Reviews still coming

Without home internet, many films I would have liked to have reviewed have now passed me by... it's going to be a big review round-up.

Film Review: Senna

(Directed by Asif Kapadia, running time 102 minutes)

Ayrton Senna (left) and Ron Dennis (right).

For those of you lacking in the general knowledge of Formula One racing, one thing that always needs to be emphasized is just how dangerous it can be. The amount of real science and physical and mental effort, not to mention the skill it takes to not only win but avoid a serious injury or worse is part of the back bone of the race. Throughout the late 80s and early 90, a Brazilian driver named Ayrton Senna took the worldwide competition by storm. During this time he quickly raced his way through not only each Grand Pix as they came but also all the behind the scenes turmoil and politics that comes with most multi-million pound events, and become three time Formula One world champion and national hero is his native homeland. Despite being at the top of his game he was tragically killed in crash during San Marino Grand Prix in 1994.

However unlike many documentaries that may feel the need to dwell on one’s passing, director Asif Kapadia has adopting a style of film making that instead not only takes the audience back to Senna’s heyday of racing but makes us feel as if we were there, experiencing everything as it unfolded. The entirety of film is made of real footage including official races, interviews, behind the scenes of each events, public appearances and even home movies all the while narrated by a substantial variety of figures ranging from managers, fellow drivers and newscasters who were not only experienced these events first hands but even knew the man himself well. No cutaways, no stationary studios interviews, not even shots of what anything looks like today, just footage of the time and place.

The thrill of victory.

At first this approach may appear to be a series of dull stock footage, yet Kapadia has carefully filtered through what must be hours upon hours of footage in order to get down to the core and for it results in a gripping viewing experience that I wouldn’t say is on par with the most tense and dramatic fictional films as it’s a wholly different kind of experience and no doubt will be for many, even better. With this footage the audience can get a close enough picture of the inner workings of Formula One. Senna might have been a top F1 driver, but to make it there it appeared to take plenty of effort beyond just winning races. Even though he raced with McLaren, we quickly became at odds with his fellow McLaren driver the French Alain Prost, also a multiple F1 world champion, which at one point turned into a bitter rivalry. On top of this Senna was very vocal about some of the rules and on and off track issues, in many instances crashing and in another even being disqualified temporally suspended.

Yet even though is may seem this is a documentary made for the Formula One fan, beyond just the structure of the inner workings of the motor-sport we are given an insight to the man himself and those around him, often at times making footage seem almost character driven that while at odds with many, there is still underlying respect. However those who may wonder about his personal life, either due to a directorial decision, lack of footage or out of respect, little is actually known about the man off the track, with the documentary kick starting just as he enters Formula One. On hand this may seem limiting to those less enthusiastic about the motor-sport while on the other hand it doesn’t get bogged down with such details that may make the film appear a little too overly done at times, not being as if its trying to hard make the audience care. Off the track though, the film doesn’t skim on the crisis in Brazil, something that was very important about his public image, that in times of need is what helped make him seem like a beacon of hope in Brazil, in order to show others just why those in the F1 and elsewhere considered him an important figure outside of just being good at his passion. The documentary doesn’t paint him as some messiah, instead just how and why this man had become so popular. The narration itself is accompanied with a brief small subtitle as each give their story. The variety of the narration is what gives the tone legs, in that the contrasting view points allow a little more balance in what is at the end of the day a tribute as well.

With great success comes great risk.

Senna was deeply religious but also very much aware of the dangers. In fact, even though there hasn’t been a race related death since 1994, Kapadia also felt the need to portray this by not holding back with footage of other incidents such as Rubens Barrichello literally flying into the sidelines. Despite these occasional harrowing instances, they make the film more real than it already is. In regards to his aforementioned death behind the wheel, it actually (and in all honesty thankfully) doesn’t dwell on it as up to this point the film has been about his life as a racer and anything else might have seemed almost unnecessarily tarnishing. While we do get visuals on the brutal crash and finally his (elaborate) funeral, it is cut up with shots of each of those who attended and them with the man himself. Its pretty emotional stuff.

Without going overly sentimental and getting distracted by the personal details, this may seem less inviting to those other than F1 fans. However I feel Kapadia has not made this case by selecting and structuring the footage and narration that makes Senna inviting yet ultimately compelling. Some may not know much about the man himself, but this documentary does its best to do just that. As for F1 fans, its a no brainer as what we have here is a slice of motor sport history, one that I feel is a great viewing experience for all.

With narration from Ron Denis, Frank Williams, Alain Prost and many others.

Self-aware pre-review note

Traditionally when reviewing a film, I would take the chance to shoe-horn random lines of half-assed attempts at humor for a pathetic attempt at individuality. However the vast majority of cinema releases appear to warrant such an approach when often at times even those with a sense of Oscar-bait around them usually trip into the typical special effects laden pitfall. If they won’t take themselves seriously, I fail to see the need to attempt to exposit like I’m up for a Pulitzer Prize. Yet when you find yourself with the task of reviewing a documentary, one that is not only involves a tragic event but is entirely made of real life raw footage... well, to put it into context, I would have to begin writing an apology now.

So before I shift the tone dramatically, to lighten the mood to the more regular entries I’ll just leave you with a picture of a chimpanzee on a bike.

Credibility.

Film Review Roundup: May-June

CASUAL NOTE: Busy work hindered any attempts to write up reviews for March and April. However is was somewhat barren anyway. Long story short of those that I saw:

True Grit = Instant western classic, Jeff Bridges always shines.
Source Code = Pretty dam good sci-fi with an unusual approach to science.
Adjustment Bureau = Great concept and well done but nothing special.
Rango = Brilliantly animated and with great characters even with a formulaic story.

------------------------------

Insidious

(Directed by James Wan, running time 100 minutes)

Apparently it will take more than just a "boo" to scare Patrick
Wilson in Insidious.

The “usually” reliable Patrick Wilson and Rose Byrne play a couple of parents who are terrorized from house to house by an unknown apparition. Despite an incredibly stereotypical vintage haunted house meets possessed child premise that has been in bed with film more times than an even more incredibly stereotypical sexual metaphor, a number of well placed heart pounding jump scares and an overall eerily constructed sense of atmosphere gives Insidious a far more legitimate claim to being a “horror” film than most of the poorly scripted torture porn that seems to have fancied itself as such... even if it turns out that the manifestation of evil looks like a cross between Freddy Krueger and Darth Maul.

Also staring Ty Simpkins, Lin Shaye and Angus Sampson.


Hanna

(Directed by Joe Wright, running time 111 minutes)

Saoirse Ronan takes a moment to mentally take in the fact she's in
an action film in Hanna.

Action adventure fresh from the United States... and United Kingdom... also Germany, this multicultural ride stars Saoirse Ronan as a teenage super agent “Hanna” trained since birth in secret by a CIA veteran played by Eric Bana, both of which quickly become independently on the run from agency forces led by Cate Blanchett. The national production mixture does lend itself to an entirely unique approach to the action genre to more than just the fact the deadly assassin is a young girl. It’s rather inconsistent style is both its saving grace and downfall at times where on one hand the film can be dark but seedy, action packed but erratic and well scripted but fast to leave plot points and characters. While far from perfect, overall Hanna is definitely one of the most intriguing films of its type, although at times you might even question just what that type of film is.

Also staring Tom Hollander, Jason Flemyng and Olivia Williams.


Kung Fu Panda 2

(Directed by Jennifer Yuh Nelson, running time 91 minutes)

Jack Black's Po and co (hey that rhymes!) in Kung Fu Panda 2.

Jack Black returns as the voice actor for one of his more likable characters Po the panda in one of Dreamworks’ more enjoyable series. Even though Po has already become a kung fu master, another lesson must be learned, this time finally tackling the issue of his origins that seem to tangle with a current hostile take over of China by a malevolent Peacock voiced by the delightfully over the top Gary Oldman. It’s all harmless fun with simple yet effective gags and some downright beautiful art design and set pieces. This time however Dustin Hoffman’s (in all honesty in-depth) Master Shifu takes a backseat to the less interesting Tigress voiced by Angelina Jolie as the supporting role and the effectively integrated Chinese philosophy of the original has been significantly lessened to make way for more action. Regardless, this is one of those few animated sequels that doesn’t drop the ball.

Plus Jean-Claude Van Dam voices a crocodile.

Also staring David Cross, Seth Rogen and Jackie Chan.


X-Men: First Class

(Directed by Matthew Vaughn, running time 132 minutes)

Michael Fassbender finally has the (star)power in X-Men: First Class.

Following the abysmal X-Men Origins: Wolverine, the X-Men film franchise appeared close to the brink. Director Matthew Vaughn of Kick-Ass fame saves it from going under with what feels more like a reboot than a prequel. With a fresh young cast, First Class goes to the young adult years of Charles Xavier (Professor X) and Erik Lensherr (Magneto) played by James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender respectfully, both being interesting, complex and wholly likable portrayals of the classic Marvel characters. While the side characters may not share the same level of character development, they all do their parts justice with a more three-dimensional Mystique played by Jennifer Lawrence and an effective villian of Sebastian Shaw played by the reliable Kevin Bacon as he attempts to kick start World War Three. With a fresh story-arc and more real drama, First Class is a truly well crafted superhero adventure.

Also staring Rose Bryne, Nicolas Hoult and Oliver Platt.


Bridesmaids

(Directed by Paul Feig, running time 125 minutes)

Kristen Wiig (far right) is now in charge of the hens in
Bridesmaids.

Yes that's right, I took a gamble.

Co-writer and lead star Kristen Wiig plays a down on her luck single women who is given the role of maid of honor when her best friend played by Maya Rudolph becomes engaged. What follows is a series of hectic and often at times futile attempts at preparation and pre-parties with the other bridemaids who are either desperate or socially suffocated, along with a "best friend" competition with another good friend to the bride to be played by Rose Bryne. There's plenty of unconventional antics on display including some toilet humor more akin to the male-orientated side of group comedy like The Hangover. While this is definitely not a generalization, due to the heavy female cast, there's also plenty of drama and romance thrown in for good measure including a series of "romantic" encounters between the lead actress and Chris O'Dowd IE Roy from The IT Crowd. Even though I will admit the script does occasionally drift beyond one's own personal tastes at times with the heavy handed dramatic moments, many instances seem to be immediately be remedied with some well timed comedy. Most likely better suited for the ladies.

Also staring Melissa McCarthy, Ellie Kemper and Wendi McLendon-Covey.

BY THE WAY has anyone noticed that Rose Byrne has appeared in THREE of these films?

Film Review: Thor

(Directed by Kenneth Branagh, running time 112 minutes)

NOTE: At time of writing, Thor is timetabled for the 27th April in the UK. I however was fortunate to catch an advance screening.

Anthony Hopkins (right) asks Chris Hemsworth (left) if they'll still be taken seriously in these costumes in Thor.

Back when the first Iron Man film came out, the post-credits teaser implicating the prospect of a full feature Avengers movie was nothing short of a geek’s exciment-induced heart attack. To be fair, even those outside of the realms of comic book geekdom, the prospect of witnessing a multi-million dollar budget epic of a super genius billionaire in a mech suit, a colossal monster so powered by rage that shooting him only pisses him off, an honor bound super soldier who single handedly won World War Two and the immortal Viking God of Thunder, all under the organization of a world wide military powerhouse lead by “mother fucking” Samuel L. Jackson... *breathe* should raise at least moderate to high interest from anyone.

The only folly of outing such a feat of film making so early would be the sheer weight of expectations from anything else connected and driving towards it. Case in point was Iron Man 2. While a perfectly well-done action adventure movie experience that gave us all the super-powered set-pieces and crazy yet likable characterization, at the end of the day one could not shake the feeling you were instead watching a mere Avengers prequel... or worse yet a feature length advertisement. While audiences still wait over Captain America’s first [legitimate] push on the big screen, here and now we have Thor.

From from the start however, unlike Iron Man 2, Thor is a near self contained story. The viking Gods are actually superbeings from another world who have protected mankind in the past. The “God” of thunder Thor played by a very buff Chris Hemsworth and heir to the throne of Asgard held by Odin played by the always classic Anthony Hopkins, is one the path to rule until his supposed arrogant war hunger against their ancient long foes the Frost Giants results in his exile to, surprise surprise planet Earth. After being scooped up by Jane Foster played by a now Oscar touting Natalie Portman, Thor attempts to regain his powers, all the while his brother Loki played by Tom Hiddleston secretly attempts to seize the throne for himself.

You know you've got it made when you have a throne of gold.

What I find perplexing however is while the above is more or less accurate summery of the narrative, one third of the film dramatically leads up to his fall from Asgard, complete with sweeping showcases of it’s beautiful world and set-piece battles between our hero and the monstrous Frost Giants. It’s all impressing stuff that really gives you a feel for this hyper-fantasy version of the old Norse tales. It’s actually surprising just how much of this element was left out of marketing just given how much imagination and creative effort went into bringing this city of gods to life. Perhaps they didn’t want to spoil anything but the history of cinema would disagree with that theory. Because of this it makes his harsh new situation on our humble little rock all the more underwhelming in comparison. It’s almost jarring when in one scene you witness a golden hall of super-vikings brandish their magnificent armory before flying to battle through the cosmos then cutting back to Stellan Skarsgard downing bottles of cheap booze in a shack bar. It’s as if the film is trying to one up itself, the lesser of the two being the real character drama.

Despite some personal reservations upon first viewing the trailer complete with questionable attempts at anger and sorrow, the acting, for the most part is serviceable at least. While some attempts at humor fall flat and the romantic sub-plot is forgettable in the grand scheme of things, such issues thankfully don’t distract from the real sense of purpose. In fact the entire drama can best be summarized as a family-matter... an epic one if that. Returning to my previous point of the jarring scenes, same can also be said about the characterization. For example, along for the ride in Thor’s adventure are Sif and the Warriors Three, a group of heroes who on the surface make up the archetypes of warriors. The lady Sif (Jaimie Alexander) is more of a valkyrie, Volstagg (Ray Stevenson) the large viking, Fandral (Joshua Dallas) the swashbuckler and Hogun (Tadanobu Asano) the mongol. These characters receive enough screen time to display their character traits, dialogue and exposition that at one point I actually found myself rather wanting to instead watch a feature length film about them. In fact, it’s only after they themselves come to Earth does the setting become relevant... that and a giant magical automaton that decimates a small town. On top of this, the character of Loki is one of the more interesting villains in the super hero world. While far from the best (you can’t touch the Joker), much of his motivation is fueled by a classic case of being in the shadow of Thor, the second son, the odd one out, all being a nice change change up from the usual “because I’m evil”, even if it does border on such initially.

We've all been there Thor, usually when opening tight jars though...

As you’ve probably picked up on, the narrative in terms of setting simply doesn’t know where it wants to stay. And here’s my theory why: even though it’s a self contained story, the link to Earth was mandatory in order for Thor to properly link in with, you guessed it; the upcoming Avengers film. Yet, even with this burden, the narrative is fairly coherent and does host some believable and likable characters... and even though the costume design is near fitting with the original comic book incarnations, that would be saying something. Further more unlike Iron Man 2, besides the heavy presence of S.H.I.E.L.D., the references to a wider Marvel universe are kept to a minimum, but what pandering we do get does still intrigue. Besides one mildly humorous moment in which one agent remarks over whether the giant automaton is one of Stark’s creations, the audience is actually subtly, if unknowingly introduced to another member of the upcoming Avengers; Hawkeye played by the excellent Jeremy Renner of the Hurt Locker fame. And yes there is a post-credit teaser, yet I doubt it would make much sense to a non-Marvel affiliated person such as myself.

Even without knowledge of the house of Stan Lee (with an obligatory cameo of course), Thor definitely holds up next to it’s current super hero siblings with enough well-crafted fantasy and classic Marvel wit to hold more than the attention of the uninitiated, while also being able to construct a real narrative around all the visuals and action, a proud enough feat. For those who are however affiliated however, you’re probably going to get even more excited for the future.

Also starring Colm Feore, Idris Elba and Kat Dennings.

FYI, this film didn't have much to compete with from my previous experiences with Thor.

WARNING - So bad, it's good:

Film Review: Sucker Punch

(Directed by Zack Snyder, running time 120 minutes.)

Emily Browning leads the Xbox Live party into wave 3 in Sucker Punch.

Films that divide audiences are a common occurrence, films that divide critics come just as often. Film that divide critics and audiences however are something of an oddity. While they’re usually directed at films the “general public” relish while the “professional critics” loathe, most of the time they’re films like Twilight, simple minded, one note cash-ins that are devoid of any substance while manipulating the younger generation with cliched bull... but I digress. But other times one could feel it is in fact the critics who might have the narrow-minded impression. Case in point is Sucker Punch, a heavily marketed over the top action game, erm, film from Zack Snyder of 300 and Watchmen fame.

Set in... sometime, at... someplace, a character with... a name, is imprisoned because of... some reason... Huh? Yeah, what I’m basically driving at is that the plot is pretty much non-existent for the most part. I suppose there is a premise and an ultimate goal but stop at the finishing line before saying it went further. A wrongly convicted young women nicknamed “Baby Doll”, played by Emily Browning is sent to a mental institution and begins her attempt to escape by stealing various items from the worker, depicted through her own wild (understatement) imagination. But that’s established within the first couple of scenes and the game, erm, film really never returns until the climax. Between A and Z is a constant barrage of set-pieces and random exchanges of dialogue. Despite the crude story structure, the premise is a pleasant deviation. Despite what the trailer might have you believe, the concept of imagination displayed over real events is emphasized in multiple layers. There’s the gritty real world and the fantastical painting of the mind. Yet the game, erm, film seems most comfortable in-between, in a false reality that’s still realistic, being something of a high class brothel. To say the least, it’s very much an Inception-style approach to a more compressed state.

Get ready for the quick-time event button input.

In Baby Doll’s quest for freedom she must devise a plan, most involving the collection of various items from the institution employees while they are distracted by her hypnotic “dancing”. We never see the dancing however, instead we are introduced to all the promised eye-candy visuals. Before, when I said it was over the top, I think that phrase would fit nicely as a sub-header for the film title itself EG “Over The Top: The Movie”. We follow the action packed endeavors with her fellow inmates Sweet Pea (Abbie Cornish), Rocket (Jena Malone), Amber (Jamie Chung) and Blondie (Vanessa Hudgens) as they fight their way through demon samurai, steam powered Kaiser German soldiers, dragon-keeping orcs and laser touting robots. Now to some *cough* many people that has to be one of the greatest lines up for a cast of enemies to slaughter your way through, let alone by a group of scantly-clad women with large guns, attack helicopters and battle-mechs, complete with all huge explosions and slow-motion fight scenes to put the action-adventure video game genre to shame. But there the problem lies, it’s not a video game, it's a film. Along for the ride, they are guided by the “Wise Man” (Scott Glenn) who actually comes off more like a video game non-playable character, dropping hints at the start of each level, just falling short of outright saying “use real-time weapon change before hitting the enemy’s weak point for massive damage”. I doubt anyone came for the dialogue, but in case you somehow failed to notice this past the film poster outside the venue, it does step into the cringe worthy territory.

Despite having seen all this CGI before, this unconventional blend of genres fits perfectly into this mental universe Zack Snyder has painted for us. And that’s the key word: painted. Coming back to my point about critics, the rather crippling average score of 20% on Rotten Tomatoes might make this film a closed case in terms of quality. Yet some may be discrediting this film for all the wrong reasons such as comparing the director to Michael Bay, but the problem is Mr Bay is nothing more than a flashy stain on the big screen. Despite having made a name for himself on it, the man DOESN’T know action. He’s generic, uninspired and at times downright offensive. But at least with Snyder he gives you the benefit of the doubt by portraying something visually more original and well crafted for the most part. Don’t get me wrong, it’s perfectly fair to dislike this sort of film, and Sucker Punch is rank with as much poor scripting and cliches as the next summer blockbuster cluster-fudge. To better describe it, as a piece of cinema, Sucker Punch is severely lacking even in some of the most basic departments of story telling 101, instead strangely working better as a 2 hour long music video. Even joking about, modern video games handle story better than this. Yet when it want to grab your attention with visuals alone, it's as if the screen forces your line of fight with an iron fist.

That's not what I was taught about the First World War.

Then of course there’s the inevitable cry of the feminist who finds the female cast to only serve as glorified pole-dancers. But let me ask you this, when all the women are sympathetic and likable (in spite of being card-board at times) whereas all the men are misogynistic cruel and abusive pigs, I’d rather put myself in the camp that finds it more “empowering” for the female extraction. But like I said, films that divide are an oddity because having said that, I found Sucker Punch to be very (for lack of a less crude term) “hot”, although you could and should apply different meanings to it in regards to the piece of film and only that. And I’d just be lying if I tried to pretend otherwise.

Think of it like Subway and McDonald’s, both fast food but at least with the former you have a better idea if the other-side of the counter has spit in your bun.

Sucker Punch is one of those classic examples of a film that divides critics and audiences, but unlike most it would be better to point out that even when branded cinema trash, which without covering one’s own eyes is more or less the case for many, you can and will do a lot worse. It’s a exercise of one-note characterization, strange pacing and head-scratching plot developments. But then again I can’t shake the moments of the clear satisfaction taken from the aggressive set-pieces. And that’s what annoys me, that I’m on the same boat as the very same who rightfully put down to likes of Transformers and Twilight, but sometimes I feel other critics just need to understand that you are allowed to shut off your brain and enjoy the spectacle on occasion, even if sometimes you feel as if you’re not watching a film at all but a run through of every action genre known the cinema... with a little T&A on the side. If you’re going to do wrong, it’s sometimes good to know that you can do it right, even it can make the most avid film fan feel dirty by the curtain call.

Also starring Carla Gugino, Oscar Isaac and Jon Hamm.

Film Review Roundup: January-February

The King’s Speech

(Directed by Tom Hooper, running time 188 minutes)

Geoffrey Rush gets Colin Firth prepared for his award accepta... King's speech in The King's Speech.

Colin Firth is up for a string of awards the second time round after A Single Man playing King George VI, thrust into his royal duties who with the help of an unorthodox speech therapist played by Geoffrey Rush attempts to treat his stutter, which as a public speaker for the entire British Empire, such an issue is hardly good for morale. Despite being hit over the head with the heavy historical background and pure drama, the most interesting exchanges come from the dialogue itself between Firth and Rush, with the latter being the more memorable performance with his wit and light approach, occasionally stepping over into the comedic spotlight and considering all the just praise Firth has received, you know you’re getting a genuine top notch character piece.

Also starring Guy Pearce, Michael Gambon and Helena Bonham Carter.


127 Hours

(Directed by Danny Boyle, running time 94 minutes)

James Franco has just gotten over the !*@$?/"& moment in 127 Hours.

Throwing us another curve ball in terms of premise, Danny Boyle continues the tradition of delivering new and interesting pieces of film. This time around it’s the true story of Aron Ralston, played by James Franco, a mountain climber who is trapped in an open cavern after a rock wedges his arm against the wall, left there for over 5 days before amputating his own arm. Playing most of the film solo, Franco doesn’t hold back with his performance of the real-life counter-part, going through stages of desperation, anger, sorrow and even partial insanity. The film doesn’t hold back in emphasizing the gravity of his peril, with the most unforgettable moment being the said amputation of his arm. Despite the many violent films I’ve seen, this was the most “real” in highlighting the pain. Simply put, this is high caliber acting on display.

Also starring a rock and a hard place.


The Way Back

(Directed by Peter Weir, running time 133 minutes)

The group hit a little bump in the road in The Way Back.

A lesser known World War II historical piece, Jim Sturgess, Ed Harris, Colin Farrel (with a decent non-Irish accent this time) and Alexander Potocean are just part of the group of escapees from a Soviet gulag located deep within the frozen Siberian woodlands. Against all the elements, the group traverses through miles upon miles of harsh terrain, all the way to the Indian sub-continent, hopefully securing their freedom. Despite quite literally being a film about traveling, the character development and interaction with some strong performances makes for a well paced tale of struggle. Coupled with great cinematography and natural locations, this is probably one of the most underrated films recently.

NOTE: Having said that, I’ve also discovered that the UK release date WAS in 2010, meaning this most likely would have made the top nine list.

Also starring Saoirse Ronan, Dragos Bucur and Gustaf Skarsgard.


The Fighter

(Directed by David O. Russell, running time 115 minutes)

Christian Bale turns his on-set anger into coaching for Mark Wahlberg in The Fighter.

With already plenty of boxing-focused dramas up for the shiny statues over the decades, The Fighter appears to still be able to hold its own and not become an also ran. Based on a true life story, Mark Wahlberg plays an amateur boxer, close to his family including his unruly brother played by Christian Bale (who hasn’t looked this malnourished since The Machinist). It may be your typical story of the low commoner reaching new heights through sport, yet being based on a true story you can’t really fault it if you feel some aspects fall apart and/or resolve themselves. Plus all the turmoil that comes with it is still fresh, along with top-notch performances that carry the entire picture... yes, Wahlberg to.

Also starring Amy Adams, Melissa Leo and Jack McGee.


The Green Hornet (3D)

(Directed by Michel Gondry, running time 119 minutes)

"I bet this will look great in promotion" says Seth Rogen in The Green Hornet.

With DC and Marvel freshly tapped, even the lesser known crime fighters are getting the big screen makeovers. The initially odd choice Seth Rogen plays the said valiant vespa along with his significantly more interesting sidekick Kato played by Jay Chou as they attempt to clean up the mean streets made the way they are by “Chudnofsky” played by Christoph Waltz, how to pronounce his name being something of a recurring joke. Despite some decent choreography and special effects action sequences, with the 3D effects being noticeably on par (which in my book rates it as not 'entirely pointless'), this humor-laden comic adaptation only reaches half of the mark away from a true comedic showcase. While enjoyable enough, it’s also by the numbers that in turn makes it mostly forgettable.

Also starring Cameron Diaz, David Harbour and Tom Wilkinson.


Paul

(Directed by Greg Mottola, running time 104 minutes)

Simon Pegg and Nick Frost are back under the spotlight (urg... even I cringed at that joke) in Paul.

The always enjoyable comedy film duo Simon Pegg and Nick Frost are back again on the big screen, this time NOT under the direction of Edgar Wright (meaning the third Blood and Ice Cream film is still in waiting) playing a pair of nerdy British tourists in America on a road tour following Comic-Con who inadvertently stumble upon an extraterrestrial Area 51 runaway named Paul, voiced by Seth Rogen (this time being a fitting choice). Even though being from an advanced alien race, Paul is more akin to party going hitchhiker, making up plenty of humor itself. The entire cast gives well-played out comedy performances and on the whole are likable characters. Despite some erratic pacing and a shoe-horned romance subplot, this above and beyond road trip will most likely reel in the laughs, not to mention are few well placed geek culture references. While far from the tier of Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, Paul is still an enjoyable and a worthy film of its cast.

Also starring Kristen Wiig, Jason Bateman and Bill Hader.