Scream 4

It's the occasion horror fans have been waiting for for years on end. The telephone is back, the mask is back, and so is the haunting question: "What's your favourite scary movie!?"

Despite being parodied several times in the Scary Movie franchise, and with Scream 3 becoming everything the series stood against, Scream 4 [or SCRE4M, as it's snazzily styled in the film] has come to our screens with guts and gore, and just a little bit more.

Those who have seen the first Scream films will remember that they gained cult-status from standing out from the crowd, and having more character development, and more of a plot line than several other co-existing films within the horror genre [a point that is again stressed in the first few minutes of this film, where a character launches a scathing attack on the recently-deceased Saw series. Admittedly she gets stabbed to death by the usually-angellic Kristen Bell a second after, but she makes a valid point nonetheless].

The film begins in its usual way, warming up [or should I say chilling?] the atmosphere and getting the blood flowing with a few gory murders; all of which seem to feature blonde, stereotypical horror-victims; another scathing attack on the horror genre and its little quirks.

From then on, the film gets into gear. For a franchise that was once famed for having thick, moving plotlines, this flick certainly does not disappoint. The cast doesn't exactly make for a downturn, either, with Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox, and David Arquette reprising their roles from the earlier movies. Campbell and Cox throw in sterling performances, both play feisty females on the run, and on the hunt, for the killer. David Arquette, however, seems to be quite disappointing. From an audience member's point of view, it seems as though a wooden plank could have played the part of Sheriff Dewey Riley with more confidence. Arquette was trying to play the part of the bumbling Sheriff, but could only manage to play the bumbling actor playing the bumbling Sheriff.

Newcomer and youngster Emma Roberts [who, according to several sources, auditioned for director Wes Craven via Skype] performed well for around 80% of the film; with her portrayal at the end becoming little more than weak, and fodder for laughter in the cinema. There was also solid supporting roles played by once-Heroes actress Hayden Panettiere, and a bit of hit-and-miss acting from Rory Culkin [yes, that is Macaulay's brother].

Although the film does have a strong plotline, most of it seems to be based around call-backs from the old Scream movies, with some killing and action scenes almost becoming exact replications of the ones that adorned the celluloid of the past flicks. However, one thing they forgot to replicate is the tension of the killing- old Scream movies used to have the audience on the edge of their seats, willing the victim on to try and find a way out. This film has lost that tense side to it, becoming a 60% mind-numbingly boring blood-fest. At the same time, drama-fans will probably only find around half an hour of the film watchable- where the middle-to-latter part of the film includes more plot-twists than you can shake a stick at, in an almost "Shutter Island" sort of way [though, this won't make you anywhere near as loopy]. Ghostface obviously makes a return in this sequel, however, most of the film is spent watching him mindlessly cut people open with the skill of a back-street surgeon, rather than provoking any thought as to who might be under his infamous mask.

Whilst Scream 4 has some very clever and snappy dialogue, and also some very intelligent callbacks that will no-doubt please fans of both the genre and the series, it seems to be hoist by its own petard- overthink this movie, and you'll suddenly find various plotholes and mistakes that will make you question how much Scream stands out from the rest of the genre in the first place.

Overall, what was a good series in films 1 and 2 (and pretty much ruined in 3), has started its resurgence, and with talk of this film being the first in another trilogy, one can only hope that they get quite a bit better than this. Oh, and that they find a way to fire Arquette. All in all, a medicore film- some good plot and action that is ruined by most of the footage being a gorefest.

6/10

127 Hours

In this day and age, "true-to-life" movies have become the domain of the Channel Five afternoon line up. You know, the ones where you've not bothered with going into work, so you've feasted yourself on the several, low-budget, American, "made for TV", oestrogen filled dramas of babies with several mothers, and the like.

127 Hours, however, may just alter the perception, target audience, and connotations of the "based on real life" genre.

Picture it now: you're a thrillseeker. A daredevil. You're independent. Not only have you joined the national rescue service [just to get that extra adrenaline rush], but you mountain bike, hike, and scale mountains just to pass time. But suddenly it goes horribly wrong. One minute, you're reciting song lyrics by Phish, then, out of nowhere, it feels like fate has suddenly plucked your number out of the hat. You're trapped in the middle of a canyon; a dense, gargantuan boulder pinning down your right arm so you've got no choice but to make some giant sacrifices to survive. Welcome to the life of Aron Ralston.

127 Hours [Which, thankfully, is actually only 97 minutes], shows Ralston's [James Franco] dilemma. Montages from his childhood, hopes for his future, and regrets from the past all combine to impact on the dilemma of his situation. The only things he can see are the dense mounds of rock that surround him, the only thing he can hear is the caw of the ravens that circle above his head, and the only thing he can feel are the glossy-bodied, multi-legged insects that crawl and squirm their way around his body.

There's no-one that he can call for help, he doesn't have a mobile phone, and no-one knows where he is. So while his hand is being crushed to the point of being blue by a giant rock, all he can do is record a video diary, and pray that, if he dies, someone will find it, and alert one of his relatives. Franco puts in a sterling performance, capturing every moment and emotion of Ralston perfectly; his acting topped off and complimented amazingly by several montages placed in by the directors, which may seem strange at first, but make perfect sense when examined psychologically.

But how far would you go? Some of you would probably just give up after calling for help. Others would probably just pray for a miracle. Aron Ralston, however, [and remember: this is a true story], went that extra mile.

In the most shocking piece of cinema for quite a while, after several days of being stuck, James Franco re-enacts what Ralston had to do in 2003: self amputate in order to get out alive. I'll state it now: this scene is not for the weak stomached, or those with a bit of a dodgy ticker [though, those of you with an interest in medicine and anatomy may not be so badly affected- my girlfriend seemed to even stop blinking throughout the montage]. The scene, which, I believe, was relentlessly worked on by medical professionals for the purposes of accuracy, isn't your bog-standard amputation scene. Not only is Ralston's arm pinned down, but you hear the sounds of his bone snapping; you feel the piercing pain of cutting through the nerve. But why does he do this?

...You'll have to see to find out!

In summary, this is a fantastic movie. If you don't want to go for the 'real-life' factor, you most certainly go for the emotional tension throughout the movie, and the audience tension within the amputation scene. Brilliant cinematography by Danny Boyle, and an outstanding [almost-]one man show by James Franco.

Rating: 8/10.

Fame? I Predict "Flop".

Fame is a movie that we all know and love. Even if we haven't seen the actual film on screen, we've always heard that one song that always ends up clinging to the synapses in our brains.

And although I have heard some people say it's a pretty alright film [, and although I should be unbiased as a film reviewer], I'm not going to watch the film.

This new, "souped-up", modern version sickens me- and I've only seen the trailer. Gone are the leg warmers and the cheesy tunes; and everything seems to have been replaced by hoodies and some sort of smooth R'N'B sound track.

Although I recognize that it's the job of film studios [as it is with everything else] to keep up with modern trends in society, and bring hip content to consumers...

YOU DON'T DO THAT TO "FAME".

But that's just my two pennies worth...

*Insert "Watching The Watchmen" Pun Here*

N.B. I'm reviewing this movie from a point of view where I haven't read the graphic novel, or researched many of the characters or any of the plot beforehand. So this may sound noob-ish. You have been warned.

Nixon is in his third term in office. America has won the war in Vietnam. Cold War tensions between Russia and the United States escalate.
One false move and the world could go up in a pile of smoke. Cities burn, Children die, and nothing remains.

But who can stop it all? Who will save the world? Is there anyone out there?

And this, my dear friends, is where the Watchmen step in. The heroes of this tale are masked avengers, with extra-ordinary powers, fighting abilities, and gadgets, designed to stop the slumming of society.
But who watches the watchmen? One by one, they drop like flys, past and present vigilantes being slaughtered by a killer on the run.

The remaining Watchmen, Rorschach [Played by Jackie Earle Haley, who plays the part very well; and revels in the role of the dark-humourist of the movie], Dr Manhattan [Billy Crudup; who reminds me of a cross between Sheldon Cooper from The Big Bang Theory and The Crazy Frog (who is also blue, and exposes his gigglestick at every possible occasion )], Dan Dreiberg/Nite Owl [who reminds me of a Patrick Stump sort of figure (yes, he's a bit of a nerd; but at heart he's the coolest thing on earth)], and The Silk Spectre [The hottie of the film. mmmm-mmm.], all convene to overcome the evil- which turns out to come from a source a little closer to home than they think.

All the actors portray their characters brilliantly; all of them having good moments of dark-humour, and all portraying brilliant physical skills. A big part of this movie, which stems from all the subtext BEHIND the characters, is the allegory. The inner thoughs behind them that are not just the usual "I'm a character who's oh-so-conflicted", but actually make the viewer think; in almost a sympathetic and reminiscent way.

The movie has a good tone as a whole. The drama is gripping, the characters engaging, and yes, there is sex. The scene in question is slightly surreal. In the bad way. A friend had told me that there was a scene of a sexual nature set to "Hallelujah". In my head, I had imagined a tasteful, slow-mo, black-and-white scene, set to Rufus Wainwright's rendition of the ever-present [or so it seems nowadays] song.
The real thing could not have been more different. All it really was, was two of the characters having a good old bonk to [wait for this, you'll pee yourself] LEONARD COHEN'S VERSION of the song. Yes, I'll admit, it made me giggle like a five-year-old school boy.

Obviously, with the emotional turmoil in the film, there IS some violence. Just moderate stuff. Like chopping off peoples arms and stabbing into people's head with circular saws. Just the average stuff.

If you know me, you'd know that I avoided the film for a while for various reasons (the main one being that a band that I have a love-hate relationship with was said to have a major part in the film), but I was wrong to do so. This is a masterpiece of a film. The special effects are incredible, the plot is thrilling, and each of the characters manages to suspend the disbelief PERFECTLY. This has the potential to be one of the best movies I've seen...

Rating: 8/10

The Ugly Truth? More Like An Ugly Movie.

So here we are. This years' "Men are from mars; women are from venus"- type movie is upon us. The setting for this film is the among wonderful glitz and glamour of the American TV Scene.

The male, sex-crazy, chauvinist character in this movie is played by the ever-increasingly-irksome Gerard Butler. Named Mike Chadway, he "anchors" [or to put it more accurately, just rabbits forever through what looks like a £4.99 digital camera from Argos] a show called "The Ugly Truth" on a small network channel.
TV Producer Abby Richter [Katherine Heigl] has a morning show that's struggling; and her bosses have threatened to axe the show because of its boring, watered down nature.

And hey presto [as if you didn't think this would happen], the sharp-talking chauvinist gets a slot on the morning show, against Richter's wishes, and the magic [or so it's meant to be] begins. Chadway proves an instant hit, but, sticking to her guns, our heroine doesn't have a word of it.

... Until Mike issues her an ultimatum.

Abby meets her new neighbour; a doctor named Colin [who first appears half naked in his first scene], who she takes a little more than a shining to. Mike [in his role as god of the male mind (and seeing as he thinks that all men think with their penises, it would be fair to think of him as the god of all c*cks)] makes a pact- if he gets her together with Colin, she has to respect him. But if he fails, he has to quit his job.

And as expected, it all goes to plan. Until the big switcharoo in the plot near the end...

As I may have previously mentioned in this review, Butler annoys me. In this movie, he tries to adopt an American accent to portray the TV presenter. Does he succeed? Not in the least. His accent isn't even the worst part- his portrayal of the chauvinist is completely horrible. With a character like this, a lot of humour is needed. The timing needs to be spot on, and the comedy needs to work, if the person isn't to be perceived as a complete and utter ar*e.
Props, though, to Katherine Heigl. She tries to cope as much as he can with Butler's 2D performance, and she lightens the movie up somewhat.

Craig Ferguson makes a cameo appearance in the movie. His scene is fraught with inaccuracy, unbelievability, and just general shoddy work [none of which is his fault, may I add]. But because this is a film review, and not a review comparing the REAL "Late Late Show" to staged versions of "The Late Late Shoe", I won't launch further into it.

To Summarise: The storyline sucks, the acting from the male lead is sickeningly horrible, the acting from the female lead tries [but fails] to prop the film up, and the film actually isn't that funny. To be quite honest, all there is eye-candy [Heigl's cleavage for the boys, and Butler's "rugged good looks" for the girls].
Not worth the celluloid it's printed on.

Rating: 4/10

The Simpsons Movie. D'OH!

Ten years of expectation; six years of preparation; all for 87 minutes of diabolical, yellow-skinned celluloid. Yes! That's right! “The Simpsons Movie” has hit our screens with a resounding “D'OH!”

Now - I know what all my budding film critics will say - “We knew it would happen, blah blah blah, TV shows never really successfully make it to the big screen, yahta yahta yahta, what did you expect?” But you surely would expect this to be different! This is “The Simpsons”! It's not just a TV show! It's cult status! Nearly every person on this planet has some sort of memory of our yellow-skinned mates!

And THAT is where our problem lies! The plot line is exactly the same to that as a thirty-minute episode! It all starts when the family cause a big “eco-catastrophe”, and President Schwarzenegger randomly chooses to encase the town of Springfield in a glass dome, for it to be destroyed [because that really is the only way to make people go “green”]. Just like recent “Simpsons” episodes on the small screen, the plot takes a while to kick in; revealing that “The Simpsons” writers have run out of good side-plot lines, and quick and funny jibes.

The strong point of the movie, however, is the characterization. President Schwarzenegger [Harry Shearer] is an excellent character; a doppelgänger of the current, real life U.S. President, who provides just as much humour: “Aiii get payed to leeeeaaad, naht to reeeaaaad!”

Homer J Simpson, is his lazy self, poking fun at other objects around him. At one point in the the film, he sings: “Spiderpig, Spiderpig, does whatever, a spiderpig does.” Green Day fans will be pleased to know that the band make a cameo appearance in the opening scenes of the film. Haters will be just as thrilled to see them sinking into a lake.

So, to sum up: “The Simpsons Movie” leaves a lot to be desired. Most, if not all, of the jokes are unfunny, the plot is as dry as a digestive biscuit under a hairdryer, and the only thing holding the movie up is the character line-up. Once again, a TV show has tried to make it to Hollywood, but has only found the Hollywood Café round the corner. I'd rather eat my shorts than recommend this movie to anyone.

Rating: 5/10