FILM: Snow White and the Huntsman (5/10)

Why did I watch it?
I remember seeing the trailer for this dark take on the fairy tale and thinking it had some potential, especially in the special effects department.

What's it all about?
The evil Ravenna (Charlize Theron) enchants her way into the King's life after the Queen dies unexpectedly. After murdering the King on their wedding night, Ravenna locks Princess Snow White (Kristen Stewart) away in the castle dungeons for years and pillages the land to maintain her youth. After Snow White escapes Ravenna bribes a huntsman (Chris Hemsworth) to track her down in the The Dark Forest.







The Good:

• Strong special effects
• Charlize Theron smashes everyone else out of the park as Ravenna
• Great cast for the seven dwarves, Ray Livingstone, Ian McShane, Bob Hoskins, Eddie Marsan etc.

The Bad:

• The huntsman angle didn't really add too much value to the original story for me
• Kristen Stewart doesn't come out of this too well and made any tiny desire I may have ever had of watching anything Twilight related completely disappear.
• Chris Hemsworth's Scottish accent - why?
• Epic fantasy story, sweeping landscape shots, dwarves and trolls and evil villains, its all a bit Tolkien, but with none of the Peter Jackson magic. 
• The mirror thinking Stewart is better looking than Theron!

'Snow White is fairer?! Go home, you're drunk.'

Favourite line:

'If he starts whistling, I'll smash his face in' - Quert

Stand-out moment:

Charlize Theron's slo-motion evil rise from her milk bath

Like the film? Watch: The Lord of the Rings trilogy, The Hobbit
Like the acting? Watch: Twilight

What my wife would say: Watched it, found it quite boring.

What the world thinks:

Rotten Tomatoes - 47%

Metacritic - 57/100

LAMB Score - 2.95

Twitter -

Snow White & The Hunstman has to be one I wish I fell asleep during.
— Dream Factory Doyle (@crocodoyler) December 19, 2013

FILM: Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter (4/10)

Why did I watch it?
Sounded like a fun mash-up.

What's it all about?
Young future president Abraham Lincoln (Benjamin Walker) witnesses his mother being killed. Years later Lincoln plots to exact revenge only to discover the killer is a vampire and learns that a legion of vampires control the South, feasting off the slave population. Schooled by Henry Sturges (Dominic Cooper), Lincoln becomes a trained vampire hunter and eventually takes his fight against the vampires to the White House.









The Good:

• Although no Daniel Day Lewis, Benjamin Walker's portrays Lincoln pretty well in my opinion.

The Bad:

• Visually the film is trying too hard. Director Timur Bekmambetov creates some horrible looking action sequences, the horse chase and train roof right in particular, and the slo-mo is overdone.
• The tone of the film is all wrong. You may think going into this that it would be a fun mash-up but the film tries to combine the vampire gore and violence with the serious true Lincoln history on an equal level with Lincoln speeches and all. And Abe Lincoln is not known for having fun. Doesn't work.
• Really really unmemorable.

What would Daniel Day-Lewis' Lincoln think?

Favourite line:

'A guy only gets that drunk when he wants to kiss a girl or kill a man. So which is it?' - Henry Sturges

Stand-out moment:

Can't even think of one. Those action set pieces that should have been were let down by the over the top special effects.

Like the direction? Watch: Wanted, Nightwatch 

What my wife would say: Rubbish.

What the world thinks:

Rotten Tomatoes - 35%

Metacritic - 42/100

LAMB Score - 2.65/5 

Twitter -

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter is easily the worst thing to happen to President Lincoln in a theatre.
— Bob Kostic (@causticbob) December 10, 2013

FILM: Hobo With A Shotgun (7/10)

Why did I watch it?
A recommendation from a friend this one. I had never heard of it before.

What's it all about?
A hobo (Rutger Hauer) gets off a train in Hope Town, a lawless town viciously controlled by Drake and his two sons, Slick and Ivan. After saving a hooker from their grasp, the hobo gets his hands on a shotgun and goes on a violent one-man rampage to clean the town up.











The Good:

• The cartoon villains Drake, Slick and Ivan
• Full of quotable, cheesy and amusing lines
• Cinematography, straight from the opening sequence of the Hobo arriving on the train the colour palette used is vivid, bright and fluorescent
• Rutger Hauer brings a much needed likeability to the old Hobo
• The low budget violence, if you can handle it

The Bad:

• The low budget violence, if you can't handle it
• Although tongue-in cheek exploitation violence, there are a few instances, the school bus massacre being one, where it is a little difficult to take 

Literally, a hobo with a shotgun

Favourite line:

'I'm going to wash away my blood....with YOUR blood' - Slick

Stand-out moment:

The montage that follows the Hobo picking up the shotgun!

Like the film? Watch: Death Proof, Machete, Planet Terror

What my wife would say: I'm more than certain she would be disgusted.

What the world thinks:

Rotten Tomatoes - 66%

Metacritic - 55/100

LAMB Scores - 3/5

Twitter - 

On the "movies to watch with your friends late a night" hobo with a shotgun ranks a 10/10 on the ridiculously hilarious scale
— Jesse Cox (@JesseCox) March 27, 2012

FILM: Captain Phillips (9/10)

Why did I watch it?
I liked the look of this film from the moment I caught the first trailer. It looked exciting, intense and a film that could give Tom Hanks a platform for another great performance.

What's it all about?
In 2009 the Maersk Alabama was boarded by Somalian pirates off the coast of East Africa. Captain Phillips recounts the events that took place that day, the ordeal of the ship's crew and of the US rescue mission to save Captain Phillips (Tom Hanks).










The Good:

• Tom Hanks' fantastic performance as Captain Phillips. The level of emotion he displays in the scenes at the end of the film need to be seen to be believed.
• The performance of the Somali actors, in particular Barkhad Abdi as Muse and Faysal Ahmed as Najee.
• Change in dynamic from the crew of the Alabama versus the hijackers to the US Navy versus the hijackers on smaller scale keeps things fresh
• Paul Greengrass' direction keeps the tension up throughout. I loved the decision to instantly stop the music playing of the dramatic chase scenes as the hijackers ladder fixed to the side of the ship.

The Bad:

• There's no denying that the final third played out like an advert for the US Navy. They were awesome! I would be more likely to sign up after seeing that than watching Battleship but if those are the events that transpired then what could the screenwriters do if they wanted to be faithful to the story?

Pirates in a Hollywood film with no guy-liner in sight. Take note Jack Sparrow.

Favourite line:

'I'm the captain now.' - Muse

Stand-out moment:

The pursuit of the Alabama by the pirates' skiff is thrilling to watch and brilliantly directed.

Like the cast? Watch: Castaway, The Green Mile

Like the director? Watch: United 93, The Bourne Ultimatum

What my wife would say: Saw it and she was crying by the end.

What the world thinks:

Rotten Tomatoes - 94%

Metacritic - 83/100

LAMB Score - 4.31/5

Twitter -

Hanks in the last five minutes of Captain Phillips. #whyillnevergiveuptryingtobeabetteractor
— Patrick J Adams (@halfadams) November 14, 2013

FILM: Dredd (7/10)

Why did I watch it?

I still have yet to see the original 1995 Stallone film Judge Dredd so I decided that I would make a point of seeing the remake.

What's it all about?

With a population of 800 million, violent metropolis Mega-City One is policed by so called Judges, with the authority to serve as judge, jury and executioner. Dredd (Karl Urban) takes his rookie partner (Olivia Thirlby) to investigate three murders in a 200-storey tower block under the control of local drug lord Ma-Ma (Lena Headey).

The Good:

• I had some concerns after reading that Karl Urban never takes his judge's helmet off during the film but this actually worked. Credit to director Pete Travis for this decision and more so to Urban for being able to portray Dredd's emotions through voice and the lower half of his face.
• Stripped down and action packed, maintains interest throughout
• Great creation of Mega-City One
• Visual effects - slow motion
• Wood Harris - good to see Avon Barksdale get a decent role
• Deranged Ma-Ma (Headey)

The Bad:

• Very, very simple plot
• Not much going on in the character department

Favourite line:

Obviously...'Ma-Ma is not the law, I am the law' - Dredd

Stand-out moment:

Ma-Ma busting out a couple of Gatling guns to destroy an entire level of the tower to flush Dredd out

Like the effects? Watch: Wanted

Like the story? Watch: Judge Dredd (1995)

What my wife would say: No thanks

What the world thinks:

Rotten Tomatoes - 78%

Metacritic - 59/100

LAMB Score - 3.34/5

FILM: Star Trek Into Darkness (8/10)

Why did I watch it?

I enjoyed J.J Abrams' 2009 reboot of the Star Trek brand and his sequel, and probably last Star Trek film in the director's chair due to being lured over to that other famous sci-fi franchise, was No. 4 on my Most Anticipated Films of 2013 list. 

What's it all about?

Captain Kirk (Chris Pine) leads his crew on an intergalactic man-hunt to the Klingon world to bring former Starfleet Commander John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) to justice after a devastating terrorist attack on Starfleet Command.

The Good:

• Cumberbatch's standout performance as Harrison.
• Great villain, light years (sorry) better than Eric Bana's Nero in Star Trek
• Abrams' usual style and flare (not of the lens variety)
• Surprisingly emotional bromance between Kirk and Spock

The Bad:

• Plot loses it's way with all the twists to divert attention and ultimately reveal the film's true villain
• Another movie villain gets caught on purpose. Please stop it. Least original plot device now.
• Crew members outside of Kirk, Spock and maybe Bones, underwritten for and their scenes feel of a token nature 

Remember when prison cells were just small rooms with bars and locks?

Favourite line:

'Are you giving me attitude Spock?' - Kirk 
'I am expressing multiple attitudes simultaneously. To which are you referring?' - Spock

Stand-out moment:

Alicia Eve in her undies, just kidding....Kirk's selfless trip into the reactor as the Enterprise plummets

Like the film? Watch: Star Trek, the 2009 reboot or the original TV shows

Like the director? Watch: Abrams in space again, watch out for the next Star Wars film (2015)

What my wife would say: Geek

What the world thinks:

Rotten Tomatoes - 87%

Metacritic - 72/100

LAMB Score - 3.6/5

Twitter - 'J.J. Abrams delivers the goods once again'

FILM: Premium Rush (5/10)

Why did I watch it?
Nothing specific here really. Wasn't fussed in seeing this at the cinema or on DVD but when it was on TV I thought I would check it out. Fact - director David Koepp is the fifth most successful screenwriter of all time in terms of domestic box office receipts, according to Wikipedia.

What's it all about?

Thrillseeking New York bike messenger Wilee (Joseph Gordon Levitt) is the man at the centre of the action when he collects a delivery that a desperate and corrupt cop (Michael Shannon) is willing to chase him all across NY to get his hands on. 

Should you watch it?

Premium Rush wants to play out like a modern day Speed, cat and mouse adrenaline fuelled chase with no brakes. Literally in the case of the protagonist Wilee's fixed speed bike, which deserved it's own credit considering the number of references to it. Unfortunately, Rush combines a basic premise, strengthened by a non-linear timeline, padded out with a contrived plot about Chinese nationals with what in places is an awful script, full of cheesy clichés. Clichéd adrenaline junkies spouting lines such as 'brakes are death' or 'this is the most fun I've had with my clothes on' really didn't help me to relate to any of the main characters. Koepp breaks up the action with graphics of the riders locations, displays of timers counting down as well as pausing time to allow the riders to consider and play out the options open to them when their most obvious route is blocked. These devices are effective but can't save the film from it's weaknesses. 

Michael Shannon is one of my favourite actors but here his bug-eyed expression combines with the bad lines resulting in a really cartoon villain. Shannon chews the scenery hard to make up the material but the result is only unintended amusement for the audience. Despite this Shannon is still watchable as always.

FILM: Contraband (7/10)

Why did I watch it?

I remember deciding that I would catch this film on TV rather than at the cinema. I thought the cast looked decent enough and the modern day smuggling story appealed to me for some reason.

What's it all about?

Retired master smuggler Chris Farraday (Mark Wahlberg) is forced to make one last run to Panama and back when his brother-in-law, who unbeknown to Chris is running drug contraband himself, loses a package and becomes indebted to local mobster Tim Briggs (Giovanni Ribisi) to the tune of $700,000.

Should you watch it?
I wasn't expecting Contraband to deliver too much and I ended up being pleasantly surprised. You can always count on Mark Wahlberg too deliver a steely, non-nonsense, man-caught-in-a-drama type performance. I'm a big fan of Ben Foster, although I think he has had better roles than this one, and with Ribisi, the two provide strong counter foils to Wahlberg, who does what he does best. Kate Beckinsdale is really just window dressing caught up in the drama.

Character development isn't top priority and the film suffers because of it but in the end for a short and punchy heist film, that gives an interesting insight into the world of international smuggling, you could do worse.

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.

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: 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.

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.

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

FILM: John Carter (5/10)

Why did I watch it?
Following the reviews and declaration as a flop, this was a big budget blockbuster that I always intended to watch to form my own opinion on when it premiered on the small screen.

What's it all about?
Based on the character of Edwin Burrough's early 20th century novels, John Carter (Taylor Kitsch) is a Virginian Civil War Captain magically transported to Mars, known as Barsoom in this universe, where a civil war is being fought between the cities of Helium and Zodanga, both home to humanoid Martian races. Capable of increased strength and jumping because of the lesser gravity, Carter is reluctantly recruited to fight alongside Helium Princess Dejah Thoris (Lynn Collins), to prevent the mysterious Thern's from scheming towards Barsoom's destruction.

Should you watch it?
Some time has passed since I watched John Carter and I certainly hold no grudges against it. It wasn't the complete write-off I was expecting, although it is certainly not without it's flaws. I think  I preferred it to Battleship, although I can't think of what I must have done to deserve being forced to choose between either.

There are times during John Carter where you could really be watching either Indiana Jones or Star Wars (Episodes I-III) such is the old fashioned, character-led, gung-ho adventure and sci-fi nature of the film. However, despite it being an adventure film of massive budget, I struggle to recall any action set pieces that took place, with the exception of the picture below, despite knowing that there must have been some. This cannot be a good recollection for an action blockbuster. 

I am not familiar with any of Burrough's stories and the screenplay certainly didn't help matters. Although the screenplay doesn't assume any knowledge of the character and the universe he belongs to and I appreciate that the writers are working with the original material, they made a seemingly simple plot far too complicated through the method of delivery. Surprisingly, and the surprise is relative, the script is only slightly clichéd in places and didn't stink to high heaven in the way Battleship's did. I did really like the context of the story being told from a young Burrough's perspective and the twist at the end was unexpected and satisfying.

My biggest gripe with the acting, and being such a massive fan of The Wire it pains me to do this, was with Dominic West. I thought he almost looked embarrassed to be on screen in most scenes and delivered one of the hammiest performances I think I've ever seen. Sorry Dominic. Lyn Collins was a vibrant presence and I felt Taylor Kitsch did enough in shouldering the responsibilities of the lead role, considering the film's inherent flaws. He certainly can't be held accountable for the films failings at the box office.