THE BOOK OF ELI movie review

The Book Of Eli

Starring: Denzel Washington, Mila Kunis, Ray Stevenson, & Gary Oldman

Running time: 118 minutes

Year: 2010

Directed By: The Hughes Brothers

Written By: Gary Whitta

The Book Of Eli trailer

From 2009 to 2010 Denzel Washington stared in The Taking Of Pelham 123 and Unstoppable either side of making The Book Of Eli. In those films he gained weight in order to play an everyday man and one who works closely to trains. The Book Of Eli must have been a welcome break then as he had to shed the weight to play a loner walking the post apocalyptic world without a train in sight.  We are used to seeing Washington in a variety of lead roles but here we manage to see a different side to him; he's quiet, he's lonely, and he's hard as nails.

It opens then with Washington trawling the post-apocalyptic land alone. He shoots a cat for food later and hides out, listening to his IPod, in an abandoned house. In the morning he sets off again on his journey where he is ambushed by a group of hijackers who want his possessions. This is the first moment in the film where dialogue is really spoken, some eight minutes in.  He manages to defeat this group with ease and continues on his way, arriving at a small town run by Gary Oldman's Carnegie. When Washington (his name in the film as of yet unknown) enters a bar he argues with one of the locals and again manages to defeat a large group of people who intimidate him. Witnessing this Carnegie asks to see him and offers him a chance to join his mob, throwing in his hot step daughter Solara (Kunis) as a sweetener. Washington however still rejects and the following morning heads back on his way but his short stay in the town has brought to Carnegie's attention that Washington is in possession of a book that he has been searching for since the apocalypse. When Carnegie's men fail to stop him, Washington goes on the run with Solara trying to keep this good book that has guided him through the apocalypse. Whilst on the run we learn Washington's name is Eli and that faith has lead him this far. This book he possesses could start wars and makes people God-like which is why he believes he has to protect it. This book is the Bible.

In my eyes the plot is very thin. All of this in search of a book so that people can become the 'Messiah'. Being an Atheist I fail to really understand the importance of all this but I suppose if it is in your belief system you will get it. The film seems to be religious propaganda and trying to remind people that religion is not a bad thing. This is overly stated in the end which gives off a clear message of 'to have faith'. I will come back to the end in a minute as I do think it is a big talking point of the film but first I want to continue with the plot. It opens strongly but it is something we have seen before. Washington shines in these opening few minutes and his presence made it all feel different. However when he reaches the town it all seems to go downhill and becomes a shoot out in a post apocalyptic world. This wouldn't be so bad if it was done well but it takes so long to set up that all the shoot outs feel rather rushed and the pace changes drastically.

Character motivations are also highly flawed especially with Solara. Why would she leave her blind Mother in the hands of an evil gangster to run off with a loner? She reckons she will be safer but how wrong that turned out to be. Oldman's Carnegie, although performed very well by Oldman, doesn't feel mean enough to really be hated. All he wants is a book and that motivation just doesn't seem enough, but that is probably my thoughts regarding the importance of the book.

The ending then was God-awful. It took me a while to grasp it as I worked out the twist and then decided that it can't be right because the rest of the film would make little to no sense. Turns out I had got it right meaning the film became implausible. I took to forums to see what other people's interpretations were and saw that people had devised theories to how it is plausible but I'm sorry, watch it again and you will see that it just doesn't work.

The ending is not the only thing that brought this movie down; there were many issues I had throughout. The shots and visuals were too much like a music video and it was very distracting, the plot was weak, characters had unbelievable relationships and the music started well but become repetitive. Oh and Mila Kunis' Sarah Connor impression at the end really didn't work. It was a film that just lost me after about thirty minutes and it just got worse until it hit that poor ending.

Washington and Oldman are the respectable entries of this film. Everything else may as well just accept defeat. Washington brings a feel of isolation to the role, he may not be the most likeable character, but we really believe he is a loner whose only hope is this book. Oldman brings a sense of menace to a badly drawn character and in a lesser actor's hands the villain would have been worse. I had been looking forward to this film for a while but it had too much religious propaganda for my liking and some fairly flat action sequences meaning that despite some decent performances this is one left unwatched, unless of course you want your own view on that ending.

2 / 5       

CEMETERY JUNCTION movie review

Cemetery Junction

Starring: Christian Cooke, Felicity Jones, Tom Hughes, Ricky Gervias

Running time: 95 minutes

Year: 2010

Directed By: Ricky Gervais & Stephen Merchant

Written By: Ricky Gervais & Stephen Merchant

Cemetery Junction trailer

Ricky Gervais has mainly been known for his work on the brilliant sitcom The Office. He has attempted since to create new shows or dab his hand in film, mainly in the states, but none of these have been as much of a hit as The Office was. Gervais and writing partner Stephen Merchant generally write and direct their own stuff and more often than not cast themselves in one of the roles. In Cemetery Junction however the pair seem to have broken off from their normal devices and created something entirely different. For starters the film is a drama with comedy elements instead of an outright comedy and Gervais limits himself to more of a supporting role. Does it work then, knowing Gervais' usual style? The answer is a definite yes!

The film revolves around three friends, Freddie, Bruce, and Snork, who live in a working class area of Reading called Cemetery Junction. Growing up Freddie has always respected his Father (played by Gervais) who works hard to earn a small living at a factory, however when it is Freddie's turn to work at factory he decides he doesn't want to. Instead he takes a job selling insurance, where he earns better money and wears a suit to work, despite his friends and family mocking him for it. As he begins to work he realises he has grown out of the immature activities he and his mates usually get up to, such as criminal damage, fighting, and drinking, all of which generally end up with them in a police cell. Starting to dream of making something of himself, Freddie takes his job seriously and meets an old flame Julie, who he finds is engaged to his boss and daughter of the owner to the company. His new fondness for his job doesn't rub off on his better friends who accuse him of turning into someone who believes he is better than the area he was brought up in. However his attention to detail begins to be noticed by Julie and her Mother. After spending much isolated time with Julie he begins to realise how the men within the firm are highly chauvinistic and his friends are highly immature and will never chase their dreams. Julie inspires him to break free and never let anyone or anything hold him back.

The story of the film is a coming-of-age tale and it is highly noticeable within each of the characters. Despite some of the relationships seeming a little rushed, especially Freddie and Julie's, the characters are very well written and all undertake a very satisfying arc by the end. The three leads all face internal struggles where they fail to accept the moments in life that will ultimately make them better people. They use crime as a way to release their anger that builds inside them whilst promising themselves they will leave their downtrodden estate, knowing deep down that they never will. All of their internal conflicts are resolved by the end and each character's story feels complete when they come to the conclusion. The characters really do drive the story as the plot is rather bare and simple but it is the way the characters are written, presented, and acted that make you follow them on their emotional journey. All the actors play their roles very well. In my eyes the two stars were Emily Watson and Tom Hughes who both play their roles as if they were born to do it. Ralph Fiennes and Matthew Goode are also good as two chauvinistic men who believe money is more important than the women in their lives. Christian Cooke, who plays Freddie, also does a decent job but his relationship with Felicity Jones (Julie) failed to have much chemistry. In a stripped back role Gervais is also good but unfortunately Merchant is given a God-awful cameo that quite frankly should have been left out. And for Idiot Abroad lovers there is also a blink and you'll miss him cameo from Karl Pilkington.   

It is safe to say that Gervais and Merchant have produced a good first attempt at writing and directing a feature film. The directing isn't particularly outstanding but it tells the story, if anything it was the editing that felt a bit out of place especially with some of the jump cuts which were pointlessly used. The writing though was top class and some of the dialogue was laugh out loud funny. The words used were typical of their style of writing and at times very controversial. As the film is set in the 70's the pair have managed to write dialogue which could be classed as placing a statement in today's society but not even blinked at in the era of the film. Lines involving racism, feminism, and class derogatory were the norm back then and some of the issues raised highlight how different the world is today. It is as if Gervais has used some of the issues to spout off his own views. Not that this is an issue and instead it makes for some cringe worthy comedy.

Overall I was pleasantly surprised with this film. It does have a few pacing issues towards the end but it was a lot better than I was expecting. It is definitely a feel good movie that comes to a satisfying conclusion for all the major characters. By stripping back their work of sarcasm and in your face humour, Gervais and Merchant have produced a film many would believe they couldn't and I think if they continued with this type of genre they could make something even better.

3.5 / 5

VALENTINE'S DAY movie review

Valentine's Day

Starring: Julia Roberts, Jamie Foxx, Anne Hathaway, Jessica Alba

Running time: 125 minutes

Year: 2010

Directed By: Garry Marshall

Written By: Katherine Fugate

Valentine's Day trailer

Valentine's Day is one of those really typical films that uses a well known day across the globe to stitch together a host of famous actors/actresses and thread them loosely together using very thin story threads. Here we have Julia Roberts, Jamie Fox, Anne Hathaway, Jessica Alba, Ahston Kutcher, Jessica Biel, Queen Lafitah, Bradley Cooper, Kathy Bates, Patrick Dempsey, Jennifer Garner, and Topher Grace all in the same film. The surprising thing is despite the amount of names I have just reeled off; there are other well known faces among the crowd. Does this then make Valentine's Day a good film? The answer is no. Does it make Valentine's Day a fun film, which I let wash over me? Yes.

The plot interweaves many of these characters so that they all have some connection to each other no matter how small it is. The main thread though seems to be with Ashton Kutcher's character Reed, who proposes to his girlfriend Jessica Alba on the morning of Valentine's Day. She says yes before realising she has made a mistake and leaves. Reed owns the florist in town and it is here that he mopes about his situation and also comes into contact with many of the characters. Here is my attempt at how these threads connect, without giving too much away; Ashton is best friends with Jennifer Garner who is in a relationship with Patrick Dempsey but doesn't know he is married, however Ashton finds out and tries to tell her. Jennifer is the teacher of a young boy whose grandparents are looking after him. This boy has also met Ashton as he is trying to get a bunch of flowers sent to his valentine. Jennifer is also friends with Jessica Biel, who hates Valentine's Day, and is the PR for Eric Dane's pro-footballer who announces he is gay. Due to this Biel is chased by news reporter Jamie Foxx who wants an exclusive. Eric Dane's agent is then Queen Latifah who employs as her receptionist, Anne Hathaway who moonlights as an adult phone entertainer. Hathaway is in a new relationship with Topher Grace who ends up meeting the young boys Grandfather. On top of this we have school kids attempting to lose their 'v' plates and two people having a chance meeting on a plane. I hope that was easy to follow. There is no major through thread other than that all these people's stories interconnect. It seems to start on Kutcher but there is a big gap in the middle where his thread isn't seen so perhaps they just got his part out the way first.

The connections are done rather well but they are slightly generic and something a British audience would have seen before in the much better Love Actually. The stories fail to ever really connect emotionally other than a smaller one right at the end. If anything the better threads are the daft ones such as Taylor Lautner and Taylor Swift's relationship which is just kissing lots in the school field, or Emma Robert's pursuit at losing her virginity. The stories that are supposed to tug at your heart strings don't so much and instead seem rather contrived. I may have said the connections are done well but that is only with some of them, others are done so blatantly in order to get them to meet and seem very set up. Then again there are a ridiculous number of stories they are trying to connect.

Some of the emotional problems come from the fact that the actors aren't in the mood to step it up a gear. It is one of those typical films with a large cast who have such little screen time that they just play their own selves. It really seems like the performances are for the pay check instead of the morality. One thing that really annoyed me was the scene with Jamie Foxx playing keyboard when it was obvious he wasn't playing it. Why have him act like he is playing the keyboard when you can quite simply remove the keyboard playing all together. It is moments like these that show the lack of enthusiasm gone into the film.

It is a bad film but I did watch it not giving much of a care, meaning that I actually quite enjoyed some moments. There are a few laughs to enjoy and some emotion right at the end, involving two characters that seemed throw away at the start. If you watch this expecting to see something good you will view it as garbage but if you view it expecting garbage you may find it to be alright. It will never win any awards, or many plaudits, but to watch if you're chilling out as a daft naff film that you like than you won't be so disappointed.

2 / 5

EDGE OF DARKNESS movie review

Edge Of Darkness

Starring: Mel Gibson, Ray Winstone, Danny Huston, Bojana Novakovic

Running time: 117 minutes

Year: 2010

Directed By: Martin Campbell

Written By: William Monahan & Andrew Bovell

Edge Of Darkness trailer

Before we begin I would just like to state that I am fully aware this film is based on a English television drama, but as I have not seen it some of my points in here may seem wrong to someone who has watched the 1985 series, which was also directed by Martin Campbell. I have to say though after watching this I fully intend to watch the series especially since I have heard it is better, although if I'm honest it wouldn't take much to turn out better than this feature length version.

The film stars Mel Gibson as Boston police officer Thomas Craven who is looking forward to the visit of his daughter to his home. When she arrives she becomes rather ill and then continues having nosebleeds and fits of sickness over the course of one night. Hoping to find out what's wrong the pair decides to get themselves to the hospital but as they leave the house his daughter Emma is gunned down by a man in a ski mask. Despite having an emotional connection to the case Thomas demands to take it and sets off to unravel the mystery of who killed his daughter. Despite the press announcing it was a hit on Thomas gone wrong, Thomas is determined to prove that, that wasn't the case and begins to seek out the people who meant something to Emma, leading him to a conspiracy plot that Emma had got on the wrong side of. Meanwhile Darius Jedburgh (Winstone) has been hired by the government to sort out the mess and destroy the evidence that could possibly lead Craven to understand what was really going on in his daughter's life.

When I first sat down to watch this I was fairly excited to watch Mel Gibson taking on the role of a cop once again and to see him work as a detective in linking pieces of a bigger puzzle together. The trailer showed plenty of action and plot twists to make me think I was about to watch a film I could really sink my teeth into,  unfortunately though I felt the plot of the film to be fairly flat and with very little really going on. It was like a conspiracy film that had been done so many times before but with a different title and a different lead actor. The way Mel tracks down the conspiracy seems a little too easy considering this plot has been designed by the government to erase anyone who could potentially threaten what they are doing. Mel also seems to have plenty of help from people willing to tell him what is going on instead of him ever really having to do much detective work. It all came about a little too easy and as if the writers of the film were being a little lethargic with the script. To me Winstone's role had very little to do with the overall picture and his character could have been cut. I know this character was a big part in the series but I'm pretty sure he had more to do than he does here. It is as if the character had been written in because he was in the series instead of because he was actually needed to be there. I have read that the series has the same plot and I can only hope that, due to it being a longer running television series, Thomas Craven has to work a lot harder to achieve his goals and that the conspiracy is much better that it needs longer to be explained. This ended up feeling rushed and a little pointless.

There are some rather tense moments in the film but not nearly as many as there should have been. One part where a speeding car heads straight for Mel but ends up in the lake is fairly impressive, as is Mel's escape from two government agents tracking him down. There was however one part that could have been great with Mel being handcuffed to a hospital trolley and doctors coming into him as if to operate despite them being in an abandoned warehouse, however this scene is over all too quickly and might as well have been cut altogether. The narrative seemed to be too generic and scenes like this were placed in after three or four scenes of exposition. There really wasn't much for an audience to get their minds working in order to keep up and I was hoping for something that could have turned out quite dark and tense. Winstone's character had the potential to do that but it never really paid off, and his final involvement in the film is nothing short of confusing.

Overall I was disappointed with this film. It had some good scenes but it never managed to hook me in. The opening with the daughter's death was over far too quickly and I never felt sad at Mel's lost. This wasn't particularly the acting but I felt it came about all too quickly. By the end I was shocked at how easy it all became for a battered Gibson and with the people being behind the conspiracy being so tough it seemed daft how one man managed to put their plan to bed. It is also blatantly obvious from the start who the mastermind is and as an audience you will never have to work hard to put together the mystery. All I can say is I will be watching the series and hoping that it is much better than this turned out to be.

2 / 5      

BROTHERS movie review

Brothers

Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Natalie Portman, Tobey Maguire, Sam Shepard

Running time: 105 minutes

Year: 2009

Directed By: Jim Sheridan

Written By: David Benioff

Brothers trailer

People always seem to forget the aftermath of war. They remember during it but very little remember the way those soldiers felt once they have returned from it. Brothers is a film that explores what it is like for a soldier who returns home after being presumed dead and how his life now seems more alien than what it did when he was out fighting. Once he returns a hero people think his work is done, but with some of these men the psychological trauma is too much to take and the mundane tasks of the real world are tougher to be a part of than shooting at the enemy. This film looks at this condition through the eyes of one family who grew stronger after hearing of his death but fell apart on his return to life.

Brothers stars Tobey Maguire as Captain Sam Cahill. He is married to the gorgeous Grace (Natalie Portman) and has two young daughters. At the start he is the only one willing to pick his brother Tommy (Jake Gyllenhaal) up from prison as the rest of his family have disowned him since he was put inside. Sam is a good husband, father, brother, and from his proud Father's (Sam Shepard) perspective; son. Sam is sent back out to Afghanistan, much to the dismay of Grace, and is shot down in a helicopter whilst crossing the desert. Believed to be dead Sam's family are given terrible news and after much grieving do all they can to get back on with their lives. Grace is supported by Tommy who after his brother's death grows into a better person and does all he can to make Grace's life easier. Grace and Tommy's bond strengthens and one night they kiss. Both stop before it goes any further but they both know a line has been crossed. Meanwhile out in the desert Sam is still alive and has been imprisoned by the Afghan troops. After being tortured and flirting with death Sam is found and sent back home to his family. Once there it is apparent he is not the same person. He confronts Grace believing she is sleeping with Tommy and something inside is eating away at him causing violent tempers and rages. With the entire family becoming frightened of him Grace tries to get to the bottom of who this returned man really is and what actually happened when he was a prisoner of war.

The film could have and should have been a lot better than it was. The synopsis for it reads well and the stars of the piece are audience grabbers, however it is other moments of the film that bring it down. For starters the script is terrible. The dialogue is some of the most unrealistic I have heard in a movie. I lost count of the amount of times Tommy and Sam told each other they were brothers. It was like the writer thought that we wouldn't understand the theme of the movie or that the title of the film related to these two men. Relating to the title I felt that the brother's relationship was the one that was the least explored. It showed each brother's relationship with the family but not really with each other, which I thought would have been the key element of the movie. However it was an interesting role reversal by the end where the one in the army became the lunatic and the one from prison became the most free. This arc for both worked really well especially through their father who I hated at the beginning and was glad that Tommy won his approval by the end. If the script for this film was tighter than it could have been much better.

The acting is a major point to talk about. When I first saw Maguire was starring as the lead I though instantly that he was miscast. After seeing the film I don't disagree with my original thinking. Maguire is very good in this film. Not so much at first but by the end he has transformed into a different person and in the last scene he is brilliant, however he just does not look like a man in the army. He is a tiny scrawny man but we had to believe he was the leader of a troop out in Afghanistan. I failed to believe that he was a patriotic war hero because he never looked like one, I kind of felt that Gyllenhaal and Maguire should have swapped roles. That way I could believe Gyllenhaal was in the army and Maguire was the scrawny thief from prison. This was a major issue for me as, no matter how good he turned out to be, Maguire just didn't look the part. He even looked out of place to be married to the gorgeous Grace. Portman isn't on show stopping form here but she looks beautiful and brings a heart to the story. Gyllenhaal does his job but his character doesn't have much about him.

By the end I was unsure what to think of the film. At the beginning the choice of music, the acting, and dialogue really put me off watching the rest. It looked like it was going to be a poor movie, proving why it had a limited release in cinemas. However when Sam came back the whole story changed and it became more gripping and tense. The final third of the movie ultimately saved it. The middle act tended to drag and felt like some of it could be trimmed but much of that is forgotten when you see Maguire's terrifying performance in the final act. The whole movie shows a good arc when it comes to characters and as a film. What starts off as a little dull and drab turns out to be frightening and dark. If it wasn't for the opening half this could have been much better.

2.5 / 5

Next film to review: EDGE OF DARKNESS

DAYBREAKERS movie review

Daybreakers

Starring: Ethan Hawke, Willem Dafoe, Sam Neill, Claudia Karvan

Running time: 98 minutes

Year: 2009

Directed By: Michael Spierig & Peter Spierig

Written By: Michael Spierig & Peter Spierig

Daybreakers trailer

A bleak future is on the horizon if Daybreakers is anything to go by. A film that shows the world only seven years away (ten when the film was released) run by vampires with only a few remaining humans still fighting for the race. Starring Ethan Hawke and Willem Dafoe this vampire flick is like no other where it is more unusual to be normal than it is a blood sucker.

In 2019 95% of the population are vampires who feed off human blood. With only 5% of the people on Earth being human their major source of food is on the verge of coming to an abrupt end, meaning the vampires will die out by becoming mutated savages through their un-quenching thirst. Edward Dalton (Hawke) is a scientist drafted in by corporate boss Charles Bromley (Neill) to create a blood substitute so the vampires can survive. His company hooks humans up into giant machines and farms them for blood and his is one of the only companies who still charge top money for 100% pure human blood as opposed to others who have rationed their supply out. When a trial on human testing goes horribly wrong Edward starts to question if there is a cure for their kind instead of a substitute. He sympathises with the humans especially since he used to be one. After a close encounter with a mutated vampire craving human blood he is approached by Audrey (Karvan) one of the last remaining humans. She claims to need his help to rebuild the human race. Edward agrees to help when he meets Elvis (Dafoe) who was once a vampire himself only to find an unusual way to cure himself and change back. The humans hope that Edward can recreate the device to cure the vampires in order to keep alive their race but the group are hunted down by the army who want these humans for food, and Bromley who is desperate to prevent a cure.

The film is full of some really interesting ideas. It is an unusual take on the usual vampire flick and Hawke makes us sympathise with a blood sucker. The blacked out windows on their cars used to protect them during the day, the curfew an hour before sunrise, the human blood farm, the coffee shops that sell blood with their coffee are all a good way of imagining if the world was actually run like this. The vampires are the dominant race and going to work or catching the train is an everyday thing to them and the world has adapted to meet their needs instead of humans. The Spierig Brothers have given us a vampire film which looks at ethnic cleansing, curing disease, and corrupt business moguls who only care about money. In a supernatural world they have managed to ground it to be about human aspects.

The colours of the film are amazing and reminded me of a film noir with a twist. In the vampire world everything is done at night and the colours are neon blue on a dark back line. It is really prominent and stands out making the vampires look pale and cold and it really works. If anything that is all lost when we see the humans as their world isn't like that. The cinematography is very crisp and adds to the look and feel of a future which has evolved. The human blood farm is a good idea and looks frightening when seeing live humans hooked up to a giant machine whilst their blood is pumped from them. There are many good ideas within this film that erase the memory of any terrible vampire films made over the past few years.

There are many good points but unfortunately there are just as many bad points. The acting for starters is alright but nothing is going to blow you away. The dialogue at times seems fairly unrealistic and too many lines are explaining to the audience what is going on instead of the characters just inhabiting their world. The music is uninspiring and seems completely out of place in this futuristic world. It is a score we have heard many times before in old school action or drama films and instead of drawing me in actually pushed me out of the action. The music is good when it goes unnoticed; here it was the only thing you could hear as it didn't feel right. In the end the film also turns into a bit of a typical shoot out which is a shame when so many dark themes had been explored. It was as if the writers felt without these action moments no one will be interested. I was the opposite and found the dark drama elements of the film the much more pleasing to watch and wish it hadn't of taken a generic route.

It is an enjoyable film and really could have been more than that. For the first time we see a vampire film that isn't typical and explores areas that were never even mentioned in others of the genre. If the film had remained like the first half of it then it would be a hell of a lot better but unfortunately in the second half it loses the dark depth it had at the beginning. So in the end we have an intriguing idea that, although directed well, has as many good points as it does bad.

3 / 5

Next film to review: BROTHERS

  

THE WRESTLER movie review

The Wrestler

Starring: Mickey Rourke, Marisa Tomei, Evan Rachel Wood, Mark Margolis

Running time: 109 minutes

Year: 2008

Directed By: Darren Aronofsky

Written By: Robert D. Siegel

The Wrestler trailer

In 2008 Darren Aronofsky helmed the movie that would bring Mickey Rourke's career back to potential stardom. The Wrestler is a film about a former legend refusing to accept when his time is up and would rather be respected for something he can't do than be forgotten for something he can. It is a powerful, moving story that simply uses wrestling as a way to highlight the obstacles that approach a man who has lived life from the inside out.

We open watching Randy 'The Ram' (Rourke) preparing for his next match up. In the title sequence we see that he was once a top wrestler, one of those ones we all gawp at on the television, now twenty years later he is performing in front of a few hundred in a sports arena as opposed to the millions in front of a TV camera. We witness him and his opponent going through the motions of their fight back stage and then we see the real thing. It may be fake, but boy it is still brutal. The wrestlers cut themselves with razors in order to gain affect and literally talk to each other so they know the next move. Even the poor referee gets in on the action. This is Randy's world. This is where he is appreciated. We later see him meet the woman he desires in Cassidy (Tomei), a stripper at his local bar, who he sees as a sounding board for all of his wrestling experiences. He used to have it good and he wishes to one day get back there, but his crippled body now sees him struggling to pay rent and having to take on a part time job at a grocery store. His next fight pits him against the 'crazy one' who uses staple guns to hurt his opponent. This is a bloody fight and although premeditated they really are hurting each other. So much so that once the fight is over Randy suffers a heart attack. After being told he can never wrestle again Randy cancels his big comeback fight and settles for attempting to woo the affections of Cassidy and renew the friendship between him and his estranged daughter, but he soon realises that without the ring, without the cheering, without the bloodshed he can't cope with life and the temptation of one day fighting again is just far too much.

The first thing that deserves a mention is the personnel involved. Mickey Rourke is fantastic as 'The Ram'. He isn't playing this character, he is this character. It was rumoured that Nicolas Cage was first in line for the role and I am so glad Rourke got it as he is the only one you can really see playing it. The long bleach blonde hair, the fake tan, the steroid induced body all work when it comes to Rourke's style and look. He is Randy 'The Ram'. When he isn't kicking lumps out of fellow wrestlers, Rourke pulls us into his trouble personality with an emotional turn at the midpoint. His world is on the up and he is enjoying his new found life, but when it all turns bad Rourke's performance makes us feel his pain. Emotion is his pain not the ass kicking in the ring. Tomei is also brilliant and very daring in a role that has her wearing nothing but a tiny g-string. She is 'The Ram's' sounding board although they are very similar, she is the female version of him in a different world but manages to handle it a whole lot better. Evan Rachel Wood is also affective as his daughter but doesn't have as much screen time as the others.

Aronofsky's direction is also top notch. This man has always delivered fantastic films (Requiem For A Dream being one of my favourites) and he delivers yet another one here. His decision to not show us Randy from the front until at least ten minutes is a great one. At first we see a fighter but when we finally see him for what he is a lonely old man. The choice to give us many following tracking shots also works. Many of them are following Randy as he walks through corridors, through the shop, through the woods, basically through life, and it makes us experience his world. The best piece is when we hear the crowd as Randy prepares for his first day on the Deli Counter at the grocery store, only for the crowd cheers to disappear when he enters the deli instead of the ring. It's such a meaningful shot.

The story feels like that of a prisoner who struggles to live outside of a jail cell. This is the sort of man Randy is but his prison is the ring. He doesn't know how to be or how to act when it isn't in spandex. This set up and story arc leads us to a powerful ending that really shows how a man can struggle through life when he has tasted something he loves. It is emotional, it is powerful, it will make you understand the world of a onetime hero, Rourke and Aronofsky are to thank for that. Don't be put off by the fact it is wrestling, there is a much deeper story and his profession is simply the rope he leaps off to find himself in a troubled world. This is a must see.

4 / 5

Next film to review: DAYBREAKERS

PANDORUM movie review

Pandorum

Starring: Dennis Quaid, Ben Foster, Cam Gigandet, Antje Traue

Running time: 108 minutes

Year: 2009

Directed By: Christian Alvart

Written By: Travis Milloy

Pandorum trailer

What happens when you awaken on an abandoned ship in space alone? Is the simple premise of Christian Alvart's Pandorum. Starring Ben Foster and Dennis Quad as the two men who find themselves on an abandoned space craft with no memory of what has happened. This dark tale should leave you feeling lonely, claustrophobic, and above all frightened about the prospect of having no way of survival.

We open with Bower (Foster) who awakens from hyper sleep and finds himself wandering a space craft's flight deck alone. After freshening himself up and attempting to remember what he is doing there he finds another man, Payton (Quaid), who has also just woken with no memory of how they got there. With all doors having been sealed shut due to the failing power Bower climbs through a ventilation shaft, breaking himself into the main decks of the ship, in order to get answers and turn the power back on. Meanwhile Payton stays behind in order to guide him through the dark corridors via the control computer that can be powered manually. Whilst searching the ship Bower comes across others who have also awoken to the silence, however it doesn't take long before Bower finds himself meeting the one reason the ship is so desolate. With monster like killing machines hot on his tail Bower, and his new team, must be lead by Payton through the dark tunnels of the ship in order to regain power from the nuclear reactor before they are killed by the mutations breathing down their neck.  

The mood of the film is very dark, chilling, and silent. When the film opens we spend several minutes alone with Bower and the silence with him is almost overbearing. Instantly you find yourself in the midst of space alone with him. Again when he ventures into the heart of the ship we hear nothing but silence until the high pitch screeching of the zombie like monsters startles you. The cinematography by Wedigo von Schultzendorff highlights the light amongst the dark and gives us a futuristic feel to proceedings. The vision of the film is actually one of the only highlights as much of the rest of it doesn't feel as good. The characters aren't very fleshed out, we learn very little about them and at times failed to really care if they survived or not. The script is poor, especially some of the dialogue. At one point a character says 'I remember last time I woke from hyper sleep I couldn't remember anything for months.' That's funny you just remembered that!! The story also fails to grip you and at times it is hard to follow where the characters are going. The dark corridors actually work against this part of the film.

The story is a major issue with the film. The intrigue and tension at the beginning was infectious but as soon as we were introduced to the zombies in space I found myself losing interest. It was a mash of many films put into space. At first it felt like we may get an Alien type film but ended up getting The Descent crossed with Event Horizon. Throughout the film we also see many flashbacks which seem to have very little need to be there, especially considering by the end they had little to do with the story. The overall reason for the story turns out to be quite an interesting idea, I won't give it away here, but it ends in such a poor way as if it is all a happy ending which my interpretation of the film is that it is not. The B story has us learning about a space paranoia called pandorum; see the title comes in somewhere, which sends people into a mad state when they believe that everyone around them is there to kill them. This is constantly mentioned throughout and the problem with this is that is then becomes slightly obvious what is happening in one strand of the story. The finale of the film is also a major let down with things coming together quite poorly and with none of it ever really making sense. There are two stories going on throughout, in a much bigger story, but they seem to become confused with each other by the end.

This is not a film I would recommend. Of course it will have its fans out there but for me this was a poorly executed movie. The tense scenes from the beginning soon dispersed and it became something we have seen before. The performances weren't particularly good either with Quaid delivering his poor lines poorly, and Foster seeming wrongly cast as the hero. The film is packed with problems and issues and it is one I fail to see what the point actually was. Not much makes sense by the end and the finale becomes too easy and happy for a film that started so dark and morbid. Overall a disappointing piece of work which shows why it struggled at the box office, meaning a sequel is not going to be made. Phew!

1.5 / 5

Next film to review: THE WRESTLER

THE PEACEMAKER movie review

The Peacemaker

Starring: George Clooney, Nicole Kidman, Marcel Iures, Aleksanr Baluev

Running time: 124 minutes

Year: 1997

Directed By: Mimi Leder

Written By: Michael Schiffer

The Peacemaker trailer

Made in 1997, although very much relevant in today's world, The Peacemaker stars George Clooney and Nicole Kidman in this action thriller revolving around potential terrorist attacks in New York. The film takes us to a variety of countries as our two leads hunt down the men responsible for selling nuclear warheads to those hell bent on causing pain and disruption to a country they feel is responsible for destroying their families lives.

The Peacemaker opens with a brilliant opening sequence where a corrupt Russian General steals nine nuclear war heads from a train transporting them across the country. In an attempt to cover up their actions they set off one of the bombs in the process, killing up to 15,000 people. The cover up however is not successful and Lt Tom Devoe (Clooney) sees straight through the smoke screen, and upon briefing the acting advisor Dr Julia Kelly (Kidman) the two dart off across the World on the trail of the missing warheads, both using very opposite techniques to find their answers. From Vienna to Eastern Europe to New York City, Clooney and Kidman do all they can to prevent one of the biggest disasters to occur in western civilisation.

For starters there is nothing particularly original about this film. The premise is a slight variation on something we have seen so many times before. The problem with this is in the writing where included throughout are several clichéd moment that we have seen in many films of the same era. For example we have the typical cursing every time something bad is said or a gun is fired, we have the typical screaming sidekick teamed up with the unfazed hard man (Kidman and Clooney), and as well we have the run 'with only ten seconds to spare' and jump as the bomb explodes in the background, as a matter of fact we have that twice. It is a slight shame really considering the opening sequence is very well done, but the pacing there on in just drags until the next set piece which is then followed again by slow pacing before the next set piece. This can only be a fault in the writing where we are literally given all the stereotypes of this type of film in one two hour block. The best part about the writing is the B story involving a diplomat who has an agenda for his deadly act. The story is dripped in slowly at the beginning and then brought to the forefront for the final act. It is the best part about the story as it is something slightly different than your typical Russian baddie plot; however it isn't particularly the norm that a B story actually completely overtakes the main plot of a film for the final thirty minutes of it. It makes the opening ninety minutes feel a little clunky and shows how weak the main plot actually is.

Some of these issues could be down to the direction, which although not entirely bad does seem a little flat. Mimi Leder does manage to get a decent performance from Clooney but Kidman doesn't seem out of her comfort zone. The opening sequence is very well directed, and the music really adds to the drama, but the other action sequences seem pretty lifeless, especially the chase scene through the streets of Vienna. Also something that was heavily noticed whilst watching was the amount of time taken to chase this man throughout New York without the bomb going off when he had put a time limit on the bomb for a much shorter amount of time. Put it this way an entire third act which is about twenty minutes of screen time told us it was only about seven minutes in their world. It was definitely not plausible and there is a way they could have got over this.

The film isn't entirely bad but there is enough wrong with it to make it not particularly good. The tired clichés really take over after such a promising start to proceedings. The film could have, and probably should have, been better but the lifeless way in which the story was told, and the dull action sequences, really hindered the possibilities the film could have had. The music was one of the standout points, composed by Hans Zimmer, and from knowing his work in this day and age it is very obviously his work and the soundtrack booms over every tiny piece of action, unfortunately the action fails to live up to the score. I can't particularly say I was disappointed with this film as the opening scene was definitely one I was pleased to have seen, the thing is I could have happily turned it off after the opening twenty minutes and have ended up seeing a much better film.

2 / 5

Next film to review: PANDORUM