**********************

The BluRay cover blurb quote states, quite simply, that Faster is “… the straight-up best action film of the year”, and it’s hard to disagree with. Faster is, for want of a better description, exactly the kind of action film Hollywood audiences needed to see – especially in light of overblown blockbusters (Michael Bay, I love you – but man, you need to make another Rock movie) and the turgid Oscar bait released every other week. The Rock… ahem, sorry, Dwayne Johnson makes his welcome return to the hard-ass action films we deserved, instead of yet another fluffy Disney-esque “comedy” that takes his natural screen charisma and turn it into cinematic vomit. Here, with Faster, Johnson sacks up and gets all angry and stuff, as a vengeful ex-con seeking retribution against those who killed his brother and set him up to go to prison. He’s silent, brooding, tortured and angry – exactly the kind of character Clint Eastwood might have played in his younger days, and free from the kiddie-lite catastrophes of Tooth Fairy and that stupid one about being the babysitter for that inane family, Johnson makes the most of this decidedly adult actioner. Faster came on the back of his career resurgence in Fast Five, the fifth film in the Fast & The Furious franchise), raising his stock as one of the modern screens preeminent action stars.

Click here to go faster!!!

**********************

Venice is rightly renowned as one of the worlds most beautiful cities. Angelina Jolie is rightly renowned as one of the worlds most beautiful women. Johnny Depp is renowned as one of the worlds most attractive men. You’d think a film featuring all three of these beauties might actually be a decent thing in itself; the location and talent on-screen are first class, and yet, for all its trappings of exotica and ritzy decolletage, The Tourist is a wasteful bore. Yes, it’s pretty, but it’s not very interesting. Unfortunately, as critics of Michael Bay will attest, style over substance will only get you so far, and director von Donnersmarck has misplaced his substance for elegant waffle instead. The Tourist tries very hard to be both exciting and enthralling, gifting audiences a veritable postcard-reel of Venetian extravagance and beauty, book-ending some sort of spy-vs-spy thriller, with the subtlety and nuance of fairy floss. Venice doesn’t really lend itself to subtle intrigue and double-crossing – even James Bond only visits for a few scenes in any of his films, and even then, he still manages to blow stuff up: no, Venice is the city of lovers, the city of romance and sensuality, dripping with every wavelet and gondola passing by your feet as you step through a city older almost than time itself. Violence and Venice are worlds apart, and only the bravest director dares bring them into competition.

Click here to use your tourist visa to see more about this film…

**********************

Harken back, if you will, to a brief moment in cinema history whereby a genre known as “pornography” slipped across from the dingy backrooms of sleazy screening dungeons and into the mainstream. The time of Deep Throat, perhaps the most iconic of all porn films (how on earth people fell for the misappropriation of the term “mainstream” when describing a film based solely on the concept of a woman having her clitoris in the back of her throat still staggers me!) saw a weird influence take place on Hollywood – suddenly, porn was chic. Instead of strolling down to the local cinema to catch the latest Disney animated feature, you’d ditch the kids and sneak away to catch the latest blockbuster release involving full-screen penetration and copious body fluids posing as “art”, perhaps hoping to instil in your partner a somewhat sordid level of eroticism which would lead to… well, an imitation of said film later on back home. Caligula, a film ostensibly a historical peice about a violent period on ancient Roman history, was released hanging on the combination of big-name stars and raunchy, explicit sex, most of which featured a bevy of that year’s Penthouse Pets – thanks to Penthouse founder and publisher Bob Guccione’s input. I don’t know whether to be impressed with his balls at putting out a film this convoluted, or whether to simply cringe in embarrassment to all involved.

Click here to read more about Caligula!

**********************

I’m the first to admit that my disdain for Hollywood’s penchant for remaking classic (and not-so-classic) films from history has become something of a joke amongst the film community – everything from classic horror, drama and even drama films are being lined up for the dreaded “modernization” (or, alternatively, “updating”) for younger audiences. Typically, remakes are technically proficient yet lacking the thing that made the original truly great – that lightning in a bottle which allowed said film to transcend the dust of history to remain a true classic. Remakes have a long, sad history in Hollywood, and yet people still think it’s a good idea. Personally, I’d rather filmmakers spend time developing new ideas and stories to bring us, instead of simply recycling older films with usually less-than-impressive credentials. Having said that, I find myself in the unusual position of watching a remake of a genuine Hollywood classic, and actually finding myself thinking it’s the better film. How the hell did that happen?

Click here to get gritty!

**********************

Rio is perhaps best described in a single word. Generic. If you strip back the flashy visuals, the dynamic animation style (designed mainly to look cool in 3D, mind you) and the not-quite-A-list-casting, Rio is a join-the-dots example of Hollywood film-making. That’s not to say it’s a bad film, in terms of it’s execution and entertainment value, it’s just that Rio has so many layers of familiarity that it’s hard to see where has-been ends and originality begins. If it begins at all. I’m sure, somewhere, the story by director Carlos Saldanha, Earl Richey Jones and Todd R Jones might have sounded good in theory, but weaving a decent story out of a fairly fanciful idea needs more than flashy visuals and catchy music. The end result of what would have been several years of work ends up feeling for all the world like a dumbed-down version of a better film, a film we have yet to see, because Rio, for all it’s flashy visuals and catchy music, isn’t that much chop. I know, I’m probably not the target audience for this film, but I argue the point that Rio seems too smart for the really young viewers and too dumb for the older ones, flailing about somewhere in the middle and ending up just being ordinary.

Click here to go to Rio!!!

**********************

Drive Angry is a terrible film. Beyond the pale for awfulness, it is hopefully another nail in the derelict career of one Nicolas Cage, a man for whom it seems no role is too stupid, nor any script too dreadfully inept. What on Earth can Hollywood hope to gain by promoting the man’s sheer lack of cinematic credibility? Yes, Cage once won an Oscar for Best Actor, but then, so did Robert DeNiro, and all he’s done since then is terribly stupid Parenting comedies, dull Cop Dramas and less-than-stellar “horror” films. Drive Angry is one of those films that probably seemed like a good idea at the time, if you think “the time” was that crazy night in Vegas when you were high on acid and the hookers were doing a threesome in the second bedroom while you bathed in a recently slaughtered ox’s blood. I was so tempted to do this film as one of our Mini Reviews, but I feel so violated by the imagery and concepts I’ve just witnessed, I need to purge myself of this… trash – I refuse to continue to call this turd a film – so I can continue my exploration of the fine medium of cinema unburdened. Therefore, prepare for a long form review of one of the worst films I’ve seen in the last week or so: Drive Angry.

Drive through this review and get very, very angry….

**********************

If there’s one thing I hate more than romantic comedies starring Jennifer Lopez/Jennifer Anniston/Kate Hudson/Diane Keaton, it’s overly manipulative “animal movies”, where the star animal in the film is inevitably the one which is killed/maimed/mistreated/funnier than the humans. Films where you can feel the director reaching into your chest or tear ducts to try giving the bits inside you that work the awwww and tug them gently, prodding an unsustainable emotional bond with you that, while occurring feels real and genuine, but after the credits roll feels a little like you’ve been manhandled. Water For Elephants, to a large degree, feels like manhandling to me. Based on the book by Sara Gruen, Water For Elephants is story set in the Great Depression, trying desperately to evoke the Great Depression, while managing to also feel the need to rise above the Great Depression in its emotional core. It’s a mismatch of a film, a film trying to find its center, yet not quite being able to deliver the genuine heart it so desperately aches for. It’s almost good, if that’s quantification enough for you.

Click here to bring the elephant in!

**********************

Truly great action films come along only once in a while – and in the 2000′s, even less often than that. You could list on the fingers of one hand the number of universally admired films in which driving stunts, gunplay and bloody violence are actually helpful to the story, or in any way universally appealing. Drive makes a welcome addition to the fingers on that hand, even if describing it as an Action Film is perhaps a little disingenuous on my part. Drive isn’t a typical Hollywood action movie, although there are moments of gut-wrenching action, helmed with close-up ferocity by Danish director Nicolas Winding Refn. It’s not really a deep dramatic piece either, with the characters atypically using glances, longing stares and nods of the head for the majority of their communication – often, it’s the unsaid that’s more important. As a thriller, you’d class it as a sleeper, the kind of thriller for intellectuals who enjoy a film less about cheap thrills than about intelligent screenwriting and storytelling. What I’d say is that Drive is a mix of all three, a very successful mix, if the critical reception this movie received originally is anything to go by. Current It Man, Ryan Gosling, who seems to be in every great film coming out at the moment, leads a great cast through this stylish genre piece with a performance easily described as “intense”, saying more in a twenty second kiss with Carey Mulligan than most actors do in an entire film. So, is Drive a film able to live up to the hype; is it able to resist the urge for those wondering what all the hype is about to dismiss it out of hand as just another Edge Of Darkness style thriller?

Click here to take a Drive.

**********************

It truly does take a brave viewer to watch a Christmas film and actually feel good about it. Most Christmas films end up being saccharine-infested Holiday cheer-heavy schmaltz-fests, or dull, stupidly conceived and ill-executed “Christmas-comedies”  in the vein of crap like Four Christmases, Christmas With The Kranks, or Fred Claus, to name only three off the top of my head. The Santa Clause managed to deliver a Christmas movie that balanced the schmaltz and actual emotional content with extraordinary success – even more surprising considering the film came out in the 90′s, a decade in which films became increasingly marketed towards big-budgets and shitty-stories. The inevitable sequel to The Santa Clause came out a few years later, with the original cast returning and adding in a few new surprises, and to everyone’s complete shock, it too wasn’t that bad a film, even for a sequel. Tim Allen’s best film franchise ever actually improved on the original, surpassing the aww-shucks cutesy whimsy of film 1 and building on the magical, fantastical elements that made that film so good.

Click here to jingle all the way to the Mrs Clause!