FILM: Wrath of the Titans (5/10)

Why did I watch it?

I watched Clash of the Titans and decided to see how the follow-up fared, more out of having nothing better to do than particularly enjoying the first film.

What's it all about?

Zeus (again played by Liam Neeson) and the gods call on Perseus to save mankind once more after Hades begins to return power to Kronos and the long imprisoned Titans.

Should you watch it?

Wrath, clash, smash, bash, it's all the same for Sam Worthington as he returns as Greek demigod Perseus. Wrath is very similar in style, plot and well just about everything else to Louis Leterrier's 2010 Clash of the Titans. It treads the same ground, impressive visuals, monsters, battles, the reluctant hero, nothing is new.

The film certainly doesn't score any points for it's dialogue. Somebody needs to explain to me why writers continually load scripts with cheesy lines. Point in case being Perseus looking up at the cyclops towering over him for the first time and saying to himself, 'You gotta be kidding me'. WHY, WHY, WHY, doesn't anyone from the directors to the actor themselves resist spouting garbage like this.

I struggle to comprehend why the likes of Ralph Fiennes, Liam Neeson and Bill Nighy, making his first appearance of the franchise, bother with this type of mediocrity.

Wrath of the Titans is not going to win any awards for originality, script or its acting. I guess that no-one watches this film with those kind of expectations, however for mindless, action blockbusters there are better options.

FILM: J. Edgar (7/10)

Why did I watch it?

J. Edgar Hoover is a historical figure I've always wanted to know more about. I enjoy American crime-based history and after reading James Ellroys's fantastic Underworld USA trilogy, which although fictional certainly suggested that Hoover was a very interesting character in American crime fighting.

What's it all about?

A biopic of John Edgar Hoover, the FBI's first Director, Clint Eastwood's film finds Hoover (Leonardo DiCaprio) recounting his career for his memoirs and reliving his beginnings at the Department of Justice before becoming Director of the department's Bureau of Investigation. The film touches on his war against communism, interest in scientific investigation, the G-men era and his relationship with close friend Clyde Tolson (Armies Hammer).

Should you watch it?
J. Edgar is a strange film. While I wouldn't go as far as saying I really enjoyed sitting through it's two hours plus running time, I found the subject matter incredibly interesting and DiCaprio's powerhouse performance as Hoover kept me glued to the screen. The film is certainly not lacking for strong performances as DiCaprio is well supported by Armie Hammer and Naomi Watts.

I think writer Dustin Black struggled to balance the elements of character study with the events taking place around Hoover. The film is definitely at it's most interesting when Hoover is leading the FBI through the pursuit of Dillinger, investigating the Lindbergh kidnapping and plotting against Martin Luther King. When the film remembers it's a biopic it turns to Hoover's personal life and time is spent analysing his relationships with close friend Clyde and his mother, played by Judi Dench. This narrative, from various times in Hoover's past, both professional and private life, to the current day, does jump around without too much coherence but I didn't find it as troubling as many critics seem too have.

J. Edgar will not appeal to those with no interest in American history yet for those keen to understand Hoover's dogged role in the creation of the FBI and some of the major political events of the twentieth century, and willing to forgive it it's flaws, it offers a fascinating look at the achievements and legacy of the man while touching on his character, all told through the great performances.


Oh and yes, some of the make-up and prosthetics used on DiCaprio and Hammer during the later years are distractingly laughable.

FILM: Ice Age: Continental Drift (5/10)

Why did I watch it?

I've watched all the films of the Ice Age franchise over the years so there wasn't any reason not to give Continental Drift a go and see what Sid, Manny and co were up to this time around.

What's it all about?

As the continents begin to break up (caused believe it or not by Scrat chasing his acorn), the film's group of regular characters are separated and Manny, Sid and Diego find themselves on a floating piece of ice where they meet Captain Gutt's motley crew of pirates.

Should you watch it?
If you have watched the previous three you might as well watch Continental Drift, though you will know exactly what to expect. Producing a third sequel is an indicator of how successful the franchise has been but also underlines how dependent studios can be to roll-out another sequel, devoid of too much development, for a guaranteed return. Anyway that's not Continental Drift's fault.

As with Dawn of the Dinosaurs there are additional characters this time around, a whole heap of them in fact. Sid's Grandma arrives, Diego has a love interest, Manny's daughter's gang, the film's villain and his posse of pirates to name a few. The producers clearly made a decision to make Continental Drift more teeny than the previous films, perhaps to match the age of the audience that has grown up with the franchise and the casting of the likes of Nicki Minaj, Drake and Jennifer Lopez underlines this, while the writing for Minaj's and Drake's characters does not so much underline it as write in capital letters, LOOK AT US COOL WRITERS, THIS IS WHAT TEENAGERS SOUND LIKE. Anyway, it's a kids film, who can get mad.

Thankfully the troublesome teens are kept on the side of the plot which serves just to occupy the half of the cast which aren't cut adrift and captured by Captain Gutt, brilliantly voiced by Peter Dinklage (Tyrion from GoT). Nick Frost voices Flynn, an effeminate seal in Gutt's employ, and his lines were the stand-out moments for me. Scrat's acorn hunt is still going and is always an enjoyable distraction from the central storyline.


As ever the film looks great, kids will enjoy the action and fun but for the rest of us the franchise feels tired, in the sense of characters and plots. However, with Continental Drift making over $800M it may be that Sid and co. are not on the verge of extinction just yet.  

FILM: 10 Years (5/10)

Why did I watch it?

The Mrs chose this one and I thought what the hell.

What's it all about?

The clue is in the title, it's a 10 year high school reunion romantic comedy starring Channing Tatum, Rosario Dawson, Justin Long and Oscar Isaacs among others. There's little else to say except the film plays out the events of the evening as the characters reunite and discover things about each other and themselves.

Should you watch it?
Probably not. It's difficult to see what attracted such an ensemble cast to this mediocre, underwhelming school reunion yarn.

Most people's own school reunion's are uninteresting enough and the array of characters in 10 Years do not strike enough of a chord with the audience to make their story engaging. The characters are introduced almost en-mass and it's really difficult to invest in anyone in particular, especially considering the typical run of the mill issues and relationships involved, old flames, bullies, the popular girl etc., that all took place ten years ago.

The script does achieve some small levels of poignancy, the highlight being Oscar Isaac's song written for his secret high school crush, and their are a few funny running gags throughout but ultimately the reunion finishes, the story is told and my detachment from it left me wondering what was the point in watching.

FILM: For A Good Time, Call... (7/10)

Why did I watch it?

It's amazing how many films can pass you by on release. Admittedly this might not be the type of film I would look out for but I had never even seen or heard any mentions of this before my other half suggested we watch it.

What's it all about?

Dumped for being boring, Lauren (Lauren Miller) reluctantly agrees to move in with friend of a friend wild chick Katie (Ari Graynor) for the summer. The pair have a fractious history but their relationship improves when Lauren discovers that Katie is making money on the side from a phone sex service and decided she wants in.

Should you watch it?
I wasn't expecting much from this film, I wasn't even going to watch it but For A Good Time, Call... actually turned out to be a pretty decent comedy that put a smile on my face time and time again. Much of that is down to the subject matter, smutty raunchy sex humour will always be funny to my juvenile side. Credit needs to also be given to the leading pair, Lauren Miller and Ari Graynor. Miller (Seth Rogen's wife) co-wrote the film and Graynor is brilliantly cast as the Katie, the imposing, raunchy alpha-female masking vulnerability. I don't think the film would be as funny without her. Considering the female writing team and cast the film certainly rivals, but not quite beats, stand-out female comedy Bridesmaids.

Justin Long plays an over the top gay friend and cameo's from Rogen and Kevin Smith are among the film's highlights. 

Short, funny and with predictable heart in the final third, For A Good Time, Call... is worth checking out.

TV: Revolution (S1) (4/10)

Why did I watch it?

Sold entirely on the premise and the J.J. Abrams connection. When will I learn.... 

What's it all about?

Set in the future 15 years after the world's power mysteriously turns off, anarchy reigns and the United States of America has fractured into various republics and nations. The story follows teenage girl Charlie Matheson, a blackout survivor and her Uncle Miles, the former General of the ruthless Monroe Republic, located in Philadelphia, as they search for her brother, taken hostage by General Monroe and discover more about the origins of the blackout.

Should you watch it?

Sounds good right? Wrong.

Revolution is bad, really bad at times. The show suffers from the curse of its connections to Lost. The writers deliver some episodes of absolute dross, usually in the form of contrived tangents and side-quests to the character's main objectives, only to finish most episodes with some form of tiny reveal of the show's grand story, which the writers seemingly make up week by week.

Just turn the lights back on PLEASE

The swashbuckling sword fighting nature of the show's early episodes give way to episodes loaded with some of the lamest, most repetitive gun fights ever, punctuated with characters of frustrating stupidity and tediousness. The main character Charlie (Tracy Spiridakos) is an annoyingly righteous, not to mention stupid, teenage girl in the Hunger Game mould, who repeatedly clashes with her self-serving, stylised bad guy Uncle as many times as she has to be rescued by him after more poor judgement. The writers clearly tried to make Miles (Billy Burke) the show's anti-hero, a womanising, boozing killer wrecked by his past indiscretions and the show would have been better if they would have stuck to their guns but they all too often give in because he's one of the good guys.

Revolution's single shining light (no pun intended) is Giancarlo Esposito's turn as Captain Tom Neville, easily the show's best character. That is all.   

The similarities to Flashforward and Lost are all too obvious. The score, the flashbacks (actually more enjoyable than the present day action), the mysterious world changing event, the 'hatch' 'tower' are all borrowed with varying degrees of mediocrity.

At times watching Revolution I wished that the world's power would blackout to save me, I'll be skipping season two despite the slightly intriguing set-up in the finale. Another interesting concept from the J.J. Abrams stable (see Alcatraz) fails to live up to it's potential.

FILM: Monsters, Inc. (7/10)

Why did I watch it?

This was a pick by Mrs Media Worm, most likely with an ulterior motive of priming me to go and see Monsters, Inc..

What's it all about?

The monster inhabited city of Monstropolis is powered by children's screams and it's up to 'Scarers' and their assistants, like Sully and Mike, to keep the city running by scaring human children and collecting their screams. The monsters believe that children are dangerous and havoc begins when Sully accidentally releases a child into Monstropolis.   

Should you watch it?
When you stop and consider the subject matter, you realise how gifted Pixar actually are in being able to turn a story about monsters hiding in children's closets to scare them into a funny and warm children's animation. Imagine if Tim Burton has got his hands onto the story!

Monsters, Inc. looks great and tells a hugely original story, however I did find that the film largely relies heavily on slapstick jokes, for the younger audience, and lacks more subtle jokes for adult appreciation that some other children's animations do successfully integrate.

John Goodman is perfectly cast as the gentle Scarer Sully while Billy Crystal, voicing Mike, does become frustratingly annoying as the irritatingly talkative one of the pair.

TV: Banshee (S1) (8/10)

Why did I watch it?

Banshee first came on to my radar when I was reading about True Blood and Six Feet Under creator Alan Ball's next project. I then totally forgot about it until the trailers began running on TV and it looked worth a watch.

What's it all about?

The show revolves around a former diamond thief, released after a 15 year stint, who travels to the small township of Banshee to track down his former partner and lover. Upon his arrival, the town's incoming sheriff, Lucas Hood, is killed in a quiet bar and the convict assumes the dead man's identity, becoming the town's new sheriff.

Should you watch it?

Banshee is a gritty, ultra-violent, ultra-sexy, truly adult TV show that I thoroughly enjoyed watching the debut season of. 

Executive produced by True Blood's Alan Ball, Banshee features a diverse and interesting cast of characters, from Russian crime lord to rebellious Amish young woman, colliding in the small town setting. Main character Lucas Hood (Antony Starr) grows into his role as the show's anti-hero with his balls to the wall hard approach to sheriff duties that shocks and impresses his colleagues in equal measures. Ulrich Thomsen steals most scenes as the sly, menacing and vile local crime lord Kai Proctor, frustrated that the new sheriff doesn't want to serve his interests as predecessors have done.

One of the Banshee's strengths is it's brutally fantastic fight scenes. Not afraid to skimp on violence, the choreography is amazing and comfortably beats most movie punch-ups. Hood's fights with a visiting cage fighter and Albino prison beast are probably some of the best fights I've seen produced.


The season's ending was disappointingly predictable but I still enjoyed the story, script and characters hugely and the trailer for season two shows that there is still plenty of drama ahead in Banshee.

Not for the reserved, but a great start for one of the toughest shows on TV.

FILM: Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (9/10)

Why did I watch it?

The question should be 'How has it taken me 15 years to watch this?'. Almost a British institution, it is shameful that it has taken this long!

What's it all about?

Four East End wannabe laaaaaads, Bacon, Eddy, Tom and Soap, end up in debt to the tune of £500,000 to local gangster Harry The Hatchet with a week to pay up. When they discover that the flat next door is occupied by a gang of like minded part time criminals who are planning a robbery of their own, an opportunity presents itself to recover their losses.

Should you watch it?
The film that launched Madonna's one time husband Guy Ritchie to the masses is a triumph of the East End gangster culture laced with a heavy dose of humour and inept characters. One long Mexican stand off in the making with a sharp script full of memorable lines, 'it's been emotional', it's easy to imagine Lock Stock as a film Tarantino would be proud of.

The opening scene belongs to Jason Statham, in his first film, playing a dodgy dealer in a role different to the action tough guys he would go on to trademark, as he wheels and deals fenced items with a Cockney slang heavy script, 'it's a deal, it's a steal'. Ritchie does a good job of gradually introducing the film's characters as the layers of the story develop through narration and hearsay and the characters, from drug kingpin Rory Breaker to Rob Brydon's traffic warden, score the film major plus points.


Lock Stock also boasts a brilliant soundtrack of contemporary British music, Ocean Colour Scene, The Stone Roses and some classic songs, Zorba the Greek, that are well used in the film.

FILM: The Raven (5/10)

Why did I watch it?

I think I got drawn with a curiosity of all things Edgar Allan Poe after watching Fox's The Following.

What's it all about?

A woman and her daughter are founded murdered in 19th century Baltimore in a fashion that echoes one of Edgar Allan Poes' macabre literary works. Inspector Fields (Luke Evans) ropes the eccentric Poe (John Cusack), now a drunk forgotten writer struggling to regain his acclaimed status in the literary world, into his investigation to catch the killer.

Should you watch it?
I almost felt as disinterested in writing this review as I did watching the film so this will a short one. The Raven is an average film that never delivers anything above typical cat and mouse serial killer mediocrity. Director James McTeigue (V for Vendetta) manages to create some darkly Gothic settings but it's all shamefully wasted as the narrative never gets its teeth into the audience. When the serial killer was revealed, it lacked any twist, shock or suspense of any form and this sums up the film's general lack of intrigue. While reading other reviews, I've seen mentions to Se7en and when you hold The Raven up against David Fincher's great serial killer film, you realise how wasteful The Raven is considering the Gothic setting and characters involved.


Leads John Cusack and Luke Evans perform admirably and the producers deserve a gold star for not casting Johnny Depp as Poe (shudder). If you are watching to see Alice Eve, you may be disappointed unless her being trapped in a coffin for the majority of the film is your idea of fun.

TV: Mad Men (S6) (8/10)

Why did I watch it?

One of my favourites. Must watch TV.

What's it all about?

Season 6 (of 7) revolves around Don's steady descent towards self-destruction and the damage it causes to his relationship with wife Megan, daughter Sally and his company. Another merger is on the cards for SCDP and new character Bob Benson causes a whole heap of questions.

Should you watch it?
Another consistent season, from one of TVs landmark shows for quality. Well written, directed and acted once more. However, despite keeping up with its own level of excellence, this was not my favourite season of Mad Men. Themes are revisited, a new mistress for Don, another drug-fuelled episode, trips to the West Coast, Pete loses a parent and the season doesn't feel quite as fresh as others have.

As always the show manages to amuse me greatly, with some smartly written exchanges between Harry and Pete, Pete and Bob, Roger and Bob and Pete and anyone else to be fair. Despite not featuring as prominently this season, Pete came unstuck and appears to be following Don's footsteps, only in a more amusing fashion.

Circumstances conspire to give Don a new bull to butt horns with in the form of Ted Chaough. His arrival brings an influx of characters that provides the writers an injection of new dynamics to play with that might have been needed as at times the main cast have started to become slightly predictable.

Despite featuring the assassinations of Bobby Kennedy and MLK and the backdrop of riots in New York, season six was not as dark as the previous season, there was too much humour for that, but the show remains a complex, dark beast straddled by many unhappy characters and anti-heroes. For me the season culminated on the up as Don found a sense of terribly mis-placed honesty, following a moody descent into unhappiness that saw him lose his mojo at home and most shockingly at the office, that may just have been the end of the Draper dynasty at SCDP.

The beginning of the end?

Only one more season to go. How much will set in California? 

FILM: Brake (6/10)

Why did I watch it?

I had never heard of Brake until it arrived on Sky Premiere recently. I gave it a spin because of the plot, which sounded intriguing and similar in a way to largely single location films like 127 Hours, Saw and Phone Booth, all of which I enjoyed.

What's it all about?

Secret Service Agent Jeremy Reins (Stephen Dorff) wakes up trapped inside a glass box inside a car boot. All he has for company is an old radio and the illuminated display of clock counting down.

Should you watch it?
For 90% of this film I would have said absolutely yes. Unfortunately, the other 10% (and you've guessed it, it's the ending) is a ridiculous example of writers trying to be too clever with twists. Imagine sitting through two M. Night Shyamalan style twists, each more damaging to the previous 80 minutes than the last, in the space of the final three minutes.

Up to this point I had greatly enjoyed Brake. I've never really noticed Dorff in any films I've seen him in before but here he is excellent as the hero in the box and gives his all to the performance as he is put through a series of physical and mental trials designed to make him give up the top secret info. Until the ending the plot is clever, fast paced and full of suspense and the writers use sensible plot devices to help move the narrative along without the audience just watching Jeremy wriggle around for 80 minutes. The direction (Gabe Torres) is also sharp and avoids too much darkness (like a car boot really would be !) by cleverly using the red illumination from the clock to create a tense mood in boot space. Also Brian Tyler provides the score and he doesn't disappoint as usual.

"Do you do delivery?"

Overall Brake has so many things going for it and is a surprisingly taught thriller for those who enjoy this genre of thrillers, however it will also be damaged by the unnecessary and frankly bonkers ending.

FILM: Gangster Squad (6/10)

Why did I watch it?

I was really looking forward to this film being released. It was a one of my top three most anticipated films of 2013. Reading quite a few of James Ellroy's books has made me a fan of the 1950's crime era in Los Angeles so this film looked right up my street, not to mention the stellar cast. 

What's it all about?

The year is 1949 and gangster Mickey Cohen (Sean Penn) has Los Angeles under his control. The LAPD authorise Sarge O'Mara (Josh Brolin) to recruit an unofficial unit, known as the Gangster Squad, charged with driving Cohen out of town by bringing down his criminal activities by any means necessary.

Should you watch it?
There is no doubting that director Ruben  Fleischer produced a stylish film, or perhaps the word flashy is actually more fitting, but to use a line as clichéd as the film itself, it's all style over substance.

I would like to see the original story behind the unit just to see how many of the unit's members were of the writers own making. The unit is literally an identi-kit of clichéd characters, the war veteran, the ladies man, the black dude, the nerdy one with the family, the old-should-be retired one. With the exception of Brolin and Gosling's characters, and Penn's over the top scene chewing Mickey Cohen, the rest of the film's big names are wasted on flimsy two dimensional roles. But hey, the slow-motion gun fire and car chase looks great though right? 

The film's production was not trouble free, what with the re-writing of a pivotal scene following the Aurora cinema tragedy but I really can't imagine that this missing scene could have saved Gangster Squad from being any other than an average crime flick.

Gangster Squad guy #1, Gangster Squad guy
#2, Gangster Squad guy #3.......

The main problem with Gangster Squad is it's competition. This story has been told before, think of L.A. Confidential (1950's LAPD) or The Untouchables (police unit against Al Capone), and both times the storytelling was superior.

Considering how good the film could have been with the cast and story at hand, Gangster Squad is a disappointingly average film but it's still probably worth checking out as one of 2013's biggest releases.

FILM: Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted (7/10)

Why did I watch it?
What was the worst that could happen?

What's it all about?
I forget the plot of the franchise's second film Escape to Africa, but here the gang leave Africa and head to Europe (on board the monkey piloted plane). After arriving in Monte Carlo and making a scene at a casino, Marty, Alex, Melman, Gloria, King Julien and the penguins stowaway on-board a circus train.

Should you watch it?
Madagascar 3 is probably the most colourful, bright and energetic film you will see this year. Freshened up with additional characters, the writing is funny for both children and adults, although slightly uneven throughout the film.

Most of the laughs come from Stefano the sea lion, King Julien or the penguins rather than the main characters, the voices of which can become borderline irritating after hearing them in three films. The writing makes homages to plenty of other films, my favourite being the banana gun fired from the plane, which shot in slow-motion as with many stylish action sequences, had banana skins flying out and building up rather than shell casings. The nationalities represented by the new characters of the circus, specifically Eastern Europe, France and Italy, are shamelessly stereotyped. Although I don't take issue with it, on the contrary the Italian sea lion (voiced by Martin Short)  was the funniest character in my view, it is lazy writing to rely on these stereotypes so heavily.

The sequence from the film's start to the end of the chase through Monte Carlo, along parts of the F1 circuit no less, was a brilliant and the highlight of the film. It's unfortunate that this was the first twenty minutes.

Colourful, energetic and often funny third outing for the popular franchise.

TV: The Good Wife (S4) (7/10)

Why did I watch it?

The Good Wife is one of the most unappreciated shows on TV.

What's it all about?

Julianna Marguiles plays Alicia Florrick, a Chicago defence lawyer who returned to work after her husband, the state attorney, was jailed following a sex and corruption scandal.

The plot of season four revolves around Peter's run for governor, Lockhart & Gardner's financial stewardship, the arrival of Kalinda's estranged husband and the distribution of new partnerships to some of the company associates.

Should you watch it?

With another 22 episodes, this time around I thought that the season lost it's direction mid-way through and I really started to wonder if the story is approaching it's natural conclusion. Peter's governor election campaign was similar to season two's campaign to take back his state's attorney seat. It was also mentioned this season that Eli has visions of leading Peter to state senator next. The drama of a political campaign has been played out well by The Good Wife through two seasons out of four now and it's time to focus on something else. Also, the Will and Alicia romance was only ever temporarily concluded in season three and it felt like re-treading old ground at times this season. The other major storyline of the season was Calinda's husband Nick arriving from her mysterious past. His thinly veiled hostility and desire to aggressively insert himself into Calinda's life was interesting to begin with, especially as Calinda's past has been a subject of interest, but it got old very quickly and brought a chunk of the season down.

Despite all the above, and maybe I'm being harsh because of the high regard I hold the show in,  the show still features excellent guest stars (Nathan Lane, Michael J Fox and Christina Ricci) and the episodes Battle of the Proxies, Red Team/Blue Team and the finale What's In The Box made brilliant viewing. Special mention also to the writing of the character David Lee (Zach Grenier), who gets some fantastically cruel and sarcastic lines as usual. The season ended on a big cliffhanger with huge consequences for the show's central storyline and I look forward to the show's return.

Overall, some stagnation and repetitive story lines made for weaker moments in comparison with previous seasons but The Good Wife remains a solild TV show a cut above the norm.

TV: Game of Thrones (S3) (9/10)

Why did I watch it?
Simple, I love this show. I decided to watch Season 2 and 3 before returning to George R.R. Martin's books and picking up A Clash of Kings of which the second and third seasons contain elements of.

What's it all about?

Unless you have been living under a rock, or in deepest Qarth perhaps, you should have heard of HBO's TV adaptation of George R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire series. Well it's that, and Season Three just finished with a bang.

At the end of season two, we saw Robb Stark defy his mother, the growing power of Daenerys' infant dragons, Winterfell fall and most excitingly the White Walkers on the move North of The Wall.

Without giving much away, season three sees the continuation of war fought between the Starks and their bannermen and the Lannisters, Daenerys dragons continue to grow as she begins assembling an army overseas, Jon falls in with Mance Rayder's wildlings north of The Wall and the political scheming at Kings Landing continues as Tywin Lannister arrives as the new Hand of the King.

Should you watch it?
At times I felt that season three was the show's slowest yet. For me too many of the characters, I can think of Arya, Sam, Jaime and Brann off the top of my head, were sharing journeys of a similar nature and although the plot only visited them occasionally, there didn't seem to be much diversity between the story lines and episodes could be filled with people on the move, never seeming to make much progress towards their goals.

Catelyn wasn't impressed with the colour scheme at
the Red Wedding

On the other hand, all the above is what makes Game of Thrones such a great show. The plot moves along at its own speed, steadily moving the massive cast of characters along in their respective story arcs. The slow and deliberate story telling is such a contrast to many TV shows , where writers seem to rush plots at the expense of character development. That is not to say that Game of Thrones is not capable of turning up the excitement levels. I think this season has contained the biggest shocks of the show so far and considering what happened at the end of season one, that is saying something.  

This leads me on to the episode The Rains of Castamere, also known as The Red Wedding. I'm keen not to give anything way so it is difficult to comment on but for me this episode underlines the greatness of the show. A colossal event in terms of characters and story line that you just would not see in any other show. Imagine Tony Soprano's family being wiped out in the middle of an episode in the middle of a season. Totally unheard of. The scenes in particular were brilliantly produced as well and any silly doubts I had over the show were instantly erased by this episode.

"but I don't want to go to bed Granddad"

Elsewhere, Tywin demonstrates he is the only Lannister able to lay the law down to Joffrey. I'm looking forward to seeing more of this in the future, Joffrey seems genuinely afraid of his grandfather. Tywin's arrival shakes things up at Joffrey's court and things change for Tyrion, Sansa and Littlefinger and even Cersei seems unable to avoid her father's plans to strengthen the family.

The season comes to a close with the fate of one major character unconfirmed and I can't wait for the fallout from the Red Wedding to filter across Westeros. The next season of Game of Thrones cannot return soon enough.

FILM: World War Z (7/10)

Why did I watch it?
World War Z was my most anticipated film of 2013 (2013 anticipated films).

What's it all about?
After escaping Philadelphia with his family in tow, UN investigator Gerry Lane (Brad Pitt) is tasked with tracing the source of a global zombie pandemic that shows no signs of slowing.

Should you watch it?

I am going to dedicate one paragraph and one paragraph only to the subject of the film being massively different and inferior to the book it is allegedly based upon. Max Brooks' novel is a collection of accounts of the worldwide war against zombies and covers social, religious and political repercussions stemming from the global war. Marc Forster's film is a zombie based action film led by Brad Pitt with occasional references to locations (Israel) or terminology (Zeke) from the source material. The term 'based on' has never been so loosely used. Being a massive fan of the book, I lowered my expectations for the film to match my disappointment after finding out that the screenplay was not staying truer to the spirit of the book. Anyway, that's out of the way now and this review will now attempt to assess the film on it's own merits.

The film wastes no time, racing out of the traps with only a few minutes used to introduce the Lane family, father Gerry (Pitt), mother Karin (Mireille Enos) and two daughters, before the zombie outbreak takes over Philadelphia. From this point it's all zombie tension and action, including some well shot action sequences in an eerily lit apartment complex, until Gerry gets his family out to the UN fleet off the coast of America. This domestic introduction to the outbreak gives way to a more global perspective as the UN look to investigate the source in order to develop a vaccine. I felt this worldwide globe-trotting series of locations and discussions of the differing strategies of different nations following the outbreak was much more consistent with the spirit of the book.

Red light district

In my mind, introducing the zombies so early on in the film (we discover the world is overran within thirty minutes) underlines that Forster saw the film as more of a global thriller investigating the world's ability to cope with a zombie outbreak more similar to the likes of Contagion rather than a true zombie horror flick like Dawn of the Dead. I had no issue with this, and neither did I have any complaints (as I have seen consistently made) with either the lack of gore (only a 15 in the UK) or the speed of the zombies. Firstly with the gore, I personally don't see it as a prerequisite for a zombie film, if the director (or studio I imagine) choose to include it then so be it but I think there has been enough on The Walking Dead to see me through to the next season. Secondly with the zombies, there are some inconsistencies in their relative speed and intelligence and they did look very similar to the vampires from I Am Legend, but the fast nature of the herd is a change from the norm and does lead to some awesome looking scenes. Also, I don't think the film ever really confirmed that the infected were zombies or the undead, only that these were literal translations of terms used in other countries.

I found the film capable of a decent level of tension and suspense in places although I really did begin to get frustrated with the repeatedly clumsy nature of the cast as they banged into everything in their way and attracted the attention of zombies. Doesn't anyone look where they are going?

Brad Pitt's chopper takes off after a day's shooting in Glasgow

I thought that the rehashed ending (courtesy of rewriters Drew Goddard and Damon Lindelof) lost it's way in comparison with the more international nature of the film's first two acts and became more of a typical zombie film without being anything special, and this act was definitely the film's weakest part.

Considering the delays and re-writes, World War Z is a success, in that it made it to the big screen at all and I actually enjoyed large parts of it. However, it's inconsistent writing and ending, not to mention the huge divergence from the book will always be a source of frustration to many.

TV: Da Vinci's Demons (S1) (6/10)

Why did I watch it?
My interest in this new Starz show was three fold, one its historical, two it's set in Florence during the Renaissance and I enjoyed that setting when playing Assassin's Creed II and thirdly it was created and predominantly written by David. S. Goyer, a chief part of the writing brains behind The Dark Knight trilogy.

What's it all about?
Set in Florence, the show follows 25 year old Leonardo Da Vinci (Tom Riley) as he becomes embroiled in the political scheming between Florence and Rome all the while trying to uncover secrets of his heritage.

Should you watch it?
Ultimately I was disappointed with Demons considering it's creator. When the show was announced I wondered what 'demons' the title was referring to and it's these demons that for me detract from the narrative's stronger elements. The show is strongest when Da Vinci is caught up in the power struggle fought between the Medici's and the Pope through his sly nephew Count Riario. 

The 'demons' element weakens Da Vinci and has him fighting a repressed childhood memory while hunting for clues of his mother. He is contacted by the Son's of Mithras, who instruct him to access the Fountain of Memory to find the Vault of Heaven where he will find the Book of Leaves. Seriously, you couldn't make it up. The Book of Leaves will probably be followed by the Turd of Glory.


In terms of historical accuracy the show is tongue in cheek and pretty good fun. For me Da Vinci is a bearded old man, but here is he reinvented as a cool, fast talking, talented sword fighter. I wondered if Goyer would stay true to dialogue of the time but this was answered in the first ten seconds of the opening episode when Hugh Bonneville, in a cameo as the Duke of Milan, responds 'Balls!' to be told he was late! Tom Riley is charismatic as Leonardo and is well supported by Elliot Cowan as Lorenzo de Medici and Blake Ritson as Count Riario.

The production is glossy and features some decent CGI used to illustrate Da Vinci's brain at work as he plots and develops his inventions.

The finale was disappointing finishing not just following a cliffhanger but midway through one which I found incredibly unsatisfying. At only eight episodes, the season was the perfect length, short and punchy and the show has been renewed for another round in 2014.

FILM: Defiance (6/10)

Why did I watch it?
I recorded this film so long ago I can't remember what appealed to me. I generally like war films and this looked like a bleak survival tale set during World War II. Or maybe it was just the Bond factor.

What's it all about?
Defiance is an adaptation of the book Defiance: The Bielski Partisans and tells of the exploits of the Bielski brothers,  Belarusian Jews who led a stand against the occupying Nazi force during WWII. Daniel Craig stars as the eldest,Tuvia, Liev Schreiber as hot-headed Zus and Jamie Bell as the younger Asael.

Should you watch it?
I wouldn't go out of my way to watch it again. Defiance is a fairly run of the mill film that, considering the subject matter, is not as inspiring or emotionally intense as it could have been. The plot just seems to move along without being able to grab you and pull you in to the plight of the Bielski group, despite the deaths and suffering of it's members. Also, the plot doesn't really feature any twists, none in fact, so any increase in excitement or suspense is really limited.

The acting scores a plus for the film, if you are prepared to accept some fluctuating Eastern European accents. All three leads turn in good performances but the supporting cast of Alexa Davalos and Allan Corduner are more than worthy of equal mention.

A well made and acted film that surprisingly lacks in genuine drama and emotion.

  

FILM: Robin Hood (7/10)

Why did I watch it?
The Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe combo has served up some more than decent films over the years and I was definitely interested in seeing Scott's take on a British legend.

What's it all about?
Russell Crowe stars as Robin Longstride, an archer in King Richard I's army returning across France from the Holy Lands. Longstride interrupts a French plot to assassinate the King, who unbeknown to the French has already been killed. Impersonating Sir Robin Loxley, who was killed in the failed ambush, Robin escort the King's crown back to England with his closest soldiers and Robin continues to Nottingham fulfil a promise to the dying Loxley.
 
Should you watch it?
If the plot described above sounds nothing like any Robin Hood film or TV show you have seen before you would be right. This is Ridley Scott's story behind the legend. It's certainly a fresh take on the well known character and I think Scott should be applauded for not repeating the same story of Robin Hood and his band of merry men running amok in Sherwood forest. The true story of Robin Hood is shrouded in doubt and conflicting myths but I think that Brian Helgeland's (L.A. Confidential) screenplay probably stretches historical accuracy to the maximum you may expect of an American-produced film of a British myth.

That leads me onto my next point, the cast. Casting Russell Crowe as Robin, hmmm. Crowe brings a fairly stoic grittiness to the role but I can't help but feel that there were better options. The fact that Crowe is one of the films producers suggests his role as Robin was paid for. As angry as this may make Crowe, there is no denying that his accent in the film was plain off and seems to cover almost all UK regions at some point in time. With the exception of Mark Strong and Mark Addy, the cast is largely American and I found that frustrating as there are scores of British actors that could have played the likes of Little John, Will Scarlett and King Richard I at least as well as Danny Huston. Shows like Game of Thrones have shown that a largely British cast can deliver the goods. Cate Blanchett can be excused as I thought she was excellent as Lady Marian.

Towards the film's end I thought that the film began to morph into Kingdom of Heaven as Robin lead the British defence en masse against the French invasion force on the beaches of the South Coast. At this stage the story seemed to have veered too far away from the Robin Hood we know and love. 

An alternative take on the much told story of one of Britain's favourite characters and one that is worth a watch even if the gritty nature of Robin and his story take away some of the fun and adventure that always been associated with the character. 

BOOK: Without Remorse, Tom Clancy (8/10)

Why did I read it?
Time to continue Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan series. Without Remorse is the sixth book in the Ryan universe but chronologically it leads the series.

What's it all about?
Tom Clancy rewinds the clock to 1969 and tells the origin story of Ryan series character John Clark. Recently returned from Vietnam, Navy SEAL John Kelly loses his wife and finds love briefly in the arms of a another woman, Pam Madden, a tortured, drug-addicted prostitute on the run from her violent drug dealing pimp. Meanwhile the CIA hire Kelly to return to Vietnam and lead a clandestine operation to rescue a group of US POWs. After Pam is taken away from him, Kelly combines the demands of his country with his own mission for violent retribution.

Should you read it?

Without Remorse is probably the most atypical of the Clancy books I have read so far. Even with the Vietnam storyline it's the most domestic, the most personal and the least military based. It's an engaging, very personal tale of one man's retribution against those who wronged him and its interesting and refreshing to have a break from Jack Ryan's learned approach to uncover the back story of the more mysterious Mr. Clark.

The Vietnam side story taking place in parallel to Kelly's Baltimore killing spree is necessary for the sake of Kelly's back story but it is the deliberate planning of his revenge in a manner to a covert operation and Detective Ryan's pursuit of the unknown serial killer that makes Without Remorse a page-turner.

FILM: Immortals (5/10)

Why did I watch it?
I guess I watched this because I'm a fan of 300 and I was drawn in by a combination of the Greek legend and 300-style visuals.

What's it all about?
King Hyperion (Mickey Rourke) feels wronged by the Gods (the Zeus's) and plots to release the Titans (a race of deities previously beaten and imprisoned by the Gods) by finding the Epirus bow. Zeus won't allow the Gods to intervene directly in the lives of mortals so it's left to the warrior Theseus (Henry Cavill), trained by the Old Man (John Hurt), to save mankind.
Should you watch it?
I'm going to compare this Immortals to 300, I can't help myself. The film was marketed as 'from the producers of 300' so they can't blame me. If you want to watch a Greek mythology based film loaded with impressive visuals and special effects then watch Zack Snyder's.


Don't get me wrong, director Tarsem Singh delivers some eye-popping visuals and fight scenes that rival those of Snyder but in truth the rest of Immortals really falls short of being anything close to a great movie. 

Soon to be Superman Henry Cavill looks the part as Theseus but I thought he was pretty wooden although he certainly wasn't working with an award winning script. The army rousing speech scene (think 'tonight we dine in hell' with Gerard Butler, no acting great either) made me pity the guy for having to read the lines. Unfortunately, Mickey Rourke doesn't fare much better either, his performance made even more comical by his venus fly-trap/playboy bunny headpiece. Seriously, what were they thinking?

Immortals didn't even manage to hold my attention for the duration, which for me is almost unheard of, but hey, it looks good right.

Man of with Steel