Movieblaze

Starring: Patrick Wilson, Rode Byrne, Ty Simpkins, Andrew Astor, Leigh Whannell, Barbara Hershey, Angus Sampson

Director: James Wan

Writer(s): Leigh Whannell

Cinematography: David M. Brewer, John R. Leonetti

Original Score: Joseph Bishara

Running Time: 103 Mins.

Horror, a genre often struggling to find credence amidst a glut of straight-to-DVD rubbish, self parody, torture porn, the found footage “phenomenon” is more recently trying spawning the type of horror that was in vogue in the 70′s and 80′s, haunted house tropes (The Shining) and malevolent spirits (Poltergeist) are rife while the score is integral (more so than ever) in ramping up frequent jumps and jolts, slow burning and holding back on the gore these were the types of film that were refreshingly scary proving that less, more often than not, is more.

Strange then that the same guys who gave birth to what has now become coined as “torture porn” with Saw have taken something of an about turn in crafting something so far removed from the blood and guts of their debut, in fact this has more in common with the oft forgotten Dead Silence, Wan and Whannell’s flop follow up to the original Saw, in that it unashamedly uses 70′s-like title screens and lots and lots of loud noises accompanying brief flashes of creepy faces.

These may be the oldest tricks in the book when it comes to eliciting a jump from your audience but these guys know how to wield horror iconography in the most effective way, but wait there is another (now) iconic horror name on the posters, Oren Peli, he who gave us Paranormal Activity. Perhaps a better signifier as to what to expect from Insidious is Peli’s involvement, his name suggests a slow burn and family aesthetic, both are present and correct although Insidious does overcome the problem faced by Paranormal Activity, that film was ultimately gimmicky.

Story-wise no new ground is broken really, though come the film’s denouement some rather neat and original ideas are seemingly presented until it all falls apart following a rather too long stint in “the further”, something which can also said about the films demon (as seen in the above image) looking like a cross between Darth Maul and (tellingly) Freddy Krueger. So after a good hours worth of creepy imagery and genuine scares the cracks do show, and that all too often tendency towards cliché creeps in with echoes of Hellraiser, Nightmare On Elm Street and Poltergeist are ramped up. 

Thankfully the presence of a little humour (tongue in cheek) in the form of some paranormal investigators and a nice twist on a séance perk up proceedings so the film manages to avoid wallowing in boredom as could have potentially happened (Paranormal Activity I’m looking at you) and a final five minutes that inevitably set up for a sequel are nicely handled despite leaving us with the prospect of more of the “further” something that really isn’t needed…or wanted. 

VERDICT

Insidious cleaves closely to some of the best horror films of the 70′s and 80′s but falls apart a touch as it tries to tread a more “original” approach, that said it is likely one of the most genuinely creepy films you will see for the first hour or so and for that amidst down-right awful output in the genre is a refreshing change.

Starring: Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox, David Arquette, Emma Roberts, Hayden Panettiere, Anthony Anderson, Adam Brody, Rory Culkin, Alison Brie, Marley Shelton, Anna Paquin

Director: Wes Craven

Writer: Kevin Williamson, Ehren Krueger

Cinematography: Peter Deming

Original Score: Marco Beltrami

Running Time: 103 Mins.

11 years ago Wes Craven seemingly nailed the coffin in his second franchise, Scream, replacing original writer Kevin Williamson and his slick knowing but at times very tense script that was the epitome of post-modernity with Ehren Krueger who it seemed knew only how to tamely ape his forebear taking the ironic nods down substantially so we simply had a run-of-the-mill slasher the franchise had until that point poked fun at. Scream 3 was in fact quite enjoyable and a damn site better than a lot of the competition (I Know What You Did Last Summer anyone?) alas it was ultimately the trilogy closer as Craven showed little yearning to return.

Jump forward to a time when the Master of Horror is in need of a hit (his last film My Soul to Take bombed badly) as well as the the wave of a new brand of horror films to parody and poke fun at what better and more opportune time to return to Woodsboro along with the original cast, all of whom have never really found fame beyond the franchise (bar Cox), and the return of Williamson to turn his ironic hand to tear into torture-porn, social networking and found-footage films amongst anything else that is ripe for a ripping (or slashing!).

The problem is those films made money for a reason, be it the right or wrong one this is seemingly what an audience wants and the current trend is back towards the straight out horror films of the 80′s, a decade that is seeing a resurgence across the board in Hollywood alas to compete Scream 4, or Scre4m as it is being marketed, walks a fine line between the ironic post-modernity the franchise prides itself on (at its best) and actually becoming one of the films it is commenting on. Thankfully it nearly always stays on the right side, finding the elements that made the first two films mosre than just great horror films but great films, films that have somethign to say AND entertain both being funny and scary in equal measure, something that was the mark of the frachise at one time.

If nothing else Scream, as a franchise, has always delivered in the opening throes, Scre4m does not deliver on this front and (bravely?) Craven, Williamson et al have managed to parody not only their own films but prove that they are as capable as commenting on us (the audience) as they ever were, some may find this constant winking to the audience approach a little tedious if they are simply seeking lazy scares but personally I like a little intelligence with my blood and guts. In the first 10 minutes alone we have obvious and literal references (Saw 4 and its abundence of gore in place of scares) and less literal but just as obvious (the film within a film within a film), it provides a bevvy of cameos and some inventive kills.

Some may baulk thinking the film often slumps to lows it seeks to parody, but a cleverer person (read: geek) will recognise that however 90′s post-modernity may be, it sure is favourble in the face of another Saw, Hostel or Paranormal Activity which are now neither big nor clever. Where the film doe falter slightly is in the slightly over-stuffed cast, an inevitable flaw in the face of wanting to up your body count and if nothing else actors such as Paquin, Bell, Brody and Anderson provide some enjoyable, gruesome and often funny death scenes between them…though there are a great many more as the franchise increases in numbers so too do the victims (Scream was never shy in sticking to these rules to match the competition).

Nostaligia and brains beside there is much here for modern audiences and I praise Craven for avoiding a straight remake, Cox, Campbell and Arquette are a joy to watch in their (now) iconic roles as is ghost-face, proving just as fallible as ever falling up/down stairs, tripping over cupboards and generally being the most human movie monster around. Scre4m is unlikely to win over newbies as it really doesn’t pander to todays teens, something which I suspect has hindered its success in the US box office and simply goes to show that 15 years ago the fmovie-geek reigned supreme! 

VERDICT

Scre4m isn’t perfect, shockingly after all that praise, but it is refreshing to see something with a bit of brain behind the faceless victims and toned down (compared to Saw) but more disturbing death scenes, if post-modernity is so 90′s, well call me old fashioned because it is still a film geeks dream come true.

Starring: Amanda Seyfried, Gary Oldman, Lukas Haas, Shiloh Fernandez, Billy Burke, Max Irons, Virginia Madsen, Julie Christie

Director: Catherine Hardwicke

Writer: David Johnson

Cinematography: Mandy Walker

Original Score: Alex Heffes, Brian Reitzell

Running Time: 100 Mins.

Well it didn’t take too long, Hollywood does love a trend, especially a money-spinner that isn’t all that costly and has some staple elements that its demographic (largely teenage girls) loves, burgeoning romance taking in the more appropriate suitor (who she doesn’t love but is “better” for her), the bad boy (who she inevitably does love), all set against a mythical backdrop with a smattering of action (for the guys) and lots and lots of teenage angst…sound familiar yet? Well it should, this is the formula Twilight kindly hoisted upon us and greets us not once but twice this week with both Red Riding Hood and Beastly, Beastly flopped badly upon release and Red Riding Hood didn’t fare much better, can it succeed here?

For a start it had pedigree, where Beastly doesn’t, seeing Catherine Hardwicke (she behind Twilight mk.1) back behind the camera as well as Billy Burke once again taking on the role of out heroine’s father, add to this a source material that invites the gothic and macabre with open arms (Grimm’s original fairy tales) and you should have an easy hit on your hands that can please even more fanbases than Twilight did…not so and Red Riding Hood shows you obviously can’t catch lightning in a bottle.

It isn’t that Red Riding Hood is a bad film, rather it suffers the Twilight saga’s weaknesses but retains none of the strengths, the atmosphere is initially nicely built up by Hardwicke, sweeping across mountains to a small gothic village amidst the snow and setting the scene, a wolf is on the lose, killing at will and breaking the unspoken pact between wolf and village, so pitchforks and axes are raised in a hunt for the wolf. When dealing with this aspect Red Riding Hood promises much, especially when it heralds the arrival of an on-form Gary Oldman (pitching himself somewhere just shy of totally nuts), it is here the film is at its best as Oldman initiates a “witch-hunt” to uncover which resident is the wolf. 

Weaving around the village the whodunnit question is ever-present and it is a fun guessing game especially as family members begin to suspect one another and the tension gets built up…until it is systematically shot down in favour of the angsty moping and the dull as dishwater love triangle. In Twilight the triangle was at least injected with a little flair and a fun script that had characters who may have been OTT but at least they were fun to watch, here we have Seyfried, Fernandez and Irons, all are poorly served by the script (which only offers Oldman any respite from staleness) though that really is not an excuse for any level of convincing as either interesting or fun, heck at least to be OTT is fun to watch! These guys just look plain bored, and worse still is the total lack of chemistry.

Just as you think you may drop off though something jolts you awake again, generally speaking it is a toss-up between Oldman, the well realised werewolf itself or the sleek direction that sweeps in and around the village. As much as the film owes a debt to Twilight I couldn’t help recalling the work of Tim Burton in Sleepy Hollow, something it would have been wise to look for a little more inspiration for that films sense of fun it one all too often missing here…apparently angst and teenage moping doesn’t always yield big bucks, thank god!

VERDICT

Red Riding Hood bounces between a rather dull and poorly acted romance, and the infinitely more interesting (and entertaining) gothic horror that suggests how much fun this could have been had the producers not been yearning for another Twilight clone, sometimes a film should be left to entertain as its own entity…take note!

Starring: Antonio Banderas, Josh Brolin, Anthony Hopkins, Naomi Watts, Frieda Pinto, Gemma Jones, Lucy Punch, Christian McKay, Anna Friel

Director: Woody Allen

Writer: Woody Allen

Cinematography: Vilmos Zsigmond

Original Score: Misc.

Running Time: 98 Mins.

So here we are again, Woody Allen continues to try to do two things, firstly crack London and give us a good representation of life and love in our British capital and perhaps more importantly for fans of the film-maker (and cinema in general) to actually make another really great film. End of. He has teetered on the edge of something a little more modern and set away from Manhattan in a good way with Vicky Cristina Barcelona though even that was plighted with two awful, and too hard to overlook, glaring mis-steps in the form of one of the worst voice-overs ever and also the preoccupation with pretentiousness over humanity in his characters, something that proved too stifling for many to overcome.

Sadly You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger shares that films problems with the opening voice-over seemingly trying to emulate Vicky Cristina Barcelona as a London-set companion piece that also deals with the tangled mess of a star names love lives. Broadening the themes though sees the older cast members (Hopkins and Jones) take as much screen time as their younger counterparts, into this melting pot come issues of mortality, parentage, adultery, obsession and deception, ordinarily this wouldn’t be a big problem given the Love Actually style structure but with nary a likeable person in sight it weighs round the film like an anchor.

Every person is drawn so broadly they are as much archetypal stereotypes as the city is itself, the black cabs, memorable buildings, cockney accents and quaint bookshops on side-streets are all present and correct which in something like the previously mentioned Love Actually were not a problem given that film intended itself to be that way, but when it comes to You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger one can’t help but ponder what it was Allen wanted to show by setting his film in London, the capital adds nothing to the story and visually it is uninspired at best and flat at worst with nothing in the way of flair or beauty. In all fairness visuals were never the director’s penchant, that lay in his once crackling, witty and often brilliant scripting and stories that delved under the skin of his characters.

It just seems that lately the older Allen gets the slacker his writing becomes and in stuffing his films with star names he is trying to mask the fading talents that were once in evidence. I don’t like to slate a film that unashamedly deals with character over plot but solely dealing with character in a pointless interweaving plot adds next to nothing to the overall experience, and when your characters are written with little sign of effort there is little to be done other than be critical. On the plus side (I’m scraping the barrel here) Hopkins and Punch are funny sporadically in a handful of slapstick scenes but this is far from a saviour and simply serves to help edge your way through an excruciatingly dull 98 minutes. 

VERDICT

As Woody Allen’s name, and the mark of quality that once accompanied it, slips further into the annals of cinema you can test your patience with his latest effort, You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger, and marvel and how many dull and lifeless stereotypes can be crammed into one script whilst pondering why it drew such a starry cast. 

Starring: James Franco, Natalie Portman, Danny McBride, Zooey Deschanel, Justin Theroux, Charles Dance, Toby Jones, Brian Steele

Director: David Gordon Green

Writer: Danny McBride, Ben Best

Cinematography: Tim Orr

Original Score: Steve Jablonsky

Running Time: 102 Mins.

Danny McBride, David Gordon Green and James Franco last brought us the lacklustre stoner comedy Pineapple Express, a film I felt you must have to be under the influence to find funny as it simply observed how much fun people seemingly have when stoned. Not my idea of a good film thank you very much, and also something which displayed very little skill in the acting, directing or writing department, so given the three have got together again to bring us a medieval romp called Your Highness I was far from excited, expecting much the same again albeit set against a castle, heaving bosom and chain-mail backdrop.

How wrong I was upon watching the trailer, promising the years funniest comedy and largely doing away with stoner jokes (despite the title), it looked to emulate Monty Python and the Holy Grail and on the slightly more serious side Willow, The Princess Bride and its ilk. I have however grown to realise trailers that are the best all too often herald some huge disappointments (Sucker Punch and Wolverine being two such examples) and comedies are well-known for cramming thar funniest bits into the ads. So what does the actual experience of Your Highness bring? Well it proves some things are funnier in short sharp bursts but also avoids swathes of stoner jokes in favour of lots of inappropriate swearing and lots and lots of very crude moments.

This works both in the films favour and, well…not. Because as funny as men slipping “fuck”, “cock” or “bastard” in amongst “ye olde speak” is intermittently it reaches half an hour into the film and the random swearing seems to mask any promise for actual jokes, it doesn’t become annoying thankfully but does dim the effect and raises less of a smile on each obscenity. Something that doesn’t diminish as the film progresses is the great casting, seeing McBride and Franco farcing it up is nothing out of the ordinary but here they really are playing to their strengths and make a great double act (one of the few things Pineapple Express did manage to succeed in doing), but it is in those we are more accustomed to seeing in serious (slightly more serious anyway) roles, Deschanel, Dance, Jones and in particular Theroux as villain Lazar all have their time to shine in the stupidest ways, they are this era’s Pythons!

Sadly one person who never really fits in is Portman, she tries but seems as if she wondered in off the Black Swan set and isn’t quite sure what tone she is aiming for, I’d say she is the “straight-man” but has too many intentionally funny scenes that are thoroughly unfunny. This though is the only real glaring weak link, the tone is jokey of course though there are real affectionate nods to the films it is sending up, creature design is fantastic with a hydra as good as anything else CGI you will see in a blockbuster this summer but it is in the puppetry that Jim Henson would be proud of his influence bearing such funny and innovative fruit. A pervy wizard and a minotaur are the stand-outs and the balance of the set pieces they have alongside the laughs is judged just right.

Maybe though it as all a little too “free”, lines are clearly ad-libbed which is as much a success as it is a failure and the quest narrative does seem a little slight, also as funny as the support cast are it seems a little too crammed…as do the references with a mechanical bird a step too far (Clash of the Titans-esque) and very much pointless, it serves to neither further the plot of be particularly funny, in fact if the pacing were tightened up a tad and some of the lazy jokes shaved off this could have been a cult classic to sit alongside the likes of  Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

VERDICT

Your Highness thankfully belies its title and is not simply anther stoner comedy, instead it pokes fun at the premise and genre of medieval quest films well and harks back to the 80′s in a tone that balances nostalgia with more contemporary laughs (if far from being sophisticated!). Effects work is stellar for a comedy but the occasional flabbiness stops it short of being truly great, so a fun romp then if not likely to be the years funniest comedy sadly.

Starring: James Marsden, Elizabeth Perkins,  (the voices of) Russell Brand, Hugh Laurie, Hank Azaria

Director: Tim Hill

Writer(s): Cinco Paul, Ken Daurio, Brian Lynch

Cinematography: Peter Lyons Collister

Original Score: Christopher Lennertz

Running Time: 90 Mins.

Christmas films, they are ten-a-penny, that time of year when all the kids are off school and psyched for presents and the fat guy in red with a fluffy white beard, so what is wrong with easter then? The kids are off school, they are hyped at the thought of a certain bunny coming by with a fluffy white tail bearing chocolates and “candy” and in the Easter Bunny surely there is scope for a huge money spinner of not just a film, but also merchandising opportunities galore, bunnies, chicks, branded sweets, the possibilities are endless,,,in fact that it hasn’t been done sooner is the biggest surprise that Hop holds.

So imagine if you will a film in the strain of The Santa Clause, a cheesy cheery family vehicle that calls for nothing more than you switching your brain off and watching a highly implausible plot unfurl in a half-way entertaining way. There you have it, that is Hop, except it is also from the man who brought us Alvin and the Chipmunks and Garfield, which means the bunny in question is animated and talks, oh and there are talking chicks…sounds painful now doesn’t it. Well banish all thoughts of Alvin and Garfield for this is actually quite good fun, thankfully bereft of the obligatory love story for the lead human (or animal) the focus here is on that all too common theme of bromance!

Here’s where it gets better, Russell Brand voices E.B. the unwilling next in line for the job of…well you get the idea, he has daddy issues (current Easter Bunny as voiced by Hugh Laurie) as does Fred (Marsden), E.B.’s reluctant new “friend” and yearns to drum in a rock n’ roll band instead. With most of the running time split between the bromance strand and an envious Easter Chick Carlos (Azaria) trying to take ver back on Easter island there is never time to find yourself checking your watch, its bright and breezy without taxing your brain, largely thanks to the game cast (human and voice).

As odd a choice as having Brand play the Easter Bunny may seem, it works, he is loveable and funny (both key facets in a family film!) and his cockney tones give E.B. real personality, similarly Marsden succeeds where Breckin Meyer and Jason Lee before him failed, he manages to be equally as funny and charming as his furry co-star despite the constant mugging (in a good way) and holds his own as a slacker in search of his true calling, you needn’t guess what it is, the opening crawl tells us!

The set design is imaginative and Easter Island in particular is great to look at, Hill even employs a little directorial flair in some tracking shots (shocking I know) and a fluffy chick makes for a great villain of the piece, yes it is all rather slight and a cameo from the Hoff was really needless (unlike Brand’s human form which raised a smile) other than to give it a hefty dose of pop culture, a shame really as this was as memorable season fare as most christmas films even if that is damning it with faint praise!

VERDICT

Hop bests most seasonal offerings and certainly strides ahead of Hill’s other works (though admittedly thats an easy feat), while Russell Brand proves himself as something of a charming presence even in a family film. Bright and breezy it won’t do anything more than raise a smile or two in 90 minutes, but in some cases that is something of a big achievement!

Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Michelle Monaghan, Vera Farmiga, Jeffrey Wright, Russell Peters, Michael Arden

Director: Duncan Jones

Writer(s): Ben Ripley

Cinematography: Don Burgess

Original Score: Chris Bacon

Running Time: 93 Mins.

This week brought us two films dealing with alternate realities, ever a popular sci-fi theme, and in the face of Inception’s phenomenal success (both critical and box office) it is hardly a surprise. Inception was a film that managed the seemingly impossible, an intelligent and thought-provoking big budget blockbuster that has paved the way for more like it and if Source Code is anything to go by we have yet another thing to thank Nolan for as Source Code further paves the way for (hopefully) a new line in something more than just mere spectacle. In fact all this is enough to forgive Hollywood for the release of that other alternate reality film of the week, Sucker Punch.

Everything Snyder’s film lacked (or never had!) is made up for here and then some in the second film from Duncan Jones, Jones marked himself out as a talent to watch with Moon a couple of years ago and it is hardly surprising the son of David Bowie has his cemented his forte in sci-fi. Moon was a little underwhelming for me in all honesty, I could see his intention was good and ambition high, Sam Rockwell turned in a great performance and the film had a melancholy yet quirky air but still retained a touch of Hollywood. Source Code mines much closer to Hollywood, the budget here is infinitely higher than Moon‘s and it shows to excellent effect in an explosion that we see from a great many angles.

The effects and hike in budget are simply the cherry on the cake though and the film builds its very strong and hugely entertaining foundations on a solid story and great acting (unlike Sucker Punch). The trick to sci-fi is grounding it in a semblance of reality, Jones does this effortlessly (or seemingly so) and uses a groundhog day narrative that befits his story perfectly, Gyllenhaal is Colter Stevens an ex-army vet just returned from Afghanistan (or is he?) sent back in time (or is it time travel?) to try and discover who has set a bomb on a train, this presents many questions as you may well imagine as the plot yo-yo’s between the 8 minutes Colter has upon each time he is sent back and his confusion as to why it is happening from the “pod” that he uses in communicating with Vera Farmiga’s Colleeen and Jeffrey Wright on bad guy duty as Dr. Rutledge…creator of the technology.

The beauty of Source Code is that ultimately this is territory that as been explored before, the “go back in time to try and save a life” scenario was used in Deja Vu to entertaining but hardly ground-breaking effect, similarly Source Code is entertaining but also thought provoking after you over-come the hurdle of total confusion at not quite knowing what is going on (that’s a good thing by the way!). The element of mystery never lets up until the end, slowly throwing up answers along with more questions, both in the “real world” and in “past time”, intrigue is a winning staple for a film, but intrigue coupled with a tone that is serious but not taking itself seriously is the gold standard.

It doesn’t end there, Gyllenhaal is always great but has seemed to find himself one step away from superstardom after every role. Prince of Persia should have done it for him but still he is just one iota away from the goal, this is good for us as it means he has also escaped the stigma of type-casting, between Persia, Love and Other Drugs and Brothers he had proved his mettle at tackling whatever came his way. The one constant is his likeability, something which helps make chemistry an ever-present thing, here it is Monaghan and Farmiga, both are capable in their own right but again they place their characters in the realm of realism balanced with entertainment…in fact only Wright is anything more, hamming it up just enough to give the film a slight streak of pantomime villainy, heck he even walks with a limp and has an OTT accent.

VERDICT

Source Code proves Duncan Jones has built on what he crafted in Moon, crafting an engaging, thought-provoking and ultimately entertaining sci-fi thriller, add to this yet another winning performance by Gyllenhaal and we have a winning film that shows Inception doesn’t have the monopoly on intelligent blockbusters.

Starring: Emily Browning, Carla Gugino, Abbie Cornish, Jena Malone, Vanessa Hudgens, Jamie Chung, Scott Glenn, Oscar Isaac, Vicky Lambert

Director: Zack Snyder

Writer(s): Zack Snyder, Steve Shibuya

Cinematography: Larry Fong

Original Score: Tyler Bates, Marius De Vries

Running Time: 109 Mins.

A distinct visual style, something that director Zack Snyder is far from lacking, however this overwhelming sense of making something that looks good and/or accomplished can often highlight the severe lack of any depth beyond such visuals triumphs, or flourishes. Thus far Snyder has just about manage to get enough  substance in their to justify his means, Watchmen (often deemed a failure, financially at least) was the pinnacle of this, it was a modern epic perfectly marrying Snyder’s eye for slo-mo and OTT set pieces into something sprawling that did Alan Moore’s source material justice. similarly so with Dawn of the Dead (one of the better horror remakes of recent years) and 300, while a visual triumph, was always a slave to its flimsy graphic novel so for that we cannot blame Snyder.

Moving onto Sucker Punch then, where does this (inevitably stylised) fantasy sit, well it marks the mans first direction of his own script and therefore is a slave to nobody but his own imagination…this perhaps is the problem. You see Sucker Punch is, simply put, a mess, clearly it is and always was going to be nice to look at but the premise hinted at something akin to Inception. A reality within a reality within an imagination (or something along those lines), alas Snyder is no Chris Nolan and seems incapable of wielding his mass of schoolboy ideas into an engaging narrative.

Split into 5 sections the film literally plays out although its director wrote a list of things that 16 year old boys find cool, so dragons and orcs, giant samurai warriors, steam-punk second world war battles and futuristic trains inhabited by robots. Each scene is loosely linked as Baby-Doll (Browning) dances whilst imprisoned in a mental institute (reimagined by her as a brothel) and slips into these alternate realities created by her mind, sounds a little complex? It really isn’t, simply a ham-fisted attempt to string these scenes Snyder clearly craved to use and couldn’t think how else to construct them into a good narrative….so he didn’t!

It would help were the characters more than mere ciphers, Browning is the lead, but seriously lacks anything marking her out as more than just eye-candy, she seems fragile but the actions suggest not and the surrounding girls consist of the ballsy one, the enthusiastic youngling, the wiser older one and the other one! That really is as deep as it gets, even when the chaotic action pauses for attempts at a little pathos (crying is about as far as it goes!) it becomes a little embarrassing and out-of-place, these girls can act (Browning was good in Lemony Snicket, Hudgens had charm in High School Musical) but on Cornish comes out of this with any credibility, both as the most attractive (hey, call me shallow!) and the only one that eeks a little character from her flimsy, forgettable lines.

One would hope that even if the central characters are 2D the support would at least e able to add a little charisma, not so, Scott Glenn is bizarre in his role as Wise Old Man offering nothing mre than sage advice, and Carla Gugino and Oscar Isaac are hobbled by simply offering sympathy and snarling villain roles respectively. All of this means that as you may have suspected the visuals have to real legwork to do in order to make Sucker Punch worth watching…and at times they do, an opening scene set to only music is great (echoing Watchmen’s similar credit scene) but it all gets rather tiresome as the film progresses with slo-mo after slo-mo, bullet strewn and fire ravaged as the screen is there is nothing at stake meaning there is also nothing to invest in.

On this evidence it is probably best that Snyder is returning to direct someone else material for Superman: Man of Steel, god knows another slice of Sucker Punch wouldn’t help the mans career!

VERDICT

Snyder will likely discover the hard way that a little substance goes a long way, Sucker Punch is not a disaster (it is nice to look at, and typically stylish, for a time) but proof if proof were needed that visuals alone cannot maketh a film, even if the cast is hot to trot!