29 August 2009

It's Quiet... Too Quiet...

I'm given to rather negatively assume that you're all browsing this blog o' mine to read me positively losing my shit over the latest releases. Then you'll go to the multiplex to chortle a little at the minutiae that bothered me so much and have a thoroughly good night. And good for you if that's the fact, but I find myself in the enjoyable position recently of being able to recommend films. Inglourious Basterds and The Time Traveler's Wife are both still playing in cinemas and are both rather marvellous, and it's a pleasure to recommend two rather different films. The trend continues with this week's post, and I'm enjoying it while it lasts.

By avoiding the route of seeing Dance Flick and Aliens in the Attic just to give hopping mad deconstructions of them on here, I've found my cinema-going experiences to be much more pleasant of late, probably because the summer season is drawing to a close, and the more stupid of the money-scoffing tyrannosauruses in the cinematic arena have all gone to shit in the wake of the flaming astral fireball that is er... September. Analogies have not always been my strong suit, but I'd sooner be happy than right any day. So here are a couple more reviews in which, as ever, mild spoilers may occur in the course of discussion but not so far as to ruin major plot developments.



Funny People is the latest comedy from Judd Apatow, a director who's slightly less prolific than advertising would have you believe. Yeah, he's the guy who brought you Knocked Up, but that and The 40 Year Old Virgin are the only films he'd directed before this more personal and dramatic effort. Adam Sandler reprises the "serious-mode" acting we've seen done well in Punch-Drunk Love and less well in Spanglish, to play George Simmons, a stand-up comedian turned sell-out movie star who's diagnosed with an inoperable type of leukaemia. Realising that his days could well be numbered, he reassesses his decadent lifestyle with the help of a young fan called Ira (played by Seth Rogen), who he effectively hires as an emotional punchbag.

Apatow's primarily telling us that Adam Sandler is very lonely. While I doubt Sandler has the personal issues that George does in real life, his career path is remarkably similar. I'm not pretending that Sandler's comedies have ever been high art, but I certainly think Happy Gilmore was a more credible film than the likes of Bedtime Stories. Similarly, George's efforts include Merman (a children's film about... well, a merman), Redo (in which Simmons has to be turned into a baby by a wizard to learn what it is to be a man) and My Best Friend Is A Robot (an Owen Wilson comedy that's never really elaborated upon). It's in this type of self-consciousness that Sandler gives such a good performance, amply reinforced by Apatow's traditional supporting cast.

Seth Rogen and Leslie Mann are as sympathetic and funny as usual, but it was a real joy to see Jonah Hill being funny again. Ever since Superbad, he's been touted as the Next Big Thing, but he's only really made forgettable cameos in the likes of Night at the Museum 2 since then. Here, he's given a sizable role with some great one-liners. Eric Bana is another standout cast-member who really doesn't seem to be on-screen long enough as he reprises his native accent to play an Australian alpha-male, but that's a problem that only exists because he makes such an impression. The amount of time he's there is relative to his importance to the story, and that's where Funny People really succeeds- a film the same length as your average Harry Potter film will invariably either bore the audience or use the time well and flesh out story and characters. You'll find yourself caring about what happens to these characters without it becoming mawkish or melodramatic.

The trademark quickfire dialogue and one-liners remain, but this is much more of a marriage of comedy and drama than Apatow's previous films. Like Knocked Up did for unexpected pregnancy and The 40 Year Old Virgin did for sexual immaturity, this film does take on a subject that isn't funny- terminal illness- and centres a comedy around it. However, unlike those films, Apatow is prepared to put a straight face on things for most of the film. The characters are stand-up comedians, so there'll obviously be jokes, but Funny People is a film about how damaged they can be once they're off-stage. Two and a half hours more or less flies by, with the exception of how frequently dick-jokes occur. By the time you hear how thick Seth Rogen's penis apparently is for the twelfth time, you might cast a look at your watch. Nevertheless, the fact remains that this is sometimes funny, sometimes sad but always very human, and it's Apatow's best film to date. That doesn't mean it's his funniest, but it is very good indeed.



It's likely many of you will go see Funny People, so I'll tip the scale and talk about a film I know was mostly overlooked at the cinema because it came out on the same day as The Time Traveler's Wife and the same weekend that Inglourious Basterds started previewing. It's called A Perfect Getaway and it stars Steve Zahn and Milla Jovovich as Cliff and Cydney, a pair of newlyweds off on an idyllic Hawaiian honeymoon. The getaway is marred slightly by news of a savage murderer roaming the islands, and it's only after they meet another holidaying couple that they hear about how police believe a man and a woman were the perpetrators. It's directed by David Twohy, who hasn't really done anything in the past few years except talk about how he's going to make a third Riddick film. That project now looks to be finally going forward, and fair play to him, because his interim project is well worth a watch.

Twohy's writing and directing maintains the tension throughout, and by the time you get to the end, you'll want to watch it again right away so you can get your head around it. It would be unfair to reveal any of the plot developments that make the film so watchable, or to divulge the game-changer that occurs midway through. So it only really remains for me to praise Twohy's direction and recommend A Perfect Getaway to anyone who likes a good thriller. It's got great performances- this is the only film where I'd ever call Steve Zahn endearing, and there's a memorable turn by Timothy Olyphant too- and the requisite scenery is of course beautifully shot. The real shame with this film is how it's been advertised. I'm lucky to have seen this at all, because every other day of the week I would've passed this by as another run-of-the-mill cautionary tale about how going abroad is Bad, no matter how sunny it is. As it is, I felt like a trip to the cinema and saw this on a whim, so I'm very glad I did. Make sure you all catch it on DVD, because it's a film that deserves to be more successful than it has been.

Next time, I'll probably be back to ranting when it comes to Final Destination 4 (I refuse to use the title they're giving it) but hopefully retaining this newfound sunny disposition when it comes to either The Hurt Locker, District 9 or (500) Days of Summer.

Until then, I'm Mark, mad prophet of the airwaves, and make sure you don't watch anything I wouldn't watch.

16 August 2009

Love and War

How lucky y'all are- the third post in the space of a week. I've been to the cinema a lot more often recently after the general drought of new releases that followed Half-Blood Prince, and thusly I'm bringing you two films that couldn't be much further away from each other in terms of tone and content. One is a tribute to the "men-on-a-mission" exploitation war movie and the other is a sci-fi romance, but I like to keep all kinds of readers happy. As ever, mild spoilers may crop up here and there but not so far as to reveal any major plot developments.
------------------------------------------------

INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS


Who's in it?
Brad Pitt and Diane Kruger are being touted as the leads in the advertising, but the real de facto leads are Mélanie Laurent and Christoph Waltz.

What's it all about? In Nazi-occupied France, young Jewish woman (Laurent) escapes a colonel known as the Jew Hunter (Waltz) as the rest of her family are slaughtered. Years later, she has an opportunity to get revenge on the German high command as Joseph Goebbels organises a film premiere at her cinema. Little does she realise that the American Lt. Aldo Raine (Pitt) and his "Basterds" are dishing out some vengeance of their own.

Any good? I don't quite put Quentin Tarantino on the same pedestal that most film buffs do. Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs and Jackie Brown are all excellent, but it's what he's done since then that's been off-putting to me. I didn't like Kill Bill that much, and I haven't bothered to see Death Proof yet. That is a track record that should overwhelmingly suggest that I enjoy his work, but I'm still yet to be convinced that he's the greatest director of our time. Inglourious Basterds is a continuation of the kind of slightly juvenile and gleeful homage to exploitation cinema that characterised Kill Bill, but on some level, I enjoyed this much more. Maybe it's the Nazi factor- two of my top five favourite films ever feature Nazis as the bad guys, so maybe they just make terrific villains.

On the other hand, I suspect it's more to do with the sheer scope of the film. Like Pulp Fiction, the film is made up of interweaving stories with different sets of characters on screen in each of the film's five chapters. This made me feel almost as if I were watching a stage play- the lengthy running time and the extended scenes filled with dialogue only heightened this, and that made me feel like there was something distinctly uncinematic about it. Which is odd really, as the film is a massive tribute to cinema. It's obviously not an angle explored in trailers, but a lot is made of Joseph Goebbels' propaganda films and efforts in the German film industry. And without spoiling too much, the general message is that cinema can save the world. The film is practically a love letter to the institution Tarantino adores so much. But that doesn't mean it's not a lot of fun to watch. The humour is broad and as dark as the subject matter demands- this isn't The Great Dictator, but the jokes definitely come thicker and faster as the film progresses. Tarantino's trademark dialogue is also one of the best parts, and he gives his sterling cast something to chew on.

Brad Pitt does make an impression as Aldo Raine whenever he appears, but the standout performances come from Mélanie Laurent and Christoph Waltz. Waltz in particular is marvellous as the Jew Hunter- he hams it up slightly, but you never feel there's any denigration to the menace he presents. Like all the best villains, he's a thoroughly sick human being, but the best of those long scenes I mentioned feature him playing with his food via interrogation and terror. Diane Kruger's tribute to the German cinema divas of the era and the assorted Basterds are also memorable, but neither Eli Roth or Til Schweiger are given enough screentime in the interweaving and diverse narrative. One of the more non-sequitous sub-plots brings to the forefront the always excellent Michael Fassbender as an English captain and, bizarrely, Mike Myers in Austin Powers mode as his superior. It's one of the standout scenes for its humour and gentle mocking of the British, but it feels slightly indulgent in a film that already runs for quite a long time. Tarantino is not a director who does restraint or subtlety much, but that works in the favour of this film.

Inglourious Basterds is a very confident film overall- Tarantino has enough confidence in his audience to sit through a long film, of which about 50% is in German or French with English subtitles. More than that, he resists what most other directors would do by tightening up those scenes with the Jew Hunter for the sake of building tension in the short-term, and creates a much more memorable film for this. Not flawless, but highly entertaining exploitation cinema.


------------------------------------------------

THE TIME TRAVELER'S WIFE


Who's in it?
Rachel McAdams is the eponymous wife, with Eric Bana as the "chrono-impaired" love of her life. Ron Livingston and Stephen Tobolowsky admirably support them by looking confused at how time travel is possible.

What's it all about? Henry (Bana) has a freak genetic disorder that causes him to involuntarily travel through time. This causes complications with the love of his life Clare (McAdams), whom he meets for the first time when he's 28 and she's 20, even though she's known him since she was 6 and he was 34.

Any good? Audrey Niffenegger's book is the type of bestseller that sweeps the charts every so often when Richard and Judy, or some other influential personality, decrees it to be a good read. Loath though I am to discovering books in this way, The Time Traveler's Wife was an interesting story, and although by no means perfect, it was one of the better "Book Club" type recommendations. This film adaptation is thankfully not too reverent to the source material, and isn't afraid to give proper focus to both Henry and Clare by cutting some of the more unwieldy subplots and characters to place the focus on their relationship. There's been an overriding tendency in films recently to show too much backstory- when G.I. Joe has flashbacks, you know the problem has gone way too far. Director Robert Schwentke understands that we don't need to know every single detail of our protagonists' lives just to care about them- if anyone needs that, the book will enrich your knowledge- and instead moves forward with the slightly boggled narrative.

Time travel is a tricky proposition in films from time to time, as it either has to make complete sense with causality or lull the audience into suspending their disbelief by breaking the fourth wall and telling them not to worry about it. This film achieves a neat balance between the two by performing a sleight of hand. The romance is the operative part, and only the most detached people will be wondering why the universe isn't melting around Henry's ears as he cheats on the lottery and takes his wife's virginity before she's ever even met him. And for this purpose, Eric Bana and Rachel McAdams are pitch perfect casting. Bana needs more good work like this full stop, and McAdams is as endearing as she usually is in such roles. And because they're so good, you allow yourself to be taken in by it all. There were a couple of slightly mawkish scenes and one totally out of place bit of dialogue that jarred me for a moment or two, but the film drew me back in soon enough.

It's for reasons like this that I could imagine The Time Traveler's Wife being a rather excellent date movie, but please be aware that it depends on how sensitive your companion is- the ending had a lot of people crying in the screening I attended, and that might not be how you want to end a date. However, wading through the throngs of bereaved viewers on my way out of the cinema, I was very much possessed of the feeling that this is a film that deserves to do well. If you read the book, go and see the film.



------------------------------------------------
Very much up to date now, so couldn't tell you what my next post on here will cover. Aliens in the Attic, if I can subject myself to such an exercise of endurance? I'm wanting to see A Perfect Getaway at some point too. If all else fails, I'll be back in a couple of weeks for Funny People and The Final Destination. Please don't forget to comment letting me know if you've seen Inglourious Basterds or The Time Traveler's Wife- it's always good to get feedback.

I'm Mark, the Mad Prophet of the Airwaves, and until next time, don't watch anything I wouldn't watch.

15 August 2009

Flawed G Nius

As most of you will probably know, I'm in possession of a much-used Cineworld Unlimited card. That I retain my youthful looks in spite of some of the dross I see in the name of entertaining you lot with my reactions makes me suspect that somewhere down the line, a portrait has been painted of me that now sits in an attic, going bald and looking increasingly angry with film that splatters on the big screen. I open this post not to be negative, but to very much hammer home the point that I wouldn't see half of these films if it weren't costing me a mere £13.50 a month (equivalent to just two tickets) to see around six to eight films.

I saw two films in particular this week that I wouldn't ever see in cinemas if I were forking out £6.80 a visit, and they are G-Force and G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra. As it is, rants aren't really in order for either of these films, and I'll be reviewing them today. As ever, mild spoilers may crop up here and there but not so far as to reveal any major plot developments.

G-FORCE


Who's in it?
A fairly sterling voice cast includes Nicolas Cage, Sam Rockwell and Penelope Cruz, with the live action cast comprising Bill Nighy and Zach Galifianakis.

What's it all about?
Highly trained guinea pigs are deployed by an eccentric FBI developer (Galifianakis) to prevent electronics mogul Leonard Saber (Nighy) from, you guessed it, taking over the world.

Any good? "I see dead people."
"Here's lookin' at you, kid."
"You had me at hello."
"These go up to eleven."
"There is no spoon."

What do all of the above phrases have in common? They're quotes that would go over the heads of children if they heard them in the latest Disney family fare, and would similarly fail to make most adults laugh. So why G-Force is so chockful of such lines, pandering to an audience who would (and in my case, should) probably know better than to see it, is beyond my comprehension as a film goer. John McTiernan can hardly have directed Die Hard with the aim of turning Bruce Willis' "Yippi-kay-ay, motherfucker" into a line so iconic that it was referenced in a PG Disney film with talking guinea pigs as secret agents. Although the quoting immediately struck me as an issue to open this review on, I can't avoid mentioning that this is one of those high-concept Disney family films that we occasionally see (like Bedtime Stories or The Pacifier) that singularly fails to entertain most people over the age of 12. And yet it's pandering to a much older audience, a catch-all technique also employed by Transformers, my favourite film ever. Additionally, the main threat to the world here is comprised of transforming electrical appliances, leading some to say that the film is "Alvin and the Chipmunks, if it were directed by Michael Bay".

While that succinct review did make me chuckle, I can't fairly attach such a label to G-Force, because it's not a Michael Bay film, and it is slightly elevated by its cast. The trailer for this was so terrible that I audibly cried out when I recognised Bill Nighy. "What have they done to you, Bill?", I wondered, loudly and desperately, as my younger companions shushed me. So I had to get down from the cinema seat I hadn't realised I was standing on and stop throwing things at this seemingly innocuous family adventure that was being advertised. As it is, Bill Nighy is criminally underused for an actor of his calibre, but he makes the best of the cardboard antagonist he's given. Likewise, Zach Galifianakis, he of The Hangover, is endearing enough as the mad bastard who's pitching the G-Force programme to the FBI. I can't really fault the voice work either, as everyone makes the best of the hideous stereotypes they're given- Tracy Morgan is African-American comic-relief guinea pig, Penelope Cruz is Latina-with-feminine-wiles guinea pig, and it's all slightly tired.

The ultimate measure of all films like this is whether or not kids will enjoy it- they are the target audience, after all. And with my youngest brother's verdict of "it was alright", I must conclude that G-Force is nothing special. It's not awful enough to make me shout and scream, but it's burrowed comfortably into whatever is lining the floor of the summer movie season without standing proudly in its own droppings. I suspect few will want to take it home and keep it, but you might go "Aww" when you see it.



13 August 2009

The Mad Prophet #1- Two Moons



Yeah, this is about the size of that promised rebrand. Let me fill you in on why I've gone off in a different direction from the "Filmgoat" name I was planning and alluding to. Having gotten catastrophically drunk last week, I wandered outside the club I was in and met an old friend from secondary school. Well, I say a friend... point being he's apparently being reading these reviews and told me they were very funny. This, for me, is a score.

More than anything else, I've hoped I'm not brow-beating people with my opinions. If anything, I'm happier to be Howard Beale, the mad prophet of the airwaves from the film Network. His show in that film is set up by the TV network executives to open with him delivering elaborate and disillusioning rants that he's channeling to the world from some unknown celestial force. At the end of each rant, he'll collapse into a faint in the spotlight, whereupon the studio audience applauds raucously. They're entertained, but they haven't took on a word he's been saying. And when someone reminds me of that in their response to these reviews, I know I'm doing something right. No one likes a critic, so I'm on the backfoot if I'm not entertaining you.

Moving on then- I've seen four new films this week and this post shall cover two of them. One quite literally involves the Moon, and the other is a remake that drops trou and flashes its arse at the superior original. As ever, mild spoilers may crop up here and there but not so far as to reveal any major plot developments.

MOON


Who's in it? Sam Rockwell and Kevin Spacey are at the forefront in what's largely a two-hander, I was surprised to see homegrown Channel 4 stars like Matt Berry and Kaya Scodelario (of The IT Crowd and Skins fame, respectively) popping up in the background.

What's it all about? Sam Bell (Rockwell) is an astronaut nearing the end of his three-year contract working on the Moon to extract and export an energy resource that has made the Earth clean and efficient. With only a computer (voiced by Spacey) for company, Sam has a quintessentially personal encounter right before he's due to go back to Earth.

Any good? Sci-fi is bandied around like a dirty word sometimes, unless it's followed by the word "blockbuster". Nine times out of ten, such films have more money than ideas, and so the genre in its undiluted form rarely sees wide release. Even the Sci-Fi Channel have rebranded themselves as the mind-killingly banal "Syfy". So a film like Moon is a breath of fresh air if you like intelligent films with ideas. And I'm eager to point out from the off that not all science fiction features Klingons or Daleks, so don't fall into that slightly populist trap of avoiding Moon cos you're expecting something boring and nerdy.

Director Duncan Jones lovingly harkens back to the age when sci-fi films had ideas- films like Silent Running in particular- but it's as a result of that that it's not particularly original. I couldn't pretend that Moon has new ideas, as I even spotted one major part of the plot that's been done in an Arnold Schwarzenegger film, but the execution of these ideas is what makes it a good film- it wasn't half as good with Schwarzenegger. This film is directed and performed with more subtlety than Michael Bay could muster if he spent ten years in the dark trying to make a silent film, and it's just beautiful. As mentioned, it's more or less a two-hander, providing a claustrophobic atmosphere in the moonbase, which Sam Rockwell amplfies brilliantly with his diverse and great performance. I can't sing Rockwell's praises enough in general, but here is one of those performances that should get nominated for an Oscar, and probably would if the nominations and voting procedure weren't so skewed against genre fare. When February rolls around, I doubt the recipient of the Best Actor award will have been half as good as Rockwell is here, in whatever beige "prestige" film he (or she, you never know these days) has starred in.

There's not much of a supporting cast to speak of, but Kevin Spacey lends the film some tension as well as Sam's helper robot, GERTY. As he trundles around with a "Kick Me" post-it stuck to his back, he does his best to keep Sam sane and happy, but his ulterior motives are brought to the fore by the fact that Spacey can't even ask if you'd like something to eat without sounding menacing. But then I'm not planning to eat round Kevin Spacey's house anytime soon, so that's just fine with me. So besides these two, the other stand-out aspect of the film is the effects work. Far from relying on CGI, some beautiful model shots are employed of the vehicles, the base and the surface of the Moon itself. Another aspect of the homage to Silent Running and its low-budget ilk? Perhaps, but Jones was absolutely right to look elsewhere instead of succumbing to CGI shots. I'm talking about anything other than the story because I'm avoiding talking about the crux of the plot in advance- I knew nothing about this aspect of the story when I saw it, and I think I enjoyed it more because of that. So while I'm lavishing more praise than usual on effects (the score is good too, by the way), be assured that the film has more than enough story to keep you thinking and guessing throughout.

Intelligent and thought-provoking, Moon is the best sci-fi film in ages. Possibly since The Matrix. It's not entirely original, but it takes the time to execute the ideas that support the plot with new techniques rather than patronsing the audience by lazily chucking CGI at us. As with most low-budget films, it's sadly not in wide release, but I strongly recommend you catch it when it's released on DVD/Blu-ray.



THE TAKING OF PELHAM 123 (2009)


Who's in it? John Travolta and Denzel Washington sit in for Robert Shaw and Walter Matthau, with James Gandolfini and John Turturro lending ample support.

What's it all about? Walter Garber (Washington) is a New York subway train dispatcher whose life is changed when Ryder (Travolta) hijacks a subway car and demands $10 million in return for the 19 hostages he has on board. The two men form an uneasy relationship over the radio system as the clock ticks towards Ryder's deadline- for every minute he doesn't have the money thereafter, he'll kill a hostage...

Any good? Let me tell you about the 1974 film, The Taking of Pelham One Two Three. I saw it recently and found it to be one of the better films I've seen since... well, ever. Well-paced, great action sequences and beautifully acted by Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw. Shaw, he of Jaws fame, is ice-cold and completely dedicated to getting what he wants, while Matthau is an endearing everyman who could easily have gone into his own spin-off series. Hell, I'd have watched another film with Matthau's Garber. Most importantly, the film leads up to one of the best endings ever- played just right and ending in media res. As the credits roll, you'll be smiling. 35 years on, Tony Scott has also adapted the book from which the 1974 film was based, so this isn't a remake in the strictest sense. But that won't stop me tearing it a new one, folks.

First problem, I say, as I pop open the hood of the film to take a look at it, is that Scott has clearly cast the lead roles the wrong way round. Denzel Washington can clearly play baddies well, as his Oscar for Training Day will attest, so while he's as endearing as he is in other films where he's the good guy, he's just too cool to be in the role of Garber. Cool, that's what Robert Shaw was. John Travolta, not so much. He needs to stop playing baddies altogether. Just... stop. People have talked endlessly about his easy charm, the kind of thing that came through in Grease and Pulp Fiction. In this, he's easily the worst possible drop-trou to the 1974 version as he overacts his way through yet another villain role, seemingly only there to demonstrate every possible vocal iteration of the word "motherfucker". Oh, and in an unintentionally hilarious moment, the word "bumhole". On the positive side of things, James Gandolfini captures the ineptitude of the Mayor of New York perfectly, even in spite of the script making him more competent than his predecessor towards the end of the film, and he has some of the best lines in the film.

Second problem, I say, poking at the mechanics of the film with a spanner, is the "updating" of the film. I feel that Pelham One Two Three was a film very much of its time. In the mid-70s, you can have a subway car full of New Yorkers react with derisive laughter when a gunman tells them he's hijacking the train. They have a cynicism and hard edge that only evaporates once they start shooting. Of course, something quite big happened in New York within the last ten years that now has "terrorist" being said almost as often as Travolta spouts "motherfucker". Post-9/11 subtext was one of the many things the film didn't need, and because it's an unfortunate necessity of setting a film like this in New York, it raises the question of whether it was necessary to remake the film in the first place. Additionally, you know you're in trouble when your film has a social networking sub-plot and vague allusions to the financial corruption that's landed us in the current credit crunch.

But the major problem, I yell, as I start smacking the film with a pipe-wrench, is Tony Scott's direction. He sits somewhere just above McG in the pantheon of awful directors, and he's far too content to bring in shaky-cam, aerial shots and rock music wherever he possibly can. He is not one of those directors who does subtlety. One scene in the original has a police car crash into a fire hydrant- understated because the significance of the crash to the plot is more important than the spectacle of it. The equivalent scene in this update has the car fly spectacularly off a bridge and roll several times, causing various other explosions around it as it goes. Don't even get me started on the jump-cuts and the horrible raping of that brilliant 1974 ending I mentioned. But replacing the hood for a moment, I have to grudgingly admit that most people will be entertained by this. It's got a lot going for it with Washington and Gandolfini at the centre, even if the former is miscast, and Scott didn't change enough of the story to make this a bad film.

The Taking of Pelham 123 is due a drubbing from anyone who's seen the 1974 version, and I strongly advise you to see that film instead of this one. Newer isn't better, but I admit that you could do a lot worse in an evening at the cinema than see this. On the other hand, the DVD costs but £2.99 online at its cheapest, and £5 in HMV. The 2009 version is a good film done poorly.



------------------------------------------------

The next films to be reviewed will be G-Force and G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra, and I obviously kept those back because I need help with witty subtitles and they have the G thing in common. Um, but also because they're both family films, obviously.

I'm the Mad Prophet of the Airwaves, and until next time, don't watch anything I wouldn't watch.
Mark.