nthrooch

Simply put, it's very difficult to make a compelling story out of a hero who basically has every available power. The early superman films are a testament to this, and the last attempted reboot was similarly ill- fated. But when Zack Snyder decided to take a stab at it, I thought I'd give it a shot, given that he has managed to successfully translate Watchmen, and that was a very ambitious project.

Sadly, however, the result was a mess of poor storytelling, sub-par acting and worst of all a soundtrack that sounds like it was dragged kicking and screaming out of Skrillex's b-sides. Every moment in the film where something large happens, you get this "BWAAAH DIGGIDIDUN, DIGGIDIDUN, DIGGIDIDUN" blaring through the speakers. EVERY time something powerful or dynamic fires. This is basically 70% of the movie, as it is purely a film involving Superman getting into massive fights. I couldn't have been more distracted if I tried.

But to touch on the storytelling, simply put, it did nothing new, nor did it do the old ideas justice. The lead and significant other of the project are both about as flat and lacklustre as one would expect from relatively low level actors, but the worst crime is that Lois Lane is supposed to be a fiery woman, someone with independence of spirit and self-motivating. This appears intact in the beginning, but she quickly descends to a helpless irrelevant in no time.

It just doesn't tick any of the boxes bar graphical flare. There's a lot of eye-candy here, but really nothing behind it. Truthfully I feel confident in saying you're not missing anything by avoiding it.

I sort of lost faith in the American sitcom. After massively uninteresting, poorly scripted hell-holes like "Big Bang Theory" and "How I Met your Mother", I was about ready to assume that American writing was dead. It was around then my brother told me to watch "Raising Hope". We all sat together, there was me, an early 20s male, my brother, a late 30s male and his similarly aged wife, and my mother who is well into her 60s. After one episode, we were all absolutely hooked. We were literally screaming laughing at some points.

It uses a great mix of tools to deliver the comedy. Despite the family being portrayed as idiots, the real comedy comes from their attempts or ideas at being clever. From the mother, Virginia's amusingly incorrect lexicon to the father, Burt's constant mistakes or strange habits, each cast member is unique in their own special kind of foolishness. The actual premise is played perfectly, and the variety of jokes are surprisingly vast. Even into season 3, I still don't feel the premise has aged significantly, and as the baby has grown into a toddler, the comedy moved on to match it. To pick one significantly amusing cast member is to do a disservice to the rest. Everyone from the main family to the side characters has given the show more depth, and I'm yet to meet a character I didn't feel at the very least added a few more laughs to an already solid script.

If you haven't caught this series yet, I really recommend you do. There are some gross moments, some moments that are a bit twee, but overall it is a solidly funny experience, and the variety of new issues or scenarios never tires or repeats. A definite diamond in a very rough patch of American television.

When I heard they were going to adapt "Remains" into a film, I was totally keen for the idea. I bought the comic many years ago, and thoroughly enjoyed it. It seems as though I am the only reviewer to have done so, and so I represent someone who not only dislikes the film for its own sake, but for the fact that it utterly butchered the story in the comic.

I won't even give this film a long review, as it doesn't deserve it. The film is basically a very short and uninteresting zombie story, two people survive a random nuclear blast that converts the populace, they discover a few more people, nothing ensues.

The comic on the other hand had wonderful little touches that really sold it as a new take. One of the most interesting points to me was the opening, and it was butchered wildly in the adaptation. In the comic, the nuclear blast didn't just randomly occur, there was a petulant, possibly mentally handicapped adolescent taking a tour in a new power station. He snuck into a restricted area, adopting scientific attire, and wound up causing the opening accident. This character then reoccurs later as the "patient 0" of the zombies. Him being the first meant that him and those around him were faster and stronger zombies. This "faster and stronger zombie" element was kept in the most ridiculously sparse way, the rest including that patient 0 zombie? Gone. There was a great moment when the old diner woman zombie actually spoke, also. Was this in the film? Nope. Hell, the zombie that bit the main protagonist's fingers off WAS the old diner woman zombie. The whole thing was just an uninventive take on zombies, given the name of a comic in the hopes it would generate more sales. It generated mine, and angered me in doing so. Avoid this film at all costs. But, do buy the comic, it's pretty good.

Just got back from seeing this at the Stockholm film festival, and you can imagine my surprise as an overseas Scot to come across this fun horror of psychotic chavs (or "neds" as we call them) in Glasgow!

I can say without hesitation there are no acting awards to be had here, but so rarely do horror films deliver such. This is basically exactly what you would expect. It is dark, frantic, peppered with moments that made my partner jump or squirm in her seat, and kept pace throughout.

A rough synopsis, Tommy, a man living in a run down, high rise block in Glasgow watches his pregnant girlfriend get beaten into a coma by chavs. He is then struck with extreme (and fairly justified, considering) agoraphobia. Still living in that terrible area, but now caring for the child that has now been birthed (his wife still in a coma). From here the kids he saw brutalise his wife are still stalking the neighbourhood, and he thinks of escaping. He then happens upon a crazed Priest, who informs him that the kids aren't normal, and that Tommy must help him get to the bottom of the problem.

As far as a premise goes, I'd give this one points for originality. Most other films with chavs as the enemy (Eden Lake for example) just have them as real kids. This mixes it up, having the chavs really come to life as horror foes. Their cackling, scratching demeanour really sells it, and the make up for the feral junkies is fantastic. The scares aren't over-sold, nor cheap, and the film never crawls. The end is a touch simple and abrupt, but all in all, and entertaining horror romp. I'd definitely recommend it for a rent, perhaps even a buy for the real horror fans.

Now let me just address that this 10/10 is not as frivolous as you may think, but is also rung with the resounding bell of utter subjectivity. This film is not for everyone, but for those who it is for? It cannot be loved enough.

What this film does, unequivocally, is take the tactics of the people it despises and turns the crosshairs right back on them, quite literally. God Bless America is a film about Frank, an ageing man with an ex-wife, a petulant child and severe headaches. He watches TV due to his insomnia, and as a result he sees the worst of us. Reality TV skanks, entitled teen rich kids, idiots hurting themselves for no reason other than attention. This depresses him, but there is little to be done. That is, until he finds out he has an incurable brain tumour. This is the beginning of what will become the funniest killing spree in history, as harsh as that may sound.

The film is talking to the people that watch these shows. How can you communicate with people who only want to see mean spirited shows, without stooping to that level? It is that logic that makes this story of spree killing so endearing, it is trying to put the message across that people really shouldn't be as rude, entitled or generally ignorant as they are. Could it be handled more lightly? Well, yes, but what impact would that have with people who just want to see others hurt or shamed? The lead actor, Joel Murray, plays the role of Frank absolutely perfectly. He is all at once sick, tired and yet later energised by the idiocy that surrounds us all. Throughout the film there are incredible insights in the way of rolling diatribes and speeches, where he encapsulates just what is wrong with the society around us today. Powerful words, and delivered so well that you can't help but look at your friends and say "Damn it, he's right!". And the female lead, Tara Lynne Barr, plays an absolute power house performance as the punchy, sarcastic, but ultimately wise-beyond-her-years teen follower of the killing spree.

A common complaint I've seen (aside from the ever so common complaints by republicans that it is liberal propaganda) is that this film is "preachy", but the fact of the matter is, it has so many valid points, it moves past preachy into straight instructional. Preachy is opinionated, God Bless America is factual, and most importantly, it's completely right. Few would argue that kids are too entitled now. Few would argue we, as a society, are extolling the virtues of fools. This film seeks to redress the balance, and the speeches are some of the most insightful pieces of dialogue I have ever seen in a film.

In short, if the idea of every one of the vacant, foolish, mean people you see on a daily basis being hilariously murdered holds any appeal to you, I insist you watch this film. By the end, you will be both thoroughly entertained, and come away feeling as if you've just felt something very therapeutic. That is, someone else (Bobcat Goldthwait specifically) absolutely nailing a statement that someone should have made long before. That statement being, stop being mean. It's not big, it's not clever, and it shouldn't make for popular entertainment.

Allow me to begin with the obvious, which some people seem to be unaware of. First of all, this was directed by Chris Morris, however he shares writing credit with 3 other people. Knowing the quality of Morris' other projects, this indicates that he did not have as big a role writing this as he did with all of his other projects. The film is wildly unfunny, chronically boring and hits absolutely no real point throughout it's overly long runtime.

A rough synopsis is, a rag-tag group of British Jihadists begin to plan a terrorist attack. Sadly, as per usual in these kinds of comedies, only one has any brains, and the rest are slapstick comedy fodder. There's the overly aggressive one, the overly stupid one, and the overly stupid sidekick. None of the are fleshed out to any great degree, as you don't really need it. They spend the entire time being the butt of unfunny jokes about stupid people. It is obvious stuff, and brought forth no laughter at all.

The worst part is, this was advertised as being a relatively brave subject, having a laugh at the expense of terror attacks. But the laughs aren't at the terrorists, more often than not it is seemingly some kind of in-joke with the culture itself. I was in a cinema with a fairly diverse crowd, and I noticed that none of the white people, myself and friends included, were laughing particularly hard, if at all. The West Asian contingent however? Ending themselves. I have no idea how this was missed during the trailers, but this isn't a film making fun of terrorists, it's a film which ignores the subject matter, and throws out jokes that are only aimed for a specific section of the audience, none of whom were warned prior.

I didn't walk out, but my two friends did. I didn't on principle, but were it not for that principle, and "giving it one last chance" about 30 times, I would have followed suit. There were family scenes that bordered on sickening, as one of the terrorists has "touching" conversations with his family, about mass murder. They weren't funny to anyone, nor were they meant to be. It was just crass stupidity. I cannot emphasise how much this film is both overrated and unfunny. Avoid if you love Chris Morris, or if you love comedy. Neither interest will be fulfilled with this film.

The Last Rites of Ransom Pride is an old west run and gun action film, with touches of the dramatic, and excellent unintrusive comic relief. The intro belies a highly entertaining film, as the opening credits honestly look like they were made with Windows movie maker, but this is quickly set aside with a sterling intro to the story.

Frankly, the casting in this film is beyond genius. There are few large names to guide it, but all of the actors are perfect for their roles. From Lizzy Caplan as the exceptionally attractive lead femme fatale, to Peter Dinklage as the token midget. Blu Mankuma also plays an outstanding character, complete with snappy dialogue and possibly one of the best scenes of dialogue in the film, paired with Peter Dinklage. For some reason he isn't featured in the IMDb cast list, but he plays a prominent role, and is definitely one to watch the film for.

But no film can be perfect, and the flaw with this film is purely narrative. Even into the final scene of the film, I couldn't help but roll my eyes at the old favourite, the "pre-kill monologue". Almost every kill in this film seems to occur as a result of the person you think will win taking his/her sweet bloody time about it. Now using this once in a film is forgivable, but I lost count after a while. It just seemed no one in this world (despite being hardened killers) could end someone's life without telling them a little about themselves, why they were killing the target, and how they were going to do it. And of course as a result, almost all expected results were reversed.

But truth be told, however annoying this came to be, the characters were great, and the overall story arc had a great hook to it. Certainly should you be given the chance to watch this film, take it.

Where to begin? Not only is that the question I have as a reviewer, it seems that was the question the director was asking himself for the first 20 minutes of this film. To call this film slow to start is an epic understatement. It uncomfortably squeezes it's way into a story arc, but never really doing so with a pace that keeps the viewers attention. After an extended wait we are introduced to our main characters, unlikeable as they basically all are.

The main character, although honestly the film barely commits to it, is Petronella. A girl from some kind of mixed race background, who, for want of a better word, is seemingly "easy". She meets the second character, this time from a gypsy family, Fergal. What follows is an incredulously quick, and exceptionally unbelievably whirlwind romance, wherein Petronella falls madly in love for no real discernible reason, and winds up trying to have sex with him repeatedly. However, Fergal's highly creepy voodoo style mother is obsessed with keeping him from doing the deed, so forces him to stay in his room. He gets out all the time though, but only when she's not around.

If this review seems disjointed, please, understand that this is what the film is like. You are introduced to characters whom you almost immediately share no compassion for, and are then forced to watch them form relationships that have no serious grounding. All under the story arc of Fergal being hunted by a random man, for undisclosed reasons. If it wasn't bad enough that the actress playing Petronella (Hanna Stanbridge) is indubitably too old to play a schoolgirl, then it's certainly bad enough that the gypsy magic sequences play out like a scene from Hackers. One party uses some ancient act by no doubt killing some form of animal, the other does the same to "block" this power. Who knew gypsy magic could be hacked?

Seriously, I won't even delve any further into this shoddy material. It was a waste of film, and left only one temptation at the end, that of leaving as soon as humanly possible. Grotesquely over done sex scenes, silly cast choices, absolutely diabolical dialogue. Even the chavs in the film are blatantly acting school graduates with Kappa tracksuits on. I wish this was better, as I often enjoy James Nesbitt, but he was wasted with a character barely given room to grow. Simply put, avoid, at all costs.

I was lucky enough to see "Evil in the time of heroes" during our local film festival, and honestly didn't know what to expect. The only words I was given were "Billy Zane" and "Zombies". I was immediately sold, but what I actually saw was just so much more.

This is actually a sequel. The original "Evil" was a very low budget horror which is fairly unknown. The sequel totally betrays this though, as the quality of imagery and effects is substantial. The gore, as well as the special effects are fantastic, and highly entertaining. The characters and story are well fleshed out, and quite often there are complete "wtf" moments thrown in for good measure. This would often detract from other films, but in this film they are so poignantly placed that they only serve to make you laugh like a fool.

Needless to say, the concept revolves around a set of strangers brought together under the duress of a Zombie attack. Set in Athens, immediately we are thrown into the action, and into the hilarity. The characters each have very unique personalities and the acting is brilliant. From the over the top style of Vakirtzis the marine, to the stoic reticence of Meletis, they each are endearing and wholly likable.

The story even does something new with the zombie genre! This is surprising enough being that it's almost impossible to do, but certainly the whole film switches back and forth 1000 years, between the men of ancient Greece fighting the zombies, and modern day with our haphazard heroes.

In short, go see this film. Once it comes out on DVD? Buy it. These are the kinds of films that need to be supported. It's new, it's fresh and it's unspeakably funny. Even though it is a Greek language film, the comedy is universal, and hilarious.

Having played both titles in the past, the second I heard of this film, I was almost instantly hesitant. Game to film conversions never run smooth at the best of times, by majority due to their insistence on changing everything that people like, to separate it from the source material. The crazy thing here, is that this film doesn't betray the original storyline to a great degree, but in doing so comes up even worse than if it had.

There are two major problems with Max Payne. The first, is the tremendous number of errors in the film. Spoilers abound here people, so skip these two paragraphs if you're yet to see this atrocity. Consider this, in the game, the drug Valkire is intravenous. As a result, the graffiti peppered all over the city is of a large V with a needle on it. Max Payne the movie decided to keep this graffiti, only the drug was now a drink. So throughout the movie, characters are popping the stuff like Bacardi breezer's, and yet still the graffiti contains a needle.

It's just one of numerous idiotic flaws in an already ruined story. Why is Mona never seen without an MP5, as if she can just wander the streets of New York carrying it like a handbag? Why is it she stipulates "you know what I do" to Max when at this point he is still very much unaware of her existence? Why is it that a breaching charge from a SWAT team can not only knock out a door, but utterly disintegrate a clearly heavy filing cabinet holding it shut?

This film completely misses the mark in both continuity and story. The original story of Max Payne is left utterly gaunt with the removal of key aspects, like Mona's sister being a twin. Like Jim Bravura being a bastard hunting Max, not an ignorant, sitting idly by hoping to see him. And don't even get me started on the reasonless race change for ol' Jim. It seems the in thing these days to take a white character and swap him out with no justification. Yes, I'm talking to you Kingpin from Daredevil.

Needless to say both me and my brother left utterly disappointed. Me, a long time fan of the series, him, a regular movie goer. This film disappoints both, and is absolutely to blame for it's own demise. Poor directing, complete ignorance of source material, and an overall failure to deliver what could have been the western Hard Boiled. A must-miss.

Now I'm not one to typically watch this show, so I can't really judge comparatively, however if the rest of the series was as good as this episode it bodes terribly well for it. This is quite possibly the only episode of any show ever, that I have found so profoundly disturbing. It deals with a scientist who loses both his wife and son. At the time of their death his work is focused on a technology that allows one to remove the personality of someone and put it onto a computer. When his wife and son are caught in a car crash, he manages to get the son's mind onto a computer in time, but sadly not his wife. He then uploads the sons mind onto a robot torso, essentially reincarnating the son to an extent. This is where it turns unfortunately, as things begin to go awry.

The scientist begins to upgrade the boys chassis in order to give him more freedom, but the limitations and risks involved result in some incredibly powerful scenes that provide much food for thought in this field. I shan't give away any more as the rest would involve spoilers, but I have honestly never seen something so disturbing, yet intrinsically fascinating since. Well worth watching.