FILM: The Hunger Games (6/10)

Why did I watch it?
I had never heard of the Hunger Games series prior to the film coming out, proof if needed that I'm obviously not a 'young adult anymore! the other half came in with this the other day so I gave into the hype and gave it a go.

What's it all about?
Set in a fictional American dystopian future, a new nation called Panem is divided into 12 distinct districts and controlled by the powerful and rich Capitol. As punishment for an uprising some years before, The Capitol organise a yearly competition known as the Hunger Games where each district must send 2 competitors, one boy and one girl between the ages of 12 and 18, known as tributes. The children are left to fight until the death until only one survives and is declared the champion.  

Should you watch it?
I was largely non-fussed by The Hunger Games. Having not read the books I've no idea how the adaptation compares but as a standalone film it wasn't bad but it wasn't too great either. The story borrows elements from The Truman Show, Running Man and Blade Runner among others. I should plead ignorance in having not yet seen Battle Royale, but I'm aware that the plot is remarkably similar. The point being that the plot is not awfully original.

The directing and editing in the districts did not work for me. The shaky camera work and chop editing might have been selected to create a sense of disorganisation and panic in the districts during tribute selection but I found it too much. Another gripe I had was the use of flashbacks by Gary Ross. Flashbacks of unseen footage provide the viewer with an opportunity to see what has previously occured and can be plot aids but why did Ross choose to show flashbacks of scenes we had already seen, one in particular several times over. I clearly missed the importance of the scene.

I felt the film was dumbed down in places, definitely in terms of violence, which I can understand with this being a Hollywood production with children involved but also with some of the script. A prime example being at the end when the game organiser announces that the rules are being changed spontaneously again, It is so obvious what the rule change is going to be but yet the characters are made to listen to the full announcement with a few more seconds afterwards to digest the rammifications.

There are decent performances from Jennifer Lawrence and Woody Allen so its far from all bad.

TV: The Wire (S1) (10/10)

Why did I watch it?
I usually only review films or shows I've not seen before but in the case of The Wire I had to make an exception. I've already seen the first two seasons and having bought the box-set sometime ago, it was time to go back to the start and enjoy it all over again.

What's it all about?
For those not in the know, The Wire is set in Baltimore and each season focuses on a different area of life in the city. The first season revolves around a hastily put together police detail tasked with investigating the little known Barksdale drug empire. Led by Lieutenant Daniels (Lance Reddick) and the dedicated Jimmy McNulty (Dominic West), the detail are under pressure to make a minimal amount of low level charges quickly, however work is slow and painstaking difficult and the detail fight their superiors for more time to build a case using electronic surveillance.

Should you watch it?
The great thing about The Wire is....well, everything. The scope of the show is immense, the characters range from judges, DAs, police chiefs and detectives on one side to those encompassing the whole structure of Anton Barksdale's gang, from right hand men and enforcers to low level dealers. Each is involved in the story as it plays out slowly piece by piece. The line between good and bad is blurred at best, the police force is riddled with incompetence and those only concerned with self-preservation while the dealers are a well-organised mixture of cold-blooded killers and morally conflicted teens who know no other way of life. Not to mention Omar (Michael K. Williams), the gay stick-up man who terrorises local drug stash houses.

Who's listening?

The Wire is the ultimate definition of a slow-burner but with hour long episodes the plot begins to unravel soon enough and rewards are plenty for those patient during the initial episodes. Fans of David Simon's other works like Treme will have no problem adapting to the pace.

Did I mention that the acting, script and music are also top notch? Best line..."If you come at the king, you best not miss".

I am a huge fan of both The Soprano's and The Shield, and the first season of The Wire comes very close if not better than the best moments of these two. It deserves all the credit it receives and more. 

FILM: Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (6/10)

Why did I watch it?
My other half came home from the shop with this the other day. I was looked forward to watching it mainly because of the fantastic British cast, Oscar nominations for adapted screenplay and best actor and the fact that John Le Carre's book has long been on my list of books to read.

What's it all about?
Tinker Tailor Solider Spy is the first feature length film adaptation of John Le Carre's well respected spy novel of the same name. Set in the early 70's, in the midst of the Cold War, the film follows retired spy George Smiley (Gary Oldman) as he is tasked with uncovering a suspected mole in the British spy fraternity known as 'the Circus'.

Should you watch it?
Following the press the film received and with the ensemble British cast (Oldman, Hardy, Firth, Hurt, Cumberbatch)  I had high expectations for it. I'm sad to say the film fell somewhat short. Although a spy film, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is the complete polar opposite to Britain's most famous member of Her Majesty's Secret Service. Given what James Bond gets up to, it is therefore more than likely a far more realistic take on the world of government intelligence, in particular considering the era. This was not a problem for me, I love realism in stories but Tinker is too slow, too deliberate and too ponderous.

Spying 70's style - glasses, coats, tweed and briefcases

Granted that the standard of acting is high, as you would expect from the cast and Gary Oldman is captivating with his quiet and understated performance as Smiley. The production also deserves credit and these two pluses carry the film a long way.

I'm sure that a lot of the detail of the book could not be squeezed into a two hour adaptation. The film is a slow-burner, which is usually my favourite type of story, but once the final act arrives it lacks any really punch and I could not recall any twist or even being led in any particular direction with my suspicions. Not what I would expect from a 'thriller'.

Worth watching to see the all round strong acting performances and production but I will definitely be reading the book in the hope it delivers a stronger story.

BOOK: Life of Pi, Yann Martel (9/10)

Life of Pi - despite appearances not a children's book!

Why did I read it?
I was really impressed by the trailer for the upcoming Ang Lee film adaptation and realising it was based on a best-selling novel decided to borrow the book from a friend. I'm never sure which is the best way round to read book or watch adaptations but there is no going back now.

What's it all about?
Life of Pi is a fantasy adventure about an Indian teenager named Pi, who finds himself the sole survivor of a shipwreck on-board a lifeboat with a Bengal tiger, a chimpanzee, a zebra and a hyena for company. It sounds surreal but the first half of the book describes a credible back story. Pi's father is a zoo-keeper and the family decide to sell the zoo and relocate to Canada, hence the voyage across the Pacific with a ship full of dangerous animals. 

Should you read it?

The upcoming film poster

The book takes its time during the first half to set the scene with the tale of Pi's upbringing at an Indian zoo, his experiences with animals and also his take on spirituality but once his ordeal starts its clear why Martel dedicates so much print to the back story.

In terms of Pi's detailed account of his practical approach to survival the story is similar to the real life survival of Aaron Ralston in 127 Hours (minus the tiger).

A word of warning, Martel doesn't hold back in graphically depicting the demise of the boat's occupants and I'm not normally affected by violence in films but when related to animals, in particular during a week when my cat was badly hurt, it was almost too much to take.

The book is a fascinating combination of religion and animal psychology and a harrowing tale of survival at all costs that I couldn't put down. I have very high hopes for the film.

FILM: Apollo 18 (6/10)

Why did I watch it?
Being a bit of a sci-fi and closet horror fan, I was suckered in by the trailer and the interesting premise of a disastrous secret moon landing ending the NASA Apollo missions.

What's it all about?
Apollo 18 is a found-footage type film marketed as being made up of footage recovered from a top secret NASA moon landing in 1974. The Apollo 18 mission is cancelled publicly, however the mission secretly still takes place under stewardship of the Department of Defence. One astronaut stays in orbit while the other two land on the moon and begin their mission of deploying detectors to monitor Soviet activity.

Should you watch it?
First of all, Apollo 18 owes a lot to other found-footage films like Blair Witch and Cloverfield. One difference however, is that the events are shown from a variety of cameras, handheld, inside the lunar module and from cameras on the outside of the module. The editing is very choppy and often switches between the various cameras as you imagine a security guard would. While this never gives the audience a chance to rest as you find yourself scoping out all the shots for any movement it becomes tiresome and interrupting. Coupled with the 'interference' to the footage and the grainy nature of some the shots, its all a bit too realistic but difficult to watch. The same applies to majority of the dialogue, radio transmissions are authentic but not employed with the viewer in mind.

The director creates suspense on occasions by using the vast and isolated yet claustrophobic setting of the moon and also the cramped safety of the lunar module coupled with a cabin fever mentality. I won't deny that on occasions the film succeeded in building uneasiness and made me jump a few times. The technique of using intermittent light flashes to illuminate pitch black environments, in Apollo 18's case moon craters, has been used previously in Saw and is not employed anywhere near as well here.

The main thought I had following the film's ending, which I won't spoil, is how on Earth (no pun intended) was the footage found? Based on this it had me thinking, was the found-footage approach really necessary? Did cost negate a traditional approach? Films like Alien prove that suspenseful sci-fi horrors work minus the novelty.

Will appeal far more to horror genre fans than traditional sci-fi fans.

FILM: Son of Rambow (7/10)

Why did I watch it?
I saw a few scenes from this film a while back on TV and found them light hearted and amusing so asked to borrow it on DVD from a friend.


What's it all about?
Son of Rambow tells the story of two young boys growing up in the 80's, William and Lee, who become firm friends while making a Rambo-inspired home movie full of self-performed stunts and childish violence. The boys are polar opposites at first, William's family belong to a strict and traditional religious brethren, so strict that William is not even allowed to watch TV for documentaries at school, while Lee is the school's worst behaved child. Despite their differences, the pair become friends by chance and both appreciate each others company, Lee's renegade behaviour gives William experiences outside of the brethren (perhaps none more so than watching Rambo: First Blood) while Lee finds a kindred spirit to overcome his loneliness at home.

Should you watch it?
Creating a film about a pair of schoolchildren's recreation of Rambo certainly scores points for originality. As I mentioned before, the light hearted and amusing in places and would be suitable for adults and children alike. The young actors Bill Milner and Will Poulter are excellent and are supported well by a small cast.
The writers take inspiration from a range of films, not just Rambo, with the scarecrow in the field and French exchange student Didier coolly lighting his cigarette in church coming to mind. As a throwback to the 80's the film is excellent, catchphrases, clothes and music are all spot on. Just like J.J Abrams recent Super 8, hopefully Rambow will inspire a generation of young filmmakers.
Son of Rambow is a quirky and original British comedy-drama, which suffers from being a little too sweet in places towards the end but more than makes up for it with great acting and humorous moments.

FILM: Blade Runner (8/10)

Ridley Scott's 1982 film Blade Runner is an adaptation of Hollywood favourite Philip K. Dick's novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?. Set in a futuristic 2019 Los Angeles, the humans remaining on Earth populate a poisoned planet. Scott and his special effects team created a sprawling, multi-cultural, dark and dystopian metropolis dense with towering skyscrapers in between which flying police cars patrol. The setting of the film is visionary and Dick and Scott deserve all the praise they have received for it.

The soundtrack is provided by Vangelis (Chariots of Fire) and provides the perfect backdrop to the gloomy futuristic landscape Scott creates.

Technology has allowed the fictional Tyrell Corporation to develop organic androids, known as replicants, for use as slaves in off-world colonies. Outlawed on Earth, Harrison Ford plays Deckard, a retired replicant hunter (known as a blade runner) tasked with tracking and 'retiring' a group of rogue replicants who have returned to Earth. The replicants are lead by Rutger Hauer's intelligent and villainous Roy Barry, with the intent of forcing Tyrell to modify the replicants and extended their lifespan. 


Ford plays the burnt out, gritty drunkard Deckard with the grumpiness of Han Solo but thankfully with none of the sarcasm or cheesy lines. Hauer is excellent as he becomes scarily unhinged and seemingly indestructible towards the film's climax. Sean Young plays an experimental female replicant, designed with memories with the belief that she is actually human, with whom Deckard falls for.

I must be honest that with this being the first time I have watched the film, I completely missed the plot suggestions that Deckard himself may be a replicant so maybe I need to re-watch the film from this point of view.

TV: Borgen (S1) (7/10)

Following on from the successful Forbrydelsen (adapted as The Killing in the US), Danish TV produced another well-received (2012 BAFTA for Best International Series) series in the form of Borgen. Set in the home of the Danish government, the ten parter follows new Prime Minister Birgitte Nyborg through her first year in office from election to the opening of parliament.

The series follow three main characters, Prime Minister Nyborg, her spin doctor Kasper Juul and his ex-girlfriend and political news anchor Katrine Fonsmark. The writing is sincere and each episode covers a crisis of some sorts for Nyborg's infant government be it CIA landings on Danish territory, morally complicated extraditions or ministerial scandals. The political drama takes place alongside the drama of each character's home life, in particular Nyborgs. This helps to ground all the characters and is equally as enjoyable as the politics.

I haven't seen The West Wing so I can't compare the two but good acting and strong writing make this series a success and I am sceptical at the news that a US adaptation may be in the works. I'm not sure that the story is transferable to a two-party system but we'll see. I look forward to watching the next series.

TV: Veep (S1) (8/10)

After the success of The Thick of It and the American cross-over film In the Loop, Armando Iannucci delivers what is an all-American take on his razor sharp political satire in Veep.

Set in the Vice-President Selina Myers' office, the series deals with her struggles to make her mark on the administration from what is a position of power in name only, similar to Nick Clegg being Deputy Prime Minister. The show features all the incompetent bumbling characters you would expect and has a fantastic script to match.

Some might call the acerbic put-downs and head-butting crude and maybe its just my sense of humour but when somebody says "that this bill is a f*cking disgrace and I'm going to see to it personally that it gets chewed up like a dead prostitute in a wood chipper" I laugh. Sue me. There are some fantastic lines in the script, often from the Veep herself.

It's not just all swearing and school ground teasing though, the episode plots are credible and well thought through and give ample opportunity for the Veep and her staff to screw up at every single turn. That said some episodes are stronger than others. All the characters are well played and the acting is excellent. 

Overall, a really strong first season and I'm pleased to see it renewed for another.

BOOK: Blood Meridian, Cormac McCarthy (9/10)

After enjoying the adaptations of Cormac McCarthy's No Country for Old Men and The Road I decided I would give some of the source material a try. Blood Meridian is considered one of the Great American contemporary novels and tells the story of an anonymous teenager referred to only as 'the kid'.

Set in the mid 19th century on the US-Mexican border, the story really begins after the kid joins a gang of undesirable bounty hunters as they sweep through Mexico hunting Native American Indians, paid by Mexican officials per scalp they take. The story is unflinchingly violent throughout as the gang of scalp hunters begin to stray from their objective and commit terrible atrocities in the pursuit of money or pleasure. This includes killing peaceful Indians and Mexicans alike, scalping children, drowning dogs, running a cattle train off a cliff and culminating in the violent commandeering of a ferry crossing at Yuma for financial gain. Wanted by officials on both side of the border, their behaviour eventually catches up with them.

Although part of the gang, the kid is one of the more likeable members, he never appears to scalp anyone and seems to be part of the gang not through choice but simply because that's where he ended up. This is more obvious when you consider the motivations of the gangs leaders, Glanton and Judge Holden. Out for profit or the lust of war, these two are responsible for the gangs moral compass completely falling apart.

Judge Holden is one of the most fascinating characters I have come across in literature. He is described as a giant, almost seven feet tall, with not a hair on his body. He is clearly the most intelligent character in the story and carries around a book in which he documents all manner of wildlife and nature encountered on travels stating to one man that 'that which exists without my knowledge exists without my consent'. Despite being an educated man, the judge has extremely violent beliefs, something he tries to explain to his lesser gang members on several occasions. This confliction of size, science and violence captured my intrigue from the offset. The judge's relationship with the kid is a key theme of the story. The judge appears to almost want to make the kid a protege, however late on realises that the kid is not of the same mindset as him, stating that 'some bears dance and some bears don't'. The book's ending is ambiguous and allows the reader some imagination in considering the judges actions in the final act.

McCarthy's illustration of the great lawless American west is fantastic. He provides vivid depictions of the barren landscape, types of vegetation and ghost towns. Overall I think I enjoyed the story and characters more than the actual reading of the book, if that makes sense, largely due to McCarthy's writing style.

FILM: Captain America: The First Avenger (6/10)

So after Iron Man, Hulk and Thor, last but not least it was Captain America's turn to make his big screen début as part of the Avengers development.

The First Avenger spends the first half the film covering the origin story of the Captain, which from an previously uninformed point of view was something I greatly appreciated.

With almost the majority of the action set during WWII, the film is similar to a war movie, especially once the Captain recruits his band of soldiers who then spend their time destroying Nazi science labs at ease. Think of Inglorious Bastards meets Band of Brothers but without the Tarantino violence and humour and the epicness and sincerity of the mini-series. The score also sounds familiar when heard in a war setting.

Chris Evans is successful as Captain America and holds up to the pressures of a leading man. He plays the superhero with the right amount of patriotism and conscience without being overbearing. However, Hugo Weaving's Red Skull was a disappointment.

As an origin story First Avenger is solid and the retro setting is hugely original for a superhero movie, however as a general action film, I felt that the plot, mainly the threat of the Red Skull, and the action sequences were not as strong as they could have been. America simply seems to clout everyone he meets with his shield before running onto the next, there is little variation in his tactics or in the challenges he faces.

FILM: Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans (7/10)

To say Nicolas Cage is not my favourite actor would be an understatement. That said films like Con Air are a guilty pleasure of mine. Cage stars in Werner Herzog's 2009 film Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans. I haven't seen the 1992 film of the same name so I'm coming at this film from an original standpoint.

Cage is Terrence McDonaugh, a lieutenant in the New Orleans police department with an ailing back, earned saving a prisoner during the Katrina floods, that has lead to a growing drug and gambling addiction. The story revolves around a murder investigation, however, the police work is only ever a long second to McDonaugh's spiral out of control. To say the wheels fall off as the story progresses would suggest they were even on in the first place. Cage is fantastic as the reckless, dishevelled, bug-eyed and hunched over addict on the slope to despair. It is definitely by favourite performance by the guy.

Beating David Simon's Treme to the punch, post-Katrina New Orleans is an apt setting for the lawlessness and desperate nature of the film's main character.

Although McDonaugh is certainly a bad lieutenant, snorting coke in front of a teenage witness and pulling the oxygen tube out of an elderly lady's nose while interrogating and verbally abusing her, most of his meltdowns and law-breaking come in pursuit of the drugs he needs and his police work remains largely on point.

The film is maniacally amusing as McDonuagh loses control and coupled with Herzog's abstract direction and William Finkelstein's script, it almost becomes a black comedy. The stand out scene in Bad Lieutenant involves the camera cutting to two iguanas on a table (the iguanas being a hallucination of McDonaughs) where the camera stays watching McDonaugh (who stares back) and his team on a stakeout from the iguana point of view for over a minute with nothing but music playing. Surreal indeed.

The supporting cast is strong and includes Eva Mendes, Michael Shannon (Boardwalk Empire), Val Kilmer and X-Zibit but there is only one bad lieutenant.

An excellent film featuring a great performance from Nicholas Cage.

FILM: Iron Man 2 (6/10)

Robert Downey's Iron Man returns after his first film outing two years previous, with director Jon Favreau again at the helm. As with Iron Man, Favreau delivers another fun ride and allows Downey to steal the show as Tony Stark.

Downey's egotist, smarmy and arrogant but ultimately likeable Tony Stark is the film. Other characters are purely used for Downey to show off in front of, flirt with or talk over. In honesty, this becomes a little frustrating by the end of the film but it doesn't become a terminal problem because of the hidden weakness and humility Stark shows on occasions. Also, it makes a change for a superhero to be so public with his identity and arrogance.

Facing pressure from the US government on one side and the film's nemesis Whiplash on the other, Stark also struggles to cope with the ill effects of his power source and becomes isolated and irresponsible with his powers. The main antagonist is Whiplash, the son of a Russian inventor formerly employed by Stark Industries, who out of spite for the Stark family develops his own power source to rival Iron Man. The Russian factor brings about inevitably thin Cold War references but it is the idea that the US government sees Iron Man ans his technology as their property and does not wish to be dependent on Stark's alliance for protection that is the strongest plot string.

When given scenes without Downey present, the supporting characters are a mixed bunch. The introduction of Scarlett Johansson's Black Widow to the Marvel Universe is flat and the same can be said for Gywneth Paltrow, who is talked over by Downey for all of her lines. Don Cheadle plays Iron Man's sidekick James Rhodes (aka War Machine) complete with some Robin-esque cheesy lines ("Get a roof"). The positives come in the form of Mickey Rourke as Whiplash and Sam Rockwell as Justin Hammer. Rockwell injects some brilliant humour to proceedings for when you've had your fill of Downey.

The action is evenly paced, although the action sequences towards the end of the film are a little robotic, literally, as Iron Man and War Machine take on Whiplash (in a similar suit) and his army of Iron Man suited drones.

Overall, perhaps not as fresh as the original but still a better than average entry to the Marvel catalogue.

TV: The Killing (S2) (8/10)

In contrast with it's Danish origin, the US adaptation of The Killing took the decision, for better or for worse, to not reveal Rosie Larsen's killer at the end of season one and dedicate another season to the Linden's investigation.


I like The Killing as in a similar manner to The Wire, it shows the detective process in a more painstaking light and at a more realistic speed, with the detectives sometimes at a loss for clues or leads and makes a change from solved in an episode police shows. Again similar to The Wire, it dedicates time to the characters from both the police and the suspects as well as the grieving family.


Season two begins immediately where the first left off, as Linden pieces together clues of a possible conspiracy to frame Richmond. This has Linden questioning Holder's loyalty to the case and the two lead characters manage to avoid each other's attempts to explain the situation for the first few episodes. This became frustrating as first Linden ignores Holder and then Linden struggles to reach Holder after she clears him. There are only so many times you can watch someone choose to not answer the phone.


Holder remains as amusing as before with his macho posturing but Linden becomes quite dislikeable during the season. Her neglect of her son as she becomes addicted to the case is abhorrent.


A lot of screen time of the first half of the season is spent with Richmond recuperation in hospital. While I assumed that this time was being well spent, and that Richmond's involvement hadn't finished yet it was a distraction from the crime solving activities.


The season improved greatly from Episode 8 onwards. Linden manages to save Holder, loses her badge, sends Jack away and the episode ends with her and Holder driving away from the camera in a new direction, both having found new determination.


The final episode brought all three groups of characters together and despite the anti-climax of the first half of the episode, the second half provided a heart-breaking twist and some solid acting from Rosie's family as all was revealed, both from a justice point of view and with regards to Rosie's feelings towards her parents.


The show has now been cancelled by AMC and I feel that having solved the Larsen case and been through so much in doing so, there is little left for the writers to work with for Linden and it would not be the same starting with a fresh investigation so all in all a good decision to let the show finish on a high.

FILM: Transformers: Dark of the Moon (5/10)

It is safe to say that most people knew what to expect from Michael Bay's third instalment of the Transformers franchise. Impressive visuals, great special effects and plenty of metal on metal action sequences all flimsily supported by a weak script and storyline. Dark of the Moon is a better film than the previous Revenge of the Fallen but is still beset by the same flaws.


Dark of the Moon starts impressively, taking its initial story from a Transformers novel, where the US moon landings and space race are explained to be a front to investigate a Transformers ship that has crashed on the dark side of the moon. It transpires that the Russians obtained a Transformer energy source from the crash site and began experiments with it at Chernobyl with disastrous consequences. Grounding the beginning of the film in this historical context is the strongest point of all three Transformer films. However, as soon as the initial story is set and the screenplay of Ehren Kruger takes over, starting with the appearance of Sam Witwicky (Shia LeBeouf), the film descends into familiar territory.

Cue another weak script for the same bunch of characters, Special Agent Simmons (John Turturo), Lennox (Josh Duhamel), Epps, (Tyrese) and what was not great but occasionally amusing the first time becomes annoying the third time around. Megan Fox is not present this time and the script throws some barbs in her direction. Her replacement is posh Brit Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, who ticks all the aesthetic boxes Bay must have been looking for in a replacement but provides nothing more. Cameos from John Malkovich and Ken Jeong provide some fresh humour in places.

Despite the criticism that Revenge of the Fallen was bloated, Dark of the Moon clocks in at just over two and a half hours and is far, far too long. I have no problems with long films, I have sat through Apocalypse Now and Once Upon a Time in America many times but for an action film with a cheesy script it is completely unnecessary.


I couldn't help compare the films main protagonist, Sentinel (voiced by Leonard Nimoy), with the Fallen from the previous film in that both were characters from Cybertron's past, re-activated and brought to Earth as part of the Decepticon's plans.

Visually the action looks amazing again, in particular the scenes on the freeway and with the falling skyscraper but it has all been seen before. The film culminates in another huge battle between the Transformers set against a different cityscape (Chicago this time) that feels oh so familiar.


By giving Dark of the Moon 5 out of 10, it made me realise I was too kind to Revenge of the Fallen.

FILM: Bad Teacher (7/10)

Bad Teacher is 2011 comedy from the writers of The US Office starring Cameron Diaz as a gold-digging, unscrupulous and rule-breaking high school teacher.


Diaz plays the renegade teacher role with relish and is the highlight of the film. The Office style humour comes through in the form of some quirky characters, none more so than Lucy Punch's angelic and sugary sweet contrast to Diaz's character and the dolphin obsessed principal.


The concept of a teacher not really giving a damn, not learning her pupil's names, providing education through the showing of films and turning up hungover most days is a promising one that could have yielded stronger material. That being said, I don't understand some of the low reviews this film received. Without being laugh out loud funny, Bad Teacher is a decent enough comedy providing you accept it for what it is, a fairly trashy comedy with a predictable ending.

BOOK: Excalibur: A Novel of Arthur, Bernard Cornwell (6/10)

The final book of Bernard Cornwell's Arthurian trilogy finds Arthur still battling the invading Saxon armies, while struggling to keep the peace within the kingdoms of Wales and the South West of Britain.


As with each of the previous books, the story is a combination of epic battles and shield walls, mixed with the magic of Merlin and the contrasting religions of Paganism and Christianity. However, the description of the epic siege at Mynydd Baddon does feel repetitive coming off the back of the similarly epic battles at Lugg Vale in The Winter King and Thames Valley in The Enemy of God. That said, Cornwell manages keep to the rest of the story interesting enough until it's end when the reader is at last rewarded with discovering how the main protagonist and storyteller Derfel ends up a Christian monk. Across all three books I enjoyed the story in between the battles more when Cornwell's portrayal of the familiar historical characters was given chance to come across.


Looking back, the trilogy is an interesting and more realistic take on the often romanticised Arthurian legends, with a grand scope that Cornwell manages to do justice to.

FILM: Senna (9/10)

Brilliant 2010 documentary film following the racing career of three-time F1 World Champion Aryton Senna.


Compiled from hours of footage of racing, family videos, interviews with the Brazilian with interviews from peers played over the top, Senna is a documentary featuring no narration or retrospective interviews and plays out more like a written film than documentary.


The film tells the story of Senna's arrival in F1, his instant success on the road to his titles, his rivalry with Alain Prost and clashes with the FIA, culminating with the fateful San Marino GP in 1994.


The film is perhaps unbalanced when it deals with the Prost Senna relationship and I share Prost's opinion that it doesn't explain how their relationship thawed before Senna's death. The fact that Prost was a pallbearer at Senna's funeral speaks volumes of this. That said, the real 'bad guy' of the story is then FISA president Jean-Marie Balestre.


Senna comes across as highly spiritual, patriotic, committed and I'm sure racing fans of the Senna era enjoying seeing and listening to some interviews with the man just as much as the racing footage. 


A moving masterpiece in documentary making that will appeal to all.

FILM: True Grit (9/10)

After their 2007 No Country for Old Men, the Coen brothers try their hand at a true western with True Grit, an adaptation of the novel of the same name which John Wayne won his only Oscar for the 1969 version.


Mattie Ross (Hailee Steinfeld) is a headstrong 14 year old girl out to avenge her father's murder. Knowing her limitations she recruits the most unscrupulous U.S. Marshal she can find, Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges). They set off into Indian territory to hunt down her father's killer (Josh Brolin) occasionally accompanied by Texas Ranger Matt Damon, who is after the outlaw for a previous offence.


Helped by the Coen's excellent script, Steinfeld, Damon and Bridges in particular deliver excellent performances. Mattie is the moral compass of the uncomfortable trio as they proceed on their road trip and amusingly keeps her elder companions in line throughout for her own gain. 


The film also benefits from superb cinematography, including some memorable shots when Rooster and Mattie cross the horizon at sunset.


True Grit operates at its own pace towards it's finale and although few may consider it uneventful or boring it is a great story of unflinching retribution and justice.

FILM: Thor (6/10)

After Iron Man and Hulk, next up was Thor for introduction to the cinema-going masses in preparation for his role in The Avengers.

In comparison with most other superheroes, not only being from another world but a God at that, the story of Thor is probably one of the more difficult stories for adaptation. By dealing with other worlds and deities, as superhero stories go, Thor is more magical and less grounded than say Captain America or Batman.

The result is a hit and miss comic book adaptation that suffers from a poor villain, too much mythology and fantasy, unmemorable fight scenes and an occasionally cheesy script. Chris Hemsworth is likeable as Thor, he delivers both the brash arrogance and later sincerity of the character and although I haven't seen The Avengers I hope his character is given a reasonable amount of time.

The story benefits most when Thor is exiled to Earth, the subsequent clash of cultures with scientist Natalie Portman is funny in places, although the line about a phone picture going straight onto Facebook may win 'cheesiest line of the year'.

Having read differing reviews of Tom Hiddleston's Loki, I side with the negative. Comparisons of the actor's portrayal with Heath Ledger's Joker are way wide of the mark. Thor's brother Loki is as unmemorable a villain as I can remember.


A must see for any comic book or Avengers fan but not the greatest superhero film.

FILM: 13 Assassins (8/10)

Set in shogun-era Japan, 13 Assassins tells the story of an elite group of samurai selected to rid the land of the shogun's evil brother who uses his power to rape and kill at will.


I was expecting fight sequences similar to Chinese produced successes like Crouching Tiger or House of Flying Daggers, with elaborate camera effects and stylish choreography. However, director Takashi Miike serves up a totally different kind of action. The fight scenes are much more substance than style and are considerably more gritty and realistic.

At just over two hours long, 13 Assassins can easily be broken into three chapters. Initially the film is slow to start as the story is told and characters are introduced, although Miike sensibly introduces the assassins in groups, and provides more focus on a few rather than diluting the characters too greatly. The middle of the film deals with the assassins travel to their chosen ambush point as the shogun's brother and samurai approach. Following a few minor fights in the first two-thirds of the film, the ambush and subsequent fight fills the remaining 45 minutes without much pause and can only be described as epic.


After the initial upper hand is lost, the 13 men fight against a seemingly never ending army of guards and samurai knowing they are fighting towards their inevitable deaths. Having killed tens or hundreds of the enemy each, the realism of the film is underlined by the fatigue shown by the assassins as they are ultimately swamped holding off the enemy forces.

A largely enjoyable samurai film worth watching if not only for the epic fight between good and evil.

FILM: Predators (5/10)

Based on a draft screenplay penned by producer Robert Rodriguez in the mid-nineties, the Predator (without Alien) franchise was given an update with this 2010 reboot/sequel directed by Nimrod Antal.


Set on an anonymous planet serving as a game reserve, Adrien Brody (yes, Adrien Brody) leads a group of humans shipped to the planet for the purposes of being hunted by several Predators. The humans are selected from various global military organisations and have to overcome their initial confusion and distrust of each other as they are stalked by their foes.


I remember seeing the trailer for this film and being amazed that Brody had bulked up to play an action hero role. He actually plays the morally detached and cold Royce reasonably well and attempts his own version of the patented Christian Bale Batman voice. While I think about the trailer, the coolest scene where tens of red Predator scopes appear all over the cast never actually occurs in the film!


The story starts well as the mix of characters knit and begin to piece together why they have been brought to the planet. It is an interesting take on the Predator series, however Antal doesn't manage to sustain the interest once the first Predator kill occurs. From this point on the film becomes a pretty average and predictable killing spree similar to Predator itself only without the originality and B-movie feel. Only the brief cameo from Laurence Fishburne as a crazed survivor provides some change in direction.


As a standalone film, Predators is an average action film although better than the recent AVP series. As a new entry to the Predator story, it fails to live up the original, either that or perhaps I just remember the Arnie version for being better than it actually was.

FILM: The Thing (8/10)

In 1979, Ridley Scott released Alien. Three years later followed John Carpenter's The Thing. These two films are often considered seminal releases in the history of all things sci-fi, alien and horror. I am a huge Alien fan but The Thing has always slipped below my radar until now.


The 'Thing' itself is an alien released from its frozen tomb in Antarctica by a group of Norwegian scientists capable of taking on the appearance of those it infects.


Carpenter regular Kurt Russell leads the nearby US research base that is infiltrated by the alien when a huskie arrives from the Norwegian base. As the base comes under attack, the scientists struggle to control the spread of infection and paranoia sets in as they realise that anyone could be 'the thing' waiting to attack. The alien in The Thing is clearly intelligent as it bides its time hiding amongst the team sabotaging attempts to flush it out rather than revealing itself and taking the team head on.

In comparison with modern horror films, Carpenter doesn't rely on jumpy moments and creates a suspenseful atmosphere using the isolation of location, paranoia of the group and Ennio Morricone's haunting score. That said he is not afraid of revealing the alien in its natural form and The Thing contains some famously iconic scenes, most notably when Norris's decapitated head sprouts a giant tongue and legs and scuttles around. The special effects still look good to this day, however if you consider Ridley Scott's fantastic alien pre-dates The Thing by three years the aliens do not appear quite as polished.

It is worth mentioning that Carpenter decided to cast no female actors, something that a studio would surely not allow these days.


Having watched The Thing now, I see no reason to disagree with the film's seminal status in the sci-fi horror genre. A must-see film and a lesson in claustrophobic paranoia and suspense.

FILM: Point Break (8/10)

All I knew of Point Break before watching this was the scene where Keanu Reeves lays on his back and empties his gun into the sky so it's safe to say I didn't know much.


Directed by Kathryn Bigelow, 18 years before her Oscar-winning The Hurt Locker and set amongst the Californian surfing scene, Point Break follows Keanu Reeve's jock FBI agent Johnny Utah as he hunts down a group of surfer types responsible for a string of bank robberies. Patrick Swayze plays adrenaline junkie surfer Bodhi, part of the group Reeve's attempts to infiltrate.


The plot may be slightly pie in the sky, but Bigelow manages to deliver a non-stop testosterone-laden ride throughout, be it with well-shot surfing scenes, chases, shoot-outs or the heart in mouth skydiving action sequences.


Reeves over-acts as ever, but this time around it doesn't feel too ridiculous as it almost seems a natural fit as part of the humourous cop buddy relationship so typical of police films of this era. Gary Busey is great as the joker to Reeve's largely straight character. John C. McGinley plays the typically over-wrought and angry police chief in a character that people will recognise as remarkably similar to Dr. Cox in Scrubs.


A pre-cursor to funny cop action flicks like Bad Boys, Point Break is a simple but enjoyable no-brainer action film.

FILM: The Lincoln Lawyer (7/10)

Having enjoyed the book by Michael Connelly, the film held no surprises for me but I was still curious as to how successfully the story could be transferred to the big screen. Matthew McConaughey stars as The Lincoln Lawyer Michael Haller, an LA defence lawyer who operates out of the back of his chauffeured Lincoln.



Employing all sort of tactics to maintain his cash flow, Haller appears brash and without morals as he keeps LA's undesirables out of prison. However, this all changes when he gets drawn into a deadly game of secrets with his latest client, the young, rich Louis Roulet (Ryan Phillippe).


The screenplay does it best to squeeze in most of the sentiment and moral dilemmas that the book obviously had more time to focus on. Used to winning, Haller struggles with the dangerous situation as he deals with the complex mix of legal obligations, client and attorney privilege and his previous moral shortcomings.


McConaughey shines as the charismatic Haller and will hopefully stick to more meaningful roles in the future based on his performance here and that in his upcoming film Killer Joe. His performance is even stronger when viewed in relation to Phillippe's, who doesn't deliver the menace of the book's character. Michael Pena and John Leguizamo provide strong support to the main characters including William H. Macy and Marisa Tomei in typically minor roles.


Director Brad Furman tries gives some verve to the courtroom scenes with some non-typical angles, but all in all he lets the story play out adequately.The attorney versus client story seemed remarkably similar to that of Ryan Gosling versus Anthony Hopkins in Fracture in 2007.


A word on the soundtrack, which stays true to the hip-hop references of the book. Connelly explains that Haller's interest in the hip-hop genre stems from his driver Earl. I don't feel that this came across enough in the film and that the soundtrack appears to be a typical 'street' savvy selection of music selected for any LA based film. It is interesting that musical duties fell to Cliff Martinez, who had the same role for Drive, also set in LA, and the two soundtracks could not be further apart with the exception of Kalinsky's 'Nightcall' which appears in both.


A successful transformation from book to big screen.

TV: Touch (S1) (7/10)

Heroes creator Tim Kring brings Kiefer Sutherland back to the small screen in Touch, another ambitiously global and far-reaching series bearing all the hallmarks of a Kring production.


Touch tells the story of 9/11 widower struggling to raise his 11 year old son Jake, a mute introverted boy gifted with numbers. Jake is placed in supervisory care just as his father, Martin (Sutherland), realises that Jake's repetitive numbered scribblings are an attempt to communicate with him. During each episode Martin follows his son's instructions and 'follows the numbers' all the while trying to protect his son from sinister forces after him for their own gain.

The writers struggle to really portray what it actually is that Jake is capable of seeing and why he needs his father to correct things in the world through 'butterfly effect' actions to stop the pain he feels. The butterfly effect and red thread theory (that those who impact on others in the world by the butterfly effect are connected by an invisible red thread that must never break) are explored throughout the series, and each episode begins and ends with Jake narrating philosophy and theory.


However, by focusing on global as well as character specific issues to illustrate the complexity of the science, the number of single episode characters is high and it can be difficult to care about random characters in Iraq, Brazil or China on a one-off basis.


The season premiere was a fantastic start to the show, however the coincidences, or not as the case may be, do become to be slightly predictable as the season continues. Towards the end of the season, this predictability is balanced by the story arc of Martin trying to investigate who his after Jake and what for.


Sutherland plays the troubled father with great sincerity and care although his character becomes annoyingly anxious as he is led into predicament after predicament by Jake. The one way dialogue also began to grate slightly towards the end of the season. Danny Glover played an interesting character and I felt it was a shame he didn't make it as a regular character. Credit must also go to 11 year old David Mazouz for his portrayal of Jake.


The season ends strongly and it looks as though Martin and Jake have found a new ally in their search for answers. The show has been renewed for a second season and it will be interesting how the Kring moves the action along given the events of the season finale (let's hope it is better than season two of Heroes).

FILM: Edward Scissorhands (8/10)

When I was young, the combination of Depp's freaky appearance and the hands of scissors convinced me that Edward Scissorhands was a scary horror film and I never watched it. After all these years, how wrong I was.


An endearing romantic black comedy capable of some genuine heart warming and sad moments as well as plenty of laughs, Scissorhands is a definite highlight of Tim Burton's filmography.


Released in 1990, Scissorhands marks the first of many collaborations between Tim Burton and Johnny Depp. Depp is fantastic as the friendly and innocent ugly duckling Edward, rescued from hiding to a normal life by a sympathetic Avon lady (the excellent Dianne Wiest). Winona Ryder plays Edward's love interest.


Burton takes a swipe at pleasantville suburbia with his creation of the pastel coloured, generic town dominated by gossiping bored housewives. Having never experienced anything alien, the townsfolk welcome Edward's uniqueness with intrigue and curiosity rather than sinister suspicion. However, everything seems too good to be true until their fickle nature is revealed later when they unite as mob against the 'monster'.

FILM: Deliverance (8/10)

John Boorman's 1972 classic, Deliverance, stars Burt Reynolds, Jon Voight, Ned Beatty and Ronny Cox as four city slickers who decide to take a canoeing trip in the remote wilderness of Georgia.


The foursome, Reynolds and Beatty in particular, approach the trip with a naive view of the dangers they face and patronising attitude to the country locals.


The sinister nature of the film is providing early on during the famous 'duelling banjo's' scene. Stumbling across a remote petrol station, the locals show hostility to the arrogant foursome and Boorman ensures that the banjo scene where the local inbred boy plays the banjo in almost savant manner is creepy enough so as to be able to use the simple banjo tune throughout the rest of the film as a soundtrack of tension and unease.


Already aware of some of the details of the most harrowing moment of the film, I watched Deliverance with an uneasy tension. The foursome face danger from their surroundings as well as the locals, however it is the locals who strike first in a scene which I can imagine in the early 70's was incredibly shocking to watch. After the male rape scene, the city boys realise the danger and isolation they face and as paranoia begins to set in they take desperate action to survive.


Perhaps unusual in today's cinema, Boorman was certainly not afraid to use long scenes of the actors canoeing down the river to patiently bridge the key scenes.


40 years on, the story remains remarkably simply, but is told in a bold and powerful manner. Each of the four characters are different and all are changed men as the story ends differently for each of them. The acting is fantastic, in particular Voight and Reynolds, although looking back Reynold's character Lewis now perhaps comes across as a bit too macho as the Bear Grylls wannabe.


The hopeless sense of claustrophobic wilderness and isolation portrayed may well have been the inspiration for later films such as Predator and The Edge.


Nowadays the film suffers from some very dated editing but has largely aged well and is a 70's classic well worth a watch.

BOOK: Enemy of God, Bernard Cornwell (7/10)

Enemy of God is the second book in Bernard Cornwell's Warlord Chronicles trilogy chronicling the story of Arthur and his battle against the Saxons.


Following on from the first book, The Winter King, Arthur has achieved temporary peace across the south of England via shrewd diplomacy and on occasions, war. Cornwell's trilogy portrays Arthur as an oath-bound Lord sworn to protect the kingdom of the infant King Mordred against the Saxons as the country itself is torn apart by warring Christians and pagans. Arthur is a principled leader who remains true to his oaths even as they overpower him and conflict with each other.


As with the first novel, the story is told retrospectively by the main protagonist Derfel, a former warrior and now monk loyal to Arthur. By telling the story in such a way, Cornwell maintains the suspense as the reader is aware of Derfel's present situation (writing the story in a monastery) but unclear how he ends up there from the story he is telling which is a world apart.


The book has an underlying theme of atheism common to modern times as Cornwell narrates the escalating threat to peace of the warring Christians and pagans and Arthur's struggle, despite all his best diplomatic efforts, to bring harmony to the rival religions.


I am largely unfamiliar with the story of Arthur and his knights of Camelot, and I enjoyed Cornwell's attempt to retell the story without all the usual romantic legends, however, in comparison with the first book, Enemy of God does feature more magical goings on as Merlin ropes Derfel into his quest to find the Treasures of Britain. The ending is particularly exciting as Arthur's friend Lancelot shows his true colours and places the story's heroes in danger while setting the scene for the final instalment of the trilogy.


A good mixture of history, legends, magic and religion.