Review: Tyrannosaur

This isn't a film you can "like" or "love", but it is a film you can respect and be compelled to watch.


Boy is this a tough one; it is one of those films that floors you after watching it.
The film follows Joseph, a grizzled man who is tormented by overwhelming rage that has destroyed his past and threatens to consume him completely. His brooding, bleak existence is altered when he meets Hannah, a shop owner who's strong faith and utter selflessness could be his redemption. What we find however, is that in this self-destructive world, both are sides of the same coin.
Tyrannosaur is like watching a car crash at times. It is mesmerising in its crushingly bleak storyline, but also with its actor's performances. Peter Mullan and Olivia Colman give their startlingly strong yet perilously unhinged characters realism that you cannot help but relate to in some way.
Joseph's anger and rage is uncontrolled, random and often completely unjustified, yet at times (especially beside Hannah's unwavering forgiveness) it is necessary. Hannah's own story plays out even more, showing how a dangerous world can prey on those who can only care and tolerate the wickedness of others.

It is a tough film to watch and I recommend some preparation before watching it. I knew a little before going into it and I still wasn't fully prepared - this is a film where the happiest we see our characters is at a party after a funeral! Some may say that the characters are overly forced in their emotions, that it is played up for dramatic effect. Maybe it is, but compared to the 2004 film Crash, I actually found these performances morbidly realistic.

It isn't a film I enjoyed, but it is a fascinating look at the darkest of humanity and the radically different ways individuals attempt to deal with injustices in a world they cannot control, and even as they do, no solution is necessarily the right one.
I don't imagine I will be buying it any time soon... but I am glad I watched it!

Additional Marshmallows: As a début feature film for director Paddy Considine, he couldn't do much better than this!

Banter: My main complaint with The Dark Knight Rises

Okay, so this post is designed purely for those who have seen The Dark Knight Rises, and it will contain heavy spoilers involving the plot, character developments and overall narrative structure. So much so that I will blank out the majority of it to prevent people from accidentally reading it.

Why? Because from all the reviews I have read, watched and heard, I have yet to hear this as an issue, and to me it is a huge mistake with big bells hanging off it.


So, for those of you who have watched the film, highlight the text below to read on, but for everyone else, this post does not exist!


----------
So, the villains of The Dark Knight Rises are specifically Bane and Miranda, Miranda is revealed at the end as Ra's Al Ghul's daughter and ultimately the one in charge. Bane is only the muscle leading the attack on Gotham, destroying Batman, disabling the Police force and stealing the Fusion Core from Wayne Enterprises and holding the city hostage... Miranda does next to nothing.


Oh, except taking full control of Wayne Enterprises from Bruce...


Hang on...


The Fusion Core is the endgame for their plan to destroy Gotham; get the Core and they can hold Gotham hostage, and the Core is owned by Wayne Enterprises...


So, why didn't Miranda seduce Bruce Wayne and take the company (as she did) and just... take the Core? Easy. She could do anything as the head of WE, bring in some new "security staff", totally override the company's infrastructure and while Bane was out terrorising the people, she could say, for example:
"Hey Bruce, they might be after the Fusion Core, we should defend and/or move it."
Only to take control of it there and then. Or even more insidious, just not have the Occupy-Gotham plan, just infest WE with League of Shadows operatives over several years, set off the Fusion Core, kill Lucious Fox (that would be heart breaking...) and sit back and relax.
(and they obviously knew everything about Wayne Enterprises, they knew about the hidden "Advanced Sciences" wing and built Bane's "home" underneath it!)


I do not understand why she waited so long before revealing herself, or have such an elaborate brute-force attack to get the Core when she was already in control of Wayne Enterprises. One of the - if not the - most influential companies in Gotham!


To be honest, I thought Bruce was a dimwit for giving her control of the company from the moment it was suggested...
-----------


So, I can say to those people not reading this post that you shouldn't read the comments to it either! If there are any comments, but I am curious what people think. 
I need to watch the film again... but this one factor really, really bothers me and was too long winded to put in the review.
...
It is still a good film though!

Review: Drive

This film might be brilliant, and I think I will give it the benefit of the doubt!

Drive (based off a novel by James Sallis) follows a quiet, unassuming man who works as both a mechanic and movie stunt driver but moonlights as a getaway driver for various heists. His self-contained life is turned upside down however when he finds himself aiding his neighbour's husband who has fallen in with dangerous company.


I had no idea what to expect from Drive, and from everyone demanding I see it you could say it was also hyped up! But the film's first ten minutes had me hooked as we see an incredible but tense heist getaway perfectly executed. The film has a morose, moody feel to it, everything is muted and subtle around our hero as we experience his almost dream-like lifestyle, floating through life with little to no interest in others.
Known only as "Driver", Ryan Gosling's character barely speaks and, with some exceptions, neither do the rest of the cast, and I like that. The film is loaded with character and atmosphere, Gosling's performance is incredibly subtle, betraying the character's inner thoughts with little more than smirks and short dialogue. It gives you everything you need, but without having to explain with needless exposition.


But don't be fooled, it isn't all quiet and mellow; the film is of two halves as things go extremely south for our hero. I was alarmed at the sudden change of tone, and perhaps explaining it in a review would ruin the experience, but the film definitely flips everything on its head! It doesn't feel jarring though, as an unsettled mood was always present initially.


It was a rare treat, and it has a great soundtrack that amplifies the moody city streets (a sort of modern, 80s retro sound) and I enjoyed it a lot! Some people may find the pacing and mood too slow or subtle, it certainly doesn't shake the room, but if you want a sombre (but at times vicious!) character piece, you can't go wrong here.

Review: In Time

A short, straightforward but quite unique science fiction thriller from the director of Gattaca.


In Time is a small film with big ideas, and straight off the starting line I appreciated its metaphorical future world, a future where money does not exist and the most precious commodity is time. Your time. Everyone is born with a genetic "clock", you stop ageing at your twenty-fifth birthday, at that point you must earn minutes, hours, days, even years, to prolong your life... for eternity perhaps.

The film spends a lot of time setting up this future, and the class war that is present between those who live day-by-day, at risk of dying at any moment, and those with centuries of life to live, taking it easy. The metaphor for our present financial crisis is blunt like a sledge hammer, but I like it.


Our working class hero, Will (played efficiently by Justin Timberlake) finds his run-down existence changed when a man gives him over a century of time, and the attention of a Time Keeper (think law enforcer) played by Cillian Murphy. What escalates is a cat and mouse chase where there is always a time limit, and a Bonnie and Clyde meet Robin Hood sensibility.


While I did enjoy the film's stark and near-future qualities, with retro-styled cars that whirr with electric sounding motors, the second act feels a little lost, and the third becomes relatively straightforward. When our heroes are on the run, it becomes less interesting than when getting immersed in the created world.


It starts out as a very bleak outlook for the future, metaphor or not, and I like that a lot. Some people may find it a little pretentious and deliberate (a world full of beautiful twenty-somethings, despite being played by older actors..) but overall though I did enjoy it.

Review: The Dark Knight Rises

Prometheus was supposedly "the most anticipated film of the year", but The Dark Knight Rises has certainly become the most hyped.

Eight years after the events of 2008's The Dark Knight, we find Gotham City in a peaceful state after the sacrifices that had been made. Bruce Wayne has however become a total recluse, and Batman is no more. But the peace is fragile, and a brutal mercenary known only as Bane is arriving in Gotham to fulfil a devastating agenda.


To follow The Dark Knight is a task few could ever stomach, and now I have to admit, perhaps impossible?
I will say straight off the bat, Rises is an excellent film, and continues to prove that director Christopher Nolan can bring intelligence to a massive blockbuster epic. It is still wonderfully photographed, the cast look right at home and newcomers are superb in their roles; Tom Hardy as Bane is awesome, while Anne Hathaway brings some sparks and light humour as Catwoman.


For me, it is all about the characters and how they mature, and most key in Rises is the relationship between Bruce Wayne and his loyal butler Alfred. Their scenes are dynamos of emotion as Wayne finds himself lost and without purpose, and Alfred struggles with an ever bleaker future. The sort of hard questions that should be addressed in such a scenario.
There is also a great subtext designed to hit our nerves within this financial crisis we are facing today, it isn't forced, but it is very much there.


Now my main problem with the film is an ever fading sense of theatricality... While Nolan's trilogy was always meant to be "realistic" there was always a shadowy Gothic feel remaining in Batman Begins, and the Joker's mere presence in The Dark Knight was mesmerising, while they both had vast, shadowy shots of buildings and cityscapes, Batman swooping down at his prey from the dark. Here, Nolan's turned Batman into urban warfare, quite literally by the end. Most of the film is shot in daylight and revolve around the secondary characters coping with the disasters around them. (Perhaps the daylight is symbolic over the three films, this being the "dawn"?) I hate to say it though, but this is probably the least "Batman" feeling Batman film so far.
Another issue, after some consideration, is Catwoman. Now she is excellently portrayed, and I like the character in general, but I didn't see a lot of point for her being there. Unlike the other films where characters are used to their full potential.


The plot harks back to Begins and TDK nicely though, making it feel like an ending, but it has none of the second film's chilling dread, and if it weren't for Alfred and Wayne's scenes, I may not have felt as emotionally connected to any of the characters either.
It sounds like I didn't like it... which isn't true, but it felt long, and that isn't good. I had my issues with TDK initially and they have faded completely, so perhaps Rises will do the same in time?

Saga Review: Batman

Possibly one of the most iconic, well received and respected "superheroes" created, Batman's success is thanks to the relatively down-to-Earth nature of the character, a billionaire with a taste for vengeance, with training and a lot of gadgets.
It is the villains that broaden Batman's scope, and are always the most interesting and mesmerising elements in any story.


I speak as a fan of film, not comics; I've never read a Batman comic, but a lot of friends tell me all about the stories and major developments. As a fan of films, Batman has been with me since the beginning, and I only realise this now with this Saga Review; I was five when Tim Burton's Batman hit the scene, and I was watching it and Batman Returns at home before I finally got to see Batman Forever in the cinema.
Now Christopher Nolan has stated that The Dark Knight Rises is the last Batman film in his trilogy, and marks the end of an era. I cannot say I am disappointed by this, in fact I respect him for it; the last thing we want is another Batman and Robin to come coughing out of the Hollywood machine and sour the crop!
Oh yes, that film is in here too. From 1989 to 2008. Riddle me this, riddle me that...

Batman (1989)

The theatrical, Gothic gem that started it all.

Before Tim Burton was Tim Burton, his early interpretation of the DC comic book hero Batman would show Hollywood what is possible with the genre; it was dark, adult orientated and thick with atmosphere. It was before comics were “cool” and mainstream, Batman isn’t even accurate to the origin story and if it were made for today’s audience, it would have been slandered. But this was all we had, and looking back at it you can still forgive its flaws because of its theatrical, quirky darkness. That, and a truly awesome score by Danny Elfman.

(Whatever happened to Elfman and Burton?)

Jack Nicholson gets top billing as Jack Napier, a gangster who’s dream of taking control of Gotham’s crime syndicate becomes reality when he is viciously transformed into the maniacal Joker. Blaming the spectre-like Batman vigilante, he seeks revenge, while at the same time Bruce Wayne discovers his own vengeance isn’t far away.

You can already tell how I love this film’s mood and tone; Burton’s heavy use of shadows and keeping Batman almost entirely obscured (visually and in terms of the story). The city and costume design make it more timeless than retro, while it boasts the undisputed best Batmobile put to film.

Its strengths can be its weaknesses too however. The plot and character development are relatively shallow, taking a back seat for the theatre and straight up loopiness of Nicholson’s Joker, while I have to say – asides from Michael Gough who will always be Wayne’s faithful butler Alfred in my eyes – the supporting cast is far from spectacular. Kim Basinger goes from subplots to screaming damsel, while the irritating comic-relief Alexander Knox is mercifully forgettable.
This is Nicholson and Keaton’s movie, without any doubt.

As a film I grew up with as a kid, I will always respect it, and must say to anyone growing up with Nolan’s trilogy to check it out! It may be goofy at times, but it has subtle strengths that do outmatch the new trilogy.

Batman Returns (1992)

Tim Burton’s second outing is even bleaker and even more unsettling, yet I love it, I know it all beat for beat.

Batman is called into action once more when the monstrous Penguin rises from the sewers to take over Gotham with the aid of a double-dealing businessman Max Shreck. Meanwhile Shreck inadvertently creates the psychotic Catwoman after attempting to kill his snooping secretary.

There’s quite a bit more going on in Batman Returns, and it would begin a common trend of doubling up comic book villains in the series. This makes for an action packed sequel with several characters to develop. Christopher Walken’s Shreck may seem like the odd one out, but given how the story ties him so closely with our two antagonists, you cannot imagine the film without him. It is an origin story for Catwoman and Penguin, to the point where Batman himself takes a back seat; reading into their own inner demons and terrible psychosis (I always find myself oddly sorry for the Penguin...)

The casting remains solid since the first film; Michelle Pfeiffer and Danny DeVito are great, and for me they embody the characters they portray. Keaton perhaps proves even more how he can pull off both Batman and Bruce Wayne extremely well.
 It is very bleak (spearheading perhaps Burton’s obsession with such tales) Catwoman’s story especially, but it keeps some of the completely nutty aspects of the first film; Penguin’s army of penguins armed with rocket launchers, anyone, or Catwoman’s duel nature being very much catlike rather than a cat burglar (her transition is easily the most bizarre and spontaneous).

It got a lot of criticism for its nightmarish visuals, especially from parents, and would see Burton give up the directing role for future films. I personally love it. It has crisp, clean visuals, the Danny Elfman score is still epic, the casting is superb (supporting cast much improved) and you have to love its pop song accompaniment Face to Face by Siouxsie and the Banshees.

Batman Forever (1995)

From the backlash against Batman Returns, Val Kilmer takes on the role and Joel Schumacher directs this intensely marketable and family friendly instalment. Do I have mixed feelings or what!

During an ongoing battle between Batman and the ex-District Attorney Harvey Dent, aka Two-Face, jealous Wayne Enterprises employee Edward Nygma becomes the power-crazed Riddler.

In 1995 I was completely hooked on Batman Returns, and while I knew this was different it was the first Batman film I saw in cinemas and it easily sparked my interest in the Two-Face character and Tommy Lee Jones forever after.
It is a real shame then that watching it again now... proves how unbearable (and inaccurate) that character is to watch, at least most of the time.

The film is an interesting hybrid of what came before and what will... arrive later. It takes some unique perspectives on Batman’s personality, and the conflict between him and Robin is intriguing (if poorly written) in some ways it goes further with the Batman character than the second film.

However all of Burton’s atmospheric grace is gone. The soundtrack is a weird mash of blaring trumpets and pulpy “spooky” tunes straight from retro horror movies; these and several pop songs for good measure. The lighting is out of this world, making Gotham less Gothic and more TV-show, while there is so much neon. SO MUCH NEON!

I can’t say I hate it; this is about as cartoonish as Batman could ever get away with. The script is to blame here, Jim Carrey is great as the Riddler but sometimes it goes a little too far, while Two-Face’s character is criminally wasted here. Easily one of the most complex villains is reduced to a cackling madman, and Tommy Lee Jones could have easily pulled the character off nicely.

It is good fun, there are plenty of problems (both little and large) but in hindsight, it could be a lot worse....

Oh god, don’t make me do this...

Batman and Robin (1997)

How can something already bad get even worse with time? I feel genuinely stupider having watched this again... I guess the joke’s on me.

So, Batman and Robin are a malfunctioning team as the maniac Mister Freeze runs rampage over Gotham City, while a deadly femme fatale Poison Ivy (and her “muscle”, Bane) seek world domination.
 Okay, so let’s get the good stuff out of the way first, since that will take less time.

There is no good stuff.

Batman and Robin is a vacuous void of positively loathsome filmmaking, so bad you could imagine Uwe Boll himself swooning at its disastrous proportions. You have to be drunk, or with a load of friends, to dare watch this... this piece of footage, to watch alone is to deduct years from your life.

I don’t know where to start; this is probably like repairing a city after a holocaust. Arnold Schwarzenegger, why is he in this? No Batman movie could ever survive having him cast in it, not to mention they treat the surprisingly deep Mr Freeze character with the same dignity they gave Two Face; the character is dead on arrival (unless you have a warped sense of humour). Uma Thurman is actually a good cast for the voluptuous Poison Ivy, but again the script makes her a train wreck of puns too.

It is boldly and foolishly harking back to the Adam West TV show, so much so we get “whhheee!” sound effects as people fly through the air, stupid, stupid fight sequences and utterly campy scenarios that defy all conventional belief. So many I cannot begin to list them.
Despite the mountain of repetitive garbage this thing produces (from Arnold spouting one-liners to Robin whining all the time, the plot is drivel) we have poor butler Alfred actually attempting to have a meaningful subplot and character development, a plot that is gut-wrenchingly wasted here.

I... I don’t even know. I watch a lot of films, a lot, I marathon films, yet this has to be the longest two hours put to celluloid; I kid you not I was falling asleep, despite the film’s zany bright colours and disgustingly camp nonsense it kept hurling at me.

I wanted to try and like something from this... but it is so, so difficult. Alfred’s storyline is unique and the villains are good villains in theory (heck, they are almost faithful to the materials) but the script and story are just such travesties! I just don’t see why Batman Forever’s tone needed to be made even dumber for this movie? Forever was a huge financial success, why go the extra mile to make something so horrible??

Batman Begins (2005)

Oh thank goodness. Batman fans across the globe owe a lot to intellectual director Christopher Nolan for giving the cape crusader a new, intense look.

Going back to before Batman, a lost and enraged Bruce Wayne seeks the ability to fight injustice after the tragic deaths of his parents. His training comes from The League of Shadows and their leader, Ra’s Al Ghul, but seeing their code as immoral, Wayne looks for his own symbol to defend Gotham City.

We see Gotham in a state of depression; once glorious but now tarnished during Wayne’s absence, and now rife with criminals. The gangster Falcone and insidious Dr. Crane are working for a mysterious third party in a bid to ruin Gotham completely, only to find a shadowy vigilante pursuing them.

There is a lot going on in this film for just over two hours. The film goes into Bruce Wayne’s psyche much further than any of the previous instalment, showing us his vulnerabilities but also how these directly empower Batman. The film’s motif is fear, and one’s bravery to control that fear.

The casting is unbelievably top-notch (the cast and crew predominantly British I might add!) and love him or hate him, Christian Bale does an excellent job as a Batman who’s violent drive is almost uncontrollable, while also being an excellent Bruce Wayne. Though I must admit, Katie Holmes doesn’t have great presence here, and I have to adjust for Michael Cane as Alfred (he is amazing, but I still see Michael Gough as Alfred... forever).
The visuals and lighting aren’t as arresting as Tim Burton’s Batman, but they are certainly striking and shadowy, while Hans Zimmer’s music is triumphant (especially in the incredible third act) it doesn’t stick with you like Danny Elfman’s haunting melody.

It is a massive “Batman’s is back!” and a faithful interpretation of the lore, loaded with references but watchable by all. It has a great vein of humour too, but it is subtle, lighting the intensity. Oh, and I remember my distrust of the Tumbler when I first saw photos... but no, that car chase has to be one of the best chase sequences in all of the Batman films so far!

The Dark Knight (2008)

Like a fine wine, director Christopher Nolan’s masterpiece only improves with time and viewings!

Following the events of Batman Begins, the story sees Gotham City in a state of change; Batman’s presence has the criminal underworld running scared, and hope begins to emerge as a charismatic and passionate new District Attorney, Harvey Dent, emerges. However a psychotic madman, known only as The Joker, wants nothing more than to spread anarchy, and prove everyone is corruptible.

The film is epic in proportions; a lengthy two hours and twenty minutes which is jam-packed with story and most importantly character development. While Heath Ledger’s Joker character is phenomenally terrifying (and sadistically amusing) he is merely a means to an end, and the more I watch this film the more I am drawn to one of my favourite Batman characters, Harvey Dent, and his tragic story. I’m a sucker for tragic heroes, and The Dark Knight sells it perfectly (says one viewer who initially felt short-changed by the film in this respect).

Bruce Wayne’s internal struggle has never been harder than here. With Gotham on the brink of salvation only to have it disintegrate around him, Batman’s strengths are proven virtually useless as lives of those he cares about are put at risk.

While the film may distance some viewers (it is longer and deeply unsettling at times) the story’s pacing and escalation is immersive, while the tone and mood is delicately merciless. Hans Zimmer’s score here is far better than in Begins, going from tranquil to nails-on-chalkboard chilling, intensifying Joker’s influence on a terrified Gotham City.

One thing I do miss is the rustic orange look of Begins, while that film was set in “The Narrows” and TDK was set in central Gotham, it does look like Chicago now rather than a Gothic city (where exactly did all the monorails go?) but Chicago or not, it is beautifully shot.

It is a marvel of action/drama cinema, and I implore you to re-watch it if you weren’t impressed initially (which is unlikely!) the use of music, camera work and lighting only adds to the fracturing mood, while the casting and acting is perfect across the board.

The Dark Knight is an extremely tough performance to surpass, and as I write this epilogue to possibly the most enjoyable film marathon I've done yet, I have seen the final chapter.

Does it add up? Does it give one of my favourite movie-going heroes a decent send off? You'll have to bear with me a little longer to find out.

*wink*

Review: Ice Age: Continental Drift (2D)

Usually a fourth outing of a franchise is the nail in the coffin, but after a lacklustre third part, Ice Age 4 is actually decent fun!


It is still zany, madcap humour with the pacing of a roller-coaster ride, but at least this time around I actually felt some connection with the characters. This time Manny, Sid, Diego and friends meet the ultimate crisis; the world's tectonic plates shifting and the land ripping itself apart.

The film sets the tone immediately when Manny is separated from his family during the initial land divide, and it is up to him and his most trusted friends to brave the seas and be reunited with their loved ones.
True, one can be horrified at first seeing Sid's entire family show up... that's right, imagine five Sids on screen at once... but fortunately they are gone just as quickly, leaving the rather crazed but funny Granny behind. Manny's daughter Peaches also has some "teenager problems" that can grate on nerves, but that is only a subplot.
Our antagonists (yes, this film actually HAS antagonists!) are a crew of imaginative pirates sailing around on a iceberg ship, including a monkey Captain, a bunny, a s Ludicrous? Yes. Watchable? Easily; they had me at "an evil badger who doubles as a Jolly Roger flag". There are some very creative and likeable characters here, and some convincing peril too, putting Dawn of the Dinosaurs to shame.


So okay, pirates aren't exactly original material, but they make for some decent excitement. Sid is not at the forefront as he was before (Blue Sky learnt a lesson there) only appearing for numerous sight gags. The comedy was stronger too, it felt consistent. Heck, there was even a snide go at the third film by Sid: "We met a load of dinosaurs in the Ice Age, even though that makes no sense!" Nice one.


It is a good kids film, mindless but adults can actually watch it without losing braincells, and while it isn't a film I would watch again, it is a vast improvement and you could do a lot worse.

Additional Marshmallows: There's a great A-list celebrity cameo lending his voice at the end!

Review: The Amazing Spider-Man (2D)

A re-envisioning of the classic comic superhero, not five years since the last trilogy ended, is causing a serious stir in Hollywood.

Now the Sam Raimi trilogy can be a love-it-or-hate-it series, me personally, I enjoy them a lot. They are quirky, bright and clearly fun (Spider-Man 2 remains one of my very favourite comic movies) they were different, electrified with snappy characters and dialogue.
The Amazing Spider-Man... is not.
It is back to the beginning: we see a recluse and mumbling Peter Parker begin his journey trying to learn more about his parents and why they left him. His journey directs him to Oscorp's Dr Curt Conners, a scientist researching gene splicing, specifically reptile and human DNA.

The tone is far removed from Raimi's vision; dialogue is muted and with Peter and Gwen Stacey's romance everything is downplayed and subtle; you won't find any J.K Simmons outrageous Daily Bugle boss character either. They need to work on the script writing in future films. I missed the Raimi zaniness...
It also suffers from "Origin-story-lacking-good-villain" syndrome (see Iron Man and Hulk) Curt Conner's character felt inconsistent, at least I wasn't sure how to feel about him. Sympathy? Hatred? I don't know. Also Peter's quest to find out about his parents seems to evaporate after people start to gain superpowers.


Is it bad then? No... certainly not as bad as some critics claim. Once Parker dons the suit he becomes a firecracker of overconfident wise-cracks, a good sense of reckless humour that the first half of the film was lacking. I'd also like to stress that Emma Stone does a lot better as Gwen Stacey than Kirsten Dunst's Mary Jane.
It is great to see Spider-Man on the big screen again, the film looks awesome, fight scenes are dynamic and exciting, and while I only saw the 2D showing, I can see that 3D would have worked well here.


Ultimately, I enjoyed it (as someone who wanted to hate it, I might add!) but being someone who doesn't follow comics, I don't see why it needed to be a reboot. Why not make a James Bond-esque move and continue the story, new Spider-Man, new villain, new girl? Bring in the parents' plot as a new story foundation. It's not like we need reminding who Spider-man is... and this film scarcely changes the origin story anyway!

Additional Marshmallows: Oh yeah, and anyone saying Raimi's trilogy was "silly"... this film's "I've been bitten" line was atrocious! It was also disgustingly easy for Peter to sneak into Oscorp's laboratories...

Review: Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs

A colourful distraction, but sorely lacks in any real substance or even peril. That... and what are dinosaurs even doing here??


The film plays out as your typical rescue story; with Manny and Ellie looking to start a family, Sid tries to adopt dinosaur eggs only to be abducted by a Tyrannosaurus Rex. The gang from the previous films must venture into a world under the ice to rescue him.

I really wanted the dinosaur to simply eat Sid.


I enjoyed Ice Age, and Meltdown felt like a natural progression, but this feels like the series is swaying into mediocrity. We know the characters, we like them, and after two films you'd think the creators would give them more to do instead of just "Sid is an idiot, go rescue him". Look at how Toy Story developed over three films.
Sure there are some new faces, and the show is thoroughly stolen by Simon Pegg as the adventurous Buck, a weasel with a captain Ahab complex. But my favourite character Diego has precious little to do here; his subplot is brushed aside for more of Sid's mugging into the camera.

Suspension of disbelief is key here. How exactly a tropical jungle paradise can exist under ice, complete with volcanic lava freely flowing is anyone's guess! Heck, even the dinosaurs didn't have much to do in this movie, although there are some cute designs such as the triceratops. 

Dawn of the Dinosaurs was one of the first films to enter the new 3D era, and its release was delayed substantially to shoehorn the effects in. As such the 3D conversion was shoddy, but I didn't notice any residing issue with the 2D version. It is a very bright movie and the characters have great facial animations.
It got a giggle or two from me, I won't lie and tell you it isn't funny (even if it owes most of this to Pegg's over the top performance) but I felt there could have been more substance.

I really want to hate this film more than I do for it reminding me of the Super Mario Brothers movie with including the "Walk the Dinosaur" pop song. Ugh. My ears. That, and did they really just slide down a dinosaur's back shouting "Yabba-dabba-dooo!"?

Saga Review: James Bond (No.6 - No.7)

That's right, with Skyfall releasing later this year I am opting to give you my thoughts on all of the Bond films! There's twenty-two films, and when I started this challenge there were twenty-two weeks before Skyfall, sounds good to me!
I grew up in the six year drought of Bond films, between the Dalton and Brosnen Eras, so my definition of Bond is Timothy Dalton in The Living Daylights and License to Kill, while Goldeneye is one of my top favourites. It took me a little while to watch all of the other James Bond films, but they were regularly shown on television, and while the Brosnen films quickly worsened I would never grow to like the Roger Moore era. At least not yet.

Because there are twenty-two films I am breaking my reviews down into eras as best I can. Today's post is all about the first major change (and public upset) in the franchise, unfortunately for many involved it was an ugly transition.

Let's imagine all the recasting madness, narrative plot-holes, endless skiing sequences and more Blofelds than you can shake a stick at!

On her Majesty's Secret Service (1969)

A radical change to a formula established over five films; a change compacted with a unique take on the series. One change would be forgivable, but there are a lot of things here that just don’t fit.

James Bond is back and hot on the heels of his nemesis Ernst Blofeld, and he works his way into the villain’s secret organisation undercover with some unofficial help.

Now I want to say straight away, George Lazenby is a good Bond, not the best but he does well given it is his first acting role; he can be stern and intense, and usually does well with the quips. The problem is the film is all too eager to remind us “This is still Bond”, a strange scene early on with Bond going through his drawer and finding objects from previous films, for example.

This was also director Peter Hunt’s first direction, having previously done editing for other Bond films, and there are errors that beg explanation; specifically when Bond and Blofeld meet (Bond being undercover, but not in disguise). They already met in You Only Live Twice... how does Blofeld not know who Bond is!? The answer, unfortunately, is due to OHMSS coming chronologically before YOLT, this was when they met for the first time. I guess they were too lazy to fix this, two-to-four years in the making?

The film feels far too long with extensive “fight scenes” as the finale, from skiing to bobsleighing (it’s like 007: The Winter Olympics), while some of the acting and writing is atrocious. Ruby, one of Blofeld’s Angels of Death, is excruciating.

Yes there is a good sense of character in this film, and it does make for a good change of pace; the first half of OHMSS is superior to the last. It sounds like I hated it, I didn’t, but I can see why people were disappointed in it, without Connery is bad enough, but slips in storytelling and quality only hammer it home further.

Just don’t take it all out on Lazenby!

Additional Marshmallows: Did you know in this film it is stated that Bond's fictional "Coat-of-Arms" has the motto: "The World is Not Enough", which would go on to be the title of the nineteenth Bond movie?

Diamonds are Forever (1971)

(Yes, that poster has indeed got Bond and two Bond girls being lifted single-handedly by a robot)

Paying what could only be a handsome sum of money (and most of the budget) the Bond franchise has Sean Connery reprise the role one last time, and after the “flop” of OHMSS, we are back to the silliness.

Diamonds are Forever starts out with a bang (albeit with bad dubbing) with Bond in vengeful fist-fights, looking for Blofeld after the events of OHMSS. Unfortunately, this only lasts five minutes; Connery’s vengeful streak is replaced with a quirky but sporadic screenplay that refuses to grip the audience.

I don’t quite know what has happened here... but the film feels like a mash of random action sequences and peril, and while at times it feels fun and entertaining, you will often find yourself asking “why is any of this happening again?”

The only thin thread holding it together is that Bond is looking for stolen diamonds, that’s it. We have two unusual assassins wiping out witnesses as Bond “investigates”, who are very capable and almost threatening... except when they are required to kill Bond. I say “investigate” because Bond does very little of the investigation we are used to, preferring to leap from one drawn out action sequence to the next. The Bond Girls are equally unimaginative and particularly objectified.

It has its quirks and can be entertaining, but feels incredibly long for very little story development, ultimately feeling like a rushed action-fest to erase all memory of OHMSS’s steady pacing.

And seriously, I say again, how stupid is Blofeld anyway... seriously??

What would eventually become a tradition of Bond, the changing of actors, started off very badly with a single-minded audience and a poor production decision to release the films in chronologically the wrong order! Watching these, I may not like On Her Majesty's Secret Service exactly, but I do feel bad for Lazenby; his Bond was a unique take, and could have used a reprisal for added emotional weight after that film's climax.

Now, Bond will return.......

As ROGER MOORE!

(Arrrgh!)

In... Live and Let Die, The Man with the Golden Gun, The Spy Who Loved Me, Moonraker, For Your Eyes Only, Octopussy and A View to a Kill. This post will take a while to compile!

Here are my reviews for the previous Bond eras!

The Connery Era