Film Review | Chronicle (2012)

There will always be types of film that feel as though they're reaching saturation point and either need to be left alone for a while, or need someone to do something so radical with them that they become fresh and interesting again. Found footage films currently fall into this category, as do superhero origin stories. Writer and director Josh Trank's decision to combine these two subgenres in his debut feature Chronicle can therefore be seen as either very brave or very stupid. As things turn out, he lands somewhere in the middle.

The found footage style of shooting turns out to be both a blessing and a curse, working at its best when combined with the superhuman abilities the three main characters gain; some of the most stylish moments throughout the film come from when Trank has the handheld camera float around the action, usually through Andrew's (Dane DeHaan) telekinesis. The question therefore has to be asked why Trank felt the need to present his film through found footage rather than just creating a realistic style of cinematography, something of which he is clearly capable.

More often, however, the reasons for characters to be filming at all feel too contrived to the point of becoming really quite distracting. Andrew's reasons for choosing to film his life at the start feel flimsy, and whilst it's easy to believe he would want to get footage of the powers he and his friends develop, there are plenty of moments where his filming feels entirely nonsensical. There are too many other occasions where other characters have to explain away the fact that they are filming, which begs the question once again why Trank chose to stick so stubbornly to the found footage style (at times to the detriment of his film) instead of opting for a combination of handheld and traditional camera shots.

As an origins story, the film does bring some fresh ideas to the table, with Trank choosing not to explain every element of his story. To the film's benefit the source of the trio's powers isn't dwelt upon, and the inclusion of the nosebleed side effect that the friends experience make proceedings feel all the more mysterious and sinister. Structurally, the film's opening and closing acts are stronger than the middle, which ultimately drags despite a handful of interesting elements. A lot of the time it's almost like you're watching a series of YouTube clips of people with superpowers pratting about. It's amusing at first, but soon loses its novelty. Thankfully, Trank manages to pull off a gripping and exciting finale, going all out with the superpower special effects at exactly the right moment.

Other elements to the story feel underdeveloped, most notably a great many of the characters. For the majority of the film, Andrew is a stereotypical social outcast with a troubled home life that is never explored in enough detail, his sickly mother and abusive father never becoming much more than one-note characters. Steve (Michael B. Jordan) again feels lacking in depth, his friendship with the other two rarely feeling natural. Matt (Alex Russell) is the most frustrating of the three, quoting philosophy irritatingly - and apparently for no real reason - at the start of the film, and never really settling as a character into anything consistent. It's a shame, because all three young leads put in solid performances despite the unconvincing characters they are portraying.

In the end, Chronicle is flawed but entertaining. There's enough here to make it feel worthwhile and evidence of plenty of invention and style from Trank. A reboot of the Fantastic Four franchise is currently in the Trank's future career; with the right script behind the project, and based on the positive elements seen in Chronicle, it could be a great match of director to franchise, and the perfect opportunity for Trank to remedy some of the mistakes made in his first film.

6/10

Film Review | Paul (2011)

Looking through Simon Pegg and Nick Frost's individual filmographies, both men have made some pretty average fare in their careers when going solo. It's when Pegg and Frost work together that cinematic brilliance such as Shaun Of The Dead and Hot Fuzz happens. Paul signifies the end of this rule of thumb: whilst it's nowhere near awful, it's also far too often remarkably ordinary.

Pegg and Frost share credits as both writers and stars, playing two British sci-fi and fantasy geeks (not a huge stretch for either of them); whilst there are glimpses of the infectious chemistry seen between the two on screen before, here it never fully ignites, feeling like a somewhat shallow imitation of what the duo have previously offered. Seth Rogen is an actor I can take or leave, and his performance as the voice of the titular alien fugitive does nothing to sway me any further either way. It works, but Rogen is never outstanding and at times feels as though he's simply going through the motions. Kristen Wiig is fine in support, and Jason Bateman's antagonistic secret service agent generally works well too, although a character shift in the final act feels like a stretch too far. Bill Hader and Joe Lo Truglio's junior agents are less successful, but by no means terrible providing a few minor chuckles throughout.

Script-wise, Paul paints much broader strokes than Pegg and Frost's previous more highly regarded films, which may widen its appeal but also makes it feel much less sharply crafted. The writing is at its best when paying tribute to science-fiction films gone by with enough references to keep even the most ardent film buffs happy - a voice cameo by a certain alliteratively-named director is a particular highlight - but elsewhere lazily falls back onto the blunt and heavy-handed. Easy targets such as the Christian right and intolerant rednecks feel beneath the British twosome considering their more finely honed previous comedic works.

Ultimately, there's enough to enjoy within Paul to make it worth a watch. The story is episodic and at times unfocused, but managed to hold my interest throughout. If you expect Paul to do to sci-fi what Shaun Of The Dead did to the zombie and horror genres, or what Hot Fuzz did to action and buddy cop movies, then you'll undoubtedly come out disappointed. But go into Paul looking for a lighthearted sci-fi comedy that will entertain without taxing your grey matter too much and you could do a lot worse.

6/10

Film Review | In Time (2011)

Think of an English idiom either concerned with, or involving the word, time. The chances are pretty high that, whatever expression you're currently thinking of, it's included somewhere within In Time. The chances are equally high that you've just gone through the same process as those who actually wrote the script.

The universe that In Time takes place in is undoubtedly the most creative element of the whole thing. Hardly a surprise: writer, producer and director Andrew Niccol's previous credits include Gattaca (writer and director) and The Truman Show (writer and producer).Whilst In Time's world never reaches the imaginative highs of either of those films it certainly holds together in a compelling and believable fashion. Niccol also doesn't waste time with exposition, instead throwing the audience into the film's construct  with a confidence that genuinely galvanises your interest. It's a shame that this barely lasts halfway into the film's first act.

The problem is that Niccol never does anything interesting or deep enough with the set-up he creates. An appealing premise is squandered through characters lacking motive or intrigue performed by a cast that ranges from weak (Justin Timberlake) to going through the motions (Cillian Murphy, who admittedly does the best he can with a poorly written character). The story never grabs hold, instead just bumbling along becoming more and more unfocused until it reaches its lacklustre conclusion. The message that Niccol seems to be peddling here about class mobility and the poor being controlled by the wealthy feels ham-fisted and generates remarkably little excitement.

All of which leaves In Time as nothing more than a wasted opportunity. It's a real shame that Niccol fails to come up with a story or focus to match the ingenuity of the world in which his film is set, as with some decent characterisation and a well-written plot, this could have been a memorable entry into the action-sci-fi subgenre. As it stands, In Time is a forgettable disappointment.

4/10

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 | Looper (2012)

The best films about time travel are usually the films that aren't actually about time travel at all. Wait, let me try that again. What I mean is, if you're going to include time travel as a plot device in your film then make sure that the intricate workings of time travel aren't the main focus of the proceedings. Think about Back To The Future, Primer and, er, Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure. Time travel should be there to facilitate the story rather than actually be the story. A two-hour dissection of how time travel is possible, along with what you can and can't do, will almost certainly fail to create a compelling piece of cinema. As long as the audience can buy into the way time travel works in your film, that's enough. Unfortunately, Looper doesn't quite manage this.

Looper is set primarily in 2044, where the USA has suffered economic collapse and crime is rife. Joe Simmons (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) works as a "looper" - a contract killer who murders and disposes of people sent back from the year 2074 when time travel has been invented, but is illegal and only used by the mob for criminal means. When the target sent back for Joe to kill is the older version of himself (Bruce Willis) and Joe fails to eradicate him, things get complicated for both versions of Joe.

As outlined by TheTelf in his analysis of Looper, the film is not without fault. Whilst some of the problems Telf has with the film I would only agree with to an extent, some of them are undeniable. The time travel element is flawed, and whilst it doesn't go as far as destroying the film, the inconsistencies and niggles are enough to detract a little too much from the film's overall impact.

The film also disappointingly falls into the trap of padding things out at a few key points by ramping up the mindless action and violence. Taking into account the more considered, cerebral nature of most of what is presented throughout the rest of the film, these sequences stick out in a negative way. Whilst it's fun to watch Bruce Willis brandish two oversized hand cannons and take out a plethora of anonymous bad guys, it just feels unnecessarily heavy-handed in a film written and directed by the same man who gave us the superbly understated Brick.

The flaws are there, but don't get me wrong: there is also a huge amount in Looper to enjoy. Joseph Gordon-Levitt continues to prove why he is one of the most special young talents in cinema today. Even donning prominent prosthetic make-up throughout to make him a more believable young version of Willis, Gordon-Levitt's performance is superb, including just the right amount of Willis influence without ever slipping into mimicry or pastiche. Willis too is reliably excellent, with a performance reminiscent of that which he gave some seventeen years earlier in another time-travel-based story, Twelve Monkeys. The support is littered with strong performances from the likes of Emily Blunt, Paul Dano and Jeff Daniels, giving the cast a collective feel of quality and excellence.

The film also wears its sci-fi influences on its sleeve, with everything from The Terminator to X-Men being covertly referenced throughout. Never feeling like cheap fanboy fare or lazy copycatting, these only serve to add further credence and weight to Looper's plot and setting. The world which the characters inhabit has a pleasing gritty feel, and things such as the slightly advanced technology of the near-future are neatly handled.

Ultimately, I really enjoyed Looper, but still left the film feeling slightly disappointed. As I said, there's a lot to enjoy here, and enjoy it I certainly did. But there's very little here that will stay with you on a deeper level, which is, when all is said and done, Looper's biggest flaw. With the wealth of talent both in front of and behind the camera, and one of the most original sc-fi concepts seen in years, this undoubtedly had the potential to be a ten-out-of-ten instant classic. As it stands, Looper is a great piece of cinema that will entertain more than most, but falls short of the cinematic perfection it feels like it could quite easily have been.

8/10

Fuzz Five | Things I Hate About Looper (spoilers)

I was looking forward to Looper enormously, combining, as it does, many of my favourite things in life (Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Bruce Willis, Rian Johnson, Sci-Fi, Time Travel, the list goes on...), and I was really hoping it would be a film I would want to rewatch again and again. A film I would recommend to anyone and everyone. A film like Brick. A five star film.

It wasn't and I was disappointed. It was enjoyable, but not stunning; watchable but not mind-blowing. Rightly or wrongly, I was disappointed. I went home, and several days later, I wrote a list of things that disappointed me about the film. If you'll give me some leeway for having high expectations and with a healthy gap since I left the cinema, I'll give you: The reasons I wouldn't give Looper five stars:

The protagonist's relationship with himself

I like a lot about both Willis and Gordon-Levitt, and I like a lot about the way that they interact on screen in Looper. They have more chemistry than the average action twosome for the time that they are onscreen together. The problem is that they aren't a twosome. They're a onesome. There should be a whole set of fascinating mental challenges that come with simply having a conversation with a version of yourself from 30 years ago, that go beyond simply being more experienced and confident. Someone facing themselves would have a much stronger grasp of the hopes, dreams and insecurities of their opposition, and a conversation between the two of them should give a writer huge scope for an exchange unlike anything possible in a conventional film. Instead, it felt at times like Willis was simply Gordon-Levitt's father, berating a sulky teenager for a misspent youth, which I see as a missed opportunity.

The world

So, there's some sort of problem with criminal gangs, and drug taking and “vagrants”, and there seem to be both slum areas and ultra-modern apartments, but there's little or no attempt to weave that into a convincing narrative of society. Without a wider context, it's difficult to judge the relative danger the protagonist is in (are they running from a small criminal gang, who are themselves trying to stay out of sight, or do this gang “run the city”?) and also difficult to empathise with anyone, since their world feels completely disjointed from the viewer's.

The telekinesis

This is in some ways a follow-on from the above point. Why bring telekinesis into the story? It doesn't form a seamless part of the world that the movie is set in (if it was, wouldn't we occasionally see people using it to pass each other small objects?) and there's no attempt to go into the social repercussions of the emergence such a skill in any depth. It's almost as if it was a last minute addition that the filmmaker doesn't care about. That's not necessarily a killer blow to the film, but it is frustrating when such a major plot point revolves around something that feels like it has been inserted with little care.

The arbitrary action scene

In a film which largely manages to construct interesting, original set pieces, it is a real disappointment to me that the showdown between two time travelling criminals comes down to a sequence with Bruce Willis mowing down a parade of faceless goons with two ludicrous machine guns. I'd hope that anyone writing, producing or directing such a scene would question whether maybe an audience might have seen this before, in any of hundreds of other action films, and whether, perhaps, there was a more engaging way of getting rid of an entire organisation of gun toting gangsters that you inconveniently wrote into your story.

The time travel

This is the big one. If you're making a serious time travel movie, then that aspect of it has to make some sort of sense, and you have to make some effort to avoid paradoxes. To not do this is to instantly trade away any intellectual capital you've invested in crafting the rest of the plot.

So: As a time travel story teller, a decision needs to be made. Is the traveller moving backwards in his own timeline, or moving into a different timeline. If the latter, you can do whatever you like: He can change anything, but it will only have repercussions in the future of his new timeline. If the former, however, you have to be careful to avoid kill-your-grandfather type paradoxes. Looper chooses the former, but makes no attempt to avoid these paradoxes, instead appearing to revel in them. There were numerous bits that bothered me, mostly involving memories, or scars, but I'll stick to the simplest one: A man is butchered horribly in the present, to bring his future self into line. He then, apparently, ages thirty years, burdened by awful disabilities, is sent back in time to be killed, and somehow escapes from his younger self, despite not having legs.

I find it very difficult to fully enjoy a film where a filmmaker has produced a situation like that, which makes no logical sense at all, and leaves the viewer confused and frustrated. It smacks of laziness, carelessness or a lack of respect for the audience, none of which are things I expected from this movie.

Film Review | Cowboys & Aliens (2011)

Cowboys & Aliens stars Daniel Craig and Harrison Ford. It's directed by the guy who successfully brought the Iron Man franchise to the big screen. These facts alone mean that the film being no more than enjoyable is a serious problem.

As its title may suggest, Cowboys & Aliens is a Western-sci-fi mash-up where the Old West meets extra-terrestrial invasion. Jake Lonergan (Craig) awakes in the desert with no memory of who he is or how he got there. Heading into the nearest town, a gold rush settlement on its knees named Absolution, Lonergan quickly finds himself on the wrong side of local cattle magnate Colonel Woodrow Dolarhyde (Ford) as well as his son Percy (Dano), before the aliens make themselves known to all within the town and begin abduction without prejudice.

Cowboys & Aliens may as well be sponsored by Ronseal (with apologies to any non-UK readers) in that it does exactly what it says on the tin. It has cowboys - some of whom even herd cattle - and it has aliens. They do battle. It's fun. Does it push boundaries? Certainly not. Does it come across as some B-movie knock-up with a minuscule budge? No, it doesn't. The plot paces along without, for the most part, outstaying its welcome. The whole idea brings to mind that episode of The Big Bang Theory where Leonard, Sheldon and company are taken in by the "Mystic Warlords Of Ka'a" playing-card-based  role-playing-game expansion pack "Wild West And Witches". If you've ever wondered who would win in a battle between Billy The Kid and the aliens from Independence Day then Cowboys And Aliens will be right up your street. Otherwise it'll probably entertain you, but do very little else.

Unfortunately, that's Cowboys & Aliens's biggest failing. The last film that teamed up Indiana Jones and James Bond was Indiana Jones & The Last Crusade, and, taking into account popular and critical opinion, it delivered a resounding cinematic triumph. Cowboys & Aliens doesn't. It's not awful by any means, but  neither is it anything spectacular. It barely manages "good" at times. It brings together the most recent 007 - you know, the one that saved the franchise from self-parody - and Dr. Henry Jones Jr., one of the greatest action adventure heroes of all time, and makes something a notch above average at best.

Not only that, but the director is Jon Favreau, the man who realised that Robert Downey Jr. is pretty much the real-life version of Tony Stark. When you appreciate that the supporting cast features an underutilised Sam Rockwell and Paul Dano - watch Moon and There Will Be Blood respectively to see the talent we're dealing with here - it won't be long before you start asking the question: why isn't this film better?

If you're looking for something easy on the grey matter that mashes up two genres you may have thought would never collide in any meaningful way on screen, Cowboys & Aliens may be one of the few worthwhile options you're left with before plumbing the depths of the straight-to-DVD bargain bin. But, if you're a fan of modern cinema, it's likely that you'll find yourself shaking your head at the talent going to waste here as you watch that six-shooter aimed squarely at ET's over-sized skull.

6/10

Film Review | Real Steel (2011)

Hoping to answer the almost certainly seldom-asked question "What would a cross between Rocky and Transformers look like?", Real Steel aims firmly and steadily for the family action market in a way that isn't seen too often in contemporary cinema. But whilst the action may be more hit than miss, the real problem is in the morals on display here.

Hugh Jackman is Charlie Kenton, a former professional boxer living in the near-future USA where robot boxing has replaced the human version of the sport. Charlie is struggling to make a living through acquiring robot boxers and pitting them in fights, usually losing through a combination of arrogance and haste. However, Charlie's fortunes appear to turn for the better once his estranged young son Max (Dakota Goyo) ends up in his care, and the two discover new hope in a discarded robot fighter named Atom.

What Real Steel does well works pleasingly enough. The fight scenes, although occasionally feeling too much like footage from a video game, are entertaining if at times unspectacular, with director Shawn Levy never falling into the oversaturated action mess presented all too often by Mr. Bay in the Transformers franchise. The world of robot boxing is enjoyably realised, feeling like a cross between UFC and Scrapheap Challenge, and although technology is clearly nowhere near advancing as quickly as the near-future setting would require, I never questioned the universe the characters inhabit.

The performances are a real mixed bag here, with Jackman firmly on autopilot, only threatening to show some real charm in the film's final act. Goyo ranges from passable to really quite irritating with some hackneyed "kid who behaves older than he is" tropes from yesteryear thrown in for bad measure here and there. Jackman and Goyo never truly gel until the film's climax, with some particularly jarring scenes near the start of the film. The strongest performance here comes from Evangeline Lilly as Charlie's childhood-friend-cum-love-interest Bailey, whose time on screen is genuinely enjoyable although the character disappointingly becomes marginalised, her arc left hanging, as the film progresses.

The real issues with Real Steel come from its moral compass, which seems to swing as wildly in the wrong direction as that owned by one Captain Jack Sparrow. Sparrow, in fact, provides a fitting example of a successful family action hero's character arc: it's expected that, like Sparrow, the protagonist will undergo a process of change from selfish/arrogant/alone to selfless/humble/surrounded by friends and/or family. However, Jackson's character here is just too despicable for a large part of the film to the point that it's very hard to get behind him at all. His first action towards Max after discovering he is now in his charge is to sell him. As in for money. A fact which he also doesn't do a lot to hide from Max. Not long after this, after Max has almost fallen to his death in a junkyard, Charlie proceeds to leave his son in said junkyard for a whole night in a rainstorm. With these actions seemingly going unpunished in any way either morally or through the law, Charlie remained for a significant portion of the film a character to whom I neither established nor wanted any connection, empathetic or otherwise.

Despite myself and the film's faults, I found myself genuinely engrossed in Real Steel's finale. Even though the way in which the film had arrived at this point was decidedly iffy, the spirit of Balboa vs. Creed could be keenly felt, and I ended up drawn in and even rooting for Charlie, Max and Atom. But, after the credits roll, it's hard to forget the mish-mash of acting quality and immoral plot threads that have led up to the film's climax. Real Steel ends up falling somewhere uncomfortably in the middle ground of mediocrity: by no means awful in some ways, but unforgivably so in others.

5/10

Film Review | RoboCop 3 (1993)

After the mess and bad feeling surrounding RoboCop 2, it was down to the third in the trilogy to bring some of the credibility of the original film back to the franchise. However, RoboCop 3 suffered the behind-the-scenes turmoil which marred the first sequel: Peter Weller chose not to return as the eponymous cyborg, his experience being so negative whilst working on RoboCop 2; Frank Miller was again brought back to write the script, hoping to reintroduce some of the ideas he'd had for the second in the franchise that weren't used, but again saw his script rewritten to the point of being unrecognisable. He wouldn't return to Hollywood until Robert Rodriguez brought Miller's graphic novel Sin City to the big screen. All things considered, RoboCop 3 seemed anything but a safe bet to bring back the satirical brilliance of the first film.

We return to the dystopian near-future, where OCP's plans to level Detroit and create "Delta City" in its place are underway as many of the city's inhabitants are forced from their homes by armed officers known as "rehabs". After an attempt by RoboCop (Robert John Burke) and partner Lewis (Nancy Allen) to defend citizens against the rehabs goes awry, the law enforcement cyborg joins forces with a resistance group to take down the rehabs and OCP once and for all.

In short, RoboCop 3, much like its predecessor, never manages to overcome the trouble behind its production. The script is schlocky and overly sentimental - a world away from that of Paul Verhoeven's sharp and acerbic original. Some of Verhoeven's hallmarks linger on, although they just serve to remind you of how far the franchise has fallen since its opening installment.

Burke's effort in taking on the Murphy/RoboCop role is admirable, but is hampered by the poor script and Fred Dekker's muted direction, as well as the insurmountable problem that he simply isn't Weller. Allen is a welcome returning face, although her time on screen is brief making her sorely missed for most of the film. New characters introduced are flimsy, from Stephen Root's over-the-top resistance member Coontz to Remy Ryan's irritating and ludicrous juvenile computer hacker Nikko.

RoboCop 3's biggest failing, however, is the change of tone from the first two films, largely in order to gain it a PG-13 rating in the USA upon its release. Gone is the adeptly utilised ultraviolence the first film is known for and that the second film, albeit with limited success, attempted to replicate. Instead we get neutered action sequences and cartoon style violence that for the most part falls flat.

To its credit, RoboCop 3's story hangs together much better than that of RoboCop 2, and in that sense it is superior to the first sequel. But when the story is as mawkish and silly as that related here, it makes very little difference. RoboCop 3 ensures that the franchise goes out on a whimper, certifying the original film as the trilogy's sole worthwhile entry.

3/10

Film Review | RoboCop 2 (1990)

RoboCop 2 in many ways exhibits the hallmarks of the "difficult" sequel. Known for being Frank Miller of Sin City fame's first big opportunity to break into Hollywood as a writer, the script was doctored to the point of Miller's original story being almost unrecognisable. The film also attempted to recreate the razor-sharp satire of RoboCop through the hallmarks of Paul Verhoeven, despite the director having no involvement in the film with the sequel helmed by Irvin Kirschner. The question upon RoboCop 2's release was whether or not the film could win through on screen despite the turmoil behind the scenes.

We return to Detroit in the not-too-distant future. OCP is now even stronger, tightening its grip on the city and forcing the police department to strike, meaning that crime is running even more rampant than ever. Meanwhile, RoboCop (Peter Weller) heads up the fight against a new drug, "nuke", pushed by a criminal with a Christ complex, Cain (Tom Noonan).

RoboCop 2's positives are largely carried over from the first film. Weller as Murphy/RoboCop is just as strong, bringing as much of the humanity and cybernetic charm seen in the original to the role here as he can. Nancy Allen, returning as Murphy's partner Lewis, is also strong, as are many of the returning cast such as Robert DoQui. Kirschner's attempts at Verhoeven's satirical and blackly comic news reports and advertisements used throughout the film also work at least some of the time, although often without the subtlety or panache that their originator brought to them.

Less successful is the film's ultra-violence. In RoboCop, the use of extreme gore and violent scenes was a key storytelling device, punctuating the film's message through both shock and satire. Here, much more often than not, it just comes across as violence for violence's sake. There's no message, just blood and death. Ironically, this key feature which raised the first film above many other action flicks actually helps to cement RoboCop 2 as never anything more than a meatheaded kill-fest.

So far, so forgivable. What drags the film down further is its haphazardly episodic structure. It's very hard to see any clear thread running through what's going on throughout the film. What are initially introduced as key plot elements are either quickly disposed of or just forgotten completely. In one scene near the beginning of the film, Murphy's wife is given a heartfelt scene confronting the cyborg created from her husband's dead body. After this, she's barely given a mention. There's nothing here to latch onto, which ultimately makes everything presented seem all the more vacuous.

Where the film falls down almost entirely is in the characters it introduces. Cain never feels like any genuine threat, and Belinda Bauer as the new head of OCP's RoboCop program is just irritating. Worst of all is Gabriel Damon as Hob, Cain's juvenile right hand man. Grating in a typically "annoying kid in an '80s movie" kind of way in the first half, Damon takes things to a whole new level when his role is expanded in nauseating fashion as the film hobbles towards its conclusion.

RoboCop 2 is therefore at best a wasted opportunity that seemingly couldn't overcome its troubled production. Whilst there are aspects here that genre fans will likely enjoy to a point, ultimately this is a shallow husk of an action film and a shadow of the enjoyable and smart original. Weller refused to return for RoboCop 3 after his negative experience throughout this first sequel; undoubtedly, many audience members did, and will continue to do, the same.

4/10

Film Review | RoboCop (1987)

RoboCop has always felt somewhat in the shadow of its slightly older '80s cousin The Terminator. Both deal with a dystopian future, both obviously centre around the idea of a human-machine hybrid, and both have no problem dishing out extreme violence and high body counts. But whilst The Terminator is regularly held in high regard as an action sci-fi classic, RoboCop never quite managed the same, at most managing the respectable status of a solid cult classic. With a remake well into development, returning to the original film as it celebrated its 25th anniversary was something I relished, albeit with an edge of wariness as to how well RoboCop had aged.

In Detroit in the near future, where crime is rampant and the police have been privatised by Omni Consumer Products, Officer Alex Murphy (Peter Weller) is brutally murdered by a gang led by the brutal Clarence Boddicker (Kurtwood Smith) on his first patrol after being transferred to the city. However, after being pronounced dead, Murphy's body is used by OCP to create "RoboCop", a law enforcement cyborg intended to be the first of many.

Even a quarter of a century on, RoboCop stands up as a very sharp and well-made entry into both the action and sci-fi genres. Even though some of the special effects now seem dated - ED-209's stop-motion belonging to a bygone era of film-making - the impact is not muted; Verhoeven's slick use of ultraviolence at key points in the narrative hitting home with as much impact as it always has.

Neither is the cutting satire of the film's narrative any less effective. The key themes of humanity, corporate society and morality that permeate RoboCop resonate still, maybe even more so today than when it was released. OCP is a evil corporation for the ages, simultaneously lampooning and holding a mirror up to the way in which big business works. And yet RoboCop never feels preachy. The well-constructed news reports and advertisements that crop up throughout the film demonstrate just how creatively and proficiently the film gets its message across without making you choke on it.

The central performance from Weller is also key to the film's success. As Murphy the man, the actor brings a charming humanity in the character's short incarnation on screen; this humanity is skilfully translated to Murphy's cyborg form, making the character both believably robotic and authentically human.

The film isn't perfect; some aspects feel somewhat formulaic with several tropes of '80s action flicks apparent throughout. But whilst RoboCop is a satisfying if somewhat conventional action film throughout, what raises it from being a very good film to a great one is the way in which it uses the conventions of the genre to produce satire both dark and sharp that still hits home today in a thoroughly entertaining way.

8/10

Film Review | Prometheus (2012)

I've noted in the past that returning to a franchise a long time after the last installment is a potentially hazardous thing to do in the film business. You run the risk of upsetting a lot of die-hard fans or even tarnishing the legacy and image of well-respected pieces of cinema. The bigger and better thought of your original film is, the higher the risk you are taking. Ridley Scott obviously didn't read my advice, returning to the Alien franchise (or is he?) as director for the first time in over three decades since he helmed the original in 1979. Since Scott kicked things off, we've had three sequels of varying quality, but undoubtedly one of the best loved horror sci-fi franchises ever created. We've also had two genre crossover entries in the Alien Versus Predator spin-off franchise, which hardly did the series' credibility any favours; Prometheus is therefore Scott's chance to pull the film franchise he spawned back on track, but also has the potential to disappoint many who revere Scott as the man who first brought us Ellen Ripley and the xenomorph.

Prometheus tells the story of archaeologists Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green) who, after discovering several images from different ancient civilisations all including the same star map, become part of the crew of the eponymous spaceship on a mission to discover the secrets of who created humanity. Amongst the crew is android David (Michael Fassbender), whose agenda becomes more and more suspect as Shaw, Holloway and the rest of the crew begin to uncover the secrets of the moon they have landed on, LV-223.

The film's "shared DNA" with Alien, as Scott has described it, is something of a double-edged sword: it lends the film credibility, and gives ample context to the universe in which it is set; but it also sets the film up continually to comparisons with Scott's iconic franchise opener, which is essentially setting it up to disappoint. The only film in the Alien series that comes close to the quality of the original is the first sequel, Aliens, and one of the key reasons behind its success is that it didn't try to emulate the original. As far as a sequel can be, it was its own film; it continued the story of Ripley and the xenomorphs, but was also individualistic in terms of genre and style.

Ignoring for the moment that Prometheus inhabits the same universe as the Alien franchise, it's a fairly solid sci-fi thriller in its own right. Rapace takes a little while to find her feet, but becomes a compelling protagonist as the film wears on, and by the time the final act began I was rooting for her all the way. Fassbender's performance as David is also compelling and rich, with the android ironically displaying the most depth of any character. Idris Elba and Charlize Theron do well with what they're given, but never really have the chance to fully flesh out their roles. The rest of the cast are fine, but their characters feel more functional than anything else.

Scott also shows he still knows his way around chillingly horrific sequences. There are several genuinely tense and claustrophobic horror scenes, the best of which involving a hi-tech automated surgery table. The only problem is, I came away wishing there were a few more. When Prometheus is making you squirm in your seat it becomes an adrenaline-pumping, terrifying experience. But Scott leaves too long between these moments. Whilst much of the mythology and science is genuinely intriguing and intricately constructed, it's never nearly as compelling as the scary parts, and at times the film begins to get too wrapped up in its own saga instead of providing something a little more entertaining.

Even though it's arguably not part of the Alien franchise (arguments as to exactly how it fits in with the original quadrilogy will almost certainly go on indefinitely, and to give my definitive take on it would involve dropping some massive spoilers), Prometheus lends itself almost too easily to comparison with it as mentioned earlier. It's never as good as Alien or Aliens. But it is superior to Alien³, and is a deeper and better crafted film than Alien: Resurrection.

Unfortunately for Prometheus, when it is inevitably compared to the first film it will almost always fall short: Shaw is not Ripley, and Rapace is not Sigourney Weaver; Prometheus the ship, whilst impressively realised, will never have the gritty, rough-and-ready charm of the Nostromo; the majority of its crew will never feel as human as Ripley's charmingly workaday colleagues. Fassbender is the sole element that matches up to his Alien counterpart, giving just as enigmatic and unsettling performance as Ian Holm's Ash. But whilst the comparisons are there, it's not fair to judge it solely through comparison. On its own merits, Prometheus is an enjoyable and well made film. It is flawed, but there's enough here that works to make it a compelling and worthwhile watch.

7/10

Film Review | Timecrimes [Los Cronocrímenes] (2007)

One of my all-time favourite Treehouse Of Horror Halloween specials on The Simpsons comes unsurprisingly from the series' golden era . It's the one where Homer fixes a toaster, only to accidentally create a time machine. The one thing Homer manages to remember as he travels back and forth from a prehistoric past is that even the smallest change can drastically alter history. After squashing one insect, he returns to the present to find Ned Flanders as the planet's evil overlord. The remainder of the story sees Homer return to the past again and again to try and put things right. He doesn't manage it, which is okay for Homer as the Halloween specials are non-canonical, but is an important lesson for any would-be time travelers. Obviously the protagonist of Timecrimes hasn't seen that episode.

Timecrimes follows the life of Héctor (Karra Elejalde) one evening as he and his wife (Candela Fernández) move into a new house remotely located in the Spanish countryside. Héctor spies something moving, and then a young woman undressing, in the nearby woodland. After his investigations lead to him being stabbed in the arm and pursued by a man with a heavily bandaged face, Héctor stumbles into a research lab looking for assistance. And that's when things get really strange, as Héctor soon finds he has time-travelled around an hour and a half into the past.

Stylistically, Timecrimes has a feel very similar to that of another recent time travel film, Shane Carruth's Primer. The world the characters inhabit is pretty everyday, and the slightly washed out, sepia tinted palette director (and writer) Nacho Vigalondo opts for gives the whole thing a darkly authentic feel. The time travel technology, much like that in Primer, has an amateurish charm, which coupled with its apparent unpredictability helps to drive the plot and lend credibility to some of the twists and turns it takes.

The cast is small but solid, with Elejalde leading things with a performance that impresses more and more as the film progresses. The evolution of his manner and temperament, particularly in the film's final act, make Héctor a compellingly flawed protagonist throughout.

The plot just about manages to hang together. The whole thing is presented in a linear fashion, which helps us as the viewer keep track of things as they get more and more complex. The first act is potentially the strongest, as we are thrown into a mystery thriller which piles on the tension and unanswered questions minute by minute. It is in the film's second act where things dip in interest and quality. The answers given to questions posed in the opening act are either predictable or don't feel believable enough - some of the decisions Héctor makes, and his comprehension of the situation as a whole in this part of the film, seem downright idiotic. There are a couple of good twists thrown in, and a sequence where Héctor returns to his new house in the dark is pleasingly tense, but the action feels plodding and unremarkable which leads to things getting a little tedious at times as things head towards the final act. Thankfully, the finale provides the same thrills as the first act, whilst throwing in a few more unexpected twists. By the time the credits roll, the unsatisfying nature of the middle segment can be (mostly) forgiven.

In the end, Timecrimes is a well made and original film. Whilst comparisons have already been made to Primer, the influence of films such as Memento can also be seen, and whilst it never reaches the heights of either of these two, Timecrimes is certainly a worthwhile watch in its own right. Without the less impressive second act, this would have been a truly excellent film; as it is, it's flawed but still very good. Apparently, an English language remake directed by David Cronenberg is currently in the works - on the strength of the original, I'm looking forward to it already.

7/10

Film Review | A Scanner Darkly (2006)

Despite Philip K. Dick's renown for writing sci-fi with brains, adapting his work for the screen has so far proven that good source material definitely doesn't always equal a good movie. As far as Dick adaptations go things are very hit and miss - for every Blade Runner there's a Paycheck, for every Minority Report, a Next. A Scanner Darkly therefore still had a lot to prove upon its release, although its unique style and the fact it was touted as the most faithful Dick appropriation to date set it in good stead.

The film is set in California "seven years in the future", when the war on drugs has been lost in the USA and a significant proportion of the population are now addicted to a drug known as Substance D. Bob Arctor (Keanu Reeves) is an undercover detective working to infiltrate the world of addicts and dealers, his identity protected from his colleagues by wearing a hi-tech scramble suit and adopting the alias "Officer Fred". As Fred, he is assigned to focus his attentions on Bob Arctor, thereby having to spy on himself, all the while regularly taking Substance D, which increasingly affects his ability to keep track of both personas.

The premise of A Scanner Darkly is undoubtedly complex but holds the potential to be incredibly compelling. It's a shame then that the film largely falls short of fulfilling its promise. The dual character of Arctor is a demanding role, and it's one that Reeves never manages to pull off. When soliloquising as Arctor, there is very little hint that the two sides of Arctor's life and personality are conflicting internally; when he shares scenes with other characters, Reeves simply merges into the background. Not something you want from your main character. Much of the film's success hinges on our understanding of Arctor and our ability to follow both sides of his personality; Reeves comprehensively fails to make this happen, giving a performance that is decidedly wooden.

The supporting cast do better: Robert Downey Jr. as Barris is a textbook arrogant blowhard who knows a lot less than he thinks he does, creating a vile yet compelling character; Woody Harrelson's turn as likable laidback addict Ernie provides some of the most successful humour throughout; and Winona Ryder as small-time dealer Donna, whilst not as strong here as Harrelson or Downey Jr., provides pleasing support.

It's a shame then that, for large parts of the story, these potentially compelling characters don't have a huge amount to do. Many of the scenes boil down to simply listening to drug addicts talking to each other whilst under the influence which, in truth, really isn't that interesting. When the action isn't following the collective Arctor is simultaneously a part of and spying upon, it focuses upon Arctor's work life away from the group. Aside from some neat touches with near-future technology, this again isn't all that interesting, something which Reeves' flat performance only highlights further. By the time the final act kicks in, the plot progression feels rushed and the moral message somewhat tacked on.

A Scanner Darkly does have some redeeming features however. There are a handful of comedic scenes which are immensely successful - the group's drug-influenced investigation into whether a recently purchased bike has any "missing gears" is genuinely brilliant, and the surreal narration of the botched suicide attempt of Freck (Rory Cochrane) is blackly inspired. The "rotoshop" style used throughout is also impressive, offering the film a pulpy graphic novel feel. The style is also used to great effect at times; it's hard to imagine the depiction of the scramble suits used by Arctor and other characters in the film being quite as effective through traditional live-action filming.

What we end up with is a mixed bag, and certainly not the successful Dick adaptation many had hoped for. Whilst there are things that make A Scanner Darkly worth a watch, the flaws are too hefty to truly recommend it. It's so-so at best, and ultimately a wasted opportunity.

5/10

Film Review | Attack The Block (2011)

The comparisons between director Joe Cornish's Attack The Block and Wright and Pegg's modern classic Shaun Of The Dead are possibly an overly simplistic way of evaluating the more recent film. Both are the major feature directorial debut of a name primarily made in TV comedy, both blend action, sci fi, horror and comedy genres, and both transport these genres to unlikely locations from domestic Britain. Edgar Wright (SOTD co-writer and director) serves as executive producer of ATB. Oh, and both have Nick Frost in them. But, despite the two fims' similarities, it's not fair to simply rate Cornish's film on the "Shaun-ometer".

Attack The Block follows the exploits of a gang of teenagers living in a run-down council estate in London. After mugging nurse Sam (Jodie Whittaker), the group encounter an alien entity which gang leader Moses (John Boyega) quickly decides to kill after it wounds his face. However, life on the estate quickly becomes more and more dangerous as larger and fiercer aliens soon arrive.

In many ways, Cornish doesn't make life easy for himself in making ATB a success. Within the first five minutes of the film, the group that we follow are set up as violent criminals; they rob a young woman at knifepoint, and their first instinct upon discovering what they quickly realise is an alien lifeform is to kill it, seemingly to teach it a lesson and just because it will entertain them for a while. The gang also associate with local drug dealer Ron (Frost) and his gangster boss Hi-Hatz (Jumayn Hunter). This does make the group difficult to root for once under siege from the alien threat, but also provides intrigue as to how, if at all, the gang members can redeem themselves before the credits roll.

It's to Cornish's credit that most (but not all) of the gang do manage that redemption. He shows us snapshots of their everyday lives - single parent families, living with grandparents, brief shouted conversations between rooms - as well as doing his utmost to make them more than just mindless hoodies hanging around on street corners. One of the most poignant moments of the script is delivered by Moses in a moment of respite against the alien threat, where he considers whether the government is sending in "monsters" to kill them. "We ain't killing each other fast enough" he ponders, "so they decided to speed up the process".

As the film progresses, it becomes clearer and clearer that Cornish is just as concerned with tackling why life on "the block" is the way it is as he is with extra-terrestrial action. That's not to say that the action takes second place to the social commentary. Cornish proves himself to be a dab hand at creating both fast paced fight sequences and tense set pieces that provide genuine scares. The alien creatures too, whilst clearly in part a product of a relatively small budget, provide ample threat and mystery throughout.

Moses slowly but surely takes his place as the film's primary protagonist, with Boyega's performance proving the most satisfying of the whole film. Having made Moses such an unlikable character at the start of the film, it is to his credit that Boyega bestows the role with depth and authenticity, so that when the story truly calls for it, we are fully behind him. Moses' home life is also one of the most hard-hitting, reminding us just why some teenagers fall into lives of delinquency. By the halfway point, Boyega owns each scene he's in, making his turn one to remember - his is a name that deserves to stick around for a good while in British cinema.

Whittaker's turn as recently qualified nurse Sam is also commendable, although the way her relationship with the gang who attacked her at the start of the night unfolds sometimes feels a bit too unlikely. I was also impressed with Hunter, who brought genuine menace and arrogance to local gangster Hi-Hatz.

Unfortunately (perhaps inevitably) not all the characters come off so well. Nick Frost as Ron the drug dealer and his upper-middle-class-trying-desperately-to-fit-in-with-gang-culture client Brewis (Luke Treadaway) provide some laughs, but never become more than one-dimensional caricatures. Within the teenage gang itself, not all members become sympathetic enough; Pest (Alex Esmail), for example, never shows much regret for his criminal indiscretions or understanding for his victims' feelings, essentially coming across as selfish and making it very hard to feel any connection to him at any point.

Attack The Block is ultimately a successful and enjoyable film that should please fans of horror and sci-fi, as well as anyone looking for decent homegrown British cinema. It's not without its faults, and doesn't succeed in everything it attempts, but Cornish's ambition and genuine talent as a writer and director deserves high praise - it's easy to forget when watching that this is his feature debut. Is it the next Shaun Of The Dead? No. But it doesn't need to be, nor does it try to be. What it definitely is, however, is a very promising start for a host of fresh British cinematic talent.

7/10

Film Review | Moon (2009)

Having seen Duncan Jones' second feature, Source Code, at the cinema last year (of which you can read my opinion right here), and having heard great things about his debut feature Moon, I have been eager to experience it for quite some time. Like several aspects of Source Code, Moon places itself on the dark side (excuse the pun) of science fiction with a strong psychological thread running throughout. It also wears its "old school" sci-fi influences firmly on its sleeve (Alien and 2001: A Space Odyssey come to mind immediately, but there are a host of others), which just created even more reasons for me to want to see it, and make it even more shameful that it's taken me this long to get round to it.

The story takes place on the eponymous natural satellite, which is being harvested by Lunar Industries for helium-3 to be used as fuel back on Earth. Sam Bell (Sam Rockwell) is the sole crew member of the Sarang moon base nearing the end of a three-year contract, with only the base's computer GERTY (voiced by Kevin Spacey) and occasional recorded messages from his wife (Dominique McElligott) for company. As his mind begins to play tricks on him, Sam becomes more and more eager to reach the end of his contract and return to Earth. However, an accident out on the moon's surface sets in motion a series of events which change Sam's entire perspective of his time there.

As debut features go, Moon is pretty darn successful in a great many ways. Jones' direction is confident and produces a satisfyingly palpable setting for Sam's experiences. Many of the choices Jones makes regarding the film's production were undoubtedly governed by the film's relatively small budget, but the majority of them serve to help pleasingly create the film's idiosyncratic retro-yet-futuristic feel. Finer details are well considered in terms of their overall effect on the feel of the film - Sam's alarm clock which plays Chesney Hawkes to wake him up, GERTY's "emotions" displayed through emoticons on a video screen, and the video-communication device that's far more brick than iPad, all feed into the authenticity of Jones' lunar bunker.

Whilst Jones without question deserves a great deal of credit, the part that Rockwell plays in the film's success simply cannot be underestimated. Apart from Spacey's GERTY (undoubtedly taking influence from 2001's HAL in his delivery) Rockwell is pretty much on his own throughout. It's hard to describe his performance without giving away some major plot points, but Rockwell boldly demonstrates a huge range and throughout the film commands every scene brilliantly. Rockwell makes Sam's isolation, and the effects of it upon both his mental and physical state, incredibly believable. Whilst I felt in one or two scenes that his performance required a little more raw emotion, it's hard to imagine many actors being able to take on the role and make it quite so credible, which Rockwell does with great skill.

However, there is a noticeable enervation during the middle of the story. I stand by Rockwell's performance as being impressive throughout; it is Jones' focus upon where things are actually going that becomes somewhat fuzzy. In fact, it's not until the final moments of the whole film that Jones makes the focus of the story completely clear. Again, it's difficult to explain without giving away some huge spoilers, but Sam's motivation in his actions was never made quite clear enough to give me a genuine reason to get behind them (other than the fact I like the character) until the very last frame, by which point it felt a little late. Once they had been made more obvious I was able to look back on everything I'd just watched with a clearer view, but it did feel as though, if Jones had structured things slightly differently, I might have viewed the film's finale from an altered, slightly more satisfying angle.

Ultimately, however, Moon is a great success. Rockwell's fantastic performance coupled with Jones' strong direction and creation of setting make the film one of the strongest and most human in the sci-fi genre I can recall from the last few years. There is a great deal of originality and imagination within Jones' film, which is laced with an obvious passion for the genre's heritage forming a satisfying, enjoyable and well made end product, and one that leaves me keeping a close and positive eye on Jones' future work.

8/10

Film Review | TRON: Legacy (2010)

Direct sequels created a significant amount of time after the original film's release are always a tricky beast to handle, and generally garner a wide range of critical response - John McClane and Indiana Jones' respective jaunts into the 21st Century are proof enough of that. Creating a sequel for a film with such strong cult appeal as 1982's TRON just adds to the challenge of the task. In creating TRON: Legacy, Disney not only took on the job of at least matching the technical prowess and improving on the oft-criticised plot of the original film, but also of pleasing firm fans of the original whilst making the world of TRON appeal more to a mainstream audience.

The film picks up soon after where the events of the first film finished. Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges) has disappeared. Despite being the largest shareholder in Kevin's computer company ENCOM, his son Sam (Garrett Hedlund) has no interest in controlling the company whilst harbouring clear abandonment issues towards his father. However, when Kevin's friend and business partner Alan (Bruce Boxleitner) tells Sam he's received a mysterious message from Kevin's old office, Sam's subsequent investigation leads him into The Grid - the virtual reality world Kevin entered decades previously - and on a journey of investigation into what happened to his father.

In many ways, TRON: Legacy exhibits many of the same strengths and weaknesses as the original film. The technological wizardry is clearly apparent from the moment Sam steps into The Grid, and gets more and more impressive as the film progresses. The world introduced in 1982 has been appropriately "upgraded". The updated version of the iconic light cycle battle is particularly breathtaking, as is the fast-paced fighter jet chase towards the film's climax. The Grid as a universe is captivating in itself even when things slow down, providing beautiful scenery within which the story can unfold.

Bridges is reliably solid returning to the role of Kevin Flynn and bringing an intriguing mix of spirituality and world-weariness (or should that be "Grid-weariness"?) to the aged version of the character. Impressive too is Bridges' performance as CLU, the corrupt program created by the senior Flynn who acts as the film's antagonist. CLU appears as the younger version of Kevin Flynn, achieved through motion capture and computer animation, and it is to Bridges' credit that his performance comes through the technology and post-production so strongly.

Hedlund's performance as Sam Flynn is good, believable as Kevin's son, although his supposed animosity towards his father never truly comes through. The rest of the cast are fine but never much more.

The film's weaknesses come through pacing and plot, as the story occasionally becomes a little overly complex, tying itself into knots that it can't quite straighten out. Some scenes also become a little slow and self-indulgent from time to time. The End Of Line Club sequence, for example, feels almost entirely unnecessary - although it does provide a key opportunity to showcase Daft Punk's magnificent score for the film - and the plot elements involving Michael Sheen's character could easily have been eliminated to help reduce the film's slightly flabby two hour running time. Sheen's over-the-top performance feels somewhat at odds with the rest of the film too.

Despite its faults however, TRON: Legacy is much more success than failure. You can't help but be entertained and impressed by the action sequences and use of CGI throughout, and the main story of a son's quest to find his father and ultimately take control of his destiny is compelling and well told. Whilst things do slow down a bit too much between the action, the film never gets boring, and the universe created is a thing of wonder from start to finish. In the end, TRON: Legacy successfully establishes itself as a worthwhile and enjoyable continuation of an intelligent and imaginative action sci-fi franchise created almost three decades ago.

7/10

Film Review | Surrogates (2009)

Surrogates is clearly influenced in its style by a great many other sci-fi films, from big names such as The Matrix and the Terminator franchise to cult titles such as Gattaca. The problem is, it's never quite as good as any of the films it has been inspired by.

Set in a near future where the world's population lives through hi-tech robotic counterparts - the 'surrogates' of the title, and as they are referred to throughout the film - we follow the story of FBI Agent Tom Greer (Bruce Willis) who, with his partner Agent Peters (Radha Mitchell), investigates a series of unprecedented murders committed through destroying a person's surrogate. Willis is reliably watchable, but never feels as though he is stretching himself too far from either his troubled loner or irrational action-man archetypal fallback roles. Other than Ving Rhames as The Prophet, the shadowy leader of a resistance movement against the surrogates, and James Cromwell as the inventor of 'surrogacy' (both of whom receive far too little screen time), the cast is largely pedestrian and forgettable.

The story is entertaining enough, providing enough satisfying sci-fi quirks and action sequences to keep things interesting. Things get a little muddled towards the end, and the final act doesn't provide the satisfying payoff that you would hope for. A subplot involving the death of Greer's son and the effect of this on his relationship with his wife (Rosamund Pike) never really manages to go anywhere meaningful. However, the film's swift running time of under ninety minutes does mean it never has the chance to become tedious.

Ultimately, Surrogates feels like a wasted opportunity. There's a huge amount that could have been explored in terms of human morality (there doesn't seem to be any repercussions for destroying a surrogate, despite more than one indication that they aren't exactly cheap pieces of kit), and the current popularity of online chat and smartphones could have been very easily commented upon, but instead is only slightly hinted at. Like I said before, Surrogates draws on a great many entries into the sci-fi canon but unfortunately this usually only serves to remind you of how many better films there are of a similar style that you could be watching. It is enjoyable and worth a look, but in many ways had the potential to be so much more than it is.

6/10

Film Review | Super 8 (2011)

Super 8 is resplendent in its Spielberg credentials. Honestly, why shouldn't it be? When you've got one of the most successful men in the film industry executive producing your film, you'd be a fool not to make the most of it. Except Super 8 doesn't just make the most of it, instead going beyond paying homage to Spielberg's earlier work (think pre-Schindler's List and you're about there) to jam-packing the film so full of stylistic and thematic references to other films that writer and director J.J. Abrams too often seems to forget to put in any of his own film.

The story is straightforward enough. A group of school friends growing up in small-town USA in 1979 set about making their own movie. Sneaking out to film at a ramshackle train platform one night, the group witness a catastrophic train derailment bizarrely involving one of their schoolteachers driving onto the tracks. It soon becomes apparent that that's not the only unusual thing about the crash as the U.S. Air Force soon make their presence felt as well, as strange occurrences become more and more frequent in the town.

The film does have a lot going for it, not least the performances of the young actors. Child actors can often make or break a film for me, either proving such a fresh and pleasing talent that they alone become reason enough to see it, or grating so badly they detract from the film's overall success. Thankfully the group of young'uns heading up Super 8 firmly avoid falling into the latter bracket. In fact, their collective performance is what makes the first half of the film so enjoyable. Standing out slightly more than any others are Joel Courtney and Elle Fanning (younger sister of Dakota) who play Joe Lamb and Alice Dainard respectively. The companionship that grows between these two throughout the film is wonderful to watch, and whilst Courtney's portrayal of a pre-teen boy who has recently lost his mother is at times a little too understated to feel genuine, the chemistry between him and Fanning in bringing Joe and Alice's relationship to life is palpable and impressive in such young performers. Fanning throughout shows immense potential to become a future star.

Despite his intent to make a film paying tribute to Spielberg, it is often when Abrams is being most true to his own style that the film shines. The derailment of the train and subsequent crash sequence is spectacular, done without the grandiose nature of Emmerich or the mindless busy mess of which Michael Bay can't get enough. Abrams makes it authentic yet fantastical and always captivating, reminiscent of the brilliant plane crash scenes seen in another of his creations - the television series Lost. His handling too of the scenes in which the extra-terrestrial attacks is also very tight, providing genuine jumps; Abrams expertly controls the precise moments at which the alien lets rip, as well as how much of the attack we actually see.

Super 8 is also beset with flaws, however. After crafting a heartfelt opening act and, for the most part, a well-crafted sci-fi mystery with touches of horror for the second, the film unfortunately wanders into less inspired territory for its final act. Things seem to shift almost entirely from inhabiting an ordinary world where extraordinary things are happening to a highly cinematic world of sudden character shifts and drop-of-a-hat action sequences. Perhaps Abrams was hoping to kick things up another gear or two for a stunning climax, but it just makes the final thirty minutes or so of the film sit uncomfortably at odds with what's come before it, denying the audience the type of payoff they were undoubtedly hoping for.

As stated previously, however, the greatest problem with Super 8 is also the element that at times provides some of its greatest strengths, namely its referential nature to not only Spielberg's work and style, but also other movies outside his canon of work. You will notch up nods to The Goonies, E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial and Close Encounters Of The Third Kind, as well as Stand By Me, Alien and even Cloverfield, a film to which Abrams himself is linked through production duties. Whilst Abrams at times invokes these spirits of the past with panache, giving his film an air of quality and heritage, more often they return to haunt his picture highlighting just how it often has very little of its own to say. The alien presence is a prime example. Those who've seen Cloverfield may find themselves experiencing more than a little déjà vu, to the point of anticlimax. Abrams also invites us to empathise with the creature in the way Spielberg did nearly thirty years ago with E.T., but this is easier to do before actually meeting Super 8's extra-terrestrial. Somehow I just didn't feel too inclined to emotionally attach myself with an alien after seeing it feed on human beings, apparently without discretion.

Ultimately, Super 8 does a lot of things right, but these in the end are regularly competing with errors too large to ignore. Whilst there is a great rite of passage story for at least one of the young protagonists in there, it becomes clouded by an unnecessary shift to a clichéd action style and Abrams obsession with alluding to other cinematic works. Ironically, if he hadn't tried so hard to emulate his executive producer, Abrams may have got closer to what Spielberg at his best does to perfection: great storytelling his own way, where the action is never placed above the heart within the story.

6/10

Film Review | Source Code (2011)

Watching Source Code is a bit like tucking into a juicy sirloin steak with a tough, fibrous line of fat running through it. There's a lot to like there, with a great many mouthfuls to enjoy without issue. But there's also niggling in the back of your mind that unappetising gristly bit that you try as hard as you can to avoid, even ignore. You have one spoiled bite. Then another. You try and eat round it. But when the meal's over, despite all those unsullied morsels you enjoyed throughout, you keep coming back to that unfortunate thread of adipose material that left you feeling not entirely satisfied with what had the potential to be a really great dish.

Let us first, then, look at the meat. Source Code's story, and the concept behind it, is generally pretty good. Captain Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal) awakens on a train unaware of how he got there sitting opposite a woman who knows him as Sean Fentress. Colter soon discovers that his reflection is that of someone else, but before he is able to find out anything further, the train explodes. Colter then wakes up strapped into a dark capsule, where he discovers from Captain Colleen Goodwin (Vera Farmiga) that the crash he just experienced happened earlier that day, and that he is part of an experimental military operation known as "Source Code". Colter's consciousness was transported into that of a passenger's - Sean's - for the final eight minutes of his life, with the aim of Colter discovering who is responsible for blowing up the train in order to avert further attacks in the future.

So far, so complex. But Duncan Jones' direction from the outset keeps things moving at a pleasing and steady pace whilst at the same time making the whole thing believable. You feel that Jones really hits his stride when depicting Colter's experiences outside of his transportation to the same eight minutes on the train. The design and nature of the bleak capsule Colter inhabits, with its harsh structural features and intrusive video and computer screens, has strong echoes of Gilliam's post-apocalyptic world Bruce Willis experiences in 1995's Twelve Monkeys. In fact, Jones' influence from a wide range of science fiction and beyond - from Inception to Groundhog Day - is apparent throughout Source Code, and the film is all the stronger for it. The director takes inspiration from respected sources, whilst at the same time crafting a fantastical concept that is original and fresh. Jones' first feature, the highly acclaimed Moon, is one that has so far (shamefully) passed me by, but on the strength of his handling of many elements on show here I feel all the more compelled to seek it out sooner rather than later.

Gyllenhaal too must not be undersold. His performance as the former army helicopter pilot thrown into a disorienting and perplexing scenario of which he has no recollection of choosing to be a part, shows diversity that perhaps has only been hinted at before. His previous roles, from romantic drama in Brokeback Mountain to action hero in Prince Of Persia, come together in his portrayal of Colter to provide a satisfying and genuine mix of humour, tension and pugnacity.

The supporting cast also do well, with both Farmiga as Captain Goodwin and Jeffrey Wright as Dr. Rutledge, the creator of the Source Code program, giving strong and memorable turns. Farmiga and Wright are key to the success of the darker and more mysterious aspects of the film; Wright's continuous use of a single crutch providing a unnerving quirk to his character. It is Goodwin's appearances on Colter's video screens that provide some of the film's most enduring sequences, however; the extreme close ups on Farmiga's face make her presence intrusive on both Colter and the audience, and the methods she uses to help bring the disoriented soldier back from his trips to the exploding train - asking him to recall series of cards from a story, playing bird calls into his capsule - have an unsettlingly sinister psychological edge to them.

Unfortunately, whilst there's a lot to like about Source Code, this is largely where the good stuff comes to an end. Michelle Monaghan is fine enough, if somewhat forgettable, in her role as Christina, Colter's perpetual travelling partner on the train. But the fact that her character, other than sharing some wonderfully shot slow-mo explosion scenes with Gyllenhaal, never feels anything much more than peripheral in the film as a whole means that the romantic thread between Christina and Colter largely falls flat.

The biggest failing, however, is the film's handling of the human side of its story. Whilst it's hard to address this without giving away large chunks of the story it's fair to say that, whilst Gyllenhaal makes his character sympathetic, many of the more emotional elements of his story regularly slip too far into melodrama and become swamped in pathos. As more and more about Colter's circumstances in reality (as opposed to on the train) is revealed, this becomes more and more of a problem. The second half of the film also has an ill-fitting anti-war undertone with more than a hint of schmaltzy Americana, which simply feels stale and tacked onto the science-fiction premise at the core of the film.

Ultimately, as stated previously, there really is a lot to enjoy within Source Code. Its sci-fi credentials are solid, and whilst it never reaches the heights of Nolan's Inception, it sits pleasingly a few steps below in the ranks of the cerebral blockbuster. In the end, however, Source Code leaves you feeling as though it never quite fully realises the potential that its concept holds. A little less preoccupation with pushing a message onto the audience, and a little more focus on both the darker mystery-thriller aspects that work so well throughout the film and the ingenious science-fiction concept at its nucleus, and this could have been an excellent film. As it is, the flaws are there, and noticeable enough to make it just very good.

7/10