Final Destination 5

I am now the proud owner of a pair of 3D glasses, which cost me the princely sum of 80p. I would have much preferred to spend the money on getting my teeth pulled with a piece of string and a heavy door. It was not through choice that I saw Final Destination 5 in 'glorious' (cough, cough) 3D but I was left with very little option as I had missed the once-a-day 2D screening (remember the good old days when all films were in 2D? I do.) Anyway, I can now join the hoards of university students who use the glasses when dressing up as 'nerds' for fancy dress. A much better use for them if you ask me. As to be expected, the 3D did nothing for Final Destination 5 but, to be honest, little could have saved this diabolically bad film.

The problems started from the very beginning when the title sequence started. Credits appeared on screen with various objects being thrown 'at' the screen, smashing it into little pieces of glass which appeared to fly out into the audience. A classic example of 'oh yeah, it's meant to be 3D, we'd better put something in that rams the fact down the audience's popcorn-filled throats'. Sorry, this is becoming a bit of an anti-3D rant. I shall not mention it again...well, maybe. The Final Destination series has always been the poor-man's Saw, offering teenage audiences blood, gore and cheap scares. The fifth instalment of the franchise has all three of these in great supply, at the expense of any sense of a solid narrative or convincing acting. The so-called 'plot' of the film centres around the efforts of survivors of a suspension-bridge collapse to cheat death as it hunts them down one by one. I would love to say there's more to it than that, but I'm afraid folks, there isn't. The plot shuffles along like a one-legged sailor whose had rather too much to drink and, as a result, has no idea where it's going and this was one of my (several) problems with the film. It never seemed to decide whether it was a straight-forward horror flick, a slightly...okay, very misjudged supernatural thriller or simply a sadists paradise on screen. At the beginning of the film, the main character, Sam (Nicholas D'Agosto) has a vision of an impending disaster but this point is never explained, nor features in the rest of the film which begs the question, did the writer simply think that splattering enough blood at the audience to rival the average give blood session in the local village hall would

make them not notice?

I have a real problem with these sorts of films where violence is so graphic that it goes beyond the point of serving a useful purpose. Sure, I don't mind a bit of gore now and then if it's in context but this was just beyond reason. Why would anyone in their right mind find a laser-eye-surgery-gone-wrong sequence in the least bit entertaining? I know that the point of these films is to be bloody and violent but there are, as with anything, limits. The BBFC's 15 certificate may well raise a few eyebrows, as will the bridge collapse sequence which featured horrendous, vomit-inducing, vile, ghastly, appalling, disturbing...I could go on...abhorrent injuries which would make even the most die-hard slasher fan look down at the floor in horror. But you know what, 'it's okay' because it was all in lovely 3D. Addressing other aspects apart from the gore, and there aren't that many, the acting is really rather bland and did nothing to help me engage with the plight of the characters. The 'twist' near the end of the film (and believe me, a ruler is more twisty) was so pathetic that I won't even bother to carry on with this sentence... In fact, the whole damn film was a waste of £8.50 and two hours of my life. In summary, due to its totally over-the-top level of gore, don't go and see this film if you have a phobia of needles. Don't go and see this film if you have a phobia of eyeballs. Don't go and see this film if you have a phobia of heights. Don't go and see this film if you have a phobia of gymnastic accidents. Actually, you know what, don't go and see this film. 

Clapperboard Rating:  *  (and that's generous!) 

The Inbetweeners Movie

I'm going on holiday in a fortnight, something which I am greatly looking forward to. The sun, sea and sand will be a welcome break from our oh-so-typical rainy English summer and I can sit back and enjoy the atmosphere of bars, clubs and restaurants in a relaxed and laid-back way. I'll be able to wander the street markets, climb picturesque cliff tops and take in the historic beauty of the cities and towns...wait a second, who am I kidding? If it's anything like The Inbetweeners Movie, I'll be coming home penniless, hungover and most probably with more than one or two unFacebookable photos. But surely that's what a teenage holiday is all about?! Well, according to The Inbetweeners Movie, it is.

The film picks up from where the hit Channel 4 TV series left off, following the four social misfits as they finish school and, before going to uni, head to Crete in search of a lads' holiday to remember. As with the television series, things don't go smoothly for the friends, especially when it comes to Simon getting over his recent break-up and Jay's on-going hunt for a woman. However, it was this continuity which, in a way, jarred with me. As to be expected, the very explicit humour seen in the TV series was continued and, in places was rather funny although the audience I was in seemed to only chuckle now and then, totally unlike (dare I say it) when I saw The Hangover Part 2. However, at times it felt very un-cinematic and could easily have been cut down to an extended TV episode. This doesn't mean that the script was overly weak but I saw no reason for it to be in a film format and I can't help thinking that it is the creators' last effort to squeeze as much revenue from the series as possible. Now I'm not saying that it wasn't funny – it was – but there seemed to be far fewer major laugh-out-loud jokes than in the original series and it struck me that the writers were perhaps running out of material even though putting the boys in a new setting such as Malia should have produced more creative ideas than Lady Gaga in a fancy dress shop. On another level. the plot seemed to drag in places and certain scenes felt disjointed and necessary.

There were, however, many good points about the film. Simon Bird's narration as the overly-mature Will helped to make the antics of the famous four even more cringe-worthy and Jay's (James Buckley) totally crude and less than eloquent observations that the holiday was going to be like “shooting clunge in a barrel” capitalised on the humour which had made the original series so popular. Although Joe Thomas' character Simon became more and more annoying as the film progressed, Neil (played by Blake Harrison) provided several comedic gems including his observations on God and his rather worryingly honed skill of seducing women more than twice his age. The film never gave the audience too much emotion, even with Simon's relationships with Carli and Lucy and, in a way, this was a good thing. People won't want to go and see The Inbetweeners Movie in order to see the boys change as characters into caring, kind and considerate young men but instead they will want to see more of the same behaviour seen in the TV series. The film was never going to be daring in this respect and it is clear that the writers have played it safe (even though some of the content was still very shocking – as a friend of mine pointed out, the 'fat' girl wasn't even that fat!). All in all, the film is worth seeing, even if only to say you've seen the final chapter of The Inbetweeners. The script has just about enough in terms of humour and comedy to keep its head above water but could so easily have been funnier if it had been a TV special. Going to see it is more like sitting in your living room surrounded by total strangers guzzling on popcorn and Ben and Jerry's. Not really the cinema experience I like to pay for. 

Clapperboard Rating: * * *

Super 8

There are some things which I just don't get. People dressing small, rodent-like dogs in clothes. The need that tourists apparently have to bump in to you, wander around aimlessly and walk in the middle of the road because “they're on holiday”. Teenage girls' obsession with Robert Pattinson and, dare I say it, the seemingly religious following that the Star Wars saga has created over the years. I just don't get it. Advertising in cinemas is one of these things. On my recent trip to my local World of Cine to see Super 8 (don't worry I will get to it – just bear with me), I was confused about the advert which came on as the lights dimmed. It showed various close-ups of people's faces laughing, crying, looking concerned etc. in slow motion and at the end, advertised the 'cinema experience' and how we should all go to the cinema. I'm sorry, but isn't this like advertising the benefits of losing weight to a group of people at the local WeightWatchers meeting?! Talk about preaching to the converted...

Anyway, on with my review. Fresh from his directorial success with Star Trek, J. J. Abrams has teamed up with the legendary Steven Spielberg to create Super 8, a film which centres around the efforts of a group of children to make a horror film using their Super 8 camera in late 1970's America. However, whilst filming, they witness a strange train crash which heralds the start of weird and unsettling events in their town which they begin to investigate. I was immediately taken with how much of a throw-back genre film this is and the strong performances given by almost all the characters. It reminded me of Spielberg's earlier works such as The Goonies and had the perfect balance between action, narrative and emotion. All too often, these sort of films focus too much on either spectacle or on soppy, cringe-worthy emotion and in doing so, alienate the audience. In the case of Super 8, I found myself totally accepting the emotional turmoil of Joe (after the loss of his mother) and believing in the (at times) rocky relationship with his father. These moments in the film really gave it substance and showed what an effective storyteller J. J. Abrams is. Furthermore, the relationship between Joe and the schoolgirl crush Alice, was handled with such sensitivity and skill that it provided the perfect juxtaposition to the fighting and threat that ran throughout the film. This relationship provided one of the stand out moments in the film when Alice tries out her zombie acting skills on Joe and embraces him for the first time (sounds weird I know, but just trust me). The way in which this humorous sequence deals with the often serious issue of love is an example of just how good a director and writer Abrams is.

The nostalgic and slightly retro feel of the film fitted perfectly with the setting and characters and made the whole film seem 'nice' and inoffensive, especially with its treatment of violence and aggression. Too often these days action/sci-fi films are filled with blood splattered limbs flying all over the place and characters dying in 'I-wouldn't-even-want-my-mother-in-law-to-die-like-that” fashion, that a film such as Super 8 with its focus on characters rather than blood is a welcome change. The acting, of course, helped in this regard and a stand-out performance by Joel Courtney as Joe has put him on the right track to stardom. The supporting actors were first class and the script offered many comedic one-liners which were delivered with such great effect (especially by Ryan Lee as pyrotechnic maniac Cary). I couldn't review Super 8 without mentioning the 'thing' which threatens the little town in which the children live. Again, bucking the trend, the 'thing' is not seen clearly throughout most of the film which adds to the tension and threat. Even when it is revealed, it remains fairly scary...and far too spider-like for my liking!

From a technical angle, the film is well shot with a focus on facial expressions which again adds to the emotion and makes you care about the characters and their predicaments. The special effects are well executed, if at times sometimes over the top (the train crash scene was the loudest thing I have ever heard) and the plot is well constructed and engaging (something which Spielberg gets right so often). The film's score is composed by Michael Giacchino, who worked with Abrams on Star Trek and on other films such as Up and The Incredibles. His sensitive scoring and rousing themes really do tug at the heartstrings and made the hairs on the back of my neck stand up in the final scene (I urge you to listen to the track 'Letting Go'). For the most part, Super 8 is a touching and uplifting film which harks back to the good old days of family action films and has the balance between characterisation and action just right. Michael Bay, take note. 

Clapper Rating: * * * * 

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part II

The end of an era. The final chapter. The last adventure. I am, of course, talking about Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part II. And boy, what an era it has been. Grossing $6,369,345,142 (that's a lotta dollar) thus far, the film franchise is one of the most successful in history and has grown and matured along with its first audiences way back in 2001. I'm not the most avid Hazza Potts fan but I have always been quite happy to watch all eight instalments with a reasonably open mind. When I watched Deathly Hallows Part I, I couldn't help thinking that it was merely laying the foundations for the finale and whilst it did romp along at a fair old pace, it lacked a depth that allowed it to stand as a film in its own right. I entered the cinema hoping that this second instalment would end the saga in a dramatic, emotional and fitting way and, in a way, it did. However, I did have several reservations.

On an overall level, I felt that the film lacked the epic quality that I expected it to have. I don't mean that it didn't contain spectacular set pieces (the Hogwarts battle sequences were certainly impressive) or was poorly acted. Something just didn't click for me. It seemed as though the whole narrative was focused on getting from A to B without paying much attention to the bit in the middle – i.e. 75% of the film. I found myself not really caring about the predicaments of the characters because I knew that it was just building up to the final showdown between Harry and Voldermort and they'd be okay in the end. The film was fairly fast-paced but again, each action sequence just seemed like a little scuffle and a steppingstone to the ultimate show-down which we all knew was coming. It was a bit like going to a wedding and having to sit through the whole ceremony just to see the bit you really want to: the kiss.

On another level, I felt that the characterisation was quite shallow – I know it's not a self-contained film but I would have liked to have seen more made of the Harry/Snape relationship. That said, this was the film where the actors peaked in terms of performances and it really felt as though we, the audience, had followed them on their journey from the very beginning, which I suppose we have. It was nice to see the younger actors hold their own against veteran actors such as Maggie Smith and Michael Gambon and shows the new talent which the series has produced. From a technical level, the film was well executed (no thanks to the retro-fitted 3D) and the special effects didn't distract from the action, and I felt quite immersed in the world of the film. A stand-out scene for me was the break-in to Gringotts which gave me a heavy hit of nostalgia as I thought back to Harry's first steps in the bank all those years ago... ah, the memories....ahem.

One of the most uncomfortable moments in the film for me was the final scene, not because it was too emotional or I was welling up but because it was totally, utterly, undeniably, wholly and completely unnecessary. I'm sorry, but it served no purpose apart from being over-sentimental tripe that seemed to be tacked on to the end as a mere afterthought and produced laughs in the screening I was in. Not the ending I was expecting. Despite this shocking ending, it remains a solid film which is both enjoyable and a fitting send-off for the Harry Potter saga.

PS What are the Deathly Hallows?!

Clapper rating: * * *

Transformers: Dark of the Moon

To me, there seem to be three types of action film. Firstly, the action film where everything falls into place nicely: you know who's killing who, why they're doing it, who is on who's team and what the end result will be. Secondly, there is the 'I-sort-of-get-it' action film where a few minutes of mayhem will go by where you don't have a clue what's going on until the explosions stop and some nice, slightly bruised character explains what has happened and what is going to happen next. And finally, there's the full-on, fully-loaded 'what-the-hell-is-going-on' film which makes no attempt to carry any hint of a narrative and hopes that you won't notice by bombarding you with more explosions, gunfire and muscles than in an episode of 'Help! My Army Weapons Store is on Fire”. This is the category in to which Transformers: Dark of the Moon fits.

After the disaster that was Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, I went to see Transformers 3 expecting more of the same (minus Megan Fox) and, for the most part, that is what I got. The main problem I have with the franchise is that its director, Michael Bay, can not tell a story to save his life and it would seem that he has learnt all he knows about effective narrative construction from the back of a matchbox. The plot starts out in a fairly promising way as we are shown that the real reason for the moon landings was America racing to explore a crashed autobot space craft on the moon. This is as far as I got. Now, before you think that I can't follow even the simplest of stories, I can, and I like to think that I sort of understand Inception, but I can't for the life of me describe the story of the two hours plus that followed the opening sequence. The plot appeared to be held together with cobwebs which were all too frequently blown away (creating random sequences of action, totally unlinked and confusing) by the 'boom, crash, bang' of the latest fight between the Autobots and Decepticons. A one sentence review of this film could easily be Baldrick's war poem from 0:57 in this clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ci6Cw8W0Kn0 The final fight sequence was far too long (pushing 25mins) and about half way through I found myself staring blankly at the screen and starting to slip into a coma-like state, as I did with Transformers 2. Not the edge-of-your-seat stuff I'm sure Mr Bay hoped to create.

However, not all was woefully and disappointingly bad. The level of technical brilliance demonstrated in the CGI really was superb and just goes to show what you can do with $195 million... This was my first 3D film and I have to say that the 3D was impressive in the space sequences and the car chase sequence. Despite this, for the vast majority of the film it served no real purpose, except perhaps making things a little more interesting to look at when the plot had died a hideous death. I'm sure I would have enjoyed it no less if I had seen a 2D screening of it.

And now we get on to Optimus Prime's human counterparts. With Megan Fox gone (nothing to do with the fact she compared the director to Hitler, I'm sure), Michael Bay has replaced her with Victoria's Secret model Rosie Huntington-Whiteley and this, in a way, sums up Bay's approach to the trilogy. Her character is of little importance (apart from being Shia LaBeouf's love interest – very believable, I know) and is simply there to be gazed at by the men in the audience. The first we see of her is a tracking shot of her walking up some stairs in nothing but a shirt and a very skimpy pair of knickers and, to be honest, it continues in this way. Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with good looking people in films, but what I do have a problem with is the fact that Bay repeatedly makes reference to her sexuality in the most unsubtle ways possible (an audible laugh went round the audience I was in when a character compared her curves to those of a car...) and in doing so, probably alienates every woman in the audience. Huntington-Whiteley is not in control of her sexuality: the fat, drooling middle-aged man on the back row is. In fact, a guy in front of me summed it up rather nicely when he shouted “she is f**king awesome...” He wasn't talking about her acting.

All in all, Transformers: Dark of the Moon is a marginal improvement on the total trash that was Transformers 2 but it still has major problems with its narrative, characters and overall construction which need to be addressed if ever there is a Transformers 4. Getting rid of Michael Bay would be a good place to start. 

Clapper Rating: *

Bridesmaids

I have never really liked RomComs. I've always found them to be slightly dull, poorly acted and predictable. I find myself sitting there watching the likes of Jennifer Aniston fumbling her way through her love life and thinking “no-one's life is like that.” But maybe that's the point. Maybe that's what I'm missing – a RomCom is a chance on a Sunday night for an overweight 30 something to wallow in her own self-pity and escape from the fact that Mr Right just hasn't arrived in her life yet (but don't worry girls, he will...eventually). It was with this mindset that I went to watch Bridesmaids, the post-feminist answer to The Hangover. I have to say, I was pleasantly surprised.

From the beginning, it was clear that the film was not going to break any narrative conventions or be especially radical with its treatment of women in society. The film follows the life of Annie (Kristen Wiig) who, disillusioned with life after the failure of her cupcake shop, is asked to be the maid of honour at her best friend's wedding. However, things are complicated when Annie meets the other bridesmaids, including Helen (Rose Byrne), who soon becomes her main rival in vying for the top spot in organising the wedding. The story plays itself out with few major surprises and along the way does do what a good comedy should do: make you laugh. The strong performance from Kristen Wiig helped greatly in this and, whilst I only found myself laughing uncontrollably in one or two sequences (namely on board the aeroplane), pretty much every scene contained several nuggets of strong comedy. Even though about 70% of the humour was fairly crude, there were humorous moments which shone through and lifted this film up several levels from the obscene level of humour seen in The Hangover: Part II.

I felt the direction was strong and individual performances (especially from the very funny Melissa McCarthy as Megan) helped to keep the audience involved with the plot. I was rather surprised at the number of male audience members at the screening I went to and, for once, it seemed as though it was not simply boyfriends earning brownie points with their better halves. An indication of a broadening of the RomCom market? Maybe not...

Apart, perhaps, from the dress-fitting sequence, Bridesmaids shows that a modern comedy about a group of women getting together to organise a wedding does not have to lower itself to the depths of offensiveness and vulgarity that The Hangover: Part II demonstrated in such spectacular fashion earlier in the year. Whilst I do appreciate that the two films focus on completely different situations (the stereotypical image of a lad's stag/bachelor party and female wedding preparations) they are, by definition, linked. What the Hangover failed to do, in my opinion, was to rise above the sexist, homophobic, racist and misogynistic jokes in favour of a sharper humour which was not purely based upon drug-dealing monkeys and lady-boy prostitutes. Although Bridesmaids was by no means a social realist film, it at least attempted to address topics such as changing friendships and the empowerment of the modern woman in society. All in all, Bridesmaids is a solid comedy with glimpses of real comic wit, leagues above the lads in Bangkok. 

Clapper Rating: * * * * 

Howl's Moving Castle

My first entry of my brand-spanking new film review blog. Hopefully it won't turn out to be a load of random and annoying rants by an opinionated blogger, so I'll try my best not to get too carried away! I promise not to include any spoilers (honest!) and will include a star rating at the end of each review (out of 5). Of course, film is as subjective an art form as they come, and I do not expect you to agree with all of my reviews; in fact, it would be stupid of me to even expect half of you to agree with my opinions on films. But that is what is so great about film - it gets people talking, discussing and (often) arguing about a form of entertainment which is almost universal. Film has the power to divide, unite and leave people questioning. Few things can do this.

I thought I'd start with a film which I've literally just finished watching: Howl's Moving Castle. Now, I have to admit that this was my first feature-length "Japanese anime" type of film and, to be honest, I was pleasantly surprised. I set out feeling that all I would be watching was a hyped-up version of the cartoons I watched as a child coming home from school (Digimon on steroids if you will). What I actually found myself watching was a beautifully crafted film, with vivid set-pieces and a limitless imagination. The film, to those who don't know, is loosely based upon the novel by Diana Wynne Jones and follows the story of Sophie, a shy and unconfident girl who is cursed by a witch and is turned into a 90-something year old woman. The only way in which she can break the spell is to seek the help of the wizard Howl, who is self-indulgent and pre-occupied with his own vanity and who lives, with his companions, in a moving 'castle' (as if the title didn't tell you this..). The film follows her journey and, along the way, introduces moral themes which tend to gravitate towards a coming-of-age story.

So, as I've already said, the film is certainly a spectacle - the world which director Hayao Miyazaki creates is somewhere between Disney's Fantasia, Middle Earth and nineteenth century Amsterdam, as human characters go about their daily business in a city full of weird and wonderful contraptions (I especially liked the flying car things). The visual impact of the dream sequences and the vast landscapes helped to create a world in which Sophie was both lost in and, at the same time, could find herself and her inner strength. Whilst the film is clearly a fantasy (I mean, it's got a walking castle in it for goodness sake), there seemed to be underlying commentaries on real-life events. I felt a bit uncomfortable with the whole war sub-plot thing which seemed to be a very unsubtle nod towards the war in Iraq or Afghanistan (the film was released in 2004) and seemed rather unnecessary in terms of plot. Furthermore, the plot seemed to be unevenly constructed, with little real focus or aim and the beginning of the film seemed to by-pass a lot of the reasons for which 18-year old Sophie was unhappy.

However, despite these plot issues, I felt that the overall narrative was carried over by the power of character's facial expressions reflecting the situations in which they found themselves which can only be achieved in this style of animation. Sophie's transformation from pretty, innocent girl to an old and decrepid woman of 90 was one of the stand out sequences for me in the entire film. I felt sorry for her and immediately thought of her as an old woman, not as a young woman trapped in the body of a hag and therefore her trying to come to terms with her new image was somewhat heart-wrenching. Miyazaki's usual focus on feminism was clearly visible in the character of Sophie, who, on a certain level, was liberated and found her true potential and independence on her journey with Howl, whilst retaining her dependence on that age old theme: love.

Although I felt, in places, the dialogue was slightly clunky (perhaps due to translation issues) and the character of Sophie had some potential to become vaguely annoying, I still found myself rooting for her. I was slightly confused by the decision to include a mix of American and English accents but once I went along with it, it was fine. Comic moments were provided by the fire demon which, in the end, proved to be an integral part of Howl and his predicament. All in all, a fine piece of animation which, if you let it transport you into Sophie's world, will capture your heart...well, almost. 

Clapper rating: * * *