Brian Bloom

Cinematography: Mauro Fiore

Original Score: Alan Silvestri

Running Time: 117 Mins.

Striking that balance between homage and remake/reinterpretation/reimagining is always a tricky task to properly undertake and be successful in especially, it would seem, where cherished TV series are concerned that were both a fine example of being a product of their time and therefore rendering an out and out remake rather hard to do without seeming like some kind of spoof. Something which has led to various takes in various guises, Stiller’s Starsky and Hutch was essentially a spoof, the Charlies Angel’s films were simply used as a template to fit the (then) hot top of “girl power”, while Miami Vice saw itself become a ultra gritty cop drama/thriller the bore little relation to its origin bar the character’s names. It is through this mish mash of attempts that has likely left an adaptation of The A-Team bouncing from pillar to post in an effort to find the right way to tackle the material which is now both very 80′s and very cheesy, though it goes without saying that these come hand in hand!

Hooray then, and huge congrats to the producing Scott brother’s who saw fit to give Joe Carnahan the gig, a director who can do humour married with action in the best macho way possible (Smokin’ Aces) whilst also having the heft to actually coerce a great performance from an excellent cast (Narc), he provides some, shall we say, bang for your buck. All of which bodes well for The A-Team that we can now finally see in action up on the big screen where it has always belonged given the rather promising prologue that the TV series offered, which went a little something like this … “In 1972, a crack commando unit was sent to prison by a military court for a crime they didn’t commit. These men promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Los Angeles underground. Today, still wanted by the government, they survive as soldiers of fortune. If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire… The A-Team“.

Fast forward to the present day and little has changed bar the year, and inevitably the war, thankfully we are saved from a fully fledged origin story which sees how the team got together and this is hilarious reaccounted for in the pre credits sequence. So intro’s out the way and it’s off to work the team go to try to clear their names whilst recovering the obligatory macguffin (in this case some minting plates). Obviously plot is of little relevance for it is simply an excuse to hang several, of the years best I might add, set pieces onto, it is just a shame the best was so stupidly spoilt in the teaser trailer no less, not that this robs the film of any of its spectaculary OTT stunts, aided rather substantially by some great CGI that while never really to be mistaken for factual events stay firmly on the side of spectacle rather than shoddy as is often the case in big budget actioners.

Though The A-Team’s action set pieces are not what makes it such a joy, rather it is the casting of the core foursome that makes this a must-see film, each of the actors capturing what made them great characters in the first place while adding a new and fresh spin on them that makes each individual more than mere imitation. Each different enough to be considered an entity in their own right while leaving enough for old fans to hark back too, quite some g=feat in characters as iconic as they are, so while Cooper, Neeson and Jackson succeed admirably it is Copley as “Howling Mad” Murdock who is the clear star, proving his turn in District 9 was no fluke, the man is a genius of character acting and a burgeoning film-star to boot. The chemistry between the team is superbly written matching performance suitably, and creating real banter, something which the film really could have lived or died on.

On the downside, which is quite easily overlooked in favour of positives, is a weak villain (best left unnamed for fear of plot spoilers) and a rather ham-fisted attempt at a token female role by Jessica Biel in an apparent attempt at counteracting all the testosterone, sadly it doesn’t work as she does little more than follow around two steps behind the villains and heroes whilst looking, admittedly, pretty and engaging in some ex-based banter with Face (Cooper). Alas such minor quibbles cannot scupper what is ultimately the perfect summer blockbuster.

VERDICT

Yes it is shallow, and there isn’t much in the way of characterisation, but what The A-Team does have is bags of spectacle, fun and great chemistry between it’s leads, and let’s be honest it was never a film designed to achieve the former attributes, a success all round then and possibly the summers best all out actioner.