FILM: The Great Gatsby (7/10)

Why did I watch it?

Being British, I was force fed Shakespeare at school rather than any of the so called 'Great American Novels' and I never got around to reading F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby. Bearing that mind I was curious to see what the story was all about.

What's it all about?
Told through the eyes of Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire), The Great Gatsby is a story of lost love, glitz and glamour and excess set in the Jazz Age of the early 1920's. After moving to New York to make his fame and fortune on Wall Street, Carraway discovers his rented house borders the huge estate of the enigmatic Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio), a millionaire renowned for the hosting of New York's most glamorous parties. After making Gatsby's acquaintance, Carraway discovers that Gatsby hopes to reintroduce himself to his cousin Daisy (Carey Mulligan), a married woman, having made a success of himself in the five years since he left her to go to war.

Should you watch it?

So, could Baz Luhrmann, with Jay-Z at his side, deliver a modern adaptation of the the Great American Novel that would be well received by all? I think the answer from the offset was always going to be no. Instead, Luhrmann delivers a visual feast of a film, one that tries to balance the director's big number style with an authenticity to the source material but one that relies too heavily on narration, some cheap visual effects and ends up failing to fully flesh out the key relationship central to the story.

I don't have any specific problem with Baz Luhrmann's style, I liked his take on Romeo & Juliet and have managed to avoid Moulin Rouge so far. I thought he would be a good match for the glitz, glamour and decadence of the period and I thought this side of the film worked out well. The style factor was never going to be in doubt. The use of music in the film has been the subject of some debate and I'm going to side with the positive. It worked fairly well for me, hip hop goes hand in hand with excess and the modern songs fitted well with the music video style of Gatsby's parties. Lana Del Rey's song Young & Beautiful is mesmerisingly haunting and is the perfect accompaniment for the film's troubled lovers. Having not read the book and therefore not being aware of the literary themes in place this may be an unfair comment, especially if fans of the book appreciated the inclusion, but I felt the direction was slightly heavy handed in places, I certainly felt the references to the all-seeing eyes and green light were more than driven home.

Leonardo DiCaprio gives a mature, refined performance befitting the great nature of the man. Carey Mulligan is also excellent as Daisy, giving what I call a 'bambi' type performance complete with beautifully innocent doe eyes. She is let down by the direction/narrative, wherever you want to lay the blame, which doesn't do enough to make you understand the passion of Gatsby for the girl, especially given the choices she ultimately makes. Tobey Maguire is suited to the role of Carraway, though his key role in the film as narrator, really limited my enjoyment. The guy always seems to come off so square, disapproving and lame.

I enjoyed The Great Gatsby but I'm sure it won't suit all tastes.

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.

TV: The Mentalist (S5) (5/10)

Why did I watch it?
Seasons of The Mentalist qualify for routine viewing in my household, these days on the basis that we have watched so many episodes of the show that the only option is to stick it out and hope Patrick will finally catch Red John. I recall reading that the show's runners intended for things to be wrapped up by the end of a sixth season and I'm hoping that still remains the case.

What's it all about?
The Mentalist, Patrick Jane (Simon Baker), continues cracking cases for the CBI, with one eye always turned towards his hunt for serial killer Red John. Having apprehended Red John disciple Lorelei in the previous season's finale, Patrick has plenty of questions to ask but the CBI lose custody as the FBI and Homeland Security mysteriously intervene.

Should you watch it?

If you haven't been watching The Mentalist since it's beginning in 2008, it's unlikely you're going to want to pick up watching it now. I wrote a review for Season 4 last year and this season's review could have read exactly the same. Surely recognising that the show is strongest when dealing with the Red John storyline, the writers move the Red John story along in some form or another in roughly half the episodes this time around, a marked contrast to before when weeks could pass without mention to the serial killer that drives Jane. Take for example, both Homeland Security and the FBI's new interest in the Red John investigation, Jane's clear distraction from the run of mill cases and Lorelei's big reveal that Jane has previously shaken hands with the man himself coming in episodes that don't necessary revolve around a Red John murder.

The remaining episodes are pure filler that occasionally rise above mediocre. The cast work hard with the material, and the characters are likeable but it just isn't the same without any meaty story arcs to hang character development onto.

Normally capable of a decent season ending, the finale this time around was hugely disappointing. Going back into Patrick's past again seemed all too familiar. The finale's ending, a revealing set-up for next season, clearly outlining Red John as one of seven suspects, was the bare minimum I needed to make up for the dross that had been served up over the previous 55 minutes. Fear not though Patrick, I'll be back next season and I want answers!

BOOK: Cloud Atlas, David Mitchell (9/10)

Why did I read it?
Cloud Atlas came to my attention on a list I saw (I would like to give credit but it was so long ago I've no hope of remembering it) that recommended books to read before their film adaptation was released in 2012. I didn't catch the film while it was out so the book will have to do until I do.

What's it all about?
Beginning in the Pacific in 1850 and ending in post-apocalyptic Hawaii in the far future, Cloud Atlas narrates the stories of six individuals linked together across centuries of time. Half of each story is told, in chronological order, until each is interrupted seemingly incomplete. This continues to the sixth story which is told in it's entirety before each of the stories are then concluded in reverse order.

Should you read it?
Cloud Atlas is certainly one of the most ambitious books I have ever read. Covering such a variety of settings, dialogues, plots and means of narration is a challenging read but the read always stays fresh and the reader is always aware that the story will be changing just around the corner. 

I'll admit that I did not enjoy the first half of the first story, 'The Pacific Journal of Adam Ewing', and it took me until the second story, set in inter-war Belgium, and the appreciation of this story's antagonist of the first story and the connection between the two to really pique my interest. From this point on though I was hooked. The concept of leaving each story incomplete, using the following story to fill in some blanks, before closing the stories in reverse order had me reading at record speed to return to the incomplete stories.   

Capable of some wry humour, grand themes and a rather bleak outlook on the future of human civilisation, Mitchell provides the reader with a fascinating journey from past to present to future. However, on the subject of grand themes, I can't help feeling that I didn't quite fully appreciate the notion of the characters being reincarnations of themselves. Mitchell details the identical birthmark that several characters share (or mention anyway) and Luisa Rey knows deep down that she has heard Frobisher's composition before but without having read the ideas of reincarnation in connection with the film I would have been in doubt (and I still am!) as to Mitchell's grand meaning.  

FILM: The Amazing Spider-Man (8/10)

Why did I watch it?
I never read any comic books as a child, learning of the best Marvel and DC had to offer through Saturday morning cartoons instead. Spider-Man is one the biggest of the bunch and when he gets a new film, it's a sure thing to be watched eventually in my house.

What's it all about?
The Amazing Spider-Man sees Spidey's origin story rebooted following the cancellation of the planned fourth film of Sam Raimi's franchise. Andrew Garfield (The Social Network) replaces Tobey Maguire as the web-slinging hero and Emma Stone plays love interest Gwen Stacy rather Mary Jane in a noticeable difference between franchises. Once the origin story is relaid, Spidey battles Dr. Curt Connor's Lizard to save New York's inhabitants.

Should you watch it?
It is too easy to compare Marc Webb's Amazing Spider-Man to Raimi's first effort, primarily because for the first half at least they are the same film, or are at least both films telling the same story. Pages and pages have been written on the reboot debate so I won't add to them only to say that I think I enjoyed the updated take on the origin story more. The conspiracy behind Peter's parents deaths adds some complexity to the story and Peter's first experience of Spider-Man's abilities is made into an amusing sequence. Credit for that must go to Andrew Garfield, who improves on Maguire's take on Parker no end, proving that Peter can be geeky without being too pathetic. Perhaps it was setting the story in high school, with the sympathies that come with being different in that environment, that makes Garfield's Peter more likeable.

Once the origin of Spider-Man is complete, the film moves through the gears and the budding romance and chemistry between Peter and Gwen is sincere and likeable. With a supporting cast including veterans Martin Sheen and Sally Field, there is no shortage of strong performances.

What a crock

The film is a bit heavy handed with it's vigilante right or wrong mantra and I was hugely disappointed with Rhys Ifan's Lizard. Ifan's performance as Connor's is decent enough but for me visually the Lizard didn't fit closely enough with the character's traditional appearance. Maybe it was an attempt to make the character realistic in a Christopher Nolan manner but rather than look like a lizard (with a lizards head) he looks like a generic green monster that could appear in any film.

An enjoyable, if unnecessary, return to Spider-Man's roots with a fresh bunch of characters that is worth a watch even if just for a comparison with the original trilogy.

FILM: Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind (6/10)

Why did I watch it?
I had never watched an anime film before and a friend recommended Spirited Away to me. After I missed that one, they also recommended I watch Nausicaa, which the channel was showing the following week as part of an anime season. 

What's it all about?
I tried to keep up with things so here goes..., sometime in the future, civilisation has been destroyed by an apocalyptic war and toxic jungles inhabited by giant insects spread a poison known as the Fukai across the world. Princess Nausicaa lives in the Valley of the Wind, a settlement protected from the poison by the wind. Her life changes when an airship carrying a long extinct powerful warrior, that the Tolmekian nation plan to unleash on the jungles, crashes into the valley.

Should you watch it?
The fact that I had not seen an anime film prior to this was not just coincidence, I was never a fan of it when it started to appear on children's TV when I was younger. Who knows if this was the best anime film to start with. In any case, I probably didn't start watching Nausicaa from the most neutral standpoint, try as I might.

Nausicaa's plot is certainly something I expected from an anime film, pretty abstract and warped but certainly original, although the environmental responsibility undertones that the film hammers home were not, though perhaps they were back in 1984. This might seem daft but the film's setting reminded me of a Star Wars movie, different nations, obscure looking creatures, monsters and a desolate planet that in some places definitely reminded my of Tatooine.

The animation doesnt look all that dated and some of the killer insects created, in particular the swarm of Ohmu, were pretty cool to look at. I found the way that the film's score completely switched up to a loud and frantic number when a battle scene occurred very reminiscent of video games from my childhood! Not surprising considering the majority were probably developed in Japan.

Being my first anime film I've nothing to compare Nausicaa against and while I found it quite interesting and eye-opening I wouldn't go as far as saying I particulary enjoyed it. I really do need to watch Spirited Away to see how it compares.

FILM: Cocktail (4/10)

Why did I watch it?
This was on TV a few weeks ago and I debated whether I should watch it or not. What swung it for me was the fact that I  have not seen so many of Tom Cruise's 80's films like Risky Business or The Color of Money, Cocktail included.

What's it all about?
After leaving the army, Brian Flanagan (Cruise) returns to New York with an 'I want everything, and I want it now' attitude. Unfortunately for him he can only swing a job bar-tending alongside Doug Coughlin (Bryan Brown) while studying for a business degree. Full of charm and adept at flairing, Brian is popular with the ladies and after a fallout with Doug, heads to Jamaica to earn the dollars necessary to achieve his dream and open his own top class cocktail bar. Here Brian meets Jordan (Elisabeth Shue) and love blossoms until he risks it all to chase his dream.  

Should you watch it?
25 years old now, Cocktail is probably, more than any other film, the best example of the 1980's. The colours, the soundtrack, the cheese, it screams of this decade. To me it seems like the writers decided to take all the 80's elements of Top Gun (three years its predecessor) and 'Eighties' them further without stopping to really think about the film itself.

The plot is wafer thin to say the least and most importantly I simply couldn't relate to Coughlin and Brian scheming to come into money by luring women with wealthy purses, how shallow a premise is that? Despite both the film's and his character's flaws, Cruise still manages to appeal throughout as the lead, I don't know what it is but you just can't not like the guy. 

If you have yet to see Cocktail, then I wouldn't rush to do so, unless you are either a Cruise or Eighties fanatic. A regretful trip back to the 80's at their worst. 

TV: The Following (S1) (6/10)

Why did I watch it?

Seems a while ago now but I think I must have bought into the big marketing campaign for the show.

What's it all about?

Having already caught infamous serial killer Joe Carroll (James Purefoy) once, the FBI turn to former agent Ryan Hardy (Kevin Bacon) to help recapture Carroll after his escape. This time however, Hardy isn't just hunting Carroll but also his cult of like-minded killers cultivated during his time in prison, all striving to serve Carroll in his desire to get revenge on Hardy and those closest to him, starting with his own wife Claire (Natalie Zea).

Should you watch it?
The season premiere of The Following was one of the best, if not the best, openings to a show I've ever seen. TV shows have long been capable of film quality drama and production, but for suspense and horror, the pilot was as good as any slasher film I've seen. Within 45 minutes, we were introduced to Hardy and the FBI team as well  as Carroll's wife and son, who are soon secured following Carroll's escape. Also secured was Carroll's last victim and the only one to survive, Sarah Fuller. She seemed set for a role in the show yet it turned out that through his cult, Carroll's reach is vast and her death summed the first episode up, dark, scary, brutal and unpredictable. 

Created by Kevin Williamson, the writer of Scream 1 & 2, I Know What You Did Last Summer and The Faculty, perhaps it was not surprising that The Following ventured further into a darker, macabre nature than most procedural police shows. The idea for the show was certainly original from the cult perspective but the notion that Carroll was an Edgar Allan Poe fanatic and based his murders on his works seems too hot on the heels of the 2012 film The Raven to be original. Also, it has to be said that Bacon's character ticks a fair number of boxes on the 'former agents returning to the job' cliché list.

Talking Heads

Unfortunately, the show's pilot episode was it's strongest and all later episodes were hampered by the contrived nature of Carroll's plot, the stupidity and ineptitude of the FBI agents involved, weekly introduction of the latest member of Carroll's cult to 'play their part' before inevitably being gunned down senselessly by the FBI and irritatingly repetitive metaphors to the structure of a book's plot by Carroll.   

As leading men for a TV show go, Kevin Bacon was a pretty big catch for FOX and on occasions you do feel that he is the heart and soul of the show and maybe the only reason you are still watching. That's not to take anything away from the likes of James Purefoy, though not quite as menacing as Hannibal Lecter as serial killers go, Shawn Ashmore, Natalie Zea and Annie Parisse, all of whom contribute willingly.

The season ended on the up, if slightly predictably, and I dare say I will be tuning in to see how the events of the season finale are carried forward.

FILM: The Place Beyond The Pines (8/10)

Why did I watch it?
I'll admit it, I was drawn to this film by the Drive factor of the trailer. Ryan Gosling playing what looked to be a simplistic small-time bank robber, making his getaways using his 'unique set' of skills, being a brilliant motorcycle rider, seemed to be echoing many of the best traits of Nicolas Winding Refn's film.

What's it all about?
Set in Schenectady, N.Y (meaning 'the place beyond the pines' in Mohawk), the film transpires to be much more than the trailer advertises. Three chronologically told stories, dominated by relationships between fathers and sons, weave together the lives of two families inseparably across two generations. Gosling plays travelling motorcycle stuntman Handsome Luke, who after returning to Schenectady, learns he is a father following a fling with Romina (Eva Mendes) the previous year. By chance his path collides with ambitious police officer Avery Moss (Bradley Cooper), himself father to a one year son.

Should you watch it?
Director Derek Cianfrance's film links together three separate, yet interlinked, stories of two families in a manner that is certainly not without risk. Roughly a third of the film's two hour plus running time each, the shift in narrative and characters, certainly from the first to second, is so sudden that it caused the film to lose all momentum on two occasions. Being led, deliberately no doubt, in one direction by the trailer, I found myself checking my watch after 50 minutes, so sudden is the shift in story. Second time around was less of a shock, as I began to appreciate what Cianfrance was trying to achieve. However, given the fragmented nature of the narrative, being asked to invest in three stories, each slightly less enjoyable than the previous, totalling two hours plus  is stretching the capacity of the audience.

That's the negatives out of the way.

If you ride like lightning, you're going to crash like thunder

Saving and driving The Place Beyond the Pines into success, is the standard of the film's cast and Cianfrance's and cinematographer Sean Bobbitt's visuals. Starting with the cast, the performances of leads Gosling and Cooper are first rate. Gosling's bank robbing rider channels all of the raw, stoic cool, audiences have become accustomed to, while Cooper is excellent as the troubled, professionally and emotionally, police officer, under pressure from wife, father and colleagues. The accolades shouldn't stop there, Mendes gives an emotionally fraught performance as Luke's old flame, Ben Mendelsohn was my favourite as Luke's partner in crime and Ray Liotta dials in the menace as only he can as a corrupt cop asking more of Avery. Youngsters Dane De Haan and Emory Cohen, also hit the right notes with their performances, even though I have to say I didn't like either character.

Going back to the visuals, the film looks stunning, with some excellent vistas and use of colours, interspersed amongst the scenes of bikes racing through streets and forests and personal nature of close-up shots during more intimate scenes.

Certainly different to what I was expecting when I took my seat, Cianfrance took some risks with the plot and didn't win them all but The Place Beyond The Pines is nonetheless a strong film anchored by an excellent cast, superb visuals and strong script.

TV: Spartacus: War of the Damned (9/10)

Why did I watch it?
Because I am Spartacus.

What's it all about?
After disposing of Praetor Glaber at the end of Spartacus: Vengeance, Spartacus' rebellion marches on and takes control of the city of Sinuessa en Valle to house it's growing numbers. Meanwhile, the Roman Senate turns to the ruthless and powerful Marcus Crassus to lead his legions, including his son Tiberius and a young Julius Caesar, to defeat Spartacus.

Should you watch it?
Fans of this hugely entertaining show will love this epic final season, which closes the chapter on Spartacus' journey from Thrace to Batiatus' ludus to hero of the slave rebellion.

The final season sees Spartacus as de facto leader, supported by the gladiator heroes of the previous seasons, Crixus, Gannicus and Agron. The leaders routinely clash of the rebellion's direction and objectives, Crixus in particular driven by uncompromising vengeance on the republic, dreaming of smashing an army through the gates of Rome, while Spartacus has grown more responsible, dreaming of a free life for his followers if not for himself. Seeing the two spar reminds of seasons of old. Gannicus also mellows, and finally finds a cause to fight for other than the traditional spoils of victory, wine and women.

Are you not entertained?

Following the precedent of previous seasons, War of the Damned is loaded with copious amounts of blood, sex and scenery chewing speeches, perhaps even more than before. The montage at the beginning of the first episode beats 300 for blood spilt and sprayed across the screen. The scheming and trickery of Lucretia and Illythia from past seasons is replaced by that of Caesar and Tiberius, fighting for the lead role under Crassus. I originally disliked the casting of Caesar, but after time newcomer Todd Lasance won me over with his ambitious, scheming, hot headed take on the famous leader.

For a show that many dismissed as trashy and gratuitous, Spartacus is surprisingly accurate (for a TV show) with respect to its historical basis. Spartacus' rebellion was squashed by Crassus, he was betrayed by Sicilian pirates, the names of Oenamaus, Gannicus and Crixus were among the rebellion leaders and those captured were crucified along the Appian Way into Rome.

The final episodes build up to the inevitable ending, firstly dedicating suitable time to Crixus, before a fantastic finale worthy of the show's epic nature, culminating in some emotional final scenes. The closing credits returned many of the fallen character over the four seasons and as a touching gesture were book ended with both Liam McIntyre's and Andy Whitfield's Spartacus. Gratitude.

Overall, a fantastic show featuring a cast of largely unknown bunch of Aussies and New Zealanders that only got better and one that will be sorely missed. 

On to The Borgia's for my over the top historical fix.

FILM: Lockout (7/10)

Why did I watch it?
I recorded this off SkyMovies last week, remembering that the trailer looked like a tongue in cheek one-man versus the world action-fest.

What's it all about?
Guy Pearce is Snow, a framed CIA operative offered freedom in exchange for saving the President's daughter (Maggie Grace), whose life is in jeopardy after the inmates of MS: One, a maximum security space prison, breakout during her humanitarian visit. Simple as pie. 

Should you watch it?

For me, Lockout is one of those odd guilty pleasures. It was probably far from the best film released during it's week of release, never mind the month or year. It's a straightforward, short, fast paced, guns blazing, one man action vehicle that doesn't make any attempts to be cleverer than it needs to be. Guy Pearce stands in for the likes of Russell, Seagal, Willis, Arnie or Sly as the likeable rogue protagonist.

It's unusual to see Pearce play a genuine all action-hero but he seems to be enjoying himself delivering some of the most sarcastic one-liners in film history, courtesy of co-writer Luc Besson and directors Saint & Mather. In fact, Snow literally barely says anything at all other than acerbic barbs directed at either villains or his damsel in distress. The relationship between Snow and Emilie, and the situation they find themselves in, reminded me of that of Steven Seagal and Erika Eleniak in Under Siege.

MS: One....we have a problem

With a budget of $20M, Lockout is relatively low budget and almost B-movie like but if you can get past the occasionally ropey CGI, place tongue firmly in cheek and accept it for the guilty pleasure it is it's capable of satisfying that action movie itch you get from time to time. Just imagine the most average parts of Die Hard, Under Siege and Escape from New York all rolled into one!

FILM: The Taking of Pelham 123 (6/10)

Why did I watch it?

A few years old already, I caught this on TV recently. I would like to go on record as saying I have not seen the original film or read the book so I won't be commenting on the necessity of the remake or judging it against anything other than its own merits.

What's it all about?

Denzel Washington and John Travolta square up as good and bad guy in Tony Scott's retelling of the 1974 original film. A group of terrorists led by Ryder (Travolta) hijack a New York subway train taking it's passengers hostage for ransom. Denzel Washington plays Walter Garber, a rail control centre operator unluckily overseeing the train's operations that day.

Should you watch it?

I'm going to get straight to it, upset fans of the original and say that on the whole I quite enjoyed this film. Don't get me wrong it is definitely not without it's flaws, none more so than the hugely anti-climatic ending, cut-out bad guys (except Travolta) and terrible character writing for James Gandolfini's Mayor but up until the ending I enjoyed Tony Scott's fast paced and stylish direction and Washington's performance. The opening sequence, in which the train is hijacked, is a fantastic sequence of New York both above and below ground, framed through quickly edited long-taken blurred shots of colourful taxis and trains all played out to Jay-Z's 99 Problem's.

Travolta's role see him reprise his familiar, unhinged and over the top villain from Face/Off (as Cage) that I can cope with in reasonable doses. Unfortunately, he is given a really clichéd profanity heavy script that doesn't do the film any favours.    

The film works best when Ryder and Garber are separate and playing traditional roles of terrorist and negotiator and begins to stall when Garber leaves the office to meet up with Ryder. The less said about the film's ending the better.

TV: The Walking Dead (S3) (8/10)

Why did I watch it?
The second season of The Walking Dead was often criticised but despite its weaknesses I still enjoyed watching it and there was never going to be any doubt that I would be tuning in to see where Rick and co ended up after abandoning the farm.

What's it all about?
After leaving the relative sanctuary of the farm and cleaning house with regards to Shane, Rick leads the group onwards through Georgia, ransacking house after house of food, weapons and the inevitable zombie squatters. That is until they come across an abandoned prison, where similar to Hershel's farm, they decided to set up camp. Meanwhile, the identity of Andrea's saviour is revealed and the pair travel to Woodbury, a safe barracaded town of residents led by 'The Governor' (David Morrissey). 

Should you watch it?
The first thing that struck me during the season premiere was how skilled and comfortable the group have become in dealing with zombies. There has clearly been some time pass between seasons and in order to survive the group have become deadlier and more immune to the fear of zombies, especially in small numbers in open spaces but I found that in doing so, I didn't feel the fear, suspense or shock that I previously did either.

Perhaps sensitive to criticism of the slow nature of the last season, some pretty major events occur within the first four episodes this time around, reducing the number of the prison inhabitants by two and introducing (and in one case reintroducing) the residents of Woodbury to our screens. The show definitely improves with the introduction of Woodbury's de facto chief, The Governor. Already a merciless leader with some disturbing but well meant secrets, he becomes an increasingly violent madman after clashing with Michonne and the character becomes the driving force of the reminder of the season's storyline.

The story was again bogged down in places by frustrating character development. Rick and Lori's domestic issues, Rick's mental breakdown and Glenn and Maggie's issues post-Woodbury kidnap all being examples of the show not being at it's best.

 

Eye'll be seeing you.....

The season is action packed, by the end zombies only really appeared as extras outside the prison perimeter, as the story focused solely on the impending battle between The Governor's Woodbury and Rick's prison. Caught in the middle of the two was Andrea, who had the most frustrating character storyline of the season and overtook Lori and Carl (no mean feat) as the show's most annoying character. Just as the season finale looked set to reveal the victor once and for all, it didn't. No cliffhanger, no nothing, the finale only serving to give polite notice that the personal duel had been postponed to next season.

With at least it's third showrunner taking over the helm for season four, The Walking Dead will need to hit the ground running next time around.

BOOK: The Hundred-Year-Old Man Who Climbed Out of the Window and Disappeared, Jonas Jonasson (9/10)

Why did I read it?
The wife picked this one up in the bookshop and I read it after her after reading good things about it on-line at the 50BookPledge.

What's it all about?
The book's title is fairly self-explanatory but doesn't give away the full picture. The hundred year old man in question is Allan Karlsson, who escapes from his nursing home on his one-hundredth birthday.    What the title does not allude to is that during his hundred years, Allan, by chance and due to his non-prescriptive political and religious views, subtly influenced some of the major events of the twentieth century. The story of his past combines with his latest adventure on the run from the nursing home. 

Should you read it?
The Hundred-Year-Old Man is probably the craziest story you will read all year. Both stories told; Allan's present day escape from the nursing home (the man is a hundred years old!) and the story of his life, are fascinating tales, full of unexpected twists and turns. The circumstances in which Allan travelled across the world taking part in wars, coups and revolutions reminded me hugely of the film Forrest Gump, which is by no means a criticism.

Owing to the dry sense of humour of the book's protagonist and the ineptitude of the local police force, both stories become almost black comedies. Flitting back and forward between  Communist Russia, the Korean War or pre-revolution Tehran and present day Sweden, the story never slows down in the slightest and I found it a joy to read owing to the combination of history, humour and outright fun. Another must read from Sweden.

FILM: Thirteen Days (8/10)

Why did I watch it?

Caught a description of this film in the TV guide and it appealed to my interest in all things historical. Also, I had just finished reading Tom Clancy's The Sum of All Fears, which culminates in a stand-off between the US and Soviets that teeters on the brink of nuclear war so this film seemed apt.

What's it all about?

Thirteen Days follows the actions of US President JFK (Bruce Greenwood) and his administration and military during the thirteen days that followed the discovery of Soviet nuclear missiles on the island of Cuba in 1962 as the two world superpowers edged towards nuclear war. At the centre of the decision-making alongside JFK, Kevin Costner stars as adviser Kenny O'Donnell and Steven Culp as Robert Kennedy.

Should you watch it?
Led by strong performances by Greenwood and Culp, Thirteen Days is an interesting and taught political drama, even if the final outcome is known to all (hint - we weren't all incinerated by mutual nuclear destruction). In addition to the Kennedy administration, the narrative covers the roles of both the military and US UN representatives in the crisis. I've always thought that the roles of military personnel in movies is clichéd in the manner they always push for war, but seeing as this film depicts actual events (according to the source book) it turns out that that is actually the case. In fact, in this case the military chiefs repeatedly undermine JFK's restrained  by not cancelling a planned atom bomb test or spy flights close to the Soviet Union.

The script faithfully recreates actual speeches given by JFK during the crisis, 'not merely peace in our time but peace for all time' and both Greenwood and Culp accurately nail the Boston Irish accent of the Kennedy family. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for the film's lead and producer, Kevin Costner. His accent veers from credible to laughable to non-existent during the film and his failings are only highlighted by his co-stars' performances.

FILM: Moneyball (9/10)

Why did I watch it?

Moneyball came onto Sky Movies a while back, I remembered it earning several Academy nominations so thought it was worth recording for a rainy day.

What's it all about?

It's 2002 and the Oakland Athletics baseball team is licking it's wounds following defeat to the rich New York Yankees in the play-offs and being raided for their best players over the close season. General Manager Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) realises that his team will never be able to compete with the richer teams financially, in terms of attracting and retaining star players. He recruits Yale graduate Peter Brand (Jonah Hill) from the Cleveland Indians to roll out a recruitment strategy based on average statistics and percentages rather than traditional scouting methods.

Should you watch it?
My knowledge of baseball is very limited (my choice of US sports is football), thankfully however this didn't limit my enjoyment of Moneyball (even if I did have to Google 'on-base percentage', but I got the gist of it). At its heart, the film is a real life underdog story revolving around Billy Beane's unshirking determination and belief in Peter Brand's methods, in the face of extreme consternation and criticism.

"There are rich teams, there are poor teams.
Then there's 50 feet of crap and then there is us"

Moneyball's script was co-written by Aaron Sorkin (The Social Network) and Steven Zaillian (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo) and the result is a clever and witty narrative that delivers some amusing scenes, usually involving Jonah Hill's shy and uncomfortable Assistant GM Brand. Hill himself is a revelation (Academy nominated for Supporting Actor) in a straight role, playing against his norm yet still being responsible for most of the film's light hearted moments. It seems a shame he even considered starring in The Sitter after this performance. Brad Pitt is another who stands out with an admirable performance as the main character, embodying just the right amount of likeability, softly spoken confidence and self-belief, without crossing into meglomaniac territory, despite practically shutting down his scouting department. When considering the three leading names, Philip Seymour Hoffman seems to be underused as Coach Art Howe, mostly seen standing around in disbelief as his team is dismantled. I would have liked to have seen more of him, given what the man can really bring to a role.

A really enjoyable sports underdog story, and not just for baseball fans.

FILM: Men in Black 3 (7/10)

Why did I watch it?

I'm pretty sure I have only seen the original MiB film, somehow managing to avoid the universally panned sequel (39% RT) (either that or I've blocked it from memory). In any case, its Mrs Media Worm who loves the MiB franchise, in no small part due to Mr. Will Smith.

What's it all about?

Agents J (Will Smith) and K (Tommy Lee Jones) discover that Boris the Animal (Jemaine Clement - Flight of the Conchords), imprisoned by K forty years previously, has escaped from a top security prison on the moon. Boris travels back in time to kill K before he can be captured. After K and everyone but J's memories of him disappear from the present, J travels back to 1969 and teams up with a younger K to stop Boris before he changes history.

Should you watch it?
Considering a third film in a franchise? Considered a time-travel plot to breathe some life into the story? This is exactly what MiB 3's writer, Etan Cohen, did and it largely works, taking Will Smith out of the present, dropping him into 1969 and adding either new characters or younger versions of characters from the previous two films. Trying to splice elements of time travel into a story always runs the risk of tying the narrative up in knots and although MiB 3 steered clear of these complications, I still found myself pondering the repercussions much afterwards. 

Due to the plot this instalment features considerably less Tommy Lee Jones than before, but fear not, the buddy movie concept is not lost as Josh Brolin accurately replicates, not just impersonates, Agent K some forty years earlier to butt heads with Smith's fast talking Agent J. Brolin's note perfect performance as a younger Jones is the highlight of the film, helping the plot  move forward in anticipation of the event that leads to K's even more dead pan and serious demeanour. What causes this actually turns out to be a surprisingly tender ending to the film, and one that deserves to finish the franchise.

"Oh no, this is the one where......"

Michael Stuhlbarg (gangster Arnold Rothstein from Boardwalk Empire) has an amusing, scene stealing turn as Griffin, the quirky alien capable of seeing all possible permutations of the future, all that was missing was a mention of Schrodinger's Cat.

All things considered, MiB 3 is a likeable return to the form for the franchise, but one that isn't truly funny or inventive enough to suggest that the franchise can go much further.

FILM: Margin Call (8/10)

Why did I watch it?

Having never heard of this film before, I saw it advertised and liked the look of the ensemble cast and hoped the script could make the subject matter interesting enough.

What's it all about?

Set in the weeks prior to the 2008 global financial crisis, Margin Call takes place during a 36 hour period at an unnamed investment bank. Risk analyst Peter Sullivan (Zachary Quinto) completes the work of his former boss (Stanley Tucci) and realises that the recent volatility in the market falls outside the data applied to the firms heavily leveraged investments, meaning that over the time the firm holds such investments, losses will be generated in excess of the firm's worth. Sullivan passes this news upwards through the management chain (Paul Bettany, Kevin Spacey, Simon Baker, Demi Moore) culminating in a middle of the night emergency board meeting with CEO John Tuld (Jeremy Irons) to discuss the options to save the firm. 

Should you watch it?

If you have any interest in a smart and tense drama dealing with the financial crisis and featuring a first rate cast, then yes. First time director and writer J.C. Chandor delivers a gripping, tense film with Academy nominated screenplay, told largely over the hours of a single New York night.

The majority of the 'action' takes place in dimly lit offices, often lit solely by the banks of computer monitors flashing with the doomed data, with the neon skyline of New York as a backdrop through the office windows. It's a setting that reflects the severity of the situation, once aware of the issue no-one ever suggests calling it a night. The sense of importance is also highlighted by the manner in which the disaster-in-the-making is passed up through the chain, with each manager, head of department, or senior executive, only able to pass it on until the CEO choppers in at 3 AM to rule on the matter.

Justifiably, the banking industry has been criticised and penalised for the greed that led to the 2008 crisis but interestingly, despite the firm making a decision that will ultimately lead to the crisis, Chandor gives a voice to the industry to justify their greed and existence. Will Emerson (Bettany) argues that the bankers greed is only able to exist due to the demands of 'real people' to own things they cannot afford, while CEO Tuld (Irons) is considerably more blasé, stating that the downturn is simply part of the economic cycle and even that there will simply be more starving dogs than fat cats for a while. The narrative is balanced however, with Sam Rogers (Spacey) and several others voicing their discontent at the irresponsibility about to be shown by Tuld and Cohen (Baker), while scapegoat Sarah Robertson (Moore) goes down declaring that her warnings were not listened to.

'How many zeros?!'

A great cast, an interesting subject and great film making, Margin Call is a must for those wanting a film to test the old grey matter.

FILM: Jerry Maguire (8/10)

Why did I watch it?

I was lent this by a friend at work. It had always been a film that for some reason I had never known much about despite knowing its popularity.

What's it all about?

A Tom Cruise vehicle, Jerry Maguire is a sports agent at a lucrative firm, who suffers a crisis of conscience over the money first, clients second approach of the firm and finds himself fired for it. Broke and having lost his client roster, Maguire persuades idealist assistant and single mother Dororthy (Renee Zellwegger) to join his new firm. While trying to succeed with one client, the loyal but strong willed and eccentric footballer Rod Tidwell (Cuba Gooding Jr.), Dorothy falls for Maguire's charms.

Should you watch it?
Sitting down to watch Jerry Maguire I didn't know what to expect. I was aware it dealt with a sports agency firm, but that was the extent of my knowledge. I didn't know it was part sports film, part comedy and part romance, and a pleasing combination of all three. Neither did I know that Gooding Jr. won a richly deserved Supporting Actor Oscar for his performance as Tidwell. Not short on referenceable lines or highlights owing to director Cameron Crowe's script, Gooding Jr. was the film's main highlight for me. His charismatic and boisterous character stole the majority of scenes he appeared in, be it dancing around his kitchen or tenderly showing his affection for his wife.

Crowe also encourages Cruise and Zellwegger to turn in excellent performances, Cruise's slightly unhinged and borderline OTT portrayal of Maguire being one of the best I have seen him give, teeth and shades and all. He also achieves a genuine tenderness in the scenes he shares with Dorothy's son.

Show you my WHAT?

The ending may have been a little too sugar coated, mainly in the sense of Tidwell's new contract value rather than Maguire and Dorothy's relationship, but all in all Jerry Maguire is an enjoyable feel good romantic drama that has stood the test of time so far and one that is definitely worth checking out if, like me, you haven't yet seen it. 

BOOK: The Sum of All Fears, Tom Clancy (6/10)

Why did I read it?
Another book, another Tom Clancy Jack Ryan story. Book number five of my odyssey through Clancy's Ryan series.

What's it all about?

A nuclear missile lies missing in the Syrian desert for decades until it is discovered by a farmer before ending up in the hands of Arab terrorists, angry that a landmark Holy Land peace deal between Jews, Muslims and Christians and brokered by the US is proving successful. The terrorists recruit East German nuclear experts, themselves angry that world socialism has collapsed, to help customise the warhead for use on American soil. With that emergency approaching, Jack Ryan, now CIA Deputy Director, has to deal with problems at home and a rapidly deteriorating relationship with the current US president and his advisers.

Should you read it?
TSOAF is the longest of Clancy's Jack Ryan books so far, and at over 1000 pages (paperback version) it was a chore to read in parts, and need not have been so. The main event of the book takes place about 600-700 pages in, and the story has been well and truly set by this point. From this point on the book became a real page-turner, as the tension between East and West increased alongside increasing DEFCON levels and Ryan tries to avert the global nuclear war his shellshocked president is leading the US towards.

Clancy being Clancy, couldn't not dedicate a vast number of pages to the details of the nuclear warhead's assembly and the side side story of the submarine USS Maine seemed totally superfluous. All in all it was no wonder the film adaptation was massively streamlined.

TSOAF is probably the most personal Jack Ryan story yet, even more so than Patriot Games, as National Security Advisor Elizabeth Elliott temporarily succeeds in undermining his marriage as well as his position. This storyline is ultimately easily solved but Clancy uses it to highlight the contempt Elliott has for Ryan, which has huge dangerous consequences at the vital moment. The trouble between Ryan and his wife also parallels the escalating strife between East and West, worsening through rash assumptions and easily solved through simple communication.

FILM: Chronicle (6/10)

Why did I watch it?

I wanted to watch this one from the first time I saw the trailer. It looked like an interesting superhero themed take on the found footage genre from a first time director.

What's it all about?

Filmed in the majority by one of their handheld cameras, three high school guys develop telekinetic superpowers after climbing into a hole in the ground created by some strange alien equipment. After the initial excitement over their abilities passes, each of the teenagers deals with their new responsibilities in different ways and bullied Andrew, who also has a difficult home life, begins to see his powers as a method of righting the wrongs in his life.

Should you watch it?

My viewing experience of Chronicle was incredibly mixed. In equal measures I enjoyed some parts and got bored of others. I loved the boys will be boys element of the groups discovery, using the powers for fun and stupidly testing the limits of their growing abilities. It seems exactly the sort of behaviour you would expect from teenage boys. As you would also expect, it isn't too long before someone goes too far when showing off and that person is Andrew (Dane DeHaan).

Bullied at school and with an abusive father and dying mother at home, you can certainly sympathise with Andrew's outlook on life and understand his temptation to allow his anger to exploit his powers. That said, his character (and partially that of his cousin Matt too) was the main reason for my annoyance with the film. I didn't like them, simple as. The pair were incredibly whiny, and their arguing and screaming at each other dragged the script down into soap opera territory.

Considering the budget, the special effects are pretty respectable and the story itself is an interesting journey, dealing with the loss of self-control and responsibility past the point of no return, culminating in the film's frantic finale.

Is it a bird? Is it a plane?

FILM: Battleship (4/10)

Why did I watch it?

Honestly, I'm not sure. I knew this film was going to sink but still, I came at it from an unbiased frame of mind. I don't mind the odd brainless action film from time to time.

What's it all about?

Supposedly inspired by the Hasbro game, think Independence Day meets Transformers with a nautical twist. Does that sound as bad as it does writing it? Aliens attack Earth, landing in the Pacific in the middle of a major training exercise involving American and Japanese navies. The aliens trap three battleships in an impenetrable force field along with three of their own fleet and it is up to troublesome maverick Weapons Officer Alex Hopper (Taylor Kitsch) to lead the planet's defence.  

Should you watch it?

Let's get straight to it, Battleship is a bad bad film. Taylor Kitsch was greatly mocked for starring in this film and John Carter, two of 2012's lesser acclaimed releases but I don't think he can shoulder too much of the blame here. Battleship's faults lie almost solely at the feet of the writers, Jon and Erich Hoeber.

The script is riddled, absolutely riddled with stinking dialogue and the while obviously a certain amount of disbelief is required to even consider watching a film of Battleship's ilk, the plot has some laughable moments. I don't know which was worse, watching a previously decommissioned battleship being started up by a crew of geriatric veterans in no time at all, seeing said ship perform a handbrake turn at full speed by dropping anchor, the cringe-worthy references to The Art of War or seeing Rihanna try to act. Her speech about her father's alien prophecy is the stuff of nightmares. Thankfully for his sake, Liam Neeson's performance as the isolated Fleet Commander is limited.

Battleship....a floater

I was sceptical of how the film might incorporate anything resembling the Battleship game, but the night battle using educated pot-shots at grid references in the style of the board game actually worked reasonably well. The enemy, or more importantly, its odd passive-aggressive, your turn-our turn behaviour, is conveniently never explained.

I know the film is supposed to be action-led, fun and O.T.T. and visually director Peter Berg does nothing wrong but most of the action is pretty stationary and quite repetitive and there is only so much you can forgive a terrible script. Come back Michael Bay, we forgive you for Transformers!