Exclusive first look at 'The Wind is Watching'!

Conrad Faraj is the young director behind last year's 'The Shadow People', which I saw about a year ago. I ended that review with the words: 

I'd like for Faraj to continue his work and show us what more he can do. Because this film, even though it's a little rough around the edges, shows a lot of promise. 

Now it seems like I got my wish. Today Faraj released a poster for his latest film 'The Wind is Watching' just in time for the end of the world. The look is familiar and it reminds me very much of the images we saw in the campaign for 'The Dark Knight'. It's not a bad image to start from and it gives 'The Wind is Watching' a nice apocalyptic vibe.

Aside from the poster I also got to look at the trailer for 'The Wind is Watching'. It promises a dystopian thriller and much like 'The Shadow People' the film features a strong female protagonist. A young woman caught up in the midst of a Second Civil War in the United States of America. It's an interesting concept and the trailer certainly feels like a cross between 'The Hunger Games' and 'Children of Men'. I'm curious as to how our heroine factors into this world and what her story is. You can expect to be able to see the trailer for yourself pretty soon.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey Review

We've been waiting a long time for 'The Hobbit' to reach the silver screen. Ever since the release of 'The Return of the King' people have been dying to see more of Middle-Earth. From all of J.R.R. Tolkien's writings 'The Hobbit' was the most likely to be adapted. It chronicles the adventures of Bilbo Baggins and shows how the Ring of Power came into the hands of a Halfling. 

Written well before 'The Lord of the Rings' this story is a lot more lighthearted. While the former book details a struggle against an immense evil in the form of Sauron, 'The Hobbit' features a less urgent conflict: A quest to reclaim the kingdom of Erebor which was taken by a dragon with a love for gold. A band of dwarves led by Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage) believe they are destined to free their land from Smaug the dragon. 

Bilbo Baggins enters the tale when the wise wizard Gandalf comes to him with a frightful proposition. He wishes for the hobbit to accompany him and thirteen dwarves on an adventure. For those who don't know, hobbits aren't adventuresome creatures. They prefer to live quiet and comfortable lives. However, after some convincing, curiosity gets the better of Bilbo and he's off on a dangerous journey. Their goal is to reach the Lonely Mountain and slay the dragon that hides there. 

Tolkien managed to tell this story quickly and economically. Director Peter Jackson, on the other hand, thought he needed three movies. With 'The Lord of the Rings' this was understandable, such a dense story needed room to breathe. With 'The Hobbit' this decision might lead to Jackson's undoing. The plot isn't suited for such a luxurious treatment and would've been more resonant had it been told in one (or two relatively short) films. 

The first chapter, 'An Unexpected Journey', feels like an extended cut. The entire first act is riddled with scenes that should have been removed. Many of these cover the same ground over and over and the film's pace suffers as a result. Some additions work wonderfully, like the prologue featuring the fall of Erebor at the claws of Smaug. Others, however, are so out of sync with the world Peter Jackson established in 'The Lord of the Rings' that you can't help but wonder what kind of mushrooms he was eating.   

That's my main gripe with the entire film. The film lacks focus because of the addition of material which doesn't have a direct influence on the central story. I understand why Jackson wanted to include the rise of Sauron into these pictures, but it should've been more subtle. Now the film constantly cuts way from our heroes to bother us with plot points that don't come into play until 'The Lord of the Rings'. It takes the urgency away from Bilbo's quest. 

As for poor Bilbo, his casting is a stroke of genius. Martin Freeman uses his comic sensibilities to great effect, bringing the ever so conservative hobbit to life. Ian McKellen must have been looking forward to these films as well. For his character, Gandalf the Grey, has a lot to do in 'The Unexpected Journey'. During this quest he's faced with the troubling appearance of a Necromancer in Middle-Earth. This mysterious figure proves to be an ancient evil seeking the power he once lost.

Then there's the company consisting out of an unwieldly number of dwarves. In this first story only a few of them get a real chance to shine. Thorin takes on a role not dissimilar from Aragorn in 'The Lord of the Rings', Balin (Ken Stott) is the kindly mentor and Bofur (James Nesbitt) the comic relief. The rest stumble along the sides of the frame without making an individual impression. But considering the crazy amount of characters this was very much expected. Luckily, the dwarves are easy to tell apart because of their distinctive looks. 

'An Unexpected Journey' features a beautiful presentation of Middle-Earth. Taking place before the shadow of Sauron falls falls over this world, it has never looked this colourful or fantastic. The design of the characters is also wonderful. The dwarves look great and the numerous other creatures are designed with a tremendous eye for detail. Gollum (Andy Serkis), especially, has never looked this good. The performance capture technology has taken great strides since the earlier films. 

Aside from some missteps 'An Unexpected Journey' is a welcome  return to the world of Tolkien. And I'm very much looking forward to 'The Desolation of Smaug' and 'There and Back Again'. There's less doom and gloom than in 'The Lord of the Rings', instead 'The Hobbit' has fun with the fantastic elements of Middle-Earth. The tone of the entire film could best be described as playful. For instance, there's a wizard named Radagast (Sylvester McCoy) who speeds through this movie on a sled pulled by bunnies. I can't say it works but it's the one image I took away from this movie. A vagrant Santa Claus outrunning orcs on a sled pulled by Easter Bunnies.  

Looper Review

Time travel has always been an enticing concept for filmmakers. George Pal showed us the year 802.701 in 'The Time Machine', Robert Zemeckis took us on three trips in a time machine with the 'Back to the Future' movies and on the small screen Doctor Who travels through time on a weekly basis. Popular culture is saturated with time travel and why not? How cool would it be to meet your grandparents when they were kids or to see beyond years and into the future? 

Unfortunately, the concept is rarely used intelligently. The implications of time travel are tremendous and it's high time for filmmakers to learn they can exploit them to create dense and intricate stories. 'Looper' is one of those films. Aside from being an excellent action film it is also a very smart science-fiction story. It handles the time travel paradoxes in an interesting and entertaining way. That's why it's one of the year's best movies.

In 2074 time travel will have been invented. The technology is immediately outlawed but the mob uses it to get rid of people. They are put into a time machine and blasted thirty years back in time. Upon arrival a hired gun kills them and destroys their bodies. The mercenaries are known as Loopers, they get good money for their work but it comes at a price. Sooner or later their older selves will come through that portal and the looper will have to kill him(self). It's called 'closing the loop'.

For Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) the loop is about to close. However his older self (Bruce Willis) is a wily one and escapes. The mob doesn't take kindly to this and set their dogs on both Joes. Now Young Joe will have to find Old Joe in order to save himself and his future. There are some other twists and turns which I won't spoil.,what I can say is that the story moves quickly and includes some very enjoyable surprises. 

Director Rian Johnson doesn't think of time travel paradoxes as bothersome. Instead he integrates these technicalities into the plot. What we get is a movie that's totally unpredictable but when we come to the conclusion we wouldn't want it to end any other way. Sure, after some thinking, little parts of the film don't quite seem to make sense but that's part of the fun. 'Looper' is a movie that will ignite discussions about the possibilties and impossibilities of time travel.. 

Joseph Gordon-Levitt's transformation into a young Bruce Willis is also worthy to be talked about. His make-up isn't a complete success but the way Levitt copies Willis his mannerisms is uncanny. It's not the make-up but the acting that sells this very important part of the plot. Bruce Willis himself is also terrific. I can't imagine a better candidate for this particular role. It's also one of his most memorable performances in a very long time. He brings out the utter desperation of a character who only wants to return to his life.

To me 'Looper' is nothing short of genius. The story might seem gimmicky at first but it manages to convince  you before knocking you on your skeptical ass. This is a movie with a lot of smarts and enough energy to make it all seem effortless. It's not afraid to go to dark places or to have the most famous actor in its cast do some seriously despicable stuff. 'Looper' is a great film and a breath of fresh air for fans of intelligent science-fiction.

Frankenweenie Review

After 'Vincent', 'The Nightmare Before Christmas' and 'Corpse Bride' Tim Burton returns to stop-motion. Based on a live-action short film he directed in 1984, 'Frankenweenie' tells the story of young Victor who succeeds at reviving his dead dog Sparky. The movie is shot in black and white and contains many nods to old-school horror flicks from Universal and Hammer.

Burton's unique visual style has always been perfect for stop-motion animation. His production 'The Nightmare Before Christmas' is still one of best films of that kind. The surreal look of Burton's vision combined with the somewhat creepy feel of stop-motion work wonders together. And with its bizarre subject matter 'Frankenweenie' walks the line between lightweight horror and comedy.

Unlike his previous live-action movies, 'Alice In Wonderland' and 'Dark Shadows', 'Frankenweenie' feels fresh. For the first time since 'Sleepy Hollow' Burton seems to be in his element. He and his animators are having fun playing with Victor's world, which appears to be a cross between 1950's suburbia and a misty Dutch town from the late 1800's.

'Frankenweenie' is visually appealing. The sets are beautifully designed and some characters look genuinely creepy. The animation itself is noticeably crude, especially when compared to this year's 'ParaNorman' which was made in a similar fashion. The crudeness appears to be on purpose. There's little polish here, when a cat moves its head you can see its fur move as the animator make his frame per frame adjustments. This gives life to the characters and lends a great deal of authenticity to the film.

Danny Elfman is back with his unique brand of fairy tale music. Drawing heavily from earlier collaborations with Tim Burton, more than once Elfman's score reminded me of 'Edward Scissorhands'. His dark but playful music amplifies the film's gloomy atmosphere. 

The story deals with one of life's more serious and final problems: death. It's a heavy subject to handle, especially in a medium that will appeal to a lot of children. Fortunately, Burton keeps the film from getting lost in dark territory. Unlike Mary Shelley's original novel 'Frankenstein' we're not faced with the existential dilemma that arises when you bring life to what was once dead.

'Frankenweenie' is sure to be a treat for all fans of classic horror. Whether you're a Universal Horror enthusiast or a Hammer Horror lover you'll eat this up. This film's science teacher looks and sounds like Vincent Price, Christopher Lee makes an appearence in his most famous role and the finale takes place in a burning windmill. Sparky's love interest even sports the iconic hair cut from James Whale's 'The Bride of Frankenstein'. 

'Frankenweenie' feels like its Tim Burton's comeback. He's returned from the commercial direction his later movies have followed. His recent career appeared to be marred by a profound lack of interest. 'Dark Shadows' featured hints of Burton's former glory but 'Frankenweenie' sees him reaching back and recapturing that unique and entertaining spirit. 

Skyfall Review

'Skyfall' is Daniel Craig's third performance as 007; the most famous of all spies. It's also his best, after a solid introduction with 'Casino Royale' and the rather dissapointing 'Quantum of Solace', Craig finally comes into his own as James Bond. Under the direction of Sam Mendes the twenty-third Bond film belongs up there with 'Goldfinger', 'From Russia With Love' and 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service'. 

This might sound like high praise but 'Skyfall' is pure quality. Mendes' character-driven approach breathes new life into a franchise which has known many up and downs. It also gives Craig the opportunity to portray Bond as a real person instead of the cartoony gentleman spy whom we've seen in many other installments. 

The story also has weight to it. The whole thing revolves around M, whose actions as head of MI6 are called into question when the secret identities of spies all over the globe are stolen. Someone, somewhere, has it out for her. Meanwhile, 007 is presumed dead after a mission to recover the identies goes awry. He returns from the shadows in order to save M from being discharged by the British Prime-Minister and to hunt down the man behind this evil plot.

The villain, Raoul Silva, reveals himself to be an ex-MI6 agent with a grudge against M. He tries everything within his power to put an end to her career and, ultimately, her life. Javier Bardem plays Silva with a psychotic sense of humor. His twisted obsession with M is one of the film's high points and makes Bardem's antagonist truly memorable. 

Aside from Craig and the entertaining villain this movie belongs entirely to Judi Dench. She's the ultimate Bond Girl and does a great job portraying a conflicted M. She's horrified at the lengths that Silva goes to in order to harm her but somehow she feels that she might deserve everything that's coming her way. This performance is yet another reason why 'Skyfall' manages to make a huge impact. 

The action is also top notch. While 'Quantum of Solace' was made incromprehensible by the insane amount of shaky cam the action in this film is astounding. There's some spectacular scenes featuring some gorgeous cinematography. It might not be the absolute best Bond film but it's surely the most beautiful in the whole franchise. 

As is tradition in the James Bond franchise 'Skyfall' has its own theme. This time Adele's voice is heard over the opening credits and it's an impressive song. It's been a while since we've heard a good theme for one of these movies. Adele manages to convey the gloomy feel of the film perfectly, setting the tone for the entire film.

If there's one thing I'm kind of divided on it's the obvious nods to previous Bond films. In celebration of Bond's 50th anniversary 'Skyfall' is sprinkled with little references. Some are fun; like the introduction of Ms. Moneypenny and Q, while others seem a bit too on the nose. The appearance of the Ashton Martin DB5 from 'Goldfinger', complete with all the gadgets from that film, is a little distracting. It's not enough to pull you out off the movie but it seems excessive. 

As the movie ends and the credits begin to role the film assures us that Bond will be back. And I'm not complaining. With 'Skyfall' Daniel Craig has gotten the film that he deserves. He got to shine as the legendary British hero and fulfilled the promises he made with 'Casino Royale'. It's one of the most entertaining films of the year and one of the best Bond movies I've ever had the pleasure to experience.

Savages Review

Oliver Stone has a flair for the controversial. Whether it was the embellished truth behind a presidential assassination in 'JFK' or the hyper violent portrayal of two mass murderers in 'Natural Born Killers'. In recent years Stone's films seem to be less harsh. Which was never more apparent than with 'W.', which went suprisingly soft on its main character George W. Bush.

With 'Savages' the veteran director returns to his violent sensibilities. Revolving around two succesful pot growers who are forced to strike a deal with a Mexican drug cartel. When Ben and Chon want out the Mexicans, led by Elena, kidnap the love of both their lives O. The dealers are forced to put aside their principles and do everything to get O out of the hands of the cartel.

The best performance in the film belongs to Benicio Del Toro, whose character Lado is the biggest son of a bitch you'll see in any movie this year. He's an overweight pervert with a pornstache and the worst case of eighties hair you've ever seen. He shoots and tortures for fun and he'll betray anyone if it means he'll do better business. Del Toro dissappears into his role and gives us one hell of a creepy bastard. 

John Travolta delivers another enjoyable performance as the corrupt DEA agent Dennis. He weasels his way in and out of partnerships with Elena, Lado and Ben and Chon. The latter two are played rather well by Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Taylor Kitsch. They manage to hold on to our sympathies even though they commit some gruesome acts in order to save their girl. Blake Lively's O on the other hand seems a little detached from reality, which might or might not be due to years of drug use. 

Salma Hayek succesfully walks the line between tragedy and villainy. Elena's a widow who inhereted her husband's drug empire. She's lost many of her children and tries to keep the remaining two out of harm's way. This is the weak spot which Ben and Chon so cleverly and ruthlessly exploit. Elena's reaction is desperate but human, which paints a fair but still pretty grim picture of humanity.  

'Savages' is not for the faint of heart. As the title suggests there are some savage acts committed in this movie. There's one scene in particular which had this reviewer turning away from the screen, if only for a brief moment. It features a man being whipped mercilessly, not one part of his body is spared, not even his eyes. There's more moments of violence like this but none of them are so grueling.  

Delicious is Oliver Stone's filmmaking prowess. His clever editing and use of sound and music is a wonder to behold. Like his acclaimed work on 'JFK' and 'Nixon' he blends a documentary style with the traditional way of Hollywood storytelling. This approach continues to serve Stone well and the movie runs at a breakneck speed while still being easy to follow. In short, 'Savages' is a return to form for Oliver Stone.  

Ted Review

'Family Guy' creator Seth McFarlane has a movie. It's called 'Ted' and it's about a deadbeat car salesman who lives with his girlfriend and his talking teddy bear. The situation is familiar and the comedy is very similar to the aforementioned show as well as 'American Dad' and 'The Cleveland Show'.

The film stars Mark Wahlberg as the sympathetic loser John Bennet and Mila Kunis as his girlfriend Lori. McFarlane uses his remarkable voice to bring to life the titular character Ted. The film starts off strong and sweet with young Johnny growing up as a shy and lonely kid. His inability to make friends forces him to wish for a best friend. The narrator (Patrick Stewart) reminds us that nothing is more powerful than a boy's wish so Ted comes to life, scaring the shit out of John's parents.

Much like Macaulay Culkin the bear enjoys a brief but intense period of fame. But when the years finally catch up with him he's a drunk, drug-addicted, swearing teddy bear with an unhealthy adoration for the movie 'Flash Gordon'. Johnny and Ted waste their lives watching television and cracking rude jokes. Lori, the only grown-up in the entire movie, feels John is wasting his potential. In true Hollywood fashion she makes him decide; live a forfilling life with her or an unfilling one with Ted.

This is a well-explored story in many romantic comedies over the last few years. Logically, it's not the most interesting part of this film. The character Ted is the main attraction and he doesn't dissapoint. McFarlane makes him crude but equally endearing. His relationship with John feels genuine, quite an accomplishment for a CGI teddy bear.

The humor is truly that of McFarlane. If you like 'Family Guy', warts and all, chances are you like 'Ted'. It does suffer from the fact that it's a live-action feature. Some jokes would work a lot better in an animated medium like 'Family Guy' but don't really hit the right tone for live-action. There's only a few of these misses  and the amount of succesful gags almost make you forget about them. 

There's also an entertaining sub-plot about an obsessive fan (Giovanni Ribisi) and his overweight son. Both of them are screwed up in a fun way and try to kidnap their biggest idol. This part of the movie doesn't get as much attention as the troubled relationship between Lori, Johnny and Ted making it feel like padding. It might have worked better if it had been integrated more organically into the story. 

What makes 'Ted' memorable is its good natured tone. There's lots of cracks at ethnicities, sex, diseases, the mentally handicapped, 9/11, the physically handicapped, prostitution and religion but at its heart the film is quite sweet. With its music (obviously inspired by John Williams) and its romantic/bromantic sensibilities the film is not only funny but also heartfelt. 

ParaNorman Review

Stop-motion has always been the go-to form of animation for off-beat stories. Tim Burton famously employed it to bring stories like 'Vincent', 'The Nightmare Before Christmas' and 'Corpse Bride' to life. With its charming jerkiness stop-motion tends to feel more real than many computer-generated films.

Chris Butler's 'ParaNorman' is probably the best looking film of its kind. But no movie can get by on looks alone. The story and the characters should be good as well. That's where 'ParaNorman' excells. The story revolves around a kid named Norman who's ostracized by his peers because he claims to have a sixth sense.

He's allowed to speak to the dead, making him the town's Haley Joel Osment. Being a nerdy kid we first meet Norman when he's watching zombie flicks with his deceased grandmother. His entire life he's around the living dead, making him more than a little awkward. But when his strange uncle Penderghast warns him about a witch's curse he's suddenly the town's only hope for redemption.

'ParaNorman' owes a lot to the horror films from the late seventies and early eighties. It's colourful, yet dark and the zombies are moaning lumps of rotten green flesh. Every time these creatures show up they're accompanied by a John Carpenter-esque synth beat. There are some moments that are meant to make you jump but they're mostly good-natured. This is probably why the film works as well as it does. The material lends itself perfectly for a mean-spirited little tale but instead it's very friendly and touching.

The design of Norman himself and the world he inhabits is wonderful. It's style is very far away from Tim Burton's curly gothic look. Instead 'ParaNorman' is a little less clean. This world seems less like a fairy tale and more like an eighties Amblin film. All the characters, especially the zombies, are characteristic and soulful. The voice cast that gives them life is equally exceptional with Kodie Smit-McPhee as Norman, Tucker Albrizzi as a fat kid with a heart of gold, Christopher Mint-Plasse as Norman's dimwitted bully, Bernard Hill as the lead zombie and John Goodman as Penderghast.

The film's theme is a familiar one. It's about accepting those who are different. Coupling this theme with the subject of witch trials fits perfectly. Like the famous Monster of Frankenstein the witch and the zombies want nothing more than to be taken for who they are. It might not be the most original message out there but it's still very relevant. And the way this film weaves this message into its story is nothing short of perfect. That's why 'ParaNorman' is my film of the summer. It should be yours as well.

The Expendables 2 Review

It's safe to say that 'The Expendables 2' is the film 'The Expendables' should have been. The original film, directed by none other than Sylvester Stallone, teased us by featuring Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bruce Willis. However we never really got what we wanted. We wanted to see these badasses go to battle, shoulder to shoulder. Now with the sequel we get that, and more.

'The Expendables 2' is a bad movie, however it's my favourite kind of bad movie. The one that knows exactly how bad it is and doesn't give a rat's ass. Instead, it just goes all out on violence and stupidity. Unlike the first film the humor in this one works. Sure, most of it's funny moments consist of movie references that are as subtle as an armour piercing bullet to the head. But it's all in good fun and I, for one, can't get enough of Schwarzenegger's hilarious delivery of the line ''I'll be back!''.

Taking over directing duties is Simon West, an experienced director whose 'Con Air' still ranks as one of the most enjoyable action flicks of the '90s. The film feels a lot less tired than its predecessor and gives us a good blend of over the top violence and comedy. Of course, it's the talent in front of the camera that people are interested in. And as if the first film wasn't star-studded enough Stallone found some other well-known faces.

Aside from Stallone, Schwarzenegger, Willis, Jet Li, Jason Statham and Dolph Lundgren the sequel adds Jean-Claude van Damme and Chuck Norris to the mix. Norris, whose image has been inflated by a dated internet hype, feels shoe-horned in and his introduction marks yet another cinematic insult to Ennio Morricone's iconic theme for 'The Good, The Bad and The Ugly'.

No, of all the stars in this movie there are two who really steal the show. First is Jean-Claude van Damme, whose aptly-named character Vilain is wonderful. His playful but violent behaviour makes him a great adversary for the rather bland Stallone character. The other actor is Dolph Lundgren who, with his Lurch-like appearance, manages to pull off some of the film's best gags.

Basically, 'The Expendables 2' has everything you might want in an action movie. There's carnage, explosions, lame oneliners, a good villain and a familiar cast. Some of the CGI might not be up to snuff but aside from that you get a ludicrous amount of loud noises and fancy fistfights. It's definitely good enough to warrant another sequel. Rumour has it that Wesley Snipes, Harrison Ford and Clint Eastwood are being considered to join the cast. If any of those fellows end up in part three my butt is in the seat for sure!

Total Recall Review

One can't help but imagine what Paul Verhoeven would think if he saw today's remake of 'Total Recall'. His 1990 science-fiction movie starring Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sharon Stone is a minor genre classic. Only twenty-two years later Len Wiseman comes up with a new take on Philip K. Dick's story 'We Can Remember It for You Wholesale'.

Colin Farrell stars as Douglas Quaid, an ordinary guy in the midst of an identity crisis. He's married to the beautiful Melina (Jessica Biel), has a boring job as a factory worker and has a drinking buddy called Harry (Bokeem Woodbine). Quaid's world is ruled by Chancellor Cohaagen (Bryan Cranston) who's having a hard time defending his state against a group of rebels led by Matthias (Bill Nighy). 

To get rid of his depression Quaid visits a company called Rekall which specializes in manufacturing and implanting memories. The lowly factory worker dreams of being a double agent and before he knows it he's suddenly wanted by both Cohaagen and Matthias. Unlike the original the film never explores the question if everything's real or not. Instead simplifies the story by assuming it’s the real thing. Quaid turns out to be a double agent called Hauser and that's the end of that.    

Wiseman honours his name by not trying to go for a shot-for-shot remake of the original movie. Instead he takes out some key story elements and replaces them with less inspired ones. While Verhoeven's film took place on both Mars and Earth, this adventure is set in a post-apocalyptic Great-Britain and Australia. Connecting the two islands is a tube, named The Fall, that goes straight through the Earth's core. Ridiculous, I know, but just the right kind. 

The Fall is probably the most interesting concept this film comes up with. The rest of the world created for this movie feels bland and fake, it’s like a watered down take on material from better movies. It's fine to take inspiration from other films but this is just lazy. There's even a three-breasted prostitute in a cynical attempt to appease fans of the original 'Total Recall'. Trust me, that film had a lot more things going for it than a lady with three dinglebobbers. 

Anyway, for a movie with a lot of chase sequences it's not that exciting. In fact, there's only one major set piece that grabbed my attention. It featured a group of fast elevators that moved around like a game of Tetris. The trick for Quaid was not to get squashed or shot by Cohaagen's henchmen. The villain himself, played by the always formidable Bryan Cranston, is somewhat of a moron. I mean, if you're only hours away of becoming the ruler of the world it's only wise to stay away from your enemies. This guy, he's wondering through as many violent scenes as he can with little protection. 

In conclusion it's hard to believe this movie could have been any less effective. It's taken a solid science-fiction film based upon some fertile material and instead of doing something new or interesting they watered it down to a forgettable chase movie. It's a shame because it's the first of Paul Verhoeven's wonderfully subversive science-fiction films to be remade. 'RoboCop' and 'Starship Troopers' are already underway. Let's hope they turn out better than 'Total Remake'. Until then, you're better off giving the original film a spin. 

The Dark Knight Rises Review

Batman's done. After three films, Christopher Nolan brings an end to the story of the caped crusader. And despite it's rather uninspired title 'The Dark Knight Rises' is a worthy send-off for one of cinema's most enduring and recognizable heroes. My hopes for this movie were high, especially when considering its predecessor which is probably the best superhero movie in recent memory.

That's probably why, at the end of this movie, I felt a little down. This is it, the ending to Nolan's series and I was not sure what to feel. Everything's there, every character reaches a fitting conclusion, so what the hell am I missing? Maybe a second viewing, one not hampered by unrealistic expectations, will diminish these feelings and make the movie stand out more clearly. 

It is, certainly, a very enjoyable film, worthy of the names of everyone involved. But a lack of focus seems to pervade the story. Parts of 'The Dark Knight Rises' are a mess, the middle suffers from its convoluted storytelling. An element which was already present, but a lot less distracting, in 'The Dark Knight'. This film's story could have been told much more effectively, which would've helped the impact of its conclusion.

As it stands the film is still very good. Nolan finds the perfect point of entry with Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) still dealing with the death of his true love at the hands of the Joker. Batman has dissappeared and is still held responsible for the death of Gotham's white knight Harvey Dent. Meanwhile on the other side of the world a terrorist named Bane is plotting his attack on the fair city.

Bane is an interesting character. He had to be, considering the villain that came before him. Heath Ledger's brilliant turn as the Joker is still fresh in our minds but Tom Hardy's Bane is something else. Here's a man the size of a gorilla, donning what appears to be a gas mask and he speaks with an unnervingly uncharacteristic voice. He's brutal but cunning, and for the first time ever we fear for Batman's life as an unrelenting Bane pummels him. In short, he's the Anti-Batman.

Joining him is another well-known character. Anne Hathaway offers us a delightfully sinister version of Catwoman. Considering the ending it is unfortunate that we don't get to spend more time with her character. Another new addition is Tom Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), a young cop who might be more deserving of the batsuit than the grief-ridden Bruce Wayne.

Batman's three allies also return. Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman), Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) and Alfred (Michael Caine). All portrayed by veteran actors, these characters, with Alfred in particular, serve as the emotional core of the film. These are the men who have stood by Bruce Wayne and Batman and are about to be tested as well.

When the storm comes this film reveals itself to be a lot more loyal to its comic book origins than 'Batman Begins' and 'The Dark Knight'. The evil plot involves a nuclear bomb meant to level the city of Gotham. It might sound a little familiar but it works fine. Nolan knows how to dial up the tension and the film's climax is hugely entertaining because of it.

In conclusion, we leave Christopher Nolan's Batman on a hopeful note. The ending manages to tie everything up in a satisfying way. And, however unlikely, the prospect of sequel isn't out of the question. Seeing how things are at the end of 'The Dark Knight Rises' I'm not against the continuation of this story. This final film is an overly elaborate but very effective way of bringing this solid trilogy to a close.

The Amazing Spider-Man Review

'The Amazing Spider-Man' is a peculiar project, so before I begin my review I'd like to take a gander at its troubled history. A few years ago director Sam Raimi was gearing up for a fourth ‘Spider-Man’ film. Tobey Maguire was returning as the titular hero and the movie was already well into pre-production. However because of issues between Sony and the director the studio opted for a reboot instead. Subsequently Raimi and Maguire left the franchise to Sony’s mercy.

Meanwhile the appropriately named director Marc Webb came off his directorial-debut '(500) Days of Summer'. Sony saw something in this newcomer and handed the reigns of the would-be blockbuster to Webb. Filling the way too tight spandex suit this time is Andrew Garfield from 'The Social Network', also an up-and-comer.

I'm not a superhero kind a guy, really. My interests don't reach much further than the Batman movies so I wasn't bugged by the liberties this film takes with the original story. From the start I genuinely liked what I was seeing in the trailers for 'The Amazing Spider-Man'. Garfield seemed way more likeable than goody two-shoes Maguire and the tone of the film appeared to be slightly less goofy than Raimi's films. But still I was curious if audiences would take to a different version of the same story.

Now that I've seen it can I say that I liked this version a lot more. Sam Raimi's films, especially 'Spider-Man 2', are good but this is better. Supported  by a sympathetic cast, Marc Webb succeeds in bringing us one of the most entertaining summer blockbusters yet. Even though Spider-Man's origins have already been well-explored this latest incarnation manages to make it feel fresh and involving. It also scores points by aiming at the emotional core of the characters.

I was especially surprised by the touching scenes involving Garfield's Peter Parker and his aunt and uncle, played by Sally Field and Martin Sheen. It's been a while since we've seen such heartfelt moments in an action flick like this. It's apparent that Webb's focus lay on this element of the film and the action scenes suffer visibly. The editing in these adrenaline-fueled sequences is often too quick making it hard to follow exactly what's going on.

Of course, every superhero needs a baddie. In 'The Amazing Spider-Man' we get the one-armed scientist Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans), a former collegue of Peter's lost father. When an experiment to regenerate his arm goes awry Connors turns into a huge humanoid lizard. This rather fantastic element clashes with the quite down-to-earth tone of the movie's first half. Luckily, it never seriously derails the movie and the confrontations between Spidey and the Lizard, especially the one taking place in Peter's high school, are very entertaining.

'The Amazing Spider-Man' also benefits from its score. Veteran film composer James Horner creates a memorable musical identity for our hero. It's great to hear some good thematic music in a major blockbuster instead of the bland industrial works of Hans Zimmer and his cronies. 

So did Marc Webb succesfully reboot a series which didn't really need to be rebooted? Yes, he did. Here's to hoping Webb's new series won't be cut short like Sam Raimi's.

Snow White and the Huntsman Review

Much like the poisoned apple from its story 'Snow White and the Huntsman' looks great. It's colour and feel will make your mouth water but after one bite you're sure to stagger around for a dramatic moment and die. Director Rupert Sanders has given us a visually appealing film but sadly the special-effects are not enough to save this frustrating drivel.

Marred by lazy writing, off-putting performances, chaotic camera work and choppy editing the film attempts to retell the classic story of Snow White. In keeping with the audience's presumed thirst for darker and edgier stories the familiar elements are all corrupted. This actually works quite well and had the filmmakers been less lazy in the telling of their story we might have had a worthy addition to the fantasy genre. As it stands 'Snow White and the Huntsman' is a huge bore.  

The casting, however, is inspired. Charlize Theron steals the show as the evil queen, looking for eternal youth. Kirsten Stewart pales (they didn't call her Snow White for nothing) in comparison. The young actress has little to no charm, making her a very boring protagonist. 

The casting of Stewart seems to betray a level of cynicism on the part of the filmmakers. Especially, because underneath all the fairy tale stylings the film feels like a new version of 'Twilight'. For instance, the film feels the need to add a romantic subplot in which Snow White is torn between the hardened Huntsman (Chris Hemsworth) and her childhood love William (Sam Claflin). Which side are you on? Team Huntsman or Team Will? Whichever way, we all lose. 

The eight dwarfs (Yes, apparently you need seven of them to get people to see your movie these days.) consist of a company of well-known Britisch actors. And even though it was fun to see them together like this, the film does not give them anything interesting to do. In fact, they act rather peculiar. It's as if the actors themselves are not quite sure about what's expected from them.  

In between the film manages to steal shamelessly from other fantasy films, such as 'The Neverending Story', 'The Chronicles of Narnia' and of course 'The Lord of the Rings'. It's sad, because Sanders certainly gets the look right. But never is there a moment of genuine wonder or excitement. The characters, except for the dwarves and Theron's queen, seem to be made from carboard, pretty cardboard, but that ain't saying much. 

Iron Sky Review

No, this isn't some weird conspiracy theory, rather it's the premise of the movie 'Iron Sky'. The project originated from Finland where a group of amateur filmmakers set out to use the internet to get their movie financed. On their website Wreck a Movie the producers established an online community of film fans. People connected to this community could donate money or otherwise aid the filmmakers.

The film's concept is ludicrous. In the last days of the Second World War the Germans execute a secret mission. Their plan is to use their anti-gravity technology to colonize the moon. Amazingly, they succeed and while old Adolf is blowing his brains out in Berlin, his sympathizers are bouncing around the moon. In 'Iron Sky' we see what happens when the vengeful Space Nazis return.

I've been following this production ever since I saw this enticing teaser back in 2008. Due to the nature of the project it took a long time to get started. But judging from the film this way of filmmaking works quite well for director Timo Vuorensola. Fortunately, the film doesn't take itself too seriously. After all, 'Iron Sky' is about goddamn Space Nazis!

The film opens in 2018 with a moon landing, executed primarily to boost the current US president's approval ratings. Quickly, the two astronauts encounter a group of Nazi... Nazmonauts? Anyway, after dispatching one of the newcomers the Nazis arrest the survivor. They are surprised, and more than a little offended, to find a black man inside the suit with a computer the size of a moon rock.

The phone holds enough computing power to activate the Space Nazi's ultimate wunderwaffe. However, when the phone's battery goes dead so do their plans of invading Earth. Now the search is on for more cell phones.

In tone 'Iron Sky' seems like a cross between 'Mars Attacks!' and 'Starship Troopers'. Much like those two films the satire feels forced, but there a few moments of genuine comedy. In one scene there's a wink to 'Dr. Strangelove', which undoubtedly served as a major inspiration for Vuorensola. Unfortunately, the movie suffers from its amateur origins.

First off, the pacing is all over the place. More than once the film grinds to halt in order to deliver an elaborate and goofy gag. One of the them is a parody to 'Der Untergang'. This scene in particular is characteristic for 'Iron Sky'; it is a film which wears its nerdy fetishes on its sleeve.

Vuorensola's attempts at satire feel strangely dated, quite possibly due to the long time it took the produce the film. For instance, The US president and her slogan ''Yes she can!'' riff off of Sarah Palin and the 2008 election. With the next elections coming up in less than a year these references lose much of their power.

After four years of waiting you can't help but feel a bit disapointed. 'Iron Sky' has become nothing more than a curiosity. A film which you might watch once or twice just for the silly concept. However, as a piece of independent satire it falls flat.

There's no trace of the strange melancholy from the original teaser. The whole film is a just too goofy. One of the primary reasons why good satire works is because the people inside the movie don't know they're being satirized. 

Prometheus Review

Back in 1979 a film hit the screens which would change the way people thought about science-fiction and horror. Ridley Scott's 'Alien' became a hit and screenings were characterized by screams and puke. The combination of horrific, often subliminally sexual, imagery and the gritty portrayal of interstellar travel struck a nerve with audiences worldwide. People had been exposed to the optimistic view of space through 'Star Wars' and 'Star Trek', now they came to know it as a dark and unforgiving terrain filled with danger.

It is only natural that Scott's announcement to return to the 'Alien' series was greeted with some apprehension. Could the aging director reclaim his brand of existential horror? Would a prequel spoil the mysteries of the original movie? But perhaps most importantly, could Ridley Scott make us puke again?

Well, when I walked out of the cinema after having seen 'Prometheus' I came across a fresh splash of stinking barf. To any horror fan this speaks for, not against, the film. It's a quiet testimony to the unsettling nature of at least one scene in 'Prometheus'. Scott has done what he promised to do. He has delivered a beatiful looking film which is at the same time 'Alien' and not 'Alien'. The DNA's definitely there but this story in particular has bigger things on its mind. 

'Prometheus' sticks to the concepts established in every other 'Alien' film. The universe is a cold, dark place without any regard for human existence. This Lovecraftian vision is even more pronounced in this story. Often I was reminded of the classic short novel 'At the Mountains of Madness', which also features an ''aliens are our Gods'' scenario.

As a prequel 'Prometheus' works quite well. The story did evolve from Ridley Scott's attempt at revealing the origin of the iconic alien creatures. However during development Scott and writer Damon Lindelof uncoverd a story of grander scale. What if our origins are linked with that of the aliens?

However, to me the film works better as a seperate entity. The quest for our creator is a staple in literary science-fiction but we rarely come across it in the cinema. The best example is Stanley Kubrick's '2001: A Space Odyssey'. 'Prometheus' isn't able to reach that level of profundity but it would be an unrealistic expectation anyway. In actuality, it is an admirably well-executed entry in the exceedingly rare genre of intelligent sci-fi.

You need a solid cast to make an outlandish story like this believable. As always Scott does a great job at choosing the best actors for any given role. He also has a flair for creating strong female protaganists, in this case he even finds room for a female antagonist played by Charlize Theron. In the lead is Noomi Rapace, who has to deal with abuse the likes of which would make any grown man cry like a baby. The portrayal of all the supporting characters isn't as clear-cut as I would've liked but it is serviceable.

The best performance belongs to Michael Fassbender. His character is the robot David, who seems to be the only one capable of understanding that the power of creation isn't all that special. When he asks a human why they created him he receives a brutal answer: ''Because we could.'' What makes man think his creator would have any other motivation?

These are the kind of questions 'Prometheus' asks. It is unfortunate that the film isn't able to handle all of these questions in a satisfying way. It seems too caught up in scaring us with gore to mind the bigger existential horror which lies at the heart of the story. 'Prometheus' flirts with these concepts on more than one occasion, but shies away from completely exploring them. However, the 'Wizard of Oz'-like reveal of the creators is surprisingly effective. Behind all the smoke and mirrors there is just another imperfect 'human'.

That said, I expected the film to end up connecting all the dots to the original 'Alien'. It didn't, there are a few loose threads left. It felt like Scott wasn't ready to give this story up yet and therefore created an opening for future movies in this universe. You won't hear any complaints from me. When this director is fully immersed in the stories he's telling he can do great things. And I'll asure you, 'Prometheus' is a great flick. Don't take my word for it, trust the puke.

Dark Shadows Review

Tim Burton and Johnny Depp have a long history together. They struck gold over twenty years ago with 'Edward Scissorhands' and never really left each other's side from then on. The collaboration has given us some neat little films. Burton's weird sensibilities seem to be a perfect inspiration for Depp's unique persona. However, in the last few years they seem to have lost their edge, with 'Alice in Wonderland' marking a definite low.

'Dark Shadows' fares a little better. It's a far cry from their best works: 'Edward Scissorhands', 'Ed Wood' and 'Sleepy Hollow', but it is a very enjoyable film aside from some storytelling problems. Based upon a soap opera from the late sixties, 'Dark Shadows' revolves around a Nosferatu-like vampire named Barnabas Collins. After being locked up in a coffin for 200 years by a vengeful witch he seeks to reclaim his family's former fortune and respect. 

By the time he returns it is 1972, and the Collins family, along with their gloomy-looking castle, has fallen into disrepair. When he arrives he is greeted by a bunch of eccentrics, a collection of troubled indivuals who are remarkably at home in a Tim Burton film. The cast is pitch-perfect, with Michelle Pfeiffer delivering a sympathetic and eye-catching performance as the family's matriarch Elizabeth. 

Despite struggling to fit in with the times and killing a few people to satiate his lust for blood, Barnabas succeeds in revamping the family's fishing business. All is well, until he discovers that the rival company is led by Angelique; the immortal witch who turned him into a vampire because he turned her down. The interaction between Eva Green's witch and Depp's Barnabas are some of the most ejoyable bits from the film.

Unfortunately, 'Dark Shadows' is a bit too heavy on Depp. The film would've profited from a fairer balance between him and the other family members. Barnabas is an interesting character, but not interesting enough to be the focus of the entire film. It got so bad that in some of his scenes I was wondering what the other characters were doing.

The irksome lack of information on any of the other Collinses comes back to bite the movie in its ass during the third act. Here, elements are introduced which feel like they've been added at the last possible second. The children, played by Chloë Moretz and Gulliver McGrath, have powers which, if revealed earlier, would've made for a far more interesting story. Now, this leads to a deus ex machina if there ever was one. 

What is fun about this movie is it's depiction of 1972. It's not a realistic depiction by any degree but rather a tonic of all popular culture from the early seventies. The film is soaked in images and sounds which we inherently connect with this time period. And, typically for Burton, the retro-style clashes quite bizarrely, and often comically, with the gothic nature of Barnabas. It's a nice trick and it works well. 

Unfortunately, 'Dark Shadows' is not a return to form for Depp or Burton. The two seem more in love with each other than with the story they're trying to tell. The originality of Depp's weird characters is wearing thin but Burton regains some of his former flair by setting this film in the 'real' world. The only collaborator who excels is Danny Elfman, who creates a driving and memorable musical score which manages not be drowned out by the songs of the period. 

So if you're in for some typical Tim Burton weirdness, I can recommend this movie. However if you're allergic for the inherent quirkiness of his work you should pass on this one. For me the bizarre comedy sprinkled with some light horror worked quite well. Though, it's a shame Burton didn't dare to let the film breathe.  

The Avengers Review

With 'The Avengers' Marvel Studios has completed one of the most admirable attempts at universe building in modern film. We've been introduced to most of this film's heroes over the last few years. I wasn't too fond of most of them but Marvel should be commended for taking on such a daunting project. Before I start my review I'd like give you a rundown of the all of this film's heroes.

First off there's Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man, who got not one but two fairly dull films. Chris Hemsworth is a demigod with a ridiculous accent from 'Thor'. Mark Ruffalo replaces Edward Norton as The Hulk. And Chris Evans' character originates from the best film of the bunch 'Captain America: The First Avenger'. A selection of those film's supporting actors return for 'The Avengers'. The most prominent of them being Samuel L. Jackon. I never really got Jackon's badass image, which by now feels forced to the point of being hilarious. 

The story seems like something a ten-year-old would concoct while playing with his collection of Avengers action figures. The basic ingredients and plot devices have been spoon-fed to us in the previous films. There are, for instance, other worlds that exist beside our own but can be reached by portals. Tom Hiddleston's Loki, the villain of the piece who previously appeared in 'Thor', emerges from one of these portals with the goal of subjugating earth. To do so he has allied himself with an alien force and before long an army of these nasty creatures spills forth from a massive interdimensional portal. The only thing standing between the people of earth and Loki's horde is a collection of superheroes called The Avengers. 

In short, it's a load of nonsense on top of another load of nonsense. But somehow it works. Besides, this movie isn't really about anything but watching these superheroes fight among themselves and finally side by side. Director Joss Whedon, the creative force behind TV shows like 'Buffy The Vampire Slayer', 'Angel' and 'Firefly', manages to make the film an enjoyable, if somewhat silly, action-adventure romp. He knows the characters and offers them some depth. Giving them moments that outshine the ones seen in their own seperate movies. 

In itself the film is okay. There's some nice action scenes here and there, and some fun bits of comedy. Luckily, 'The Avengers' doesn't feature the kind of offensively immature humor that plagued the 'Transformers' movies. More dissapointing is the fact the movie plays it safe on pretty much all fronts. 

There's a lack of urgency and danger; a weakness of many films these days. A good example is a moment in which one of the major characters decides to sacrifice his life. What should have been a poignant scene is robbed of any drama because of the nature of these characters.   

These are supermen, they can not die, at least we're never given any hint of their mortality. They're all pretty much indestructable, which makes it hard for us to care for them. We know they're going to be alright in the end because we see them take so many beatings without sustaining any injury at all. Any sense of danger is effectively nipped in the bud. 

Aside from that major downside the film is fun, and if you like big spectacular movies you'll enjoy 'The Avengers'. Whedon makes good use of his sympathetic cast, which is this film's major attraction. Still, I'm quite sure this year's ultimate superhero movie is still waiting in the wings.  

The Woman in Black Review

Hammer Horror has risen from the grave, let's just hope it's here to stay. 'The Woman in Black' is an entertaining gothic ghost story, the likes of which we haven't seen in a long time. The film contains enough of that spooky atmosphere that made the old school British horrors so much fun. 

The film stars 'Harry Potter' survivor Daniel Radcliffe, he plays a young solicitor assigned to handle the estate of a mysterious family. Word in town is that the family's property is haunted. As is tradition in these films, the townspeople are wary of visitors and look upon the new arrival with blatant distrust.

''Amazingly'', the Eel Marsh House actually turns out to be inhabited by a ghostly presence. Of course, there's a creepy back-story involved, which I won't spoil. What I can say is that this so-called Woman in Black can be quite persuasive, driving the local children to violently kill themselves.

The primary reason why I took interest in this film was my fondness for Hammer Horror. I'm going to delve into some film history here, so bear with me. Hammer Films is a British company founded in 1934; it specialized in producing quick and cheap pictures without any particular appeal. This changed when the company acquired the rights to film a new version of 'Frankenstein'. It ended up as the horror classic 'The Curse of Frankenstein', which was quickly followed by 'The Horror of Dracula' and 'The Mummy'. 

Those three movies paved the way for a slew of horror pictures. With these Hammer redefined the genre by adding colour, blood, violence and lots and lots of cleavage. By today's standards the films could be regarded as quaint, but back in the day Hammer's brand of horror was found to be quite disturbing. The company made stars out of Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee. It was also home to the often overlooked director Terence Fisher. 

There isn't as much cleavage in 'The Woman in Black', but there's enough of the classic ingredients to make the film feel instantly familiar. I’d love for Hammer to return to its roots and deliver more of these small-scale genre films. With Daniel Radcliffe they might even have found their new Peter Cushing. The supporting cast is also very strong. Especially Ciarán Hinds who, until recently, was a severely underused actor.

That’s not to say ‘The Woman in Black’ is without flaw. In fact, the film doesn’t really pack a punch. The mood is suitably creepy and the whole affair is enlivened by some well-executed jump scares but the film fails to become truly frightening. It’s more of an atmospheric piece with a rather dull story. It’s unfortunate, had the film been more intriguing and disturbing we would’ve had a superb haunted house movie on our hands.

In conclusion this film makes for a fine viewing. If you’re sick and tired of ‘modern’ ghost movies like ‘Paranormal Activity’, ‘The Woman In Black’ might be exactly what you’re looking for. It’s rather mild and could have done with some more excitement. But all in all, it is a fun but flawed haunted house flick.

P.S. From what I understand they are already hard at work on a sequel called ‘The Woman in Black: Angels of Death’. It won’t feature Radcliffe and will take place a few decennia after the original. I’m curious as to what the filmmakers wish to add, the ending to this film appeared to be quite conclusive.

'Hugo' Review

Compared to his contemporaries Martin Scorsese's output has been one of consistent quality. Where his fellow movie brats wavered in their ability to bring true magic to the screen, Scorsese managed to stay fit. It's hard to tell where his inspiration lies.

Through the years he has shown to have a fascination for morally ambiguous characters often dumped in a gritty and violent milieu. This makes his latest film, 'Hugo', all the more peculiar. It might be the most atypical film Scorsese has ever directed.

Hugo Cabret is a twelve-year-old forced to maintain the clocks of the Parisian railway station Gare Montparnasse. Before being stuck at the station he lived with his widowed father, a master clockmaker and loving parent. Tragically, he dies in a fire leaving Hugo with nothing but a broken automaton; a mechanical man with the ability to write.

Fixing the contraption means everything to the poor orphan for he believes it contains a secret message from his late father. Getting the necessary parts and tools, however, proofs dangerous. He continuously steals from an old man's toy store. His name is Georges Méliès; a name which should (but probably doesn't) ring a bell with film fans everywhere. With help from Méliès' goddaughter Isabelle, Hugo discovers the connection between the bitter old man and the mysterious automaton. 

As some may know Georges Méliès was one of the pioneers of early cinema. The greatest joy of 'Hugo' is the way it mixes fiction and reality to create a dream of a story. In the end, we kind of wish was all true, even though we are perfectly aware that there never was a boy called Hugo Cabret. Scorsese takes on the role of your favourite history teacher. The one that didn't just dryly conjure up historical facts but who took the effort to draw you into his story. 

In the latter half 'Hugo' reveals itself to be a love letter to cinema; featuring a romanticized retelling of Méliès' return to his cinematic past. Sprinkled throughout are tiny surprises like a wind-up mouse brought to life with stop-motion. There's much more fun to be had as Scorsese beautifully shows us how Georges Méliès brought his dreamlike visions to life. It's the perfect illustration of how filmmakers are the natural descendants of the illusionists and magicians.

Then there's the incredible cast. Asa Butterfield does a remarkable job as the titular hero; he possesses a natural charm which makes Hugo a character worth watching. Chloë Grace Moretz provides an appropriate amount of innocence and wonder in contrast to Hugo's grim look on life. 

The main attraction, however, is Ben Kingsley who portrays Méliès with grace and a bitter yearning for the past. Filling out the cast are some familiar faces. Sacha Baron Cohen, for instance, as the funny but vulnerable station inspector. Another welcome surprise was the presence of Sir Christopher Lee; who, at 89, has become a living part of film history.

With 'Hugo' Martin Scorsese has shown a side of him which seems deeply personal. So, if you have any love for the medium of film, please, go see this movie. It might run a little long and could do without some of the padding but it's a charming piece of cinema. And if you do take my advice, do mind to see it in merciful 2D. It looks a lot better that way. 

Chronicle Review

When I saw the first trailer for 'Chronicle' I wasn't impressed. To me it looked like just another attempt to exploit the found-footage genre. Mixing it up with superheroes seemed like a pitiful combination of two tired genres. I mean, what's next? We've already got witches, ghosts, aliens, giant monsters, zombies and rave parties. It's getting old.

Fortunately 'Chronicle' delivers. It makes wise use of the nature of found-footage films. For instance, instead of sticking to one camera the filmmakers dare to cut to different viewpoints originating from many different devices. This way we get a good look at what's going on. Also, the logical problem of that one guy who keeps recording even though the world crumbles around him is avoided. We can thank writer Max Landis (son of the well-known filmmaker John Landis) and director Josh Trank for creating a smart and engaging supernatural thriller. 

As with many films about otherworldy happenings we need good characters to connect with. These come in the forms of Matt, Steve and Andrew; three high-schoolers in their senior year. All three of them fit within the familiar stereotypes so often found in flicks about the teenage years. Steve's the popular jock character, Andrew's the socially awkward nerd and Matt's the Regular Joe everyone can identify with. Don't let this put you off, though. The three leads are sufficiently fleshed-out to make you care. 

'Chronicle' starts out feeling like a docudrama about Andrew's troubled life. Through his old camera we meet his father, an abusive drunk, his deathly ill mother, his nephew Matt and the people who bully him at school. Later on he's asked by Steve to take his camera to record 'a strange thing in the woods'. They find a glowing orb which has burrowed it's way deep into the ground. After touching the thing they possess telekinetic powers; meaning they can move stuff around without using physical contact. 

From here on out the film provides a plausible account of how a couple of teenagers would use these powers. At first they screw around, playing pranks on people. But as their powers grow so do their exploits. Predictably, someone ends up getting hurt. Andrew, the tortured youngster, grabs the opportunity to change his life for the better. But when life throws him yet another curveball by revealing the fleeting nature of  social acceptance he's driven over the edge. 

What follows is a brilliantly executed tragedy. Trank and Landis suck us in with a well-told story about human nature. One that we've seen countless times before but when well done can still be powerful. Much of its succes is rooted in the chemistry between the three young actors. Michael B. Jordan and Alex Russell give sympathetic performances as Steve and Matt. But Dane DeHaan, in particular, shines as the disturbed Andrew. In some scenes he reminded me of a young Leonardo DiCaprio. All in all, 'Chronicle' is a succes that should resonate with today's young audiences.