Justice League of America (1997)

Running Time: 82 minutes
Media: TV Movie

I remember seeing this when this first came out... I was young, I was naive, and I had seen The Flash TV series some seven years prior, thinking "This will be great!"

How cruelly wrong I was... I have dubbed this movie with a new label "Cringe-worthy", because it is just so... so... so ugh! What can I say... this is like Friends meets Modern Family plus superpowers... It just doesn't gel too well. I have to confess, it comes off almost more camp than the original Batman TV series, and even that show was more classy by comparison...

The story revolves around Tori Olafsdotter who eventually develops powers of ice manipulation, joins a somewhat ragtag team of superheroes that make the members of the Misfits of Science team seem top of the game, and defeats the arch-villain in this storyline, known as the Weatherman, who, surprise surprise, is actually a meteorologist gone mad with power...

The only real actors in this dismal failure of a TV series pilot were Miguel Ferrer, David Krumholtz, David Ogden Stiers and John Kassir... And even then, the parts they played have more cheese in them than a pound of Jarlsberg. The other actors in this film are relative unknowns who have appeared in various TV programs here and there... It's these other actors who seem like the unknown variables of a complex algebraic equation, hard to figure out, but it's no real loss if the overall answer is not important enough.

...And... it isn't... They throw in a lot of gimmicks, like the rather poor special effects, the superfluous dialogue, the poignant background music which is meant to appeal to the audience... It doesn't. I'd like to say that it's eighty-two minutes of my life that I am never getting back... but at least by having watched it, I can set myself up for bigger and better movies to watch, and thereby use this movie as a yardstick for comparison... This movie may even rival Sharknado or Sharktopus as a sheer contender for worst movie I have ever seen... until I get to see Plan 9 From Outer Space.

There are definite holes in the plot and the backgrounds of some of these superheroes deviates widely from the norm. Even Kenny Johnston, who plays the role of Barry Allen (aka the Flash) in this film, who is by far my all-time favorite superhero from DC Comics, plays a dead-beat unemployed lackadaisical version of the comic book incarnation I have grown to know and hold as a part of me; and that in itself, speaking as a comic book fan, and a fan of the Flash... is almost tantamount to sacrilege.

Miguel Ferrer, who plays the part of the "Weatherman", which seems to be a very poor attempt on the part of director Félix Enríquez Alcalá to envisage the Weather Wizard in human form seems almost (pardon the pun) comical in nature due to the sheer seriousness of his role. Not to mention that the alter ego of the Weatherman is not "Mark Mardon" (or Marco Mardon if you're reading The New 52 series, which would have been more effective, given the Latino derivation of Ferrer's name), but "Dr. Eno"... Ironically, his hammy portrayal as a criminal mastermind made me want to reach for the namesake antacid to counter the effects of how ill I was feeling watching this movie.

David Ogden Stiers, you may remember him as Major Charles Emerson Winchester III from the TV series M*A*S*H and I have to admit, the role doesn't suit him at all... mainly because his role is that of the Martian Manhunter J'onn J'onzz... J'onn is meant to be tall and muscular... Stiers, does not fit into either category... if anything, he was somewhat rotund... but that blue cape on his costume kinda hid that fairly well...

John Kassir, if you are a hardcore geek like I am, you will know is the voice of the Crypt Keeper from Tales from the Crypt TV series... He plays the role of Ray Palmer, a more timid, less bold version of his DC name-sake as The Atom. As a fan of his work, I am a little biased on this performance, but common sense kinda won in the end. I have to admit, he does well, but it is a little corny, but not so much as to render the role he plays as over the top... His romantic interest with Tori is a bit of an attempt to win the hearts of the audience, but it doesn't pull it off altogether... also the cliché of having face paint over the eyes, and yet when removing the mask there's none at all is a bit weird... and makes no sense...

David Krumholtz, who has appeared in other TV series, namely Numb3rs; plays B.B. DaCosta's (aka Fire) love interest in the film. I'll put this simply, it's cute and endearing, but the fact that he knows so much about her kinda feels like border-line stalking... it's actually kinda creepy... That's just the role Krumholtz plays... He's a great actor, but it just didn't cut it.

I have to confess, the TV movie was clever but I don't think it would have made it as a TV series if it had taken off, maybe a season of 13 episodes at most... and then it would have not survived going into a second season... But it was an honest mistake in well-intended efforts to get something off the ground... Maybe the fact that the animated series of Justice League, Justice League Unlimited as well as Young Justice may provide a foundation to how the upcoming live-action film should be. Meantime, Justice League of America receives 2½ stars... And a huge sigh of relief that it didn't surpass anything more than the pilot episode.

Sweeney Todd - The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007)

Duration: 116 minutes.

Media: Blu-Ray.

I only just noticed that this movie came out in 2007, and my immediate reaction was "S[CENSORED]t, has it really been that long!?" I never thought that this movie has been around for a good six years, so I guess the real question begs, what's taken me so damn long to see this movie?

To be honest, time and opportunity to watch this without my wife, as she is prone to getting grossed out with movies such as this. Various incarnations of Sweeney Todd have inundated us from days of old, and they all have one thing in common... blood, blood and more blood... oh, and pies... I have to admit, since watching this movie I have been very hesitant to tuck into the Aussie fave, the honorable meat pie, lest I find a severed toe or finger in it.

This movie is no exception, what with the darkness that only a, what I like to call a "Deppton" collaboration, can provide. The Tim Burton/Johnny Depp dynamic seems to pop up every so often with the occasional addition of Helena Bonham Carter thrown into the mix. Everytime Deppton make a film, there seems to be a bit of a random effect as to how well it goes...

I will quote Rotten Tomatoes' overall film ratings for the benefit of this example.

• Edward Scissorhands (1990) - The first Deppton collaboration, a somewhat dark movie, 7.6/10;
• Ed Wood (1994) - considerably dark and quite hilarious, 8/10;
• Sleepy Hollow (1999) - and hey, what do you know, it's rather dark as well, 6.3/10;
• Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005) - a dark version of the original 1971 film (are you seeing a general pattern here?), 7.2/10. By this time, Helena Bonham Carter and Tim Burton had been together for about four years and this was the trio's first group collaboration, a "Deppton Carter" film;
• Corpse Bride (2005) - Let's face it, they're all dark... Another "Deppton Carter" collaboration that scored 7.2/10;
• Sweeney Todd (2007), our titular movie in question, yet another "Deppton Carter" film, rated 7.7/10; 
• Alice in Wonderland (2010), another "Deppton Carter", but this one rated 5.7/10; and finally
• Dark Shadows (2012), which surprisingly was another "Deppton Carter", fared worse at 5.3/10;

All Burton's collaborations with Johnny Depp have been fairly considerable but have waned past Sweeney Todd, and I'm not sure why to be honest... I think it was more that there were considerable risks with projects that have had... a previous past that were in themselves, an acquired taste. Sleepy Hollow, inspired by the legend of the Headless Horseman, was a short story, and the film was a fairly broad extrapolation from that. Alice in Wonderland was meant to be a sequel to the story, inspired by the original story and Through the Looking Glass, which is also an acquired taste - I mean, even my wife hates the story, much to my surprise. Dark Shadows was inspired from the original 1960's and 1990's TV series of the same name, also acquired tastes. One guesses that the reason these three weren't as strong is because hard core fans of these movies went there with high expectations and were bitterly disappointed and that the critics themselves placed similar expectations on what to expect in these films and marked them down accordingly.

Bearing this in mind, what is it about Sweeney Todd that pushes the ratings to being one of the highest rating films out of the eight or so that Tim Burton has worked on with Johnny Depp?

Well, for starters there is the Johnny Depp factor, he's a handsome chap... though have you seen him lately? He's kinda started looking like Mickey Rourke... But nevertheless, still a handsome chap...

It's a musical, this gets some points. Musicals always seem to have a way of getting interest from the general populous. Look at High School Musical, Hairspray and the most recent incarnation of Les Miserables. They all raked in big... although it kinda helps when you have leading men in these movies like Zac Efron and... Zac Efron (I only just realized he was in Hairspray too... and Hugh Jackman...

But I think the most captivating and attractive factor in this film, would have to be the blood and gore. It's something that seems to draw us in... Like it or hate it, the horror factor (despite it being in overly-abundant bucketfuls, sometimes quite literally) seems to have this raw appeal that makes you want to squirm, and yet you can't look away. In at least a dozen moments of the film, I found myself cringing in almost sheer disgust and horror, and yet, it was so... over-the-top it was hilarious. I have a tendency to treat horror films of late as though there was a comedic element within them. A guy gets his head taken clean off by a giant blade, I laugh my goddamn ass off... I guess it's more because of the overall nature of the deaths that seems rather incredulous that it deserves such a response... it's so far fetched and over-the-top and yet so... predictable but you want to see it again and again, laughing so hard that you almost wet yourself. And that's how it is with Sweeney Toidd.

So why, with this film? To give you an understanding, you need a quick synopsis of how this film plays out...

Johnny Depp plays Benjamin Barker, a barber who was wrongfully imprisoned by Judge Turpin, so that he could marry Barker's wife and raise his daughter as his own. This is the ultimate spoiled brat concept... I have no toys, so I must take someone else's... Barker returns to London, and boy is he pissed off! He wants to off the judge that had him banished, so he returns as "Sweeney Todd" a barber with a razor sharp wit, as well as a razor to match... He loses the chance to off the judge by pure chance and as a result collaborates with Mrs Lovett, played by Helena Bonham Carter, who owns the pie shop downstairs, so that he can start offing people, because in his eyes they're all deserving of it... But how to get rid of the bodies? Enter Mrs Lovett, who has found a wonderful new source of protein that makes Soylent Green look like a Snickers bar in comparison... She starts baking human flesh into her meat pies... (Nummy)

Long story short, there are a lot of deaths and twists toward the end of the film that I never foresaw... and surprisingly, it kinda appealed to me, which kinda makes me sound quite twisted and sick, but to be perfectly honest, it's a work of fiction, so who really cares? The musical numbers are peppered nicely throughout the film, and that sorta gives you a more deeper insight into the natures of the characters of Todd, Lovett, Turpin and Pirelli... The timeline is set to what is believed to be Victorian England... though it is never really implied anywhere throughout the film, and to be perfectly honest, that doesn't bother me at all...

The color scheme which is predominantly in its black-and-whites, and sepias as well as the occasional splash of red reminds me of throwbacks to say, Frank Miller's 300 or Sin City, which adopted those sorts of visual techniques to get the message across to the audience - and that is that this movie is about one thing, and one thing only. Revenge, pure and simple. Depp pushes the boundaries as the revenge-driven title character and delivers that role with such conviction that the audience feels the pain he lives with and has for the past fifteen years. You start rooting for him with every progressive throat that he slits and you pretty much find yourself cheering towards the end of the film. It's a very addictive plot device, all that blood... 

Depp as Sweeney Todd looks slightly gaunt and ambivalent of the surroundings as he focuses on his tasks at hand, namely, dispatching the lives of those, who just in general, piss off Sweeney Todd. He seems to have acquired a singing voice which is great... Not amazing, but still great... But for some reason, he still sounds a lot like Captain Jack Sparrow, less complicated hair and he was... focused more than anything, whereas Sparrow was more laisser faire. The gaunt and pale face make up on Depp is great, though I am having trouble understanding the huge gash of white hair that seems like a throwback to Anna Paquin's character of Rogue in the X-Men movie franchise. nevertheless, it suits him... All these dark movies that Deppton do together seem to work in his favor for the most of it... I could see him playing the part of an aging rock star. His singing voice isn't too bad either.

Helena Bonham Carter... I know she's Tim Burton's partner and all, and she does add a bit more humor, but she always tends to look like she could do with a few Big Mac McValue meals. As Mrs Lovett, her intentions are endearing but misplaced, looking to have a wonderful life with Sweeney Todd despite her baking people into pastries. I have to confess though, after seeing her in the Harry Potter movies as Bellatrix Lestrange, every time now that I see her in a film that's "dark" she seems like she's playing the role of a corpse. Given that she played the title role in Corpse Bride, it seems rather befitting, but the stereotype with Bonham Carter and roles that make her look like she's post-mortem seems to have stuck. This isn't Bonham Carter's fault in any way... I blame very good make-up in this case... and scriptwriting, and hey, if you're good at what you can do, by all means go for it... Nevertheless, she plays the part of Lovett well, rather comically in places which suits the role of Lovett as it did in the stage productions.

I also have to give kudos to Alan Rickman who plays the part of Judge Turpin rather well, a bit of a send up of the alluded corruption of Victorian justice back then. Note that Bonham Carter, Rickman and Timothy Spall (who stars as Beadle Bamford) all played roles in the Harry Potter movies, they can't seem to get enough of one another, can they? Rickman always seems to be stereotyped into roles as a bad guy time and time again, in a way that's a shame, but at the same time, that's also great. Turpin is a bit on the sick side, supposedly taking a leaf from Woody Allen's book and trying to marry his ward. If you think that's the most disgusting thing in Sweeney Todd, however, throat-cutting and baking people into pies aside, then maybe you may need to seek professional help.

Sacha Baron Cohen however, who plays Adolfo Pirelli, is a somewhat of a surprise... he does the same thing as he does with Monsieur Thenadier in Les Miserables, steal the stage... I personally feel he loves the musical roles inasmuch if not more than the non-musical roles, as he gets to be a little more serious, and that seems quite admirable. So it's a shame that he dropped out of the Freddie Mercury bio-pic project in July 2013, over "creative differences" between him and the surviving members of Queen, because I think he would have made the role his own, in the same way that Hugh Jackman has done with Wolverine.

Saying that, this movie is quite enjoyable, given the blood and gore that the movie brings. It made me cringe, rather receptively, and I strangely hope to see it again in the near future. Sweeney Todd get two thumbs up (which are not found in any pies quite luckily) and receives 4½ stars... Now I feel hungry for a Four 'N' Twenty pie for some strange reason...

The Wolverine 3D

Duration: 126 minutes.

Media: Cinematic Release
(Parramatta Event Gold Class Cinemas).

You know what I love about Gold Class cinemas? The comfy reclining seats, the amazing food, and most of all, the limited seating. I tend to prefer to sit smack dab in the middle of a cinema, whether it be Gold Class or a standard cinema... I think it's more of a matter of acoustics as well as being able to view the entire screen directly in front of me so that I can take in the entire scene.

The fact that I was going to be watching The Wolverine was just the icing on the cake. My brother-in-law and sister-in-law gifted me a pair of Gold Class tickets for my birthday, and seeing I'm the sharing type; and because my wife absolutely loves Hugh Jackman as the titular character she and I headed off to Event Cinemas to see the sixth Marvel Studios movie starring Jackman. It seems that Hugh is pretty much a staple (and necessity) for the continued success of the X-Men related franchise. As a result, I am pleased to hear of the upcoming seventh film, X-Men: Days of Future Past to be released in 2014, although this is also implied, given the mid-credits sequence; which [SPOILER ALERT!] is played so well given the reprisal of roles (albeit at a cameo capacity) by Patrick Stewart and Sir Ian McKellen as Charles Xavier and Eric Lensherr respectively. Given the nature of Wolverine's character his presence within the Marvel Universe is such that he can pretty much appear to be the same no matter where, no matter when. And in this movie, it is no exception, especially with respect to Logan's immortality.

The timeline of this movie lays some time after the events of X-Men: The Last Stand where Logan has pretty much reverted to the life of a hermit, still having dreams (or nightmares - I guess it depends on the context) with Jean Gray, whom he had killed when she was in her Dark Phoenix incarnation, while living off the land, in what as far as I can tell is his homeland of Canada. He is then approached by a mutant called Yukio who has been asked to bring him to see her employer, Ichirō Yashida, of whom Logan had saved back in the time of the Nagasaki bombing during World War II, when Yashida was an officer at the POW camp where Logan was held. It seems Yashida wants to thank him personally and to also say good-bye; well, he is dying... as sixty-five years added to something as gruelling as surviving an atomic blast can take its toll on a person it seems (who'd have known?)

But it seems that Yashida-san has more. He wants to give Logan a gift, he wants to give him mortality. It's at this point a comics fan such as myself would think "Why the f[CENSORED]k would he consider the possibility that Wolverine would accept such a gift? Much to our delight he is resilient and flatly refuses the deal, only to later find himself losing his gift of healing/immortality due to some weird electronic gene-suppressing bug that must have been inspired from the tracking bug that was hidden inside Neo in The Matrix. Pretty soon, Yashida is dead, and his granddaughter, Mariko, is being targetted on all sides for no apparent reason from the time she attends her grandfather's funeral.

Mariko, played by Tao Okamoto, is an absolute babe. I kinda had a bit of a crush on her during the length of this movie, and her tenacity and tough persona shines through as Mariko, which I think is a great garnish to Jackman's dish of Wolverine that's been served up here. Tao's character of Mariko is a very determined, independent young lady and personally, I wouldn't want to mess with that either... Though I must admit, the role is left somewhat empty to an extent. I kinda feel that Mariko's nature is very different to what a number of us have read in a number of different comics, particularly in the Age of Apocalypse and Exiles versions of the comics. Do I appreciate the way that Mariko is handled in the course of this movie? I'd like to say "yes", but only because her initial hardened exterior is swapped for a more vulnerable persona later in the film. I'm not saying that I want women in film to be demure or damsels in distress, but it's nice to see a hardened character like Mariko become less so...

Hugh Jackman... where do I begin, he totally owns his role, and he's worked hard at it. As I said before, this is his sixth role as Logan, with a seventh one to come, there's bound to be a few more requests for Jackman to don the claws once again. In this incarnation in this movie, we see a more humanized version of Wolverine, one with the inability to heal (What? Oh, quit being surprised, they mentioned it in the trailers, so it's no shock...) And one who eventually reverts to a slightly retro-version of himself, I shan't say how, but stick around in your seat long enough and you will see how. Logan, as always has the subtlety of a sledge hammer, the strength of many men, and his razor sharp but dark wit; and you know, what? If he had strayed anyway beyond that, he'd be a different mutant altogether, and we prefer the Wolverine as he is, and I think I speak on behalf of every fan boy when I say that.

The other main star that seems to come through and shine is Famke Janssen, who plays, I guess the ghost of her former character, Jean Grey. She seems to appear as a sort of conscience factor, almost a Jiminy Cricket of sorts, but she more or less haunts Logan in his dreams or when he's all alone. In this film, the "ghost" of Jean and Logan have a somewhat complicated relationship of sorts, where Logan is still coming to grips with what he did in The Last Stand. Hugh himself said Jackman said, "There's no doubt that the most important relationship in his life is - we've seen through the movies - is his relationship with Jean Grey. Yes, we saw her die at the end of X-Men: The Last Stand, but in this movie, she has a presence which I think is vital to the movie, particularly for him confronting the most difficult thing within himself." And it works... We all feel bad about Jean being killed but to Logan, it seemed like the only way that she could be defeated, and yes, I cried inside when Jean died. I also kept wondering why she always appeared in this film in nothing but a silky lingerie number... Not that I minded... Nevertheless, the interaction between these two characters does push the story onward, and I think we would have seen a very different film had this dynamic been left out.

One other character comes into mind, and I only say that because she is absolutely annoying and I really couldn't see the justification of her presence within the movie save for there being a need to have a villain... and that's the character called Viper. Now, my knowledge of Viper in the Marvel Universe gives me a very different picture than what I saw in this film. To tell you the truth, she seems a little more likeable in the film than the comics version... but even then, this character of Viper is kinda... gross. Over-confident, self-absorbed and poisonous; a bit like my ex-wife.... (I'm not kidding). Viper in this case has a few more traits more related to her nickname, she is immune to all toxins , able to shed her skin if infected, as well as being a master at creating toxins. I really didn't see the point of including the skin-shedding part even though it would have justified the nickname. She's played by Svetlana Khodchenkova, who would have been a complete unknown to me, if it wasn't for the fact that I also recognize her from Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy as Irina. I don't know, maybe it's because she's the main villain... or is she? (No spoilers this time, sorry!)

Secondary characters accumulate throughout this movie here and there like scraps of paper awaiting to be thrown out... They seem to have little purpose save to help bring the story together, even though the story doesn't truly involve them. The fight scene between Logan and Shingen seems almost parodied from elsewhere, as Shingen seems to have either the brazen courage or blatant stupidity to keep going even though he's beaten... it could be the whole honor code that he abides to there in Japan, I can't be certain. The fight scene between Yukio (another mutant whose power is the ability to see people's deaths... Wow... How thrilling that must be...) and Viper is a necessity as we see the need for the good guy to triumph over the bad guy... The final fight scene between Wolverine and the true nemesis in this film raises a few questions, and seems a little too corny towards the end, albeit for a split second or two. I personally found the post-funeral fight scene a little more than any of these other ones, the choreography is great and Logan, Yukio and Harada (some ninja type who thinks he can't be seen in broad daylight, dressed in black, tip-toeing over the rooftops... Hmmm...) worked well together in this scene.

Oh, and Harada... Will Yun Lee plays the role well, but I have to question the writers on the logic of his storyline. He kept switching sides quicker than he can jump from one rooftop to another... There may have been a fairly limited number of people in that Gold Class cinema, but I think they were having just as much trouble trying to figure out which f[CENSORED]king side he was fighting for... Funnily enough, he plays a very limited role in another movie I'll be reviewing very shortly, Total Recall (the 2012 reboot), and the difference between his character in there and in this film is astounding... Here, Harada looks fit, well-fed and has a fairly good length of hair... Whereas it seems the total opposite in Total Recall. Lee underwent rigorous sword training for The Wolverine, and I have to say, it pays off... it doesn't seem fake or flaunted, it has certainly paid off.

The visual effects are seamless and very smooth, including the Silver Samurai which appeared to be all CGI. After a number of films, Marvel have pretty got the X-Men universe pretty much worked out. That being said, I was quite happy to see an old favorite come back towards the end of the film during the final fight scene.

Am I happy with the film? Yes, but the film is just a prelude of what is to come next year; it feels somewhat incomplete... and I was left wanting more. The movie, was kinda like a lunch time yum-cha session... I'm continuously being fed, and loving every morsel, but after leaving... I'm left feeling even hungrier and wondering whether there could have been more... That said, I am giving The Wolverine 4 stars, and hoping the next installment delivers more to warrant that five star rating.

Argo (2012)

Running Time: 120 minutes

Media: DVD

There are very few Ben Affleck movies I dislike, I think Ben is a reasonable actor and he does fairly well. He's made mistakes along the way and he seems to have gotten himself a decent momentum with which to forge on. Argo is no exception, it's a film I did enjoy, and seeing it was based on real life events, I wanted to find out more.

So I took it upon myself to go to Wikipedia and check out details of the Canadian Caper and I was intrigued... There was even an illustrated children's book about the event called Escapes! Now while there were there already was a TV film made back in 1981, based on the original cover story (i.e. "the Canadians saved the day") Argo is based on the true events, namely, that the CIA were responsible for the cover story and development of a fake film studio and fake press releases and fake this and fake that, just to provide a definite background story to prove to the Iranians that the six escaped staff from the U.S. embassy were actually six Canadian film crew members getting locations for the film. Basically the CIA used some serious bull[CENSORED]t in order to complete their mission. And boy, did it pay off!

This two-hour movie has a strange property, it makes you feel like you're watching a documentary that's only half the size. The events that led to the seizure of the United States embassy in Tehran seemed somewhat minimal in length, and the process of the set up of this Canadian film crew cover story took some considerable time to be put into effect, but once that was done, from the moment Affleck's character of Tony Mendez touches down in Tehran, the rest of the movie seems to disappear in the blink of an eye.

Interesting thing about the events that transpired in 1979-1980 which were the inspiration for this movie; when the Canadian Embassy became hosts to the six refugees from the now seized US Embassy, the Canadian Government started the ball rolling by getting six fake passports ready, complete with fake identities ready to be sent through to them. The only thing is, they lacked the resources to pull it off. Enter Tony Mendez and the creation of the fake film studio, press releases, etc. with thanks to the CIA, and it all came together...

So, is it convincing? Yes... And yet no... Here's the thing, just like the pretext of the movie within the movie, Hollywood has a way with artistic license. I took the liberty of reading more into the events of the Canadian Caper and they're actually quite dull... In a way it's no surprise that they decided to add extra bits to jazz it up. By doing so, the historical inaccuracies have been criticized considerably and have resulted in a few disgruntled critics bad mouthing the film despite the various awards won by this film.

I'll be blunt here; I did like the film, even though the film kinda smacks of the old Mission: Impossible TV series of 1969-1973... Given that the events took place some seven years after the TV series finished, the analogy kinda fits like a comfy old pair of gloves. I have to admit though, that the number of "Hollywood" thriller clichés within the film kinda added to the effect of the film. According to the Rotten Tomatoes, 96% of critics gave a positive review for this film... So why people keep pummeling these movies based on real life events puzzles me... I mean, why didn't they pummel Titanic or Men of Honor or Apollo 13 just as equally? 

I think the whole point of Hollywood is to add a layer of glamor to everything it touches, just like within Argo and its fake film counterpart. And that's what makes this movie work on so many levels... Even though there are various clichés that permeate the film. There's the doubting people to be rescue; the rescue plan that's so crazy that it may just work despite the lack of confidence by everyone involved; the near-capture scene; the quick thinking actions of one of the people to be rescued (who conveniently speaks fluent Farsi like a native) and the protagonist's right-hand man who seems to stop at nothing to help his friend in need...

Cringeworthy as each of these clichés seems to be, I think a number of us have grown rather accustomed to them being present in films such as this. The funny thing is, during the film they're not as noticeable as they are in retrospect. I guess the convenient Farsi speaking embassy worker cliché kinda haunts me a little but otherwise I'm okay with it...

Ben Affleck, he starred, directed and produced this film... He's done pretty well, I think, with George Clooney also sharing production rights along with Grant Heslov, who was also responsible for The Men Who Stare At Goats... I think he's made an exceptional performance as exfiltration specialist Tony Mendez. What made Affleck so believable in this film was that he didn't bring an overconfident, cocky and expert-of-everything character to the screen. Tony Mendez in this film was a vulnerable man; separated from his wife and son, self-doubting at times and has a genuine demeanor about him that doesn't feel it's forced.

You then have Bryan Cranston, who has been one busy man. Amid starring in seasons of Breaking Bad, and fourteen movies over 2010 to 2012, Cranston's character of Jack O'Donnell is bold and determined which is a credit to his acting stamina... I honestly don't know how he does it to be honest...

John Goodman as John Chambers, a perfect fit. Both Johns were big men and Goodman must have studied his namesake very carefully as I had difficulty seeing anything but Chambers on the screen. I know Goodman has been selective of late choosing his roles but I got to hand it to him, he's done well with this role.

Finally Alan Arkin, one of the first films I saw him in was the 1968 film Inspector Clouseau... A spin-off film from the Pink Panther series... I haven't seen him in much else of late, save for "Get Smart", but like Goodman, Arkin doesn't hammer out films like Affleck and Cranston do... He too is selective, and in his case his roles are more a subject of quality than quantity. Nevertheless, his portrayal of Lester Siegel was remarkable... Arkin's cynicism and candor come out strong in Siegel in aiding Mendez to get the script for the mission, in fact, it stays with you for the length of the film... But not in a bad way. Arkin's good at what he does, he adds a little wit to help quell the tension within the film, as he seems to do.

The film, all in all, was quite enjoyable and I'd watch it again... My only regret is that Hollywood, in the name of making it a great film, took an interesting story, and added more Hollywood to it to make it worthy of screening... Sort of like the film cliché where the girl who is the ugly duckling gets made over so that she'd fit in with the rest of society... Given that, I'm happy to award 4½ stars to Argo.

Superman III

Running Time: 125 minutes

Media: TV Broadcast (Late night movie)

You know, I always have been a fan of the original Superman series (known by various fans as the Donnerverse series of the Superman movies. It's different to the stuff we've seen with Brandon Routh or the new one with Henry Cavill, and also different to the Tom Welling series of Smallville. Most people are aware of these movies, probably though, less and less so as we go further into the series... Everyone remembers the first one, and the second one about as much... Once you start getting into the third and fourth films, you start scratching your head in confusion... 

And with Superman III, it's pretty much that, it's a bit of a head-scratcher, alright... What with the five or so minutes of introduction credits with the additional footage of the previous two films, followed by a five or so minute long slapstick routine that featured a lot of men getting injured from accidents resulting from ogling Pamela Stephenson. This is just the top of the food chain of stupidity that has culminated from the plot of this movie.

I think this seems to have resulted from one thing, and one thing only: the introduction of Richard Pryor as the focus of the film, as opposed to Christopher Reeve; and with the redirected focus, things definitely go wrong... Pryor stars as August "Gus" Gorman, a chronic suffer of unemployment who decides to try his luck with computers, and miraculously develops a talent for it... He gets a job, and decides that because he's not being paid enough, to start "salami-slicing" everyone else's salaries and whack all those shaved pennies into his pocket. This alerts his boss, Ross Webster (played by Robert Vaughan), who with the help of his sister, Vera (there's no explanation why she's there...?), blackmails Gorman into helping him rule the financial world.

Let me stop right here for just a second... okay, maybe more...Webster's immediate plan is for Gorman to hijack a weather satellite that measures weather changes like any other weather satellite and turn it into a weather controlling satellite to ruin Columbia's entire coffee crop... Now bear in mind, the last time I had seen this movie in full, I may have been seven, maybe eight years of age... Back then I would have smiled and nodded and thought "Cool, I'm still watching Superman III!" Now, I just had my jaw drop in shock and thinking "What the hell is this bulls[CENSORED]t?!?"

This attempt to switch everyone from Columbian beans to slow-roasted Arabica is thwarted by Superman. Not only that, but Supes also decides to go to his high school reunion in Smallville as his alter ego, Clark Kent... On his way he stops a chemical plant from going up in flames, inclusive of preventing several hundred vials of "beltric" acid from bringing down the plant. He does this by freezing the top part of a nearby lake and dropping it on the burning buildings... I can't imagine the number of fish that may have perished from Superman freezing the lake.

The concept of these things happening just gets weirder and weirder as time goes by... Once again, another love interest, this time Lana Lang, played by Annette O'Toole, fails to see that Superman is just Clark Kent without glasses. Superman rescues her son Ricky, who for some unknown reason is found unconscious and lying in the direct path of a crop harvester. At a celebration to honor Superman, Pryor once again, dressed as an army officer goes into some weird tirade about plastics with the citizens of Smallville and in a roundabout way manages to thank Superman for saving the chemical plant, presenting him with some faux Kryptonite. This crap Kryptonite manages to turn Superman into an evil version of himself. You would think that Superman was clever enough to avoid any hunks of green rock by instinct given the information he would have learned based off the first two movies...

I could go on and on, but to do so would make my brain melt... The focus seems to be more on Richard Pryor and his supposedly bumbling but logic-defying computer genius than it is on Christopher Reeve and the struggle to free himself of his evil self... In the end, the creation of some super computer that is capable of doing anything that Gus tells it to do seems quite illogical considering we barely can program iPhone's Siri to recognize the words "Call my wife at home", but yet there it is... The idea of it then coming alive and trying to kill off Superman by the attempted conversion of Webster's sister into a cyborg of sorts is far-fetched, but then again, there it is...

All I can ask is, what the f[CENSORED]k were Ilya and Alexander Salkind thinking by allowing David and Leslie Newman write the script? I would never have let the script leave the desk... well, save for making a bee-line for the trash bin. Argo, the script that helped fuel the Canadian Caper in 1979 made better sense than this... And even the film based on the incident was a better film than this. Robert Vaughan's portrayal of Ross Webster proves to be nothing save for a Lex Luthor wanna-be. Pamela Stephenson who plays Lorelei Ambrosia, his "psychic nutritionist" (what?!?) seems to have more lucid moments of clarity than anyone else in the film, and it seems was really hiding her intelligence for some other reason... I wish I knew what that was... Margot Kidder, our lovely Lois Lane, and even Gene Hackman (who played Lex Luthor in the first two movies) were more or less punished for their anger towards the Salkinds' treatment of Richard Donner in the first two films, and he refused to reprise his role for Superman III, only to be persuaded to reprise his role for Superman IV: The Quest for Peace. Kidder on the other hand, suffered an even more embarrassing scenario of having her role in Superman III reduced to a brief cameo in the beginning and the end... Surprisingly Ilya Salkind denied these allegations in his commentary in the 2006 DVD release of this film.

The film itself left me with so many unanswered questions, that I thought I was on an episode of Jeopardy. I've never really considered this previously when I was a child because, hey, all young boys love their superheroes, but now that I'm thirty-seven, I'm now seeing a movie with more holes than ten pounds of Jarlsberg cheese, and ironically, was just as cheesy in plot, if not moreso. When Richard Donner was hired to direct the first two films, he thought the Newmans' scripts were somewhat distasteful, and so he hired Tom Mankiewicz to do some serious re-writing of the scripts... As they were not attached to the franchise come Superman III, the Salkinds were able to bring their vision of Superman to the big screen, hiring the Newmans to write the script. I think this is what happens when super-egos get in the way of Superman. Sadly, this failed the film considerably. Despite these shortcomings... Reeve does get some praise for his portrayal of his corrupted version of Superman, the junkyard battle scene was kinda predictable with respect to the good side winning. However, Superman III has not won me any favor of any kind, and as a result gets two stars.

Iron Man 3

Running Time: 130 minutes
Media: Cinematic Release (Hoyts Penrith)

I have two comic book heroes that I absolutely love, no questions asked. One of them is DC Comics' the Flash, and I have always loved anything that has come out regarding him in all of his various incarnations.

The other is Marvel Comics' Iron Man. And I have to confess, when I first heard that Robert Downey Junior was going to be playing the part of Tony Stark, I was fist pumping the air in celebration! He was the most perfect fit in my personal opinion... RDJ was a broken man, rather much like Stark was in the comics... And if I do say so myself, the Iron Man franchise has pretty much resurrected Downey's career. Four movies on and a cameo to boot (see "The Incredible Hulk" for a lovely little Easter egg most would miss because they don't watch past the credits, let alone stick around for them...) and it's plain to see that Iron Man and the Avengers are here to stay... And will be coming back for even more.

And most of you may think I've pretty much written the review in my head and made my mind up... I have, but before I write a glowing review on what I already consider a great film, a few caveats. I'm writing this as a fan of film and comics, not as someone who has been endorsed by Marvel Studios (if only!) Secondly, I'm a bit of a traditionalist and appreciate when good ideas can be translated seamlessly from one medium to another, the Harry Potter franchise comes to mind (book to film, albeit with a few minuses here and there... But I'll get to those in future reviews...), but at the same time I will, on occasion mark down attempts to push the boundaries too far... For example, the original Spider-Man series using organic web creation... And a much wimpier and vulnerable Peter Parker...

So, Iron Man 3... Where do we begin? Good or bad? Let's start with the bad and work our way up...

Gwyneth Paltrow as Pepper Potts, undeniably gorgeous, but I've noticed her hair has gotten lighter and lighter with each film... Where's the redhead from the first film?? Granted, the sassiness is  still there, but why did Pepper let her red locks fade to blonde? Am I being a little sentimental? Possibly, but as I said I'm a bit of a traditionalist...

Next, Stark's near brush with death against the alien race trying to enslave the planet, what were they called again, the Chitauri... That's it... Now, I was still trying to figure out what it was that keeps freaking Stark out when people mention the battle of New York... He pretty much killed them off with the nuclear device he pointed at the Chitauri mothership... He then passed out until the Hulk... er... "jolted" him awake... So the question begs, what the f[CENSORED]k makes him break down at the thought of recalling the events of that day?

Also, I know Marvel Studios is owned by Disney but did they have to hammer that point home by borrowing elements from "The Incredibles"? You don't follow? Okay, prepare for spoilers...

In Iron Man 3, Tony Stark (aka Iron Man) is approached by an idolizing young scientist, Aldrich Killian, hoping to join forces with Stark, but is turned down by Stark; only to come back as an evil version of himself several years later, who is then subsequently killed but not by Stark.

In The Incredibles, Robert Parr (aka Mr Incredible) is approached by an idolizing fan, Buddy Pine, but is turned down by Parr; only to come back as an evil version of himself several years later, who is then subsequently killed but not by Parr.

They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery... I guess when you consider the parallels between "Avatar" and "Pocahontas" are far greater, then this thing with "Iron Man 3" and "The Incredibles" is considerably forgivable in comparison.

So let's go through the main cast... Robert Downey Junior... RDJ, well what can I say? RDJ is RDJ, he was born for the role in my personal opinion and I can't fault him... His role is serious with a side of funny, though his little freak-out episodes throughout the film seem odd...  They seem... "out of place", and I'm having trouble making sense of it... And his collaboration with this kid Harley just seems a little fortuitous, almost convenient... This was the only part that has made me question the film really...

Well, that and Pepper Potts' ever fading red hair to blonde... That's questionable too. Paltrow's portrayal of Potts, however, is much stronger than the original character portrayed in the classic comics or even the two/three minute cartoon mini-series I used to watch when I was younger. And you know what? It suits the franchise; Potts is the Jiminy Cricket sitting on Tony Stark's shoulder to help guide him... with Stark, just like Pinocchio, striving to be more than he currently is.

Guy Pearce as the bad guy, it seems a little... "odd"... Don't get me wrong, I think he's a great actor and he's a fellow Australian, but his character, Aldrich Killian, comes off as snobby, arrogant, his fake tan looks a little bit too fake... Perfect teeth, and, perfect pecs… and a very petty attitude to those who aren't perfect like he is... Basically, he looks and acts like a complete douche bag. When I think about it though, that's probably the whole objective, make Guy Pearce a douche so that Robert Downey Junior looks angelic by comparison, and you know what? I think they succeeded.

Wait a second, almost forgot about Ben Kingsley as The Mandarin... Remember all that hype that was made when they announced The Mandarin as the baddie for Iron Man 3? Well, take that hype, stick it in a luxurious envelope, seal it, add a pretty bow on it... Got that? Good, now take that envelope and promptly feed it into the nearest document shredder you can find... As soon as I saw his face and heard his voice I knew that something suspicious was up... Being known as The Mandarin and yet sounding like a Texan sheriff with a fake over-enunciated drawl rang alarm bells from my cinema seat... This Mandarin was (from my already-formed opinion) merely a figurehead or a patsy or rather, the "customer sales representative" to something more sinister. How anticlimactic my conclusions were when I found that I was right... It's rather disappointing...

Now enough of the cast, let's go to the visual effects... I can't fault them, I really can't... That's more because of the forty-something special suits that Tony Stark has created since the New York incident in "Marvel's The Avengers" some months back... Though a question is raised regarding the suits, that one being why he didn't use them all in the first major battle scene as he did in the final scene... Once you see the film, you'll be wondering the same. The transition of Stark hopping from one suit to the next is seamless... and left me wondering "where's my god damn Iron man suit?" The other somewhat cool effect is this "Extremis" virus thing... It seems very heat and fire orientated and the visuals for that are pretty awesome.

The ending of the movie, well, what can I say... It's left me wondering, will Stark take on the mantle of Iron Man ever again? It's left it somewhat very open-ended and although it seems to point to a definite retirement, what's gonna happen seeing there's plans of a sequel to the Avengers? Lets just say that I'm still wanting more... In the mean time, Iron Man 3 receives four stars...

Warm Bodies

Running time: 97 minutes

Media: Cinematic release

I saw this movie a few months ago after an aunt's birthday party, and I have to admit, I actually enjoyed this considerably. And while I normally tend to read the books of these book-to-film conversions, I didn't know that a book existed until I read about it in its respective Wiki article.

I kept looking at the two lead characters, R, the zombie and Julie the non-zombie, and I realized I had seen them in other movies recently. R is played by Nicholas Roult, who played Dr. Hank McCoy in X-Men: First Class who also became Beast in that film. Julie, is played by Aussie girl Teresa Palmer, who was the love interest in the Disney movie The Sorceror's Apprentice. It's a thing I do, it's not a sign of a mental condition or anything, I just try to recognize everyone I can in a film where possible, just for my own interest and curiosity... But I digress...

The premise of the film is that we have the post-apocalyptic world scenario where zombies are rife throughout the area in question, and there's small fortified cities where survivors venture out to find food, medical supplies, etc. It kinda reminds me of an iPhone app I have called "Zombies, Run!", which, I kid you not, is a fitness program to help with running away from virtual zombies! Anyhow, in one of these missions Julie and her somewhat ass of a boyfriend, Perry are trapped in some medical facility. Perry gets killed by R (that's all he remembers of his name... just the R), who proceeds to also eat Perry's brain... Now supposedly a zombie eating someone's brain somehow makes them telepathically aligned with the person they're eating, feeling their emotions and thoughts. So as a result, R starts having feelings for Julie, which turn out to be feelings of love as far as it can be told. Julie is freaked out about some zombie trying to woo her... And probably not as much as her dad, played by John Malkovich... Who thinks that the only good zombie is a dead one...

Just as an aside, here's a quick thought-provoking question. When R eats someone's brain, he absorbs their thoughts and feelings... If R were to eat some of his own brains... would he find himself in that restaurant scene in Being John Malkovich? I have no idea where that thought came from... I think my glass of Sprite may be tainted or something... 

Anyhow, R tries to woo Julie, and at the same time tries to avoid both of them being torn apart by "boneys" which are zombies that have gone off on a bender, never to return; or being killed by Julie's dad and his troops, as well as preventing Julie from being eaten by fellow zombies like R's friend, M (played by Rob Corddry). But it seems that not only is R changing, the love R feels for Julie is spreading to other zombies like M, and they're changing too... It's a little leap if faith on the part of the audience, but it does pay off a little... It's a kind of a feel good movie, but without the bubblegum goodness that makes you want to gag like you've had a cup of fake-cherry flavored cough syrup.

Now while I haven't read the book, I would suspect that the movie ties in very closely to the plot of the movie; and for that I am actually quite thankful. Though I may have to question the almost convenient way that the movie resolves to its final conclusion. It's a little cutesy-putesy to say the least, but it's tolerable, probably more tolerable than say, World War Z. I have to admit though, there were times that I thought that the zombies had more character than any of the non-zombie ones... Well, they seemed the funniest, after all, they were trying to become more and more human again.

In summing up though, Warm Bodies is one of those films that is a film that you could take your other half to see, as there is a somewhat touching relationship... You know, girl meets ghoul per se. The acting is fairly decent, even though Malkovich is seen as quite an obnoxious bastard. But the way the movie plays out the relationship being built up is quite enchanting and it does draw you in. I enjoyed this movie immensely and I'll have to look far and wide for the DVD or Blu-Ray to enjoy later. Warm Bodies receives a very heart-warming four stars.

World War Z

Running Time: 116 minutes

Media: Cinematic Release

The only reason I managed to get to see this was because my lovely wife is away seeing a friend of hers who just had a little boy... Me, I normally don't get time off... Wait, yes, listeners, that's right, I did say "wife"... I got married back in May and so far things are going rather swimmingly. It also explains my three month absence, so I do apologize... Things have been hectic with work and all, and so I have a number of reviews to write and little time with which to do them.

That being said, I decided to see this on a whim, seeing my wife was away and I needed some down time... and come to think of it I seriously need to find time to do yet another movie marathon... I am so itching to see six back-to-back... And who knows I may even be able to make it seven if I'm really clever... Anyway, I digress... 

Okay, World War Z... was conceptualized by Max Brooks, and yes, it is based on a novel... well, not a novel per se, but a "written oral history of the Zombie War" in a matter of speaking... I have read the novel, and it covers the geo-political, socio-economic, religious and environmental changes to society resulting from the spread of zombies and the ensuing battle for survival by the human race. That's the book. The movie, slightly different... It has Brad Pitt shooting, hacking, slicing and wrestling with zombies while at the same time out-running explosions and surviving miraculously with each turn in his quest to save humanity.

So naturally, what the book and the movie have in common is that they're both entitled "World War Z"... It's a bit of a stretch, isn't it? Well, here's where we have the closest thing to a plot in this movie. Brad Pitt a former United Nations investigator (it seems his "new" job now is to make pancakes for the rest of his family), called Gerry Lane, finds himself running from a swarm of rapidly turning zombies whilst waiting in traffic with his family. Miraculously, the Deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations manages to reach him with pretty much clear reception and offers to pick him and his family up from some high point somewhere in Philadelphia where they manage to escape even more zombies, including the newly zombified family of a Hispanic child called Tomas, whom they take with them.

Guess what? The Deputy Secretary-General wasn't doing Gerry a favor. No, he needs his help... he's supposedly the only man for the job? No, there's a virologist who is to team up with him to help find the answers. It seems the virologist has a thing for loaded weapons, as audience members will soon discover... 

Gerry finds that he must travel to Korea, Israel and Wales in order to find the answers. And of course, he finds he just can't get away from those damn zombies, they're everywhere, man! So in his process of running from zombies, explosions and anything else preventing him from running, it seems that he finds solace in Wales along with a research team in Cardiff, only to miraculously figure out a solution that may help sort out this nasty zombie business... 

The climax towards the end, really isn't, because, let's face it, it's so f[CENSORED]king predictable that it just had to have that Hollywood type ending... And my worst fears were founded when the scene played right before my eyes, almost schmaltzy in nature... A whole spray can of Easy Cheese has nothing on this... To add insult to injury the anti-climax is followed by a thirty or so second scene which involves a soda pop dispensing machine; and will send you cringing as you try to stifle forced laughter as the disbelief-a-meter rises, and lo, and behold, the great Messiah Brad Pitt has pretty much saved humanity.

The only other name I recognized in the cast of the film was David Morse, who barely gets a mention as a toothless weapons merchant who sold guns to people in North Korea. Total amount of screen time? About five minutes... That's about 4% of the total screen time of this film... To be honest, he was there as filler, nothing more.

J. Michael Straczynski, who also wrote 92 of the 110 episodes of Babylon 5 was responsible for the adaptation of the book to film... Did he do a good enough job? I literally have to think about this... Yes... and then No... Yes, in the sense that there is enough action and thrills to get the heart racing and the blood flowing fast enough to make you watch to the end... And no, in the sense that there are a number of points in the film which are never mentioned in the book, as well as scenes which would make a Babylon 5 episode seem more believable. I found myself shaking my head at the time-again-tested predictability of the film. It was enough to make me want to cry at times... 

I also stuck around to watch the credits... And I just have to ask... why are there so many rotoscopers in the film crew? What are they rotoscoping? The last time I heard the phrase used it was regarding the graphics required for the lightsabers in the newer (but older) Star Wars movies.

To sum it up, the make up was good for the zombies, it seemed fairly suitable given the nature of the film, but everything was taken from the book and ramped up several notches. It's like taking a Bugatti, adding a nitrous oxide booster, and then slamming on the gas pedal... yes, you get a ride, but it's one that feels too out of control, too unbelievably fast and hard to escape from. And then the anti-climax comes and it's like driving that Bugatti straight into the walls of the Hoover Dam. Alonso Duralde of The Wrap reviewed this film as well, saying, "For all its effectiveness at portraying the horror of possible human extinction, the film's actual humans are so soulless that this could just as well be the movie version of the video game Plants vs. Zombies." I couldn't agree with Duralde more, there's no real advancement or development for the characters in the story save for that of Pitt, explosion-dodger extraordinaire. If it wasn't for the heart-jumping scenes at the start, this movie would have gotten far less than what I'm prepared to give it. When it comes to recent zombie movies over the last few years, even Warm Bodies will earn far higher than this. World War Z receives 2½ stars... You know, zombies may not be real, but after seeing this... I feel like my brains been eaten anyhow...

The Three Stooges

We ain't gonna take it any Moe.

Running Time: 92 minutes.

Media: Blu-Ray.

Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk! The love I had for these guys back in the 1980's was unfathomable, and now that this film was available on Blu-Ray actually made me want to see it more. I had little chance to see this film when it came out, especially considering it was also in limited release here in Australia. A real shame, as I would have loved it.

I saw one very adamant Youtube member post that he was boycotting the film, that it was disgraceful and that it besmirched the good name of the Three Stooges. Had he seen the film in its entirety? No. Had he considered that three minutes or less was sufficient enough to guarantee a suitable review? No. I had similar aspects with regards to Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, and look where that has led. I decided to give this film the benefit of the doubt and tried it myself.

Boy, was I far from disappointed! The movie has been "divided" into three separate acts, just like the old Stooges TV movies, and it graces many concepts that were essential to the Stooges genre. The hair ripping, the ear pulling, the nostril grab, face slaps, eye pokes, the list goes on. And I never laughed so much in my life.

The story revolves around the Stooges' attempts to raise $830,000 to save the orphanage where they grew up. Everyone else pales in comparison when the Stooges appear. Secondary characters appear here and there, as well as the tertiary characters, who appear maybe twice to three times throughout the entire film; but your focus is forever placed in the Stooges when they appear. Possibly my bias comes from having grown up on them, as well as the cartoons based on these three.

The casting for these characters was a tough process, Benicio del Toro and Hank Azaria were originally destined to play the role of Moe... Hank, I could see as a possibility, but Benicio? That's a bit of a stretch! Chris Diamantopoulos was eventually cast, and having seen some of his previously work (for example his amazing portrayal of Robin Williams in Mork and Mindy - The Unauthorized Story). His ability to mimic voices is uncanny. And the hair and make-up have virtually transformed this Hellenic-Canadian actor into what would be the spitting image of a 40-something version of Moe Howard. I was gob-smacked, the gob could very well have been smacked by Moe himself. I have to say, Diamantopoulos does an undenyingly brilliant job, from his vocal portrayal, to his scowl when facing his fellow stooges, to his commanding ability to out-poke and out-wit and out-hit Larry and Curly. Chris, if you are reading this, I salute you.

Sean Hayes, where do I start, he seems to work well as Larry Fine, though I have to admit, like the comedy shorts of the mid-20th century, he does seem to come a close second to Curly. He only took the brunt of Moe's wrath when he said something out of line or he interfered with something; this is no different in the film, which is not a bad thing. He actually pulls off the role play of Larry inasmuch as Moe is able to rip out giant tufts of Larry's hair. The "looking into the sun" look that Larry does is ever present in the film, and although this did come across as an issue I could raise, I kinda swept it under the rug. That said, I couldn't see a better pick for Larry than this. Now, bearing in mind that there was a possibility that Sean Penn was due to play the part, I'm actually glad that Hayes got the role. Hayes has a unique ability to generate laughter, he is a genuinely funny guy, and has made a lot of his success from his portrayal of Jack McFarland in one of my favorite TV sitcoms Will and Grace. I guess he's managed to bottle this and release it in sizable amounts within this film and many others he has starred since Will and Grace. The hair and make-up for Larry was well done, and I can still picture him now. The resemblance was uncanny.

Will Sasso, who starred in MAD TV for a number of years plays Curly. Now he stands a little taller than the other two, which kinda conflicts with the original heights of the three, as the original Stooges were all roughly the same height.  Despite this little oversight (and it is indeed little), Curly is well played, Sasso has no doubt studied the character long and hard and has perfected it to an art-form. The voice, actions, the dancing, and even the "Woo woo woo, nyuk nyuk nyuk!" is better than I can do... Sasso also has the right bulk and has the perfect ability to play the innocent numbskull demeanor (No offense, Will, I think you're incredible!) to play Curly and it shows. I find it amazing to read that Jim Carrey was once attempting to land this role, but gave up the role due to health reasons, as it seems he attempted to gain between 60-70 pounds to get into the role of Curly; but gave up after a 40 pound gain. Now, I know that 40 pounds is a lot of weight, and I can totally understand... but I personally feel that Sasso gave Curly Joe the justice he deserved, and paid homage to him perfectly, and without the weight gain. Will kinda reminds me of a humorous version of Michael Chiklis!

Other characters such as the nuns played by Jane Lynch, Kate Upton, Jennifer Hudson and Larry David no less, all seem to be upstaged and don't get their chance to shine; which is a shame, but our focus is forever drawn to our loveable loonies of Larry, Curly and Moe. Jane Lynch plays a moderately benevolent Mother Superior, whereas Hudson who plays Sister Rosemary shows up with a smattering of appearances throughout the film, and even has the opportunity to sing in the film, well... sort of... She's kinda interrupted in one scene, and another scene she's somewhat upstaged when singing with the Stooges. To me, she seems like she's there simply for her voice than anything else. Similarly, there's Kate Upton, playing the role of Sister Bernice, a very vivacious looking nun, who can be spotted in something that can only be referred to as a "nun-kini"... As much as I love Kate, and I do, she seems to have been exploited simply for the fact that she has an amazing body, and far be it for me to say this, but it's worked well, but I still wonder if it was for all the right reasons. She added comedic elements here and there, but only to the extent of her presence.

Larry David, however, playing Sister Mary Mengele is the real scene stealer. He... er, she (Mary Mengele) is sharp, crude and a laugh a minute, a perfect role for David, and it's as funny as Tracy's mom on Hairspray, but without the actual drag... A lot of controversy has been placed on the fact that "Mengele" is also the surname of Josef Mengele, one of the SS officers who decided the fates of Auschwitz prisoners. There was also controversy of this film being highly anti-Catholic... Seriously? Give me a break... this movie is a spoof, and should be treated as such. The elements of slapstick aren't capable of being done in real life without causing some genuine farm. Slapstick itself is a form of spoofing... And I'm willing to bet that if I searched for Mengele in the White Pages, I'd find maybe a half dozen people with that surname, who don't take offense of having the surname. I count at least fifty entries in the American White Pages web site. A name is simply that, a name. If people are going to poke critique on every little thing that offends them in a comedy, then they have the right to not watch the film; but to chastise others for watching it, or bemoaning the fact that it offends others... As a wise comedian once said, there's no such thing as "an inappropriate joke", it's inappropriate, that's why it's a joke. Comedy can't please everyone, it will always offend someone, and there's no way to correct either. The Catholic Church has gotten the poops as well because of the nun-kini that Upton wears towards the end of the film. This is a harmless poke at the versatility of the nun's habit (i.e. none at all), and so the nun-kini is also yet another joke. Let it be.

Complete the cast with Craig Bierko, Sofia Vergara and Stephen Collins, as a trio of con artists out to use the Stooges to get their hands on an inheritance and you have a very well endowed cast of actors who can pull off this comic juggernaught. Sofia is gorgeous as her usual self and emphasizes her ability to play the role of the gorgeous wife, as she does in Modern Family. I wish I had seen her with more lines in this film... Craig Bierko, of whom I last saw in The Thirteen Floor, and more recently in an episode of Elementary on CBS, plays the role of Sofia's lover, who seems to stumble along and suffer blow after blow with all the accidents he winds up in... Poor guy, I really do feel for his character... I would have loved to have seen more of him in the film too, a shame that it kinda wraps up a little toward the end, but it's fun to watch these two interact with one another and with the Stooges.

Overall, the film is wonderful, and plays homage to the eponymous Stooges with the way this film has been written out. The Farrelly Brothers excelled themselves in the direction and production and they definitely did their homework to ensure that Diamantopoulos, Hayes and Sasso embodied their roles. I will however, be stripping half a star for the slight gap with characters that seemed a bit out of place, the Stooges themselves are faultless and with the possibility of a sequel coming up, I am salivating at the prospect of grabbing my popcorn and sitting back in a cinema chair to watch. Four and a half stars.

The Sum of All Fears

Running Time: 124 minutes

Media: TV Broadcast

I thought, "Why not?" The idea of seeing Ben Affleck play the role of Dr. Jack Ryan was appealing enough, and I had attempted to watch this once before, and had given up... So last night, by the advice of my future father-in-law, I settled back and watched this film.

Tom Clancy, the author of the originating book, also plays the role of executive producer here... and it seems he was quite pleased with the results... Despite the fact that originally Jack Ryan was portrayed by Harrison Ford in Patriot Games and Clear and Present Danger, and then by Alec Baldwin in The Hunt for Red October; it seems that Ryan is getting younger and younger...

But it seems that Ben Affleck is a good fit for this reboot of the series, though up to a point, and I will explain this further in my review. Surprisingly, there has been little encouragement since the film came out ten years ago to push for a sequel. A bit sad really, as I did enjoy this film, but once again, to a certain degree, and this too will be explained later on in the review.

That being said, there were significant changes from the book to film conversion. Tom Clancy joking admitted on the commentary track on the film's DVD that he was "the author of the book that he...", Phil Alden Robinson, the director, who is present with Clancy, "...ignored." And the fact that the author is happy to joke about the changes made is a good sign that it should be enjoyed. The strongest change was the deviation of the villains in the book from Islamic extremists to Neo-Nazis. This change was not due to the 9/11 attacks, as filming ended in June 2001, some three or so months before the 9/11 attacks.

Here Jack Ryan played by Affleck is brought in by the CIA director, William Cabot (played by the all powerful Morgan Freeman), to advise on the ever mounting tension between the United States and Russia, with the death of the former Russian president.

Alexander Neremov is sworn in as the new president, and he's supposedly a real hard-ass... Ciarán Hinds, who plays the role of Neremov is frightening, almost too scary too approach, but his portrayal is quite seasoned actor on both TV, stage and screen, he's done very well. He has this stone cold look, one that says "I can't feel a thing, I cannot show emotion." True, but sadly, he also looked like he also had suffered a mild stroke with his look. But given the nature of his role I am willing to let this slide.

Throw in a potential nuclear threat in the form of a dirty nuclear bomb to be detonated somewhere in the United States and it becomes a race to find the culprits before it's too late. With Ryan taking orders from none other than William Cabot, the director of the FBI, played by Morgan Freeman, one of the most charismatic actors of all time, the scene changes dramatically with every new revelation... The problem is, is that this change seems to occur a little too quickly. I mean, come on, granted, they have two hours within this film to bring us up to speed, but a lot of it seems to happen all at once, making you lose the flow of the plot. I had a little trouble trying to wrap my head around what was happening, and wondering why certain... "unnecessary" scenes were thrown in to make things connect together.

Freeman is great as Cabot, he plays the role well, and had me convinced of his leadership and ability to command, but then again, he seems to have that effect, doesn't he? I'm not sure what it is about him, but he seems to embody every role with such confidence. His demeanor in the film is such that he comes across as dry, but humorous when he needs to be. It makes the audience side with him and treat him as someone other than a cold and heartless man who is only concerned about his job. Thus, kudos to Freeman, as per usual.

Affleck... Ben Affleck, does he pull it off as a former military man turned CIA analyst? Yes and no. He works well as Jack Ryan, but having first seen  Patriot Games many years ago, I half-expected some of the grittiness of Harrison Ford to seep into his younger counterpart. Not so, as he seems somewhat unsure and  unready to tackle things head on; which kinda conflicts with his military history. It's not convincing enough, very amateurish, kinda like watching a newly-born giraffe get on his feet for the first time and walking. He kinda stumbles through the plot and discovers various things by pure accident, albeit a lot of it through secondary characters that seem to favor the odds to complete serendipity than focused research.

My final focus is on James Cromwell... This man has played presidents here and there, from West Wing as D. Wire Newman, to RFK, as Lyndon B. Johnson, and now as President J. Robert Fowler. My God, Fowler is a hard-ass, he's stubborn, he's emotional, he's a tortured soul... He's brilliant. I think having had played presidents after this one has confirmed his fit for such a role. Normally when I think of Cromwell, I think of peaceful characters, but he amazingly pushes through regardless of the madness around him. Cromwell is convincing enough to follow through.

Secondary characters abound, the convenience of Grushkov coming through towards the end, as well as the set up of the initial encoutner between Neremov and Ryan kinda spoils it toward the end. I also found the logic of the "engagement" between Ryan and his girlfriend a little strange, especially considering that they had only been together a few weeks according to the film (maybe I heard it wrong, but it seemed a little quick to me!)

Given the pace and the cast of the film, I was tempted to score high, but I'm compelled to score it three and a half stars as I'm not thoroughly convinced that they pulled it off completely, sure, it was wrapped up towards the end, but a little too neatly... It gave me one of those involuntary cringes when I discovered this tying up, and as a result I'm sticking to my guns. The Sum of All Fears as a result, get 3½ stars.

Les Miserables (2012)

Running Time: 158 minutes.
Media: Cinematic release (Hoyts Broadway)


True story, when I was seven, my mother had a number of books in French that I was interested in reading... There was Around the World in 80 Days, The Three Musketeers, From the Earth to the Moon, and Les Miserables. I couldn't help asking my mother "Who's Les? He's got a pretty awful surname...?"

Alright, you can stop laughing... I did think it was a pretty unfortunate surname. And I never thought to see the musical until recently, and now that I have seen this adaptation, I would love the opportunity to see this once it makes its way back to Australia... that and Avenue Q, but I digress...

I was really happy about seeing this widescreen, and I knew that being a 2½-plus hour movie, the category of "EPIC!" would consistently flash in my head as I watched it, I made myself comfortable. Being a late session there weren't many people around... in fact I would have been surprised if there were no more than ten people in this particular cinema. This made for a wonderful viewing session.

Moving on, Les Mis has managed to garner nine (count them, nine) BAFTA Awards, including Best Film, Best British Film, Best Actor in a Leading Role and Best Actress in a Supporting Role and eight Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture, Best Actor and Best Supporting Actress. Now given that Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway have already won Golden Globe Awards for Best Actor and Best Supporting Actress respectively, the odds of them bagging an Oscar each this year are quite high... I wouldn't be surprised if this movie gets a clean sweep.

For those living under a rock, Les Mis, is the story of the struggle of one Jean Valjean (played by Hugh Jackman), who has made a promise to a former and now dead worker of his to look after her illegitimate daughter. Valjean is also on the run from parole after serving a nineteen year sentence for stealing a loaf of bread... Times were harsh back in pre-revolutionary France. Valjean's nemesis is a prison guard, Javert (played by Russell Crowe), who has made it his life's work to hunt Valjean down and bring him back to jail for breaking parole.

Cosette, played by the ever adorable Amanda Seyfried is the adopted daughter of Valjean, with her mother, Fantine, played by Anne Hathaway. The musical is such that very little of the script is spoken, it's sung through pretty much from beginning to end... which kinda reminded me of how it was with Evita. The music is wonderful and it captures your heart, because it is bubbling with raw emotion... especially from Jackman and Hathaway... all other characters kinda pale in comparison... Russell Crowe less so, seeing that a number of critics have said that his only real musical experience stems from his involvement in his band 30 Odd Foot Of Grunts, and an assortment of random appearances... But you know what? He pulls it off just fine, I like his performance as Javert. Javert is a very troubled character, and as a result, the singing must follow in a similar manner to reveal the character through their music. Valjean is hurried and passionate and loving and determined for survival, and his singing conveys that. Javert's character is focused and troubled at the same time, with an obsessive streak with finding Valjean and bringing him to justice, and Crowe's singing conveys this too.

Hathaway's... just... extraordinary, I had to shake my head in disbelief in how beautiful and heart wrenching it was... It put Susan Boyle's rendition to shame. Fantine (Hathaway's character) is only focused on one thing, not herself, but the life of her daughter, Cosette. She's literally sacrificed herself so that he daughter could live. I believe her portrayal of Fantine. I wanted to cry, I really did.

Jackman, though said by a number of critics as "not as good" as his 1985-1987 London production counterpart, Colm Wilkinson, is actually remarkable, he embodies that role... and he's quite believable. What I was surprised about though was how he managed to shape up for the role. He actually lost 15 pounds (6½ kilos), to become the gaunt and emaciated ex-convict Jean Valjean, and gained 30 pounds (13 kilos), to become the mayor, Monsieur Madeleine, the new identity adopted by Valjean. Jackman is known for the vigorous regimes he undertakes for certain roles. He had a similar regime when he underwent a high intensity weight training regimen to improve his physique for the role of Wolverine in X-Men Origins: Wolverine. He altered the training program to shock his body into change and also performed cardiovascular workouts. So that shot of him as Wolverine rising from the tank after having his bones infused with adamantium - no digital touches whatsoever.


Rusty's portrayal of Javert is complex, but you kinda feel sorry for him after realizing he (Javert) is only just trying to do his job... He's taken a lot of flack for his performance, and I can see why some people may think that way, but I feel he gave it his all in this role; and while though that may not be enough for some, without Javert there can be no Jean Valjean. For those who don't care, look towards the end of the film at Javert's final scene where his soliloquy kinda makes you understand why he spent all that time chasing Valjean, and the inevitable demise thereafter, but prepare to cringe at the very moment.

There are a few surprises scattered here and there throughout the film. Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter play Monsieur and Madame Thénardier; and they previously starred together in Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street, so their ability to work together musically is surprisingly upbeat. Bonham Carter looks like she tends to, a bit necrotic... She does star as a number of unusual roles, doesn't she? But she works well as Cohen's husband on-screen. Cohen works wonders as Monsieur Thénardier, and I think kinda steals the scenes he's in. He's a hidden jewel in the movie... a built in "easter egg" of sorts.

Who else, oh yes... For those playing at home, the Bishop is indeed Colm Wilkinson, the original Jean Valjean from the London production back in the 80's. I hear there's also a cameo of Frances Ruffelle as a prostitute who harasses Fantine, but I have yet to find her. I almost squealed in my seat when I did, not that the other ten or so audience members noticed... Being a late session I enjoyed this movie without much interruption, and I enjoyed it so much, I almost came close to singing along... But I didn't, but any musical that makes you feel like doing so must deserve some sort of credit for moving you.

That is why I am giving Les Miserables a 4½ star rating. It comes very close, but there's a feeling that it doesn't quite give you the opportunity to sit back and take in the performances, it's almost as if it wanted to finish a lot sooner than expected. I may also be docking the ½ a star due to the slight tranquilizing effect that Crowe gives as Javert in certain scenes. Although he does well for what I believe is his first musical, he doesn't bring it home. Sorry Rusty, don't get me wrong, I enjoyed your performance, but I feel that somehow you seemed a little subdued in the final edit; that could very well have been to direct our attention to Hugh, who knows? Four and a half stars.

Hop

Running Time: 95 minutes.
Media: DVD.

Be warned, I did give this movie 2 stars. Why? I mean sure, it's got cute little bunnies, cute little chicks, well... a whole heap of cute little chicks and one larger Spanish speaking chick; and Kaley Cuoco... but it kinda screws up within the first minute of it playing.

James Marsden does a little narration, only to throw in the biggest spoiler of the movie some thirty seconds into the movie. To me, it sounds like a bit of a dig. Why give it away? I don't know why Universal Pictures thought this was a good idea... After all, the focus, according to the previews of this movie that  had seen was all about our furry friend here, E.B., played by Russell Brand. It eventually gets turned around to be a stronger focus on Marsden's character of Fred O'Hare, a slacker in Hollywood who lives with his parents, Gary Cole and Elizabeth Perkins.

Now, I was under the impression that this movie was meant to detail E.B.'s strain with his father, a real square, and the Easter Bunny, played by a very not-so-square Hugh Laurie, who wants to pass the torch down to E.B. and make him the Easter Bunny Elect so to speak. E.B. is not so happy with the idea, wanting to be a famous drummer. And dammit, there's only one way he can do it, by leaving Easter Island (what a brilliant location for the Easter Bunny and his son!) and going to Hollywood to make his dreams come true.

E.B. meets up with Fred and causes a little chaos for him, only for Fred to still help him with getting onto Hoff Knows Talent, a talent show in which it seems David Hasselhoff has stripped away possible co-hosts and plans on doing the job himself. And speaking of which, Carlos, the second in command to the Easter Bunny, wants the head job himself... only to really do away with sending kids chocolate eggs and candy, only to replace it with bird seed, dried crickets and worms... Now, while I appreciate Carlos' thoughts on nutrition, and I admit, crickets are nicer when they're deep fried (they taste like chicken), I'd rather have the chocolate. E.B. and Fred do what they can to stop Carlos' reign of error (that's no typo, it actually says "error", play on words), only for both E.B. and Fred both being given the title of co-Easter Bunnies... Trust me, I'm not spoiling it for anyone here, Marsden gave it away at the beginning of the film. I'm actually surprised to see it come to bear fruit at the end of the film.

Where to begin, where to begin... Okay, good points... Number one, Russell Brand's portrayal of E.B., brilliant choice in casting, I wouldn't have picked anyone else... but the funny thing is, I didn't really think it as Russell's voice, it was just a beautiful meld of fur and funny... Russell Brand is pretty much the rock star of the comedy world; and E.B. is the rock star of the bunny world. It's a nice smush of characteristics and it goes so well... like... fried eggs and Tabasco sauce...

Number two, Kaley Cuoco, she's cute, and she's got a lot of promise, and in this film she's Fred's sister... But sadly, she's not in the film as much as I would have thought... the film does focus on Fred and E.B. a lot but not much on the supplementary characters... a bit of a disappointment, but it's nice to see Cuoco in something other than The Big Bang Theory...

Number three, Hugh Laurie as the Easter Bunny... He's regal, majestic and carries the fate of Easter on his ears... I mean, shoulders... And yet he can put a brilliant spin on a role as equivocal as that of the Easter Bunny... Just as good as Mr. Bunny as he was as Dr. Cockroach, PhD in Monsters vs. Aliens.

Bad points... Gary Cole and Elizabeth Perkins, it's great they've been portrayed as parents, but it all seems so damn bubblegum... it honestly made me want to go back in time to the 1980's and barf... A movie like this... no, but I could honestly see these two being recast as Ward and June Cleaver in a new Leave it to Beaver movie.

Next bad point, Tiffany Espenson as Alex O'Hare, Fred's adopted younger sister... nice idea, but no... She's meant to be cute, adorable and more cute and more adorable... Please cue the puke noises again... I understand that she was there to add further character development to Fred because she was only there because of some play where she plays "Peter Cottontail" with tone deafness, but that's all she is, padding...

Next bad point, Fred wants to be the Easter Bunny? He wants that job?? The logic of this is kinda sick... inclusive of him hanging onto a twenty year-old chocolate bunny that was given to him upon seeing E.B.'s dad when he was like, six or something... Twenty year old chocolate... honestly? Who does that?

Final bad point, and this kinda poops on the whole concept of Easter,  and Christmas in the one go... more so than E.B.'s ability to poop candy jellybeans... The Easter Bunny drives a sleigh, at night, pulled by a bunch of magical flying yellow chicks... I can only shake my head at this in disappointment in response.

Hop runs for 95 minutes, which tends to put it in the children's maximum enjoyment level before they want to go play outside or before they ask mommy for a McHappy meal. I actually liked parts of it, but not all of it... the only real stars in this were Brand and Laurie; everyone else kinda brought it down several levels. Granted the animation is fantastic, as is the interaction between Marsden and a cartoon bunny, but that's as far as the enjoyment goes... As a result, and as much as I want to poop on a movie starring both Hugh Laurie and Russell Brand, Hop gets a two star rating.