Film Review | Evil Dead 3: Army Of Darkness (1992)

Following on almost exactly from where the closing moments of Evil Dead II left us, Sam Raimi's final film in his horror trilogy allowed the director to realise the vision he originally had for his first sequel but had been unable to bring about largely due to budget limitations. Evil Dead 3: Army Of Darkness is more commonly known simply as Army Of Darkness, arguably with good reason: in many ways this feels less like a continuation from the first two Evil Dead films and more like a fantasy vehicle for Bruce Campbell's Ash, a cult cinematic icon by this point in the franchise, to once again rev his chainsaw and fire his boomstick with aplomb.

Raimi shows he is unafraid to try out new ideas throughout Army Of Darkness, which is consistently admirable if not always successful. Tonally this sees an even greater shift into comedy than was seen between The Evil Dead and Evil Dead II. Raimi's choice to transport the action to medieval England is a bold one considering the minimal cabin-in-the-woods setting of the first two entries in the trilogy. Coupled with the distinctly comedic tone throughout, Army Of Darkness at times feels reminiscent of Monty Python's big screen outings, which is never to the film's detriment but may disappoint fans of the out-and-out horror seen earlier in the franchise.

Both Campbell and Raimi clearly enjoy themselves bringing Ash to a wealth of new environments and characters, some of which work better than others. Ironically, the films strongest moments are those most redolent of the style and structure of Evil Dead II. A sequence which sees Ash isolated in an abandoned windmill is the strongest of the film, once again allowing Campbell to demonstrate his impressive aptitude for slapstick and visual humour. Raimi broadens his influence to include the likes of classic Tex Avery animation, as well as including his most overt homage to the work of Ray Harryhausen with the titular army largely made up of reanimated skeletons strongly evocative of Jason And The Argonauts.

Army Of Darkness' ambition also provides many of its shortcomings however. Other than Ash, the characters here receive the bare minimum of development needed to keep the story going, with most remaining largely one-dimensional. Whilst the first two films in the franchise could be criticised for not really having a story, Army Of Darkness certainly does its best to fix that, although Ash's quest through medieval England is unashamedly episodic and feels more like an excuse to link together a series of set pieces. The final battle between the living and "deadite" armies in all honesty feels overlong and a bit underwhelming.

Army Of Darkness ultimately never quite manages to reach the heights of the trilogy's strongest entry, Evil Dead II, feeling tamer in tone and more concerned with laughs than scares. But Raimi still manages to craft an imaginative, worthwhile and seriously enjoyable ending to his trilogy by playing to enough of his strengths, whilst having the courage to take the franchise into previously unexplored territory.

7/10

Film Review | Evil Dead II (1987)

Five years after giving the world the original Evil Dead, Sam Raimi returned to the franchise with a bigger budget and bigger ideas, many of which he wouldn't manage to realise until 1992's third installment, Army Of Darkness - the budget wasn't quite big enough to match the size of Raimi's imagination.

Evil Dead II sits - at times somewhat awkwardly - somewhere between a sequel and a remake, with the story of the first film retold here in condensed form within the first five minutes. A number of The Evil Dead's beats are also revisited throughout, which at times makes it tricky to place Evil Dead II in terms of its relationship with the first film. In contemporary cinematic terminology, this could even be considered as Raimi rebooting his own original film. It's a curiosity of Evil Dead II which is never conclusively resolved, but thankfully not to the film's detriment: those who have seen The Evil Dead can enjoy Raimi recreating familiar elements with more money to splash, whilst those who have not can enjoy this as a film which confidently stands alone.

Evil Dead II is also a refinement of what Raimi attempted in his first film, the director cherry-picking the strongest elements from his debut and fleshing them out. Everything that gave The Evil Dead its cult appeal  is cranked up several notches here. Where the first film's horror was overt, here the gore flies with wanton abandon, Raimi clearly having the time of his life soaking (literally) his actors in torrents of blood and slime. And whilst it can at times seem unclear why the original is classed as a horror-comedy, its humour occasionally so subtle as to pass under the radar, Evil Dead II never has this to worry about. Early scenes involving Ash (Bruce Campbell) battling his own demon-possessed hand are a complete riot, the film wearing on its sleeve strong influence from the work of Dick Van Dyke and - most of all - Raimi's comedy heroes, The Three Stooges.

Campbell from the word go is the beating heart of Evil Dead II, a whirlwind of B-movie energy and charm from his very first scene that only escalates as the body count and bloody torrents increase. Ash develops from unwilling hero to chainsaw-wielding dispatcher of the undead in glorious fashion, and come the end of the film the character's status as one of the all-time great horror heroes will be firmly ensconced in your mind.

Whilst there's a lot to like here, Evil Dead II does inherit some of the original's problems too. Plot is clearly not at the forefront of Raimi's mind, and whilst there's a little more of substance here than in The Evil Dead, anyone looking for carefully crafted, watertight plotting will likely come away disappointed. But taken for what it's meant to be - a horror film with its tongue regularly firmly in its cheek and made purely to entertain - Evil Dead II delivers in a hugely satisfying way. If The Evil Dead is cheesy, then this is the entire deli counter at Sainsbury's, and it's all the better for it.

8/10

By Ben Broadribb. Ben is now a regular contributor at Film Intel, having previously written here at Some Like It Hot Fuzz. He is normally seen in the wild wearing t-shirts containing obscure film references. He is a geek, often unashamedly so. He's also on Google+ and Twitter.

Film Review | Toy Story 3 (2010)

Combining both the rule of diminishing returns and the inverse relationship between the length of time you leave between installments in a film franchise and the quality of the newest entry, Toy Story 3 should be awful. Add to that the fact that both Toy Story and Toy Story 2 were beloved modern classics of animation by the time of Toy Story 3's release and it could have become the most derided third film of a trilogy since The Godfather Part III. Surely if any studio could manage to steer clear of this minefield of cinematic failure, it was Pixar? Simply put: yes, it surely was.

Toy Story 3, like Toy Story 2 before it, retains many of the successful elements seen since the series' first installment. All the key voice cast members return sounding as fresh as ever (aside from Jim Varney as Slinky Dog due to his death in 2000, but whose role is ably and respectfully filled by Blake Clark). A wealth of new talent join them, each as perfectly fit to their animated counterparts as the franchise veterans. Ned Beatty as Lots-O'-Huggin' Bear deftly creates the series' most finely crafted and performed antagonist, with Michael Keaton providing strong and often laugh-out-loud support as Ken. Additional supporting roles are filled by seasoned performers including Whoopi Goldberg, Bonnie Hunt and Timothy Dalton (as one of the series' most brilliant minor characters, Mr. Pricklepants: a lederhosen-attired plush hedgehog with a propensity for Shakespearean performance), which lends the film an essence of cinematic eminence.

After piloting the first two installments, John Lasseter receives credits as story writer and executive producer here whilst handing over control to Lee Unkrich in his directorial debut. Unkrich proves to be a worthy successor staying true to the style and passion Lasseter infused into his films; Toy Story 3 takes in a great deal of cinematic heritage including classic prison escape thrillers and an opening sequence which trumps both of the previous films' magnificent efforts. Unkrich blends the best elements from the franchise's past whilst keeping his film feeling original and contemporary. Even a handful of sequences clearly designed to take advantage of the film's 3D release in cinemas work just as well with one dimension removed. Pixar's ability to make the design of their characters, initially restricted by 1995 animation technology, still feel as crisp and appealing as ever is easy to overlook but simply cannot be understated.

Whilst Toy Story 3 at its core tells the story of a rescue mission once again, it manages more ably than its predecessor to bring an entirely original slant to proceedings. But perhaps most impressive of all is Unkrich's ability to make Toy Story 3 the most emotional entry of the trilogy. An early scene involving the toys effecting an elaborate ploy to get the attention of the now young adult Andy (John Morris) using his mobile phone is heartbreaking, and the film's final sequence will have you blubbering like a baby, especially if you've been with Woody and co. since the beginning. Elsewhere the film touches on areas that lesser animated films wouldn't dare go near, with existential questions surrounding death and the reasons for being etched within some of the film's most moving sequences.

Toy Story 3 therefore rounds off Pixar's flawless trifecta, one of the greatest film trilogies ever accomplished. All three deserve recognition in history as masterworks of animation and cinema, and their influence will undoubtedly resonate through the years and decades of film far into the future. Or as Buzz Lightyear would say more succinctly: "to infinity and beyond".

10/10

Film Review | Toy Story 2 (1999)

After the overwhelming success with both critics and audiences of Toy Story, it's no surprise that Pixar chose to create a sequel to capitalize on its success only four years later. No other franchise from the studio would receive a sequel until Cars 2's release in 2011. It could be that Pixar didn't want to emulate the dead-horse-flogging antics of rival studio Dreamworks, churning out one sequel after another no matter how low the quality sank. Or maybe the masters of computer animation were anxious that any future sequels made by them matched up to the incredibly high bar set in Toy Story 2.

A great deal of Toy Story 2's success comes from returning director John Lasseter's decision to carry over many positive elements from the original film. Hanks and Allen again deliver first class vocal turns as Woody and Buzz, as do the rest of the returning cast. New additions to the acting roster are just as excellent: Joan Cusack as cowgirl doll Jessie fits the character to a tee with a larger-than-life performance; Kelsey Grammer as Stinky Pete draws on his thespian roots, as well as his well-known television role as the pretentious Dr. Frasier Crane, to create a classic cinematic villain; and Wayne Knight is a perfect fit for ruthless toy collector Al McWhiggin.

Lasseter's direction here is in many ways even more impressive than in Toy Story. The advances in Pixar's animation in the four years since the first film are regularly obvious, but always used with subtlety and panache by the director. Toy Story's opening was intentionally low key and all the more powerful for it; the start of its sequel sits at the opposite end of the spectrum in terms of flamboyance, delivering a breathtaking action sequence that takes in a great many cinematic nods and references along the way, but at the same time Lasseter once again crafts a compelling and entertaining sequence. Elsewhere we see refined examples of something Pixar are now seasoned experts of ingeniously crafting from computer code: pathos. I defy anyone to watch Jessie's flashback sequence without experiencing a pang of genuine emotion within themselves.

Arguably, Toy Story 2 doesn't avoid every pitfall many sequels often fall into. The story here revisits some of the key beats of that seen in Toy Story with a rescue mission at the core of both films, only with Woody and Buzz's roles reversed from the first film to the second. But this never takes anything away from Toy Story 2, and the richness of the craft and depth of the ideas on display here mean that any repetition can be wholly forgiven. Toy Story 2 is every bit as accomplished, imaginative and entertaining as its predecessor, deserving recognition as one of the best animated films ever made.

10/10

Film Review | Shrek Forever After (2010)

Upon its release, Shrek Forever After was greeted with reviews lauding it as a return to form for the franchise. Maybe it was the fact that the fourth Shrek film was to be the final one, sparking nostalgia for the series' more auspicious beginnings. Or maybe it was because Shrek The Third was such a steaming ogre turd that anything better than it was a welcome relief. But whilst Shrek Forever After is indeed better than its precursor (not hard, as most films are), it never achieves anywhere near the success of Shrek or even Shrek 2.

Granted, Shrek Forever After does have some good ideas contained within it. New antagonist Rumpelstiltskin (Walt Dohrn) is effective enough, despite being an amalgamation of features from the previous three baddies seen in the Shrek franchise (Lord Farquaad's diminutive stature, Fairy Godmother's magical contracts, and desire to be king from both Prince Charming and Farquaad). Another entertaining new adversary is the Pied Piper, although his appearances in the film are disappointingly brief. The alternate universe story is set up well and provides a handful of imaginative concepts, although as the story wears on the ideas start getting less and less fresh. Shrek's (Mike Myers) get-out clause in his contract with Rumpelstiltskin, for example, is lifted almost entirely from Shrek 2.

Despite these redeeming features, there's also too much within Shrek Forever After that simply doesn't work. The tribe of ogres, despite being voiced by current talents such as Jon Hamm and Jane Lynch, feel like a collection of flat Shrek clones (apart from Craig Robinson's excruciatingly unfunny chimichanga-peddling Cookie). Shrek's rebuilding of his relationships with his old friends in the alternate universe also provides one misfire after another: Donkey (Eddie Murphy) feels underutilised for the second Shrek film running; Puss In Boots (Antonio Banderas) is turned into a one-note lowest-common-denominator visual joke (he's fat); and there's never any spark in Shrek's renewed courtship of Fiona (Cameron Diaz), who is presented as a nearly-twenty-years-too-late Braveheart parody.

In the end, Shrek Forever After is undoubtedly much more worthwhile than Shrek The Third, but still provides a weak and largely unsuccessful conclusion to the Shrek series. It's a shame to see a franchise which built its foundations on witty subversion of stereotypes and conventions in its first film largely fall back on trite and unimaginative ideas as it draws to a close. Sadly, Dreamworks have made sure there's absolutely nothing left to wring out of their flagship ogre before allowing him to retire to his swamp for the final time.

4/10

Film Review | Shrek The Third (2007)

Dreamworks are often held up as the main competition to Pixar, the current studio to beat in the world of computer animated cinema, with some of the studio's best output seen by some to match some of Pixar's efforts. It's a comparison I feel at the moment is unjustified; whilst Dreamworks have created some memorable films, the ratio of decent to average-or-worse cinema just isn't that impressive. And whilst Pixar have turned out one or two less impressive films to end their streak of classics, they have yet to produce anything as dull and underwhelming as Dreamworks' Shrek The Third.

Before watching number three in the Shrek franchise, forget the clever subversion of fairytale constructs, the subtle and well-chosen cultural references, the jokes that actually make you laugh rather than question why on earth they had been included (basically everything that the first Shrek film was about and that Shrek 2, whilst not quite as successful, managed to at least remain faithful to), because Shrek The Third contains none of this. The plot is a rehash of elements from the first two films, feeling entirely uninspired and never generating much interest. Shrek's character arc, focused on whether he's ready to become a father, feels heavy-handed and comes and goes too much to ever feel properly developed. The connected moral message of facing up to responsibilities feels muddled and is concluded in a wholly unsatisfactory manner.

The returning characters feel tired or unnecessary, and choosing Prince Charming (Rupert Everett) as the primary antagonist here when he was introduced as second fiddle (and a bit of a tit) in the first sequel is setting up to fail from the very start. Mike Myers and Cameron Diaz as Shrek and Fiona respectively never offer more than going through the motions. Donkey (Eddie Murphy) and Puss In Boots (Antonio Banderas) are entirely wasted here, with a half-baked body switch "twist" thrown in late on in proceedings which goes nowhere, as if the writers suddenly realised they'd wasted two of the franchise's strongest assets. The new characters are no better: Arthur "Artie" Pendragon is underdeveloped and irritating, with Justin Timberlake's vocal performance never fitting the character; Merlin (Eric Idle) is even worse - a pathetic "new age" wizard whose every joke falls flat.

Shrek The Third is one of the laziest pieces of cinema I've ever experienced. Every aspect of it smacks of apathy on the part of everyone involved, from the stars to the director to the animators. It lacks energy, imagination and humour and represents the very lowest end of computer-animated cinema. Until Dreamworks is no longer happy to churn out dross such as this, it will never truly be able to compete with Pixar.

2/10

Film Review | A Good Day To Die Hard (2013)

There aren't many film franchises that go beyond three installments without the quality deteriorating significantly. After the first two sequels, things usually go downhill pretty quickly if they haven't already. Good fifth installments are even rarer. In fact, as I write this, I can't actually think of any film series that has managed a worthwhile fifth film. Sadly, A Good Day To Die Hard won't make answering that question any easier.

The Die Hard franchise is regularly held up as one of the strongest and most influential in the action genre, with the first film widely regarded as one of the most important action films ever made. Die Hard 2: Die Harder and Die Hard With A Vengeance both have their detractors, but are generally considered worthwhile continuations from the original. Die Hard 4.0 divided opinion further. By far the most throwaway of the series at that point, some enjoyed the high-octane thrills it provided whilst others derided the film for tarnishing the respectable Die Hard name. Which brings us to A Good Day To Die Hard, a film which not only feels like the greatest departure from what the Die Hard films have always been about, but which is also just really quite bad.

Bruce Willis as John McClane for the first time in the franchise actually comes across as bored in the role, and no wonder. Aside from a few semi-decent action set pieces scattered throughout, Willis is given very little of interest to do, and certainly nothing that feels particularly like McClane. The script gives Willis very little of the sharp-tongued humour seen in previous Die Hards, instead having him yell "I'm on vacation!" at regular intervals. Not only does this not make sense - McClane is in Russia to track down and bring home his son Jack (Jai Courtney), which at no point is ever put across as a "vacation" - but it's also a pitifully poor substitute for McClane's usual quick wit and smashmouth utterances of "yippee ki-yay motherfucker!" (mumbled halfheartedly at one point by Willis, and cut short again as it was in Die Hard 4.0 to help secure the film's 12A certificate).

Not that McClane has a great deal to crack wise about. A Good Day To Die Hard is a stiff and humourless affair from the start, taking itself way too seriously and missing almost every opportunity to lighten the mood. The relationship between John and son Jack is for a large part of the film genuinely hostile. The insults traded between them come across not as banter, but as acrimonious and really quite uncomfortable, akin to seeing a couple arguing in a supermarket. When father and son do inevitably end up on the same page, the previous sourness coupled with the lack of chemistry between Willis and Courtney means the relationship never rings true.

This is by far the shortest of all the Die Hard films by around half an hour, but it's certainly the most tiresome to get through. The plot is unnecessarily complex from the start, tying itself in more and more knots as things progress to the point of becoming nonsensical, contradicting earlier happenings through badly thought out twists. This is also the first time a Die Hard film has lacked a clearly defined central antagonist; what could potentially be seen as a bold decision actually turns out to be poorly considered meddling with the Die Hard formula that just goes further in making the whole thing feel carelessly and disparately constructed.

A Good Day To Die Hard therefore gives you very little to like about it. There are some good action sequences, but even these feel CGI-heavy and don't really offer anything that hasn't been seen before. There are also two or three moments which feel as though they're trying desperately to link what we're watching to the franchise's legacy, but these are too few and far between to impact on the film as a whole. In the end, A Good Day To Die Hard suggests that the time has come for Bruce to hang up the dirty white vest for good. That said, talk of rounding the Die Hard series off with a final entry in a second trilogy has already surfaced. Should that end up being the case, the best that can be hoped for is that number six will be a considerable improvement on number five, allowing John McClane to go out with some dignity and not as a shadow of how he started.

3/10

Film Review | Ice Age 4: Continental Drift (2012)

You'd be hard pressed to name a film franchise that has managed to maintain a respectable level of quality over four installments. Sadly, Ice Age 4: Continental Drift manages to provide a spectacular example of just why this is.

After Scrat (Chris Wedge) accidentally causes the break-up of the continents, Manny (Ray Romano), Sid (John Leguizamo) and Diego (Denis Leary) are separated from the rest of their herd and set adrift over the sea on a block of ice. With Manny determined to reunite with Ellie (Queen Latifah) and their daughter Peaches (Keke Palmer), the group cross paths with Captain Gutt (Peter Dinklage), a piratical primate with a rag-tag crew sailing on their own shipshape iceberg.

Ice Age 4 has its moments, albeit ones that are sadly few and far between. The opening sequence showing how Scrat, in typical Tex Avery style, wreaks havoc with the earth's crust through his usual nut-burying activity is a genuine highlight. It's a shame then that Scrat's antics throughout the rest of the film are severely downplayed from previous installments and, for the first time in an Ice Age film, feel desperately uninspired and woefully tacked on. Scrat's interludes have been a highlight throughout all of the first three films, so to have to write so negatively about them here is a real disappointment.

The film also makes some potentially good choices. I was genuinely heartened when Manny, Sid and Diego were separated off from all the other characters they've picked up across the first two sequels, a band of three for the first time since the original film. Disappointingly, the chemistry and sharp scripting of the first film is never recreated, with the trio feeling like a tired shadow of what they once were.

From there, Ice Age 4 is largely a collection of irritating and underdeveloped characters and recycled ideas from not only previous Ice Age films but also other franchises. Jennifer Lopez's Shira is a flat and uninteresting love interest for Diego, with Leary and Lopez having no chemistry. Dinklage as Captain Gutt is fine but forgettable; it's hardly worth mentioning any of Gutt's crew members, too many in number as they are and each as one-dimensional as the next. Sid's Granny (Wanda Sykes) adds nothing, feeling like an excuse to plough the well-worn furrow of jokes about old people. Worst of all, however, are the street-talking teenage mammoths, voiced by the likes of Drake and Nicki Minaj, that Manny's daughter wants to "hang" with. Any time these characters are on screen is excruciating to the point of embarrassment, and left me wondering how the Ice Age franchise could possibly have slipped so far from its charming origins.

Ice Age 4 ends up as nothing more than a signifier that the franchise has gone one too many and needs to end before it tarnishes the reputation of the far superior previous installments. It's a film strung together with lazy writing and vacuous pop culture references that feel desperate rather than cool. It's even a struggle to praise the animation which actually feels less impressive than that seen in the second sequel. Watching Ice Age 4 as a fan of the franchise in general only made its glaring errors and sloppy execution all the more disappointing. The best that can be hoped for is that the inevitable fifth installment (with Ice Age 4's box office success) is an improvement on this.

3/10

Film Review | Men In Black 3 (2012)

I'm a big fan of Men In Black, and whilst it's not a patch on the original, I've never hated Men In Black 2 quite as much as most others seemed to. It was a sequel with some very good ideas (and a few incredibly bad ones - I'm looking at you here Frank The Pug), but nothing to tie them together leaving the whole thing lacking focus, direction or care. Essentially there was no real reason for Men In Black 2 to be made other than to make money off the success of the first film, and it really showed through the finished product. Ten years on, and everyone involved in the franchise had nothing to lose in making Men In Black 3. They weren't capitalising on the success of a recent franchise, nor were they committed to complete a trilogy story arc. Men In Black 3 had a new freedom to be whatever film it wanted to be within an established universe. Just as the lack of care was evident throughout Men In Black 2, so the intention, craft and heart involved in making Men In Black 3 is equally as clear.

Men In Black 3 sees alien criminal Boris The Animal (Jermaine Clement) escape from a prison on the Moon to exact revenge on the man who put him there, Agent K (Tommy Lee Jones). Boris' plan involves travelling back through time to murder K before he can imprison him, which leads to K's partner J (Will Smith) following him through time to 1969 in order to stop Boris and prevent the catastrophic effects K's death in the past will have on the present.

From the start, the film knows how to play to its strengths, not least the cast. There is of course the welcome return of the pairing of Smith and Jones, falling back into their slick and entertaining double act as soon as they appear on screen. However, the opportunity for banter between the two is reduced significantly from the first two films with Jones' reduced screen time, an unfortunate but unavoidable side effect of the nature of the plot. Thankfully it also leads to the strongest piece of new casting in the film, namely Josh Brolin as the younger version of K that J teams up with in 1969. Brolin's performance is a hybrid of a classic stereotypical agency stiff and an impressively accurate Tommy Lee Jones impersonation, resulting in a strong and charismatic turn from the actor. The partnership of Smith and Brolin never reaches the heights of Smith and Jones, but the two have palpable chemistry and prove an enjoyable pairing throughout.

There is strength in the cast elsewhere, with Clement putting in an impressive performance under a huge amount of prosthetics and CGI as villain Boris; he never quite reaches the exquisite creepiness of Vincent D'Onofrio's Edgar from the first film, but Boris poses a palpable threat whilst being more than suitably repulsive. Emma Watson is fine as Agent O, replacing Rip Torn's Agent Z from the first two films as Head of MIB, but is given frustratingly little to do. Michael Stuhlbarg as alien Griffin also does well, bringing an ethereal quality to the character whilst never becoming annoying.

There are some sound action sequences throughout, although all but the finale feel a little brief and unspectacular leaving you wanting something more. However, it's clear from the start that Men In Black 3 isn't interested in rehashing the action-based ideas from the first two films; this is a film primarily concerned with emotion. The true payoff doesn't come until very late on in proceedings, but when it does it's easily one of the most touching moments to come out of a sci-fi film in recent years.

Whilst it never manages to reach the heights of the original, Men In Black 3 is consistently superior to the first sequel to the point that comparison isn't even worthwhile. It's a film that stands as an enjoyable and well-made blockbuster on its own, whilst at the same time doing things with the franchise that very few people ever expected it to, not least adding a welcome and heartwarming new dimension to the well-established duo of Agents J and K.

7/10

Film Review | Sherlock Holmes: A Game Of Shadows (2011)

In 2009's Sherlock Holmes, Guy Ritchie delivered a flawed but enjoyable new take on one of British literature's most loved characters. Whilst the film was far from perfect, it felt like a solid platform upon which to launch future installments in a new franchise where the faults could be remedied and the successful elements - not least the central performance from Robert Downey Jr. - could be capitalised upon. Unfortunately, Sherlock Holmes: A Game Of Shadows almost comprehensively fails to do that.

The film catches up with Holmes (Downey Jr.) investigating links between a series of crimes across Europe and Professor James Moriarty (Jared Harris) following the tip he received from Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams) at the end of the first film. Watson (Jude Law) meanwhile is preparing to marry his fiancée Mary (Kelly Reilly), but soon becomes embroiled in Holmes and Moriarty's game of cat and mouse.

Downey Jr. as Holmes again delivers the strongest performance here, slipping comfortably back into the mannerisms and personality he successfully established in Sherlock Holmes. It's unfortunate that Holmes this time is regularly written as self-parodical of the character Downey Jr. created, adopting a series of ridiculous and entirely unconvincing disguises throughout the film and transforming the character from manic genius to harebrained clown. Law too falls back into the character of Watson comfortably, but suffers from sharing less screen time with Holmes than in the first film and feeling like a half-hearted straight man to Holmes' fool when he does.

Elsewhere, the casting is a mixed bag. The biggest improvement from the first film is the reduction of McAdams' role as Irene Adler to not much more than a cameo. Noomi Rapace replaces McAdams as the film's main female character, and is much stronger than her predecessor at the points when she is given something to do. Jared Harris as Moriarty does well enough, but feels somewhat forgettable considering he is playing Holmes' archenemy. Stephen Fry as Mycroft Holmes, Sherlock's older brother, is sure to raise a smile in his first scene despite the fact that he is essentially playing the character as himself; the appeal is short-lived however as it's clear the plot has nothing of worth for Fry's character to do, epitomised in a scene between Mycroft and Mary which Fry inexplicably delivers naked. Pointless and unfunny.

The action scenes that irked in the first film are more overblown here to the point of overindulgence. Each sequence essentially comes across as an excuse for Ritchie to include bigger and more powerful guns than were seen in the last point of action. The excessive use of slow motion, particularly in one scene towards the end of the second act, is also distracting and just serves to make the film come across as lacking in craft or depth.

Whilst the story here is arguably stronger than that seen in the first film, the cinematic execution of A Game Of Shadows makes it considerably less enjoyable than Sherlock Holmes. Despite setting up several elements with which he could run and make a sequel superior to the original, Ritchie instead squanders most of the potential held and creates a film which is sometimes no better than the first, but more often inferior. The biggest failing of A Game Of Shadows, however, is that it manages to take a literary character known for his ingenious intellect and churn out a film which regularly feels really quite brainless.

4/10

Film Review | Home Alone 2: Lost In New York (1992)

Surprising precisely no-one after the incredible success of the original, Home Alone 2: Lost In New York was released just two years after Home Alone, swiftly cashing in on the unstoppable popularity of pint-sized star Macauley Culkin in the early '90s whilst showing a keen awareness that Culkin's "cute kid" appeal might only last a few more years.

Set a year after the events of Home Alone, the McCallister family are jetting off once again for the Christmas holidays, this time headed to the sunny climes of Florida. Whilst Kevin (Culkin) makes it to the airport this time, things still manage to go awry as he ends up on a plane heading to New York City. Once again, Kevin initially enjoys exploring the city without the constraints of his parents (Catherine O'Hara and John Heard) or siblings. That is until recently escaped convicts Harry (Joe Pesci) and Marv (Daniel Stern), whom Kevin helped put away last Christmas, cross paths with our young hero once again.

Home Alone 2 takes a great many of its cues from the first film, with the plot essentially following a similar path to that of Home Alone with the action transferred to New York instead of the McCallister family home. Whilst this is something that never bothered me as a child growing up watching these films, revisiting them as an adult it's a factor which does leave several moments throughout the film lacking in originality. That said, there is enough here to make sure this isn't merely the exact same film being rehashed, with the New York setting providing some memorable moments and settings.

The sequel also retains all the key players in the cast from the original and is all the better for it. Culkin is just as good here as he was in the first film, retaining the charm and mischievousness which made him a star. O'Hara and Heard are reliably strong, and Pesci and Stern too slip straight back into the roles they carved expertly in Home Alone. It's a shame that the script this time gives Harry and Marv a few scenes that are just too silly to be truly satisfying. New additions to the cast range from the welcome (Tim Curry) to the forgettable (Rob Schneider, in a career high).

When all is said and done, Home Alone is a film built on schmaltz and slapstick, and Home Alone 2 not only sticks to the same simple formula but decides to crank up both elements a few notches more. From Brenda Fricker's homeless woman who just doesn't want to get her heart broken again (whom Kevin of course not only befriends, but gives sage advice involving rollerblades about how to overcome her problem) to Eddie Bracken's orphan-loving toy shop owner, when Home Alone 2 turns on the sentimentality it occasionally comes close to excruciating. On the other side of things, the cartoon violence-fuelled finale surpasses that of the original, with the pratfalls and destruction reaching new levels of inventiveness.

Ultimately, Home Alone 2 ends up as the slightly inferior younger sibling of Home Alone. It's enjoyable enough with a strong cast, but falls down when things get too sappy or too familiar. As festive film offerings go, it's not quite the modern classic its predecessor has become, but it's certainly an entertaining slice of '90s nostalgia and much better than a lot of Christmas offerings out there.

7/10

Film Review | American Pie: Reunion (2012)

The year that the original American Pie film was released was the year I turned fifteen, putting me somewhere close to front and centre of the target audience for what would become the first instalment of the franchise. Thirteen years later, and I have just turned twenty-eight, something which the makers of the series' fourth outing (not including the straight-to-DVD cash-ins that I have never gone anywhere near) are acutely aware. This is a film not aimed primarily at the teenagers of today, but at those who were teenagers at the turn of the millennium. American Pie: Reunion plays the nostalgia card throughout, which at times works very much in its favour, but at others is a reminder that a fair few of the high school antics of Jim (Jason Biggs), Kevin (Thomas Ian Nicholas), Oz (Chris Klein), Finch (Eddie Kaye Thomas) and Stifler (Seann William Scott) are probably better left in 1999.

The film sees many a familiar face from the original film return to Great East Falls for a "Class Of '99" high school reunion. Whilst everyone is older and many things have changed, the main quintet use the reunion as a chance to try and rekindle some of the fun that they used to share in their high school days.

American Pie: Reunion lays its cards out pretty clearly from the word "go". The opening scene includes not one, but two wanking gags, as well as paying homage to a certain piece of clothing that played a key role in the opening moments of the first film. This is crude and low brow just as every previous offering has been, but it's also regularly quite funny.

Reunion also never tries to hide the fact that it's paying tribute to the series' origins. The original trilogy suffered from the law of diminishing returns, with the third outing - American Pie: The Wedding - feeling extremely lacklustre from the lazy attempts at humour to the fact that several key members of the cast were missing. Writing and directing duo Jon Hurwitz and Hayden Schlossberg are well aware that one thing Reunion needs to do is rectify this, and on the whole they succeed. So we have all five of the male leads back, even if not all of them get to do much of interest. For American Pie fans, it'll just be good to see them all together. The film is also set - for the first time since the first film - almost entirely in Great East Falls, something which helps to cement the feeling of nostalgia and paying tribute to the franchise opener.

That's not to say that Reunion is an unqualified success. The plot threads that the film weaves vary in quality, from the mostly amusing antics of Jim and Michelle (Alyson Hannigan) attempting to rekindle the flame in their marriage after having a son, to the predictable and repetitive subplot regarding Kevin's crisis of conscience over realising he (shock horror) still holds a flame for Vicky (Tara Reid) even though he is now married. It doesn't help that both Vicky and Heather (Mena Suvari), the two key female characters from the series, get absolutely nothing of interest to do, making the whole thing feel somewhat imbalanced.

The inescapable fact that these characters are now meant to be in their thirties also makes some sequences of the film unpleasantly uncomfortable. An entire plot thread involving Kara (Ali Cobrin), Jim's next door neighbour whom he used to babysit and who is now celebrating her eighteenth birthday, regularly leaves a bad taste in your mouth and will make you squirm. It's at points like this that Reunion strays too far from gross-out comedy, becoming just grossly inappropriate.

There is still a lot to like here though, and the good outweighs the bad. The final act ramps up the nostalgia with cameos and references aplenty (disappointingly, Casey Affleck fails to make an appearance as Kevin's long-distance big brother), and provides several moments likely to bring a broad smile, if not a belly laugh, from Pie fanatics. It won't win any new fans to the franchise, but then Reunion patently was never made to do so. It's not as good as the first film, but it's a notable improvement on the third, and arguably surpasses the first sequel in some ways. American Pie: Reunion ends up a worthwhile and enjoyable, if flawed, addition to the American Pie canon.

6/10

Film Review | Crank 2: High Voltage (2009)

Crank 2: High Voltage is possibly best known to many for its "so bad it's good" tagline: "He was dead... But he got better". Amusing in a ridiculous, throwaway kind of way. If only the same could be said for the film...

Picking up exactly where Crank left off, Chev Chelios (Jason Statham) begins the film lying in the middle of the road having just plummeted from a helicopter. Barely clinging to life, Chelios is kidnapped by Chinese gangsters who remove his heart, replacing it with an artificial replacement only intended for short term usage. Chelios escapes and begins hunting down the people who have taken his heart, all the while having to find ways to pass electricity through his body to keep his artificial heart working.

Co-writers and directors Neveldine and Taylor clearly believe that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Simply put, if you liked Crank, you'll almost certainly lap up Crank 2; equally, if you weren't such a fan of the first film, the second will do nothing to sway your opinion of the franchise.

But whilst Crank had more than its share of problems, it was redeemed at least in part by individual moments of creative flair and invention. Crank 2 has none of this. The action feels tired and repetitive, and even though it's clear that Neveldine/Taylor believe they've raised the extreme nature of the franchise a few notches from the first outing, this regularly comes across as just too ridiculous or too gross to be entertaining, instead prompting laughs of derision. There are a couple of surprisingly surreal moments - including one where a fight between Chelios and an adversary is realised in the style of a classic Godzilla film - but these come across as confusing more than anything else.

With the extreme nature of the action ramped up, unfortunately so too are all the things that are unpleasant about Chev Chelios' world. The racism and sexism are even more prevalent here than in the first film. The Chinese and Latino gangsters throughout never stray from lazy and offensive stereotypes (Neveldine/Taylor even manage to get rice-picker hats in), and racial slurs are thrown about without a hint of tongue in cheek. Every female character is a sex object, and the vast majority are either strippers or prostitutes. But, in the interest of taking things further than in the first film, Crank 2 also finds room for homophobia and mockery of the mentally disabled, playing both for as many laughs as possible and never succeeding.

Crank 2 ends up retreading an awful lot of familiar ground from Crank - in fact there are whole sequences which may as well be lifted wholesale from the first film - but in a less interesting, less impressive and more offensive way. There were actually a couple of points during the film where I questioned whether or not I wanted to plough on to the end, something which I very rarely consider even with the most tedious of films. The tagline may be "so bad it's good", but the film it's attached to is just bad. And when the tagline is the best thing about a film, things can't get much worse.

2/10

Film Review | Scream 4 (2011)

The Scream franchise is one that has had ups and downs, never reaching the quality that its widespread popularity might suggest, but at the same time being built on an intriguing idea of "meta-horror" that actually meant the concept improved from the first to the second installment. Having overstretched the series in the second sequel, writer and director Wes Craven wisely hung up the Ghostface mask seemingly for good at the turn of the 21st Century. But if the interceding decade has taught us anything it's these two facts: four is the new three, no matter how ill-advised returning to a franchise might be; and the horror genre is constantly being reinvented, thereby giving Mr. Craven a whole ten years worth of blood and gore to riff upon.

Scream 4 sees Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) return to Woodsboro unsurprisingly for the first time since the events of Scream 3, this time to promote her new book. No sooner has she returned (on the anniversary of the original Woodsboro Murders no less) than a new series of killings begins. Sheriff Dewey Riley (David Arquette) and wife Gail (Courtney Cox) are soon on the case once again, as a whole new generation of Woodsboro residents gets caught up in the commotion and fear.

Scream 4 has problems from the get-go, with an opening so convoluted it almost goes beyond parody. The film takes clear digs at franchises that have experienced success since the last Scream, most prominently the Saw films, for delivering excessive gore without any character development, and then follows those self-same patterns. Craven ultimately comes across as more than a little bitter: Saw may lack character development, but it is still the most successful horror franchise ever made, and it does extreme gore better than anything seen here.

The other key problem is Craven's bullish perseverance with the slasher template established in the original. When he did it in 1996, it was a fresh twisted on a hackneyed subgenre. In 2000, when Scream 3 was released, it was tired. Over a decade on the shelf hasn't made Ghostface's knife any sharper since then. 

And yet, once the film settles down, the concept behind a lot of what happens actually does manage to inject something new into the franchise for the first time since 1997's Scream 2. Eric Knudsen and Rory Culkin take over the mantle of resident film geeks from Jamie Kennedy's Randy, supplying insight into how the "rules" of horror have changed. So we have reference to everything from the spate of horror remakes seen in recent years to the "found footage" style of the REC and Paranormal Activity franchises, giving Scream 4 the potential to take a leap into contemporary horror with a "meta" twist. But whilst it dips its toe in the water here and there, it's a leap the film never has the courage, nor vitality, to make.

Ultimately, Scream 4 can't be seen as a wholly wasted opportunity, but it's also never anything particularly worthwhile.  Is it better than Scream 3? Yes, but that's hardly something to celebrate. It ends up as yet another example of why returning to a long-dormant franchise to simply add a new installment, without a fresh approach or rebooted concept, is rarely - if ever - a good idea.

5/10

Film Review | Paranormal Activity 2 (2010)

As I stated in my review of Paranormal Activity, the "found footage" format used throughout had both positive and negative outcomes. It added an element of reality that traditional Hollywood style horror at times can't manage, as well as giving the film a low-budget indie charm which was, for the vast majority of the film, entirely genuine. Paranormal Activity 2 employed the same style and techniques, but in order for it to come across as a worthwhile sequel, it needed to be more than just a retread of the same ground covered in the original.

Paranormal Activity 2 is in fact a prequel-sequel hybrid, relating events happening both before and after those seen in the first film. The film focuses on married couple Kristi and Dan Rey (Sprague Grayden and Brian Boland) and their family, Dan's teenage daughter Ali (Molly Ephraim) from a previous marriage, and the couple's baby son Hunter. Kristi is the sister of Katie (Katie Featherstone) from the first film, and both Katie and her partner Micah (Micah Sloat) make appearances here. The film focuses on strange supernatural occurrences happening in the Reys' home a few months before those seen happening to Katie and Micah in the original film.

Unfortunately, Paranormal Activity 2 magnifies the problems seen in Paranormal Activity, as well as displaying a few of its own. The style is very similar, although the way in which security cameras are installed to capture the goings on in the house feels more contrived than Micah's camcorder of the original film. There is evidence that the film makers realised the less compelling nature of the daytime sequences of Paranormal Activity, as those segments are regularly much briefer, allowing the night time activity - much more interesting in the first film - to come along more regularly.

However, the problem here is that even the night time "footage" is too often really quite dull. In fact, it takes around an hour - two thirds of the film's total running time - for anything genuinely scary to happen. The film just ticks over without anything meaningful to say, or even giving much of a clue as to why the activity might be happening. Daughter Ali seemingly stumbles across a couple of clues as to what they are experiencing and why, but then does nothing with them. Katie provides the most interesting reaction to what is going on, but isn't in the film enough to have much of an effect.

In and of themselves, none of the characters here are particularly interesting. Dan and Kristi are decidedly ordinary; Ali is a one-dimensional teenage girl, complete with paper-thin boyfriend Brad (Seth Ginsburg); Viviz Cortez as housekeeper and nanny Martine looks to offer a more interesting perspective in the film, but is removed from proceedings far too early to make an impact.

Whilst the final twenty minutes or so of the film do manage to produce some creepy moments and palpable scares, ultimately this is far too little too late. The connection to the events of the first film feels rushed, and the final scenes feel tacked on which is especially frustrating as they are clearly intended to not only tie up the events of this film and the last, but also lead the franchise into further installments. Whilst Paranormal Activity 2 isn't awful, it has far too many problems and generates far too little of interest to be able to truly recommend it.

4/10

Film Review | Kill Bill Volume 2 (2004)

Kill Bill Volume 2 is in many ways the yin to Volume 1's yang. Traditionally, yang represents brightness as well as masculinity, both qualities that it's easy to attribute to the first half of Tarantino's action epic. By the same token, yin is darker and more feminine, which again fits much of what we see in Volume 2. After the unrelenting action sequences of the first half of his saga, Tarantino redresses the balance opting for a steadier pace and more dialogue-heavy scenes. Whilst Volume 1 revelled in its audacity, Volume 2 is calculated and sinister in its understatement. And whilst The Bride (Uma Thurman) was the ultimate action heroine cutting her way through any who crossed her path to vengeance against Bill (David Carradine) in the first film, here she takes on multiple feminine roles giving the character a brand new set of dimensions.

Picking up where Volume 1 left off, Kill Bill Volume 2 continues The Bride's mission to avenge the Deadly Viper Assassination Squad that left her fighting for life on her wedding day. Having dispatched of the first two names of her "Death List Five", The Bride sets her sights on the final three: Budd (Michael Madsen), Elle Driver (Daryl Hannah), and finally Bill himself.

Volume 2 complements Volume 1 superbly in every way. Whilst the first film focused largely on oriental cinematic traditions and only touching on occidental genres here and there, the opposite is mostly the case here. Tarantino pays homage to Western cinema, most prominently the Spaghetti Western, with maturity and panache, whilst chapters such as The Bride's tenure under sociopathic kung fu master Pai Mei (Gordon Liu) link to the first film's Eastern focus superbly. And whilst Volume 1 favoured action over dialogue, Tarantino redresses the balance with some of his finest writing to date for the actors to weave together as a captivating cinematic tapestry.

Tarantino's skill behind the camera continues seamlessly from the first film with every shot a love letter to cinema. From The Bride's "Texas funeral" at the hands of Budd - still one of the most chillingly uncomfortable sequences I can remember experiencing in a cinema thanks to Tarantino's expert manipulation of visual and audio both together and separately - to the near Tex Avery-esque battle between her and Elle Driver in Budd's trailer, this is the work of one of cinema's geniuses.

Many other excellent features from Volume 1 are present once again here. Thurman continues her career-defining performance as The Bride, developing the character further by adding a greater sense of humanity, present in the first film but rightfully overshadowed by her action persona. That's not to say at all that The Bride has abandoned her Hanzo sword; Thurman still has plenty of fight in her, and it's just as enjoyable as ever.

With The Bride having dispatched two of her former associates in Volume 1, Hannah and Madsen step up from their brief appearances in the first film to fill the gaps admirably. Hannah clearly relishes every moment of her performance as Elle Driver, bringing a tenacity and spite to the character which toes the line between caricature and psychosis perfectly. Madsen's turn here as Bill's estranged brother is his best in any film: brilliantly understated, despicable and pitiful, and yet sympathetic and admirable at the same time. The scenes between Budd and The Bride tell a story that could fill their own four-hour epic; Thurman's character never speaks a word to Madsen's. That's how good the performances are in this film.

To that statement, Carradine's Bill is no exception. Tarantino paid homage to the likes of Charlie's Angels's eponymous dispatcher and James Bond's arch-nemesis Blofeld through Bill in Volume 1 by never showing us his face, making Carradine's performance mysterious and chillingly cool but limiting the layers the character could conceivably have. Lifting this restriction from himself in Volume 2, the director unleashes Bill as one of his most complex, enigmatic characters; Carradine's performance in the role cannot be understated as a pivotal factor in the success of this transformation. Every moment Carradine has on screen is electric, bringing a dangerous unpredictability yet irresistable charisma to the role. His chemistry with Thurman is also a wonderful thing to behold.

After Jackie Brown, Kill Bill Volume 2 is the Tarantino film that comes under the greatest amount of negative criticism. And just as with Jackie Brown, I simply cannot understand why. Volume 2 is mature and steady, finely balanced and expertly crafted. By its very nature as the first of the two films, Volume 1 had to work as both a standalone film and as the first half of an epic story. Volume 2 had the different task of being a satisfying conclusion to that story, as well as a pleasing sequel to its predecessor, and it succeeds on both counts. Volume 2 is the perfect companion piece to Volume 1, and Kill Bill as a whole deserves to be heralded as a landmark cinematic masterpiece.

10/10

Film Review | The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

It's difficult to comprehend, after the runaway success of The Dark Knight and Heath Ledger's iconic performance within that film, that Christopher Nolan originally intended for Batman Begins to be a standalone film. The Joker card tease at the end of Begins was put in as a nod to Batman's most infamous foe, not as the perfect lead into the second film it turned out to be. After The Dark Knight, it was difficult to imagine that Nolan and Warner Bros. wouldn't want to follow things up and make Nolan's Batman franchise into a trilogy. A third film would allow Nolan to tie up thematic and emotional threads, and would allow Warner Bros. to again make a ridiculously large amount of money as they had done with the first sequel. But after creating two of the most important comic book adaptations in cinematic history, the hype for The Dark Knight Rises was through the roof, and the question of how Nolan could possibly better - or even match - the acclaim of the first two installments was on the lips of many.

Set eight years after the events of The Dark Knight, Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) has become a recluse, shying away from both his business life at Wayne Enterprises and the vigilante life of his alter-ego, Batman. However, after a powerful terrorist known as Bane (Tom Hardy) makes his presence known in Gotham, Wayne is lured out to help protect the city once more as the caped crusader.

There's an awful lot to like about The Dark Knight Rises. Nolan feels at home bringing Gotham back to the big screen, producing some of the most impressive cinematography seen in any part of the trilogy. Evoking images of Soviet Russia, a barbaric and mystical Asia, and a bleakly paranoid post-9/11 Western society, Nolan sets a captivating backdrop for both his crisp dialogue and charged action sequences in which to take place. There are set pieces contained within, such as Bane's breathtaking hijacking of an American football match, that are contenders for the best action sequence in any Nolan Batman film.

There is also a strong returning cast, led by Christian Bale's protagonist. Bale, now the actor who has donned the Dark Knight's costume more times on the big screen than any other, is once again a strong presence. Bale feels comfortable and reliable in the dual role, whilst at the same time bringing new dimensions and development to both Wayne and his crime-fighting persona. Michael Caine puts in possibly his strongest performance of the entire trilogy as Alfred Pennyworth; it's just a shame that the plot dictates he be absent from a significant proportion of the film. The same can be said for Gary Oldman's Commissioner Jim Gordon: a strong performance, but necessarily sidelined for much of the first half of the film. It's a truth that can again be applied to Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox, always a welcome presence but whose role here is reduced from that in the first two films.

Filling the gaps left by the reduced roles of Caine, Oldman and Freeman, as well as non-returners from The Dark Knight Maggie Gyllenhaal, Aaron Eckhart and, of course, Heath Ledger, is a wealth of new talent. Hardy as Bane is a domineering presence throughout; his performance, although not comparable to Ledger's enigmatic Joker, is strong and provides a satisfying physical threat to oppose Batman not seen previously in Nolan's films. That's not to say Bane is all brawn and no brain; his plans for Gotham are meticulous and Machiavellian, and he is arguably the most successful of all the enemies Nolan's Batman has had to face. Anne Hathaway, at least initially a controversial casting decision, is also strong as the ambiguously aligned Selina Kyle, her performance entertaining throughout and fitting superbly into the universe Nolan has created. The character feels slightly underdeveloped in the script at times, but thanks to Hathaway's confidence in the role this can largely be forgiven.

Perhaps the strongest of the new cast members is Joseph Gordon-Levitt as police officer John Blake. Gordon-Levitt continues to carve out a reputation as a strong and reliable presence on screen, here bringing both toughness, emotion and depth to the role, making Blake a welcome addition to the franchise. Less convincing is Marion Cotillard's Miranda Tate. Cotillard does well with what she is given, but the character unfortunately receives too little development and screen time to believe or invest in, a problem exacerbated by her elevated role in the film's final act.

The biggest problem for The Dark Knight Rises is, ultimately, the two films that precede it. It's an excellent action film and a confident and assured comic book adaptation. But by following Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, the most significant franchise reboot made so far and one of the most acclaimed action films ever made respectively behind it, The Dark Knight Rises possibly appears more flawed than it actually is. There are flaws: a couple of underdeveloped characters, stemming from Nolan possibly trying to pack in too many characters altogether, being the main issue. The reduced roles of three of the franchise's key players in Caine, Freeman and Oldman is ultimately a weakness too. The film is also a little too long, causing the pace to slow on a few too many occasions. But although this is the weakest overall of Nolan's Batman trilogy, it's still a mesmerising and thoroughly entertaining piece of cinema, and provides a strong and incredibly pleasing conclusion to what is sure to be remembered as one of the best cinematic comic book adaptation series ever made.

9/10

Film Review | The Dark Knight (2008)

The Dark Knight is both a continuation of, and a reaction to, the perfect reboot of the Batman franchise that Christopher Nolan created in 2005's Batman Begins. Whilst furthering the realistic edge of the first film, Nolan goes in an almost entirely different direction in his choice of Batman's enemies. Whilst Batman Begins is notable for featuring some of the Caped Crusader's least theatrical villains who had limited mainstream recognition before their appearance in the film, The Dark Knight features two of Batman's adversaries who are not only amongst his most well-known and extraordinary, but who have also featured prominently on the big screen in the past. Casting the late Heath Ledger as The Joker also appeared to many as a risky decision when first announced considering the acclaimed performance given in the role by Hollywood heavyweight Jack Nicholson in 1989's Batman, not to mention the character being undoubtedly Batman's most notorious and well-loved nemesis.

The film takes place some six months after the events of Batman Begins, as Batman, the crime-fighting alter-ego of Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale), works with Lieutenant Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman) and other members of the Gotham Police Department against bizarre criminal mastermind The Joker (Ledger). Joining the fight is newly appointed district attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), determined to rid Gotham of crime however he can; whilst Bruce sees Harvey as holding the potential to lead Gotham into a brighter future, matters are complicated by Harvey's relationship with assistant district attorney, and Bruce's childhood friend and love interest, Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal).

The Dark Knight is just as successful as its precursor, partly because many of the things that worked so well in Batman Begins are retained. The returning cast again put in superb performances: Bale is given the opportunity to flesh out both Bruce Wayne and Batman further, building on his strong performance in the first film; Michael Caine as Alfred Pennyworth is predictably excellent, the chemistry between his character and Bale's even more palpable and authentic; Oldman as Gordon is again a genuine highlight, continuing the character's development arc with subtlety and humility; and Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox is, unsurprisingly, a joy. All of these performances tied together by Nolan's captivating direction, adrenaline-charged action sequences and polished script (again crafted with brother Jonathan) gives The Dark Knight a strong foundation upon which to build the film's new elements.

The new cast members are comprehensively excellent, their characters fitting perfectly into Nolan's Gotham. Gyllenhaal takes on the role of Rachel Dawes capably, developing the character and making it her own, to the extent that when recalling the character it is Gyllenhaal who comes to mind first, despite Katie Holmes originating the character in Batman Begins. Eckhart's turn as Harvey Dent is flawless, delivering the many shades of Dent's character effortlessly, and playing out his tragic story arc with such class and pathos that it can't fail to impress on the highest level.

Of course, the film's biggest and most successful addition is that of Ledger's Joker. It's hard to say anything that hasn't already been said about Ledger in The Dark Knight. The character's introduction in the film's opening sequence lets you know that what you are witnessing in the combination of Ledger's performance and Nolan's script is something very special, and once The Joker lays his intentions bare to Gotham's gangland leaders (opening with a simple "magic trick" you'll never forget) neither Nolan nor Ledger let up until the closing scenes. It's a performance which captivates, redefining one of the most iconic antagonists ever created, striking the perfect balance between The Joker's overtly comic book foundations and Nolan's real world aesthetic.

The Dark Knight may be less epic and more episodic in its structure when compared to Batman Begins, but this never counts against it. In salvaging the Batman franchise, Nolan pulled off what many thought impossible and struck gold. Through The Dark Knight, Nolan manages to produce a film against which all comic book adaptations are likely, nay deserve, to be measured. It soars as an action film, broods with psychological drama, and reaches heights neither this comic book franchise nor any other has achieved before or since.

10/10

Film Review | The Bourne Legacy (2012)

It's hardly a surprise that, with the commercial and critical success of the first three Bourne films, Universal wanted to continue the franchise with a fourth outing. What's perhaps more surprising is that the studio decided to go ahead with this idea without Bourne. After Matt Damon decided that three is the magic number and elected not to return to the series, The Bourne Legacy hands the baton over from Damon to Jeremy Renner. A smart move on paper at least: Renner has over the last couple of years built the beginnings of a solid action CV with roles in The Hurt Locker, Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol and, most recently, Avengers Assemble. But can a Bourne film work without the man to whom the series owes its name?

Renner is Aaron Cross, a black ops agent who suddenly finds himself under attack by his own employers following complications caused by the actions of Jason Bourne. Cross joins forces with Dr. Marta Shearing (Rachel Weisz), also being hunted by the CIA for her connection to the program of which Cross was a part, and together they work to elude their pursuers.

Renner does well in the lead role, looking and acting the part of Aaron Cross whilst at the same time making him a likeable and, at times, sympathetic presence. Weisz is also pleasing as Marta, balancing both the emotional and physical sides of her character well. Edward Norton does well with what he has, although his character - a shady high-ranking CIA operative - feels underdeveloped, never receiving enough screen time to allow the actor to make him truly believable. The same can unfortunately be said for many of the less prominent characters. A key antagonist in the film's final act receives no development whatsoever in fact, coming across far too much like deus ex machina to feel in any way authentic. 

The action is enjoyable enough, but it is in this area that it truly becomes clear that The Bourne Legacy is not the same calibre of action film as those in the trilogy preceding it. Having written all four Bourne screenplays, Tony Gilroy clearly knows the series inside out, and he makes this apparent through the intelligent nods and references to events of the previous films (mostly The Bourne Ultimatum) that come up at several points throughout Legacy. Gilroy also directs here, but unfortunately never manages to imbue proceedings with the same energy or panache that Paul Greengrass brought to the previous two installments, or even that of Doug Liman who helmed the original. What Gilroy produces is not awful, just never memorable. I found myself struggling to recall any genuine action highlights that had stuck with me not long after watching.

That's The Bourne Legacy's key problem: it's a Bourne film in name and plot, but not in style or execution. It's a perfectly serviceable action film, flawed but enjoyable. But the fact that it's linked intrinsically to one of the most highly acclaimed series of action films ever made only serves to highlight how ordinary it is. I wouldn't go as far as saying that this is an unnecessary continuation of the series - the nature of this being a "sideways" sequel is one of the most inventive aspects of the film. But to get the most out of The Bourne Legacy, you might be best to emulate the circumstances of Matt Damon's character at the start of The Bourne Identity before watching, and forget everything you know about Bourne.

6/10

Film Review | Beethoven's 2nd (1993)

Revisiting films you loved as a child can be a risky business, and invariably leads down one of two paths: you  are either transported back to your childhood, memories flooding back of watching beloved pieces of cinema on one of four channels on a lazy weekend afternoon, as you rediscover a gem of a bygone era that has aged joyously well; or, you are faced with the reality that the film you watched so many times that the sound and picture wore out on your VHS cassette when you were a child is something that the adult version of you can barely get all the way through. Whilst Beethoven's 2nd, a childhood favourite of mine along with the 1992 original, is not an absolute stinker, it certainly hasn't held up as well as the 10-year-old me would have hoped.

We rejoin the Newton family, parents George and Alice (Charles Grodin and Bonnie Hunt both returning from the first film) and their two point four children, plus of course the eponymous St. Bernard who is now feeling broody. Beethoven soon finds his sweetheart in Missy, a female St. Bernard (complete with pink bow at all times), and raises a litter of puppies. However, the canine couple are soon separated after Missy is taken from her owner by his spiteful ex-wife Regina (Debi Mazar).

Unfortunately, Beethoven's 2nd is never as enjoyable as the first film. Grodin and Hunt do their best to keep things afloat, but even their collective charm can't counteract the film's shortcomings. Two of the Newton offspring again are given subplots, this time both involving young love, and both failing to impress - Ryce's (Nicholle Tom) relationship with a boy at school begins promisingly, but concludes with one of the film's most ludicrous scenes; meanwhile Ted's (Christopher Castile) failed attempts to woo a classmate of his own because he's too short just come across as lazy and, in all honesty, stupid, with a conclusion lifted almost entirely from Ted's bullying story in the first film.

The problems unfortunately continue with the film's main plot, which feels limp and lacking in any substance, and punctuated by saccharine doggy romance far too often. Debi Mazar is suitably hateable as the poisonous Regina, but seeing Chris Penn reduced to playing her pratfalling, dumb boyfriend Floyd less than two years after his role in Reservoir Dogs is painful every moment he is on screen.

Beethoven's 2nd does have some redeeming features - Sarah Rose Karr is perpetually sweet as the Newtons' youngest Emily, and there are a handful of genuinely entertaining scenes, usually those where Grodin shares screen time with Beethoven (something which sadly happens much less frequently than in the original). But the humour is largely recycled from the first film, and what new ideas there are here are never successful enough. If like me you first saw this as a child, you'll probably still enjoy revisiting the colossal canine's misadventures, but sadly Beethoven's 2nd doesn't hold up well to close scrutiny.

4/10