Review: Hansel And Gretel: Witch Hunters

Review: Hansel And Gretel: Witch Hunters

"This ain't no fairy tale," claims the trailer for Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters. In fact, this ain't no...well, anything other than a pointless burst of noise.

The action-packed update of the classic children's story lacks enough laughs to be a tongue-in-cheek comedy, while the horror isn't scary and the fantasy is dull and overly familiar.

Yet at the same time, there's something strangely enjoyable about Witch Hunters. Perhaps it's the fact that Oscar season is winding down and this mindless piece of senseless escapism is the perfect antidote to all those excessively serious motion pictures (see: Lincoln, Zero Dark Thirty). Thanks to enthusiastically charismatic performances from Jeremy Renner and Gemma Arterton, the movie is entertaining enough to capture our attentions for its swift running time, even if the plot is so simple you'll forget everything about it an hour later.

The film kicks off with a prologue detailing the events of Hansel and Gretel's childhood, in which they of course encounter a witch in the woods and, rather than become her dinner, team up and kill her instead. Ever wonder what happened after that? Me neither, but director Tommy Wirkola seemingly did, so we flash forward fifteen years and catch up with the duo as they travel the country eliminating witches as they go. Their latest job sees them on the hunt for a group of missing children, and before long they are caught up in a deeper plot regarding their mysterious past and a violent witch who will stop at nothing to achieve immortality.

For a movie executive produced by the comedic legends that are Adam McKay and Will Ferrell, there is a severe lack of belly laughs; there are a couple of humorous one-liners, but one has to wonder whether or not Witch Hunters was originally conceived as a parody of fantasy epics (much as Anchorman is a parody of the cut-throat world of newsroom journalism) rather than this bland, by the numbers adventure.

How is it bland? We've seen it all before. Movies like Van Helsing, The Brothers Grimm and Season Of The Witch have paved the way for something much more exciting than this, but Witch Hunters just feels like the sum of every witch/vampire hunting movie cliche both with its dialogue and plot. Some examples: "Well, that's new," quips Jeremy Renner as his enemy whips out a gun bigger than his own. Later, we are given clue after clue as to the dark secret regarding the siblings' parents, to the point where we've figured it out long before the characters themselves. Duh!

Some of the special effects are laughable too, as the witches hardly look menacing and the prosthetics for the fantasy creatures barely even rival those of the first Harry Potter movie (which was released 12 years ago, by the way). 

On the plus side though, we have entertaining performances from the lead duo, Jeremy Renner and Gemma Arterton but at the same time it's a shame that both have been reduced to starring in this guff. Still, they handle the admittedly exciting action scenes really well and have decent comic timing for the very few funny moments, but this seems like the kind of film which would suit the likes of Kate Beckinsale (failing franchise expert) and Jason Statham (hit and miss extraordinaire) rather than a cast member of the 3rd highest grossing movie of all time (The Avengers) and an award winning British superstar.

 Summary

Instantly forgettable and horribly contrived, Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters misses its mark on almost every level. Despite its two lead actors giving it their all, the movie fails to entertain comedy, horror or fantasy fans alike. Had it had more focus on one particular genre (a fantasy parody would have been much more entertaining, especially with Will Ferrell on production duties), the movie could have been saved but unfortunately it is just too much like everything we've seen before. Judging by its conclusion, there is hope that a franchise may grow from this effort, but it looks as though that particular fairy tale will not have a happy ending.

3/10 - Bad

See it if you liked: Van Helsing (2004), Clash Of The Titans (2010), Season Of The Witch (2011)

Review: Mama

Review: Mama

Mama is quite an unconventional piece of work for its producer Guillermo Del Toro - but as a movie in the horror genre, conventional is sadly the only word that can be used to describe it.

It's simply ironic that Del Toro, whose usual work is famed for being original and unorthodox, would produce a cinematic outing that falls into so many cliches that its hard not to imagine you're watching the nightmares of someone who has recently watched a Paranormal Activity marathon.

That's not to say it's a bad movie for its genre - Mama has some solid acting, an intriguing plot and (most importantly for a horror movie) plenty of tension and jumps. Yet while the first hour or so is absorbing and scary enough to have some viewers watching it from behind their fingers, Mama slowly but surely unravels into a dull, unoriginal and frankly laughable ending which will have most either grinning with amusement or scratching their heads in confusion.



The film, extended from a three minute short by the same director Andres Muschietti, begins in 2008 as a man attempts to dispose of both his daughters and himself in an isolated woodland space - but before he can do the deed, a horrific shadowy figure kills him and assumes ownership of the kids. Flash forward five years and the children are found living as feral, scuttling beings unaccustomed to the real world; however, their uncle Lucas (Nikolaj Costar-Waldau) and his girlfriend Annabel (Jessica Chastain) earn custody of the girls. Yet try as they might, the shadowy figure that the children refer to as "Mama" won't give up its prize so easily. Cue the usual haunted house shenanigans complete with slamming doors, faint scuttling and creepy children murmuring to an unseen entity.

There is a powerful message about maternal instinct and love to be found somewhere in Mama but it's simply lost amongst all the overused horror stereotypes. The spirit of Mama itself is given a very detailed back story and we are supposed to feel sympathy for the character - yet, when it's trying to kill our protagonists, it's a little hard to do as the movie commands.

As for said protagonists, Nikolaj Costar-Waldau (who most will know from his role as Jamie Lannister in Game of Thrones) gives a decent performance in his relatively simple role as Lucas, the uncle who fosters the children. Yet it's Jessica Chastain who stands out, brilliantly acting out Annabel's transformation from carefree rockstar wannabe to loving surrogate mother. Finally, the reasoning behind the hype surrounding this Oscar-nominated actress is made clear.



The movie itself looks brilliant too - there's an eerie flashback scene in which Mama's motivations are fleshed out; it captivates the eyes due to its grainy, bleak feel and its first-person POV. The cinematography is, of course, beautiful (we should expect nothing less from Del Toro) and despite the narrative dissolving into a complete shambles by the time the last few frames are rolling, there's no doubt that the supernatural climax is a feast for the eyes.

That said, the movie disappoints with its over-reliance on horror cliches ("Something just scuttled past the camera! SCREECHY VIOLIN!") and its lack of imagination regarding the side characters. Dr Dreyfuss, a psychiatrist with a keen interest in the paranormal, seems like he waltzed straight off the set of Insidious and, as grotesque and horrific as "Mama" is, her appearance is revealed far too early in the film - in a horror flick, sometimes the unseen is much more effective in scaring us than what our eyes actually behold.

Summary

Mama is a decent flick for the horror genre - and that's that. Surprisingly from Del Toro, there's a great loss of ingenuity which most have come to expect from the producer and, despite some stunning visuals and fantastic acting, there's nothing here to please anyone looking for something a little more original than the Paranormal Activity franchise. Still, it's a horror movie that scares and intrigues in equal measure, and at the end of the day you can't really ask for more than that.

7/10 - Good

See it if you liked: Paranormal Activity (2009), Insidious (2011), Sinister (2012)

The Oscars: Who Should Win

The Oscars: Who Should Win

In the occasionally shocking world of the movie industry, one night celebrates the best of the best. The 2013 Academy Awards (or Oscars as they are more commonly known) will be broadcast live tomorrow evening, so here is a round-up of the nominees, as well as some predictions of who will win each category.

Best Picture

Argo

Amour

Beasts Of The Southern Wild

Django Unchained

Les Miserables

Life Of Pi

Lincoln

Silver Linings Playbook

Zero Dark Thirty

Who should win: Thanks to its brilliant cast and some fine directing from Ben Affleck, Argo should take home the gold for the Best Picture category.

Movies Under The Microscope Review: Argo

Best Actor

Bradley Cooper - Silver Linings Playbook 

Daniel Day-Lewis - Lincoln

Hugh Jackman - Les Miserables 

Joaquin Phoenix - The Master

Denzel Washington - Flight

Who should win: While the movie itself was dull to a non-American like myself, Lincoln was the perfect chance for Daniel Day-Lewis to show off his superb acting (mutton)chops as the performer didn't just act out the part - he became Honest Abe.

Best Actress

Jessica Chastain - Zero Dark Thirty

Jennifer Lawrence - Silver Linings Playbook

Emmanuelle Riva - Amour

Quvenzhane Willis - Beasts Of The Southern Wild

Naomi Watts - The Impossible

Who should win: Silver Linings Playbook was a decent movie until the introduction of Jennifer Lawrence - where it became a great movie thanks to her effortlessly charismatic and eccentric performance.

Movies Under The Microscope Review: Silver Linings Playbook

Best Supporting Actor

Alan Arkin - Argo

Robert De Niro - Silver Linings Playbook

Philip Seymour Hoffman - The Master

Tommy Lee Jones - Lincoln

Christoph Waltz - Django Unchained

Who should win: Christoph Waltz was the most enjoyable aspect of Tarantino's Django Unchained, a movie that turned out to be much weaker than the cast within it. An Oscar for him would be very well deserved.

Best Supporting Actress

Amy Adams - The Master

Sally Field - Lincoln

Anne Hathaway - Les Miserables

Helen Hunt - The Sessions

Jackie Weaver - Silver Linings Playbook

Who should win: Anne Hathaway for completely bringing the house down in Les Miserables. Superb.

Movies Under The Microscope Review: Les Miserables

Best Director

Michael Haneke - Amour

Benh Zeitlin - Beasts Of The Southern Wild

Ang Lee - Life Of Pi

Steven Spielberg - Lincoln

David O. Russell - Silver Linings Playbook

Who should win: The "unfilmable" adaptation of Life Of Pi came to extraordinarily colourful life thanks to Ang Lee's dazzling directorial vision.

Animated Feature Film

Brave

Frankenweenie

Paranorman

The Pirates! Band Of Misfits

Wreck-It Ralph

Who should win: Wreck-It Ralph is one of the most original, exciting and humorous animated movies of the last decade and, while it would be nice for Pixar to add another award to their collection thanks to Brave, Disney deserve this one.

Movies Under The Microscope Review: Wreck-It Ralph

Writing (Adapted Screenplay)

Chris Terrio - Argo

Lucy Alibar and Benh Zeitlin - Beasts Of The Southern Wild

David Magee - Life Of Pi

Tony Kushner - Lincoln

David O. Russell - Silver Linings Playbook

Who should win: With such a vast story and such a large amount of source material, David Magee did well to condense Life Of Pi into a well paced whirlwind of a movie, and therefore deserves to take home the Oscar.

Writing (Original Screenplay)

Michael Haneke - Amour

Quentin Tarantino - Django Unchained

John Gatins - Flight

Wes Anderson and Roman Coppola - Moonrise Kingdom

Mark Boal - Zero Dark Thirty

Who should win: Amidst all the political chaos of Zero Dark Thirty and the bloody violence of Django Unchained, Moonrise Kingdom sticks out as the film based purely on its believable, sweet characters. Its witty, absorbing screenplay should give it the edge.

Cinematography

Anna Karenina

Django Unchained

Life Of Pi

Lincoln

Skyfall

Who should win: Say what you want about Django Unchained, but Tarantino certainly made the movie look just as authentic as the westerns of old.

Movies Under The Microscope Review: Django Unchained

Visual Effects

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Life Of Pi

The Avengers

Prometheus

Snow White And The Hunstman

Who should win: Life Of Pi: one movie worth seeing in 3D. Beautiful.

Music (Original Score)

Anna Karenina

Argo

Life Of Pi

Lincoln

Skyfall

Who should win: That iconic James Bond theme never gets old, and Thomas Newman's tense, exciting score found the perfect pitch for what is simply the best 007 movie yet.

Movies Under The Microscope Review: Skyfall

Make-Up And Hairstyling

Hitchcock

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Les Miserables

Who should win: The Hobbit. Those dwarf actors weren't born looking like that y'know.

Movies Under The Microscope Review: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Original Song

"Before My Time" - Chasing Ice

"Everybody Needs A Best Friend" - Ted

"Pi's Lullaby" - Life Of Pi

"Skyfall" - Skyfall

"Suddenly" - Les Miserables

Who should win: Skyfall, as Adele's original number opened the film in perfect style: shaken, not stirred.

Costume Design

Anna Karenina

Les Miserables

Lincoln

Mirror Mirror

Snow White And The Hunstman

Who should win: Les Miserables had a great narrative detailing the lives of these individuals living in revolutionist France - everything from the music to the outstandingly authentic costumes pulled us further into the story.

That's all of the major categories covered - until the Oscars are revealed tomorrow evening this is all speculation but for each one I get right, you owe me a beer. Done? Cheers!

Check out a round-up of all the Oscar winners right here at Movies Under The Microscope.

Review: This Is 40

Review: This Is 40

This Is 40 is a bad movie. 

Now, that's not to say it isn't at all funny or entertaining. As a Judd Apatow production, it is of course going to be a combination of the two. The problem is its lack of an end goal. A movie should work towards something - a resolution, a finale, a final struggle to defeat the conflict. This Is 40 has no such feature, and instead is simply a humongous script which plods along with no particular purpose. 

40 Year Old Virgin had a finish line (Steve Carrell attempting to pop his cherry); Knocked Up spent its running time excitingly leading up to the birth of Seth Rogen and Katherine Heigl's baby; even Anchorman for all its insanity was consistently developing its characters towards its climax.

In short, This Is 40 would have fared much better as a sitcom with perhaps 5 or 6 episodes rather than a movie which outstays its welcome tremendously. 

I'm sure while writing his screenplay, Apatow was under the impression that he was highlighting the sweetly amusing arguments, denials and problems that come with reaching the mid-life crisis age of 40, but what we end up with is a long slog filled with sloppy comedy and precious little plot to speak of despite a brilliant lead performance from Paul Rudd and some inspired celebrity cameos. 

Set five years after the events of Knocked Up, we rejoin two of its supporting characters, Debbie (Leslie Mann) and Pete (Rudd), a married couple who are both about to "celebrate" their 40th birthdays in the same week. With the aid of their daughters (played by Judd Apatow's real-life daughters Maude and Iris) they prepare to throw their birthday parties, but with Pete's record label about to go into bankruptcy and Debbie's clothes store failing to make profit, hitting their latest milestone might be the least of their worries. 

There are also some other very loose plot strands regarding Pete's relationship with his money swindling father, as well as Debbie's distance from her own dad. The problem is that most of these excess storylines never really amount to anything more than a hurried conversation, and in fact most of the narrative (particularly regarding Pete's record label) is forgotten about come the film's conclusion.

In the film's favour, there are interesting characters aplenty and some fantastic performances to boot. Paul Rudd is outstanding as Pete, as likeable as always and absolutely hilarious. Chris O'Dowd and Jason Segel are also welcome additions to the cast, the latter reprising his role from Knocked Up to effectively bridge the gap between the two comedies, and Megan Fox, Albert Brooks and John Lithgow also ensure that familiar faces keep us interested. 

On the flip side though, Leslie Mann shouts and screams her way through the film as usual, providing nothing but headaches and annoyance in her role as Debbie; call it a fault with the script or with her performance, but perhaps Apatow is simply too scared to tell his real-life wife that shrieking and over exaggerating every word isn't good acting.

Some of the celebrity cameos are fantastic, however - Billie Joe Armstrong from Green Day easily has the best one, insulting Chris O' Dowd with perfect comic timing, while Melissa McCarthy of Bridesmaids fame has her own brief moment in the spotlight.

Yet while the acting is good and there are some entertaining faces, the story (or lack thereof) begins to drag severely after the first hour. To be honest, This Is 40 feels much more like a director's cut than the theatrical edition, and it's easy to tell that most scenes were ad-libbed again and again purely for Apatow's pleasure. The whole project feels like a self indulgence trip for the director, almost like a Greatest Hits of his best styles and while it seems like an admirably personal film for him, at times it also feels as though he is simply filming a day-in-the-life feature rather than a movie. 

Still, there are some genuinely touching and funny moments and, despite the fact that it's overstuffed and overlong, there's something sweet about This Is 40 that will stay with you after you (finally) leave.

Summary

This Is 40 has all the ingredients to be a hilarious, hard-hitting journey into the truth and acceptance of middle age but unfortunately writer/director Judd Apatow has thrown too many of those ingredients into the mixing pot, resulting in a muddled narrative with no particular aim. Still, brilliant performances from the likes of Paul Rudd and the supporting cast ensure that the movie isn't totally boring but it definitely would have fared better with some more time in the editing room. It's okay, but suffers from typical indulgent Apatow syndrome - this is 40 minutes too long.

5/10 - Mediocre

See it if you liked: Knocked Up (2007), Funny People (2009), Friends With Kids (2012)

Review: A Good Day To Die Hard

Review: A Good Day To Die Hard

Mission: Impossible meets The Avengers in the most ridiculously over the top Die Hard movie yet. 

Spectacular stunts do not a movie make, and while Bruce Willis is as charismatic as ever during his portrayal of kick-ass detective John McClane, a weak narrative, poor comedy and the requirement to suspend disbelief makes A Good Day To Die Hard (or Die Hard 5) the weakest instalment in a franchise which has now become a shadow of its former self.

Whereas the original trilogy had McClane in believable, real peril facing off against deadly terrorists on his own, Die Hard 5 sees him teaming up with his estranged son Jack, portrayed with no particular enthusiasm by Jai Courtney. When Jack is arrested in Russia John departs New York and sets off to help his son, only to find that Jack is actually an undercover CIA Agent attempting to thwart a terrorist plot to unleash weapons-grade uranium on the world. Together the newly formed family team fight side by side to defeat the "scumbag bad guys." Sounds like an okay plot for a passable two-player video game, but the Die Hard series deserves better.

What follows is action scene after action scene, car chases galore and ridiculously unbelievable shots of Willis and Courtney dodging helicopter rotors making them seem more like superheroes rather than cops. Just when it seems as though it might finally be time to sit down and try some exposition or character development, the father-son duo get shot at again to keep them on the move. While it's good that the film is excitingly action packed, it can be frustrating as the script fails to delve into its potential regarding John and Jack McClane getting to know each other after so many years. 

Perhaps the fault is down to Jai Courtney's dull representation of Jack - it's hard to believe that someone as badass as John McClane could produce such a one-dimensional, boring offspring who can only pull off one facial expression. To cut a long story short, Courtney is no Samuel L.Jackson in Die Hard With A Vengeance - in fact, even Justin Long was a more enjoyable sidekick in Live Free Or Die Hard.

Even the usually witty comedy misses its mark this time around with lines regarding John's fish-out-of-water status in Russia resulting in some cringe-worthy jokes - and don't even get me started on the hideously inappropriate punchlines poking fun at a real-life Russian disaster which cost many lives.

There are a few nods to the original Die Hard flicks which raise a grin or two though, such as broken glass shots or building falls, but when they come at the end of a movie that has nothing on its predecessors, it's hard to wish you weren't watching one of them instead of this loud, pointless riot of a movie.

Summary

I wanted to love Die Hard 5 but it just didn't happen. A lot of the blame can be directed at the narrative,  with shoddy writing, a blatantly unintelligent plot and one-note villains failing to raise any interest. The action is exciting enough, but too much of a good thing quickly makes it tiresome and when it becomes as unbelievable as the film's climax one begins to question whether or not John McClane has turned into a superhero overnight. Still, equipped with trademark smirk Bruce Willis is always entertaining to watch especially when he is in full kick-ass mode. Overall though, A Good Day To Die Hard is a bad day for the Die Hard series.

3/10 - Yippee-Ki-Nay.

See it if you liked: Die Hard 4.0 (2007), Mission Impossible 4 (2011), Jack Reacher (2012)

Review: I Give It A Year

Review: I Give It A Year

Funny romantic comedies are often hard to come by. There are some (most of which star the likes of Jennifer Aniston or Gerard Butler) that unashamedly assume they are hilarious by throwing in a zany, unrelatable and clumsy character whose story involves lots of falling over; occasionally though, there are others like I Give It A Year. 

Director Dan Mazer's comedy shouldn't really be as funny as it is but there's something irresistible in the way his script throws a romantic cliche at the audience only to have it followed by a cheeky wink, as if he's saying "I know, right?"

Aside from the comic aspects though, I Give It A Year manages to push all the right buttons with its genuinely well written (if flawed) characters and although the story, in particular its ending, sends out a pretty negative message about the importance of marriage and the work it requires, the movie will surely satisfy its typical target audience - and may warm even the most stubborn heart.

The wedding of Josh (Rafe Spall) and Nat (Rose Byrne) goes without a hitch - despite the fact they've only been together for nine months. Unfortunately though, their parents, their friends and even the minister don't believe that they can make it for more than a year. Before long, they begin the usual squabbles that the average newlywed couple endure, but to make matters worse Josh's ex-girlfriend Chloe (Anna Faris) returns from her around the world travels and Guy (Simon Baker) appears as a handsome client in Nat's advertising firm, providing attractive alternatives for both sides of this mismatched marriage. Can they even make it to their first anniversary?

The story is solid enough, in particular the fact that the movie starts where most romantic comedies end - the wedding. The only thing that doesn't click is the idea that the film projects - the idea that marriage is like a contract that can be cancelled at any time. Why bother even getting married if you're just seeing it as a challenge?

This leads to a problem with the characters themselves as, although their moral ambiguity is the backbone of the film's narrative, it's hard to care whether or not they complete the running time with their relationships intact. Josh and Nat's marriage seems doomed to fail but neither wants to be the first to end it - so the only thing keeping them together is stubbornness, really. Add to that the fact that the other potential partners (Guy, a slimy businessman who seems determined to entice a married woman and Chloe, a nice but aimless charity worker) are as frustrating as the central couple in question, and what we end up with is a mismatch of infuriatingly selfish people who only seem to be in it for themselves.

Still, although the "rom" part of the film has some dodgy hiccups, the "com" section is flawless. Rafe Spall, who most will only know from the unfortunately dull sitcom Pete Vs. Life, is fantastic as Josh, managing to nail both the essential comic timing and the emotional punches, while Rose Byrne once again plays the female lead with elegant ease. The two have some brilliantly natural chemistry together, keeping us tied in to their story of forced love and temptation.

There's also some brilliant comedic support from the hilarious Stephen Merchant who steals every scene he's in, particularly for his hilariously awkward best man's speech ("For those of you who don't know me, and for those of you who'll meet me at the bar later my full name is Danny D'you Want A Pint.") as well as Jason Flemyng popping up as Nat's brother-in-law. We could have done without Anna "I'm funny, really, please give me a chance" Faris though.

Summary

I Give It A Year is a romantic comedy that doesn't really want to be a romantic comedy. To be fair, it's much more comedy than romance thanks to its ambiguous message regarding the importance of marriage (you'll see what I mean by the end - no spoilers here!) yet despite its narrative flaws regarding the characterisation, the spot on performances and some genuinely funny moments ensure that I Give It A Year will satisfy more than just the usual rom-com crowd. If not, it'll at least put you off buying a digital photo frame.

7/10 - Good

See it if you liked: Knocked Up (2007), 500 Days Of Summer (2009), Friends With Benefits (2011)

Review: Warm Bodies

Review: Warm Bodies

I'll be honest: I expected Warm Bodies to be dreadful. As the lights went down and the movie began with Nicholas Hoult's dry narration, I rolled my eyes and assumed a comfortable enough position to endure what I predicted would be a female-exclusive replacement for The Twilight Saga. 

Not for the first (or last) time, I was definitely wrong.

That's not to say that Warm Bodies is particularly brilliant or original. It certainly won't appeal to most fans of the zombie genre due to its slightly vague overview of the walking corpses, but the movie utilizes its interesting premise to provide a quirky, swift and humorous flick that thankfully seems to know and understand its status as brainless romantic fun.

Nicholas Hoult (formerly of E4's Skins) stars as "R", a zombified teen whose life now involves shuffling, grunting and moping awkwardly around an airport with his fellow undead. When he brutally eats the brain of her boyfriend and falls in love with Julie (Teresa Palmer), R begins to question whether there could be more to the world than simply eating human flesh; before long, his connection with Julie begins to restore life to both himself and the other zombies around him - but Julie's father, resistance fighter General Grigio (John Malkovich) may not be so keen on the idea of his daughter befriending the same creatures which killed his wife.

So, with some decent plotting and likeable protagonists who are actually strong enough to do things for themselves, this is not the Zombie-Twilight. Still, it's not quite as cool as it should be, failing to take advantage of the zombie genre it wants to be a part of and instead spending more time on the romantic aspects of the narrative. 

Certainly there's nothing wrong with the cast, though. Hoult, whose previous performances in the likes of Clash Of The Titans have been somewhat dim, is brilliantly understated as R; as the film applies plenty of voice over for the purposes of comedic exposition, Hoult's sarcasm and dry wit shines through as we watch him stagger around in classic zombie fashion. Meanwhile, Teresa Palmer is a perfectly amiable female lead, acting out the combination of Julie's fear, confusion and determination and proving that the girl doesn't always have to be the damsel in distress.

Shot with a gloriously grey tinge to highlight the bleak existence of humanity after this (unfortunately vague) apocalypse, Warm Bodies also bites its teeth into the indie genre with a killer soundtrack including the likes of Bruce Springsteen, Bob Dylan, Bon Iver and The Nationals as R and Julie initially connect over their love of music ("I prefer vinyl," grunts R slowly, "...better sound. More alive.").

Ultimately though, Warm Bodies succeeds mostly because it manages to touch base on several different styles in its relatively snappy running time. There's sci-fi, there's comedy (although admittedly not as much as it thinks it has), there's romance and last but not least, there's a satisfying level of action and gore at the film's climax that gives the story a decent send-off. 

Summary

Despite the abundance of zombies within Warm Bodies, there's a beating heart in this tale that holds our attention from beginning to end. Nicholas Hoult is brilliantly deadpan as R, while Teresa Palmer is a likeable co-star. A lack of focus on the zombie aspect of the narrative takes away some of its impact and most of the romantic scenes are cheesy, but overall Warm Bodies strikes one as the undead lovechild of 500 Days of Summer and Zombieland. Not bad for a film with no brrrrraaaains...(sorry).

7/10 - Good

See it if you liked: Zombieland (2009), 500 Days of Summer (2009), Dark Shadows (2012)

Review: Flight

Review: Flight

Denzel Washington stars in this Oscar-nominated drama about an alcoholic airline pilot who miraculously lands a diving plane against all the odds. Robert Zemeckis, who hasn't directed a live-action film since 2000's Cast Away, steers the film safely when it comes to the exhilarating crash sequence, however it almost feels as though Flight is a victim of its own success. The opening scenes are so exciting that everything afterwards feels dull, depressing and (as Marty McFly would say in Zemeckis' own Back To The Future series) "heavy."

Flight feels like it should actually be based on a true story, following in the vein of aeroplane disaster movies such as United 93; however, it is actually based around one extraordinary detail which emerged from a real-life plane crash in 2000 - the theory that a plane (apparently in fatal free fall) could actually be forced to level out into a safe glide. To give it a go, the pilot has to be either very desperate or very drunk.

That is the basis of Flight; Washington's substance abusing pilot, Captain William "Whip" Whitaker has two small bottles of vodka with his orange juice whilst at the wheel of the plane. Whether as a result of this or not, the plane suddenly descends into a straight dive towards a residential area; Whip makes the hasty decision to invert the aircraft and roll it, landing it relatively safely in an unoccupied field. He loses consciousness and awakes in a hospital room, only to find that his problems are just beginning: his blood was drawn on the day of the crash and alcohol was found in his system - a crime for any pilot. 

After this, the movie becomes dull and weighed down by the promise of more interesting plot developments - at the end of the day, this is the kind of story we've seen before. A man has a substance abuse problem and attempts to battle it, resulting in pain and misery for an abundance of painful and miserable characters when he inevitably fails. Oh but will he win in the end? 

Well, you'll have to wait about two and a half hours to find out, as Flight drags out its fairly simple premise over a very stretched running time. The film attempts to liven things up by throwing in Kelly Reilly as love interest Nicole, a woman who meets Whip in hospital after overdosing on heroin, but this only leads to more boredom as they go through the usual turmoil of dragging each other down. 

On the flip side Don Cheadle is excellent as Hugh Lang, an attorney who attempts to ensure that Whip does not end up going to prison on drink, drugs and manslaughter charges. Equally, John Goodman brings some much needed comic relief in the form of Whip's dealer Harling Mays, a man of little honesty in contrast to Cheadle's justice-seeking attorney.

Ultimately though, it's Denzel Washington who steals the show. Whip is a very unsympathetic character but thanks to a stunning performance by the Oscar nominee, we find ourselves routing for the alcoholic as it slowly becomes clear that no one else could have landed the plane like him. In the final scenes where Whip attends a hearing to determine his fate, the conflict and guilt is brilliantly acted in his words and face; it's clear that Washington deserves this Oscar nomination against some very stiff competition.

Still, at the end of the day excellent performances can't detract from a contrived narrative that soars sky high in its opening half hour yet crash lands harder than the Whip's plane for the rest of the movie. Zemeckis does have some brilliant shots and, despite his dabbling in CGI Animation like A Christmas Carol and The Polar Express, it's clear that he is still a pro with live action, but his spot on camera work hardly manages to lift the dull movie into the air.

Summary

Flight wants to be a hard-hitting investigation into the causes and stresses of addiction and substance abuse, but ultimately it's all been done before in ways that are much less time consuming and much more exciting. The opening scenes featuring the actual plane crash are heart pounding and expertly directed, but it seems as though this should actually be the climax of the film rather than having the most jaw-dropping moments at the start. After this, the remaining two hours drag to the point where its hard to stomach the contrived narrative. There are some astounding performances, particularly from Denzel Washington, but ultimately decent acting can't get a movie off the ground on its own.

5/10 - Mediocre

See it if you liked: Cast Away (2000), United 93 (2006), Crazy Heart (2011)

Review: Wreck-It Ralph

Review: Wreck-It Ralph

Disney has experienced a slightly unstable level of quality over the last few years, with efforts such as Cars 2,  Mars Needs Moms, John Carter and Brave failing to overwhelm the critics. 

That's all about to change.

Not since Toy Story 3 has there been an animation with as much wit, heart and colourful nostalgia as Wreck-It Ralph, the motion picture that will go down in history as the best video-game movie of all time. 

It's not surprising that most have mistaken Wreck-It Ralph for a Pixar effort, as both the computer animation and the storyline are superb. Sure, there are nods aplenty to the likes of Mario, Sonic, Pac-Man and Tomb Raider, but at the heart of the movie is a truly brilliant tale of acceptance and friendship - and a good story makes all the difference.

In the world of Wreck-It Ralph, video-game characters have a life outside their games. When the arcade lights go down and the machines are switched off, every protagonist and antagonist comes to life and heads home, rubbing shoulders with the likes of Bowser, Lara Croft and Zangief on their way to "Game Central", a sort of train station where the characters make their way to and from each game. Ralph's job is as a Donkey Kong-style villain in a decades-old arcade game known as "Fix It, Felix!" in which he attempts to destroy a building while his enemy, charming all-round good guy Felix, repairs the damage. 

The problem is, Ralph is actually a nice guy. After 30 years of being repeatedly humiliated and unloved inside his game, he attends "Bad-Anon", a therapy group for gaming bad guys such as Doctor Eggman and Zangief where the antagonists attempt to make sense of a world where being bad is never rewarded.

It's here where most of the gaming cameos come in; the script is smart and doesn't overdo the references, meaning that kids won't feel completely alienated by the consistent nods to retro games. Claiming that "it sure must be nice to be the good guy," Ralph decides that enough is enough and that he wants to prove to his colleagues that baddies can achieve hero status. Unwittingly threatening the existence of the games, Ralph departs his game and embarks on an adventure to obtain a medal - however, he soon finds that he is way out of his depth as he unleashes a cyber bug into the arcade.

The premise of characters coming alive when people leave has been done before (Toy Story), but even then it has never been done as cleverly as this. For example, when Ralph is at "Bad-Anon" it is revealed that the meeting is actually held inside the inky square within the game Pac-Man; later, as Ralph causes chaos within Game Central and accidentally bashes into Sonic the Hedgehog, golden rings are seen scattered around the floor. It's this sort of commitment to gaming references that ensures Wreck-It Ralph will appeal to adults of a certain age, while kids are sure to love the brilliantly performed colourful characters.

Ralph himself is voiced by John C. Reilly, whose effortless comic timing adds a heartfelt subtlety to our villain-turned-hero; on paper, we shouldn't be routing for him as he goes against all the rules, yet at the same time it's impossible not to keep our fingers crossed that he achieves his goal. Equally, Sarah Silverman is surprisingly decent as Vanellope, a character who befriends Ralph in the Mario-Kart inspired racing game "Sugar Rush." She initially comes on a little too strong, but Vanellope's fantastic story (she is a glitch, meaning she is considered a freak inside her own game) manages to give us someone to route for other than Ralph.

Not to be outdone, Jack McBrayer is fantastic as Felix, while Jane Lynch has some fantastic one-liners as Sergeant Calhoun, a commander inside the game "Hero's Duty." It's in this Halo-meets-Mass Effect shoot-em-up where Ralph realises what a mistake he's made in leaving the comfort of his happy, slow 80's game as (in one of the movie's best lines) he runs around screaming "When did video games become so violent and messy?" 

Cleverly, however, the movie doesn't spend much time making its own social commentary on the matters of video-game violence; at its heart, this is a story about acceptance. Ralph just wants to be appreciated because he feels that, quite rightly, the game would be nothing without him and he deserves as much recognition as Felix. Yet, even with the film's conclusion, the message should hopefully resonate with kids and adults alike as the bad guys at "Bad-Anon" repeatedly remind themselves: "there's nobody I'd rather be than me."

Summary

Wreck-It Ralph is a triumph of both film-making and storytelling. Colourful, exciting, brilliantly animated and excellently performed, the movie is perfect for a nostalgic look back at the past while also providing a fantastic tale of friendship and self-affirmation. With cameos aplenty from those 8-bit characters we all know and love, as well as exciting set pieces and a swift pace, Wreck-It Ralph is the ultimate gamers movie - and one of the best animated films of all time. Press Start.

10/10 - Amazing

See it if you liked: Toy Story 3 (2010), Scott Pilgrim vs. The World (2010), Tron: Legacy (2010)