Death on the Nile (2022)

 

Running Time: 127 minutes

Media: Cinematic release at local cinema

While I love my local cinema, it's cozy and simple, and reminds me of the times I used to go to the Beverly Hills Twin Cinema when I was much younger, I've had to deal with the fact that a) we're still living our lives within a pandemic, b) seats are a lot tougher to acquire as a result and c) I was surrounded by other movie-goers wanting to watch the film. I'm still a little paranoid about other movie-goers being too close, can you blame me?

Anyhow, I tried to not let this detract me from enjoying this film. Like the first film, Murder on the Orient Express, the audience is treated with a star-studded ensemble cast, including director/actor Kenneth Branagh once again as the famous Hercule Poirot and his good friend, Bouc, played by Tom Bateman. Throw in Armie Hammer, Gal Gadot, Annette Benning, Letitia Wright, a very serioous Russell Brand (which blew my mind) and the team up of none other than both Dawn French and Jennifer Saunders among many others and you have a feast for the eyes and ears.

We're treated with a brief history look back at 1914 during World War I, which explains a few things regarding Poirot, and his double handlebar moustache. I love the fact that there was consideration of detailing this as a means of explaining part of his own history, and detailing information about his lost love, Katherine. I felt this was a great way of tying up the two films together to provide context that viewers of both films could enjoy. While you didn't need to be a fan of Agatha Christie's books to enjoy these films, these small details provided something that can help sutain the cinematic universe being created by these two films.

The film fast forwards to three years after the events of Murder on the Orient Express, which lead to Poirot witnessing events unfold between a love triangle between Linnet Ridgeway (Gadot), Simon Doyle (Hammer) and Jackie de Bellefort, and then having his life entwined when he finds himself in Egypt and coming across Bouc flying a box kite on one of the Great Pyramids ("because no one has ever done it before" according to Bouc... Hell, why not?)

Poirot is then invited to join in the festivities of Linnet and Simon's wedding, with Jackie in stalker mode, and a number of guests at Assouan; and then leading to the events of all parties boarding the S.S. Karnak to travel along the Nile. Some time later, despite Linnet's concerns that she does not trust any of her guests (which to be honest, is a bit of a weird thing... after all, why invite a number of people you don't trust to your own wedding?), she is found dead, shot in the head. Let the investigation begin!

All guests have underlying stories as to why they are there, and their relation to the bride and the groom. A former fiancee, a cousin lawyer, a former school friend, the groom's former lover, the godmother, a family friend, the maid and more, all get their time in the spotlight. I have to admit, seeing Russell Brand in a serious role floored me... He needs to do more of those... Armie Hammer, I don't know... he seemed... very out of place in this film, almost a caricature of himself, and his dance routine with Emma Mackey as Jackie at the start of the film seemed like nothing more than a raunchy distraction which felt like it didn't belong in this type of film. I guess I'm speaking from a place as one who has read a number of Agatha Christie's novels, and the storyline compared to what I saw in the film, I guess I had some difficulty making the connection.

Having seen Gal Gadot in a number of empowered roles (Fast & Furious, Wonder Woman, Wonder Woman '84, Justice League, Batman vs Superman, and more recently Red Notice) recently, it's difficult to see her as a vulnerable woman in the eyes of the audience. I keep expecting her to kick ass, so her character potrayal while refreshing is not as believeable. As usual her beauty shines, but unfortunately, in this film her character shines far less... 

Letitia Wright's accent as Rosalie Otterbourne feels forced, and thus sounds fake, despite her character's wholesomeness. Ali Fazal's portayal of Andrew Katchadourian comes across as a token villain, and the portayal of French and Saunders together as a duo once more in more ways than one in the story (you will understand what I mean once you come across the relevant scene three-quarters through the film) feels contrived to appeal to certain modern-day demographics, especially considering that this wasn't how they were portrayed in the source material. It seems it was only really thrown in there as an afterthought. Annette Benning as Bouc's mother comes across like an overbearing mother who wants nothing more than to protect her son.

The background scenery throughout the film is beautiful with wonderful shots of Egyptian landmarks, even though filming took place only in England, so kudos to the editors to blending in these shots with the filmed work in England. The costumes are more vibrant than what I expected to be present in the late 1930's, to help brighten the plot and help the audience focus on the majority of the somewhat two-dimensional characters.

Throughout the film, Branagh's Poirot shines, not just with regards to his egotistic behavior of being the world's greatest detective, but also when this persona is flipped on its ass when he realizes how vulnerable he himself is. Seeing Poirot as vulnerable is something you wouldn't see in Andrew Suchet's or Peter Ustinov's portrayals, so this is refreshing and we as an audeience find ourselves relating and empathizing with him as we take the journey with him. Bateman as Bouc follows through from Orient Express with his whimsical devil-may-care outlook on life through to the end, and this is commendable. You find yourself getting hit hard towards the end when you find this lifestyle coming back to haunt him. Russell Brand... Oh my f[CENSORED]king god, knowing what I have seen of his other films like Arthur, Get Him to the Greek, and Forgetting Sarah Marshall, and then seeing this side of him has made me appreciate the man much more. I want more serious roles for him. This is like what I saw with Jim Carrey in The Majestic, a flip side which makes you think "Wow."

The soundtrack is peppered with jazz numbers sung by Sophie Okonedo and others which are catchy, amid orchestration which is easily forgettable. This film is just enough to get you escaping to the 1930's and having you observe the unravelling of the tale without having to delve into the source material, while still maintaining a considerable grasp of it, with enough changes to warrant a 21st century's audience's attention. I'm giving Death on the Nile 3½ stars and hoping that they bring the third of the series out... Hopefully a rendition of "Death in the Clouds"?

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 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.

The Hunger Games

Running Time: 142 minutes.

Media: Blu-Ray.

A friend of mine decided to do something rather silly for me when he loaded the Blu-Ray for the first time. Having not seen the movie on the big screen, I looked forward to seeing the film. My friend decided to switch the subtitles to Hungarian... Thus turning "The Hunger Games" to "The Hungarian Games"... I know, it was a bad joke, but to be honest it had no change to my thoughts on the film.

I have to confess, this movie was intriguing. It's medieval and at the same time, it's futuristic. It's full of normal people and also filled with... "freaks" for the lack of a better word... This clash of old and new, young and old, past and future... it pulls you in and grabs your attention.

The Hunger Games put simply is what would happen if the game "Mortal Kombat" had mated with the reality show "Big Brother". The film is set in what seems like a post-apocalyptic world where twelve districts in the nation of Panem every year send two tributes each in a fight to the death. Katniss Everdeen, played by the very youthful and very ravishing Jennifer Lawrence is one of the latest tributes to have been recruited into the Hunger Games, an annual fight to the death competition forced on twenty-four randomly picked kids, after volunteering herself to compete in place of her sister when she gets picked. Katniss is somewhat an anti-hero in this film, she doesn't want to be famous or be anyone's savior, she just wants to survive, live well with her family and grow old.

Lawrence, who is a blonde, dyed her hair dark to play the role of Katniss, embodies the role with all her being... I'm guessing she's read the books prior to starring as her nuances are pretty much how I had pictured as I read the first book. She's only 22, and already has managed to star in not only this movie, but a number of others including X-Men: First Class, The Poker House, and the somewhat controversial Mel Gibson movie, The Beaver. Some would say that Mel finally cracked with that movie because he's talking through a puppet... But I digress. Lawrence does hook and reel you in, and you find yourself living the Hunger Games themselves, as though you were an observer from within the playing field. I can see this movie franchise raking in big in the upcoming sequels based on her performance alone, with The Hunger Games: Catching Fire currently in post-production, and coming out later this year.

Josh Hutcherson, who plays the male lead in the film, Peeta Mellark, is a bit of an enigma; and I think this is simply because he's starred in a rather diverse miasma of B-grade films. I don't mean this in a bad way, but it's these films that have built up his filmography extensively; The Polar Express back in 2004, RV starring Robin Williams, Zathura, Bridge to Terabithia, and most recently the new Red Dawn remake, which is not so B-grade, but has so far collected a modest 43 million in the box office. Mellark, Hutcherson's character is the other tribute from Katniss's region of whom she despises at first but then kinda warms up to slowly once it's revealed he has a thing for her. And how complex does it get when someone who likes you ends up being someone who has the possible option of killing you in a forced competition in a post-apocalyptic Earth? If can get pretty complicated indeed. But somehow, Hutcherson pulls Mellark's character off rather well, albeit making him seem like a fairly timid but strong character within the film.

Secondary characters such as Haymitch, their mentor, played by Woody Harrelson give a little meat to the film. Harrelson in this film looks like Aragorn straight out of the Renaissance. I actually pictured the character from the book to be a bit older, uglier and crueler; but somehow Woody wins me over with his performance with his lax and somewhat inebriated character portrayal. Elizabeth Banks, who is an absolute hottie off-screen, is probably the closest thing to comedy relief as playing the part of Effie Trinket, Peeta's and Katniss's chaperone, who attempts to go one over Lady Gaga with her outlandish hair, makeup and wardrobe... She seems to represent the upper class in Panem's Capitol, but I think her entire goal throughout the movie is to not be taken seriously, which isn't hard to do... I found myself stifling bouts of laughter every time she came on the screen... I have to admit, it's rather sad to see her like this. I absolutely adore Elizabeth, she's talented, witty, and an utter babe - but this role kinda undermined her true talent.

There is a somewhat obligatory casting of Donald Sutherland as yet another person high up in the food chain with a slight hint of evil in his agenda... You know, I hate to say this, but Donald's been cast a lot in these types of roles of late, and when I say "of late" I mean, even before he played the role of X in JFK back in 1991. What is it about him that attracts these kind of roles? He's a strong silent type, granted, but is it the way he looks? He plays the part of President Snow, a somewhat elderly gent who is resistant to the possible uprisings of the remaining twelve districts within Panem, and wants nothing more than to see the districts trodden underfoot. He doesn't stay on for very long on screen, so hopefully we may see some further character development in the sequels.

Finally, I have to give kudos to Lenny Kravitz, playing the role of Cinna, Katniss's pre-competition stylist. I don't think  have ever seen Lenny without the nose rings, the wild hair and sunglasses until now... But, man, I am impressed, the man can act! And he does it so well... I had to re-read the start of the book and picture him playing Cinna, and it just clicks. It's a bit of a juxtaposition, seeing him very plain-clothed and toned down in comparison to who he is in real life and his known performance value, and then realizing that the outlandish side of Kravitz in the film is manifested in the wardrobe choices worn by Katniss and Peeta. I think this movie would not have been the same or as appealing without Lenny being cast in the film, as his character adds a considerable amount of emotionality and balance to the craziness and violence surrounding the rest of the film.

The death scenes are not as explicit as I thought they would be, having read the book prior to watching this. If anything, they were a lot more subdued than I had anticipated; I found a Coca-Cola ad inspired by the film to be incredibly gory in comparison. The timeline for the film doesn't jump around with respect to the book, so you don't go questioning the linearity of it, and the film towards the end leaving you with a sense that there is definitely something to follow. I enjoyed this film, but I can't say that I felt completely convinced to award this a full five stars. It feels like there is something missing, I'm not sure what, maybe a little more blood... But it is something worth seeing, and I'm sure with it currently raking in over $680 million in the box office that Suzanne Collins, the author of the book series will be pleased to know that she can retire comfortably in her gold-plated yacht for many years to come. The Hunger Games scores 4½ stars.

I Am Legend

Running Time: 100 minutes

Media: DVD

I Am Legend is the third book-to-movie conversion of the novel of the same name, this version starring Will Smith and for a very brief period, Emma Thompson...

We're set in a post apocalyptic New York City in 2012... Some three years prior, Emma Thompson in the form of Dr. Alice Krippin has created a "cure for cancer", or so we believe... it seems this cure mutated and has an ability to turn people into predatory, vampiristic beings referred to as "Darkseekers" who prey on those immune to the virus.

One such immune person is Will Smith's character, Dr (and Colonel) Robert Neville, a military virologist... who is one of the only few (if not the only) human survivors in New York City in 2012. He scours the city with his dog Samantha, looking for survivors, hunting deer and looking for suitable Darkseekers to experiment on in order to find a cure for those infected by the Krippin virus.

The isolation that the film portrays with Neville wondering an apocalyptic and decrepit New York City with his only companion, a German Shepard called Samantha; is eerie, uncomfortable and somewhat disorienting to the audience... I think, this is only because we never consider the possibility of being so isolated... and I feel Francis Lawrence, who directs this, has really hit a home run with this in-your-face kind of film... Most post-apocalyptic films tend to have a sense of almost near comedy the way the infected characters the living  run away from, amble about... Not so here... these Darkseekers are not necessarily mindless creatures, they possess a structure, a sense of intellect, and to a degree you do feel some sort of compassion for them... You also find yourself wanting to reach out to Dr. Neville, whose saga is peppered with flashbacks and his momentary episodes of near-emotional breakdown make you realize Neville is not superhuman, only human.

This movie kinda hits a bit of an anti-climax after the introduction of Alice Braga who saves his life at one point in the movie... and goes downhill from there, albeit slowly... and although the movie ends in a way that does give it some reprieve, the movie is spoiled by a few moments from this particular point, including one point which involves a critical emotional release in relation to bacon - pay attention, as this moment goes fairly quick if you don't; those that love bacon will understand my distress, funny as it is. I still enjoyed this film, however, and despite the few points I've mentioned above, the film I Am Legend gets awarded four stars.

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy

Running Time: 127 minutes.

Media: Cinematic screening.

One of the hardest things one can do is take a book and turn it into a film. A number of books have successfully made it because they are part of a series. Other films, based on a singular storyline, however are the ones that tend to be heavily scrutinized and as a result usually end up coming up trumps. Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy is no exception to this rule.

John Le Carré, who originally wrote this book back in 1974 would be incredibly pleased with the results in my personal opinion. The film takes place back in 1973, around the time Le Carré first published the novel, and the atmosphere and suspense in this film are kept remarkably well. The colors are washed out perfectly, the wardrobe and authenticity of the era are captured with clockwork precision. The only exception I could make was the haircut given to Benedict Cumberbatch who plays Peter Guillam, an associate of the main character, George Smiley, a retired agent with British Intelligence who has been summoned to investigate the possibility of a Russian mole within the current administration at British Intelligence.

This film at just over two hours, seems to be slow at first, as very little is said, particularly by Gary Oldman (who plays Smiley). However, despite the drab surroundings and often quite "loud" silences, the movie takes on a more biotic quality. It... for the lack of a better phrase, breathes.. the movie literally breathes and moves with the characteristic of a living thing... Although you think "Thank God, he's finally speaking..." you begin to wonder whether it's really all that necessary that he does!

This movie has been nominated for several awards at the Academy Awards as well as the BAFTAs... and a few others, taking eight out of the various nominations. I find that an amazing achievement, and I can see why. You are engaged from the get-go, and are taken on a ride as you play through the plots and paragraphs you would normally read in your head and see it unfold on the screen... up until the very end. It's really something incredible to behold.

I'm giving Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy my highest rating of 5 stars and hope that a few other of  Le Carré's other books are fortunate enough to be treated with as much relish to produce similar works of art.

Eat Pray Love

Running Time: 133 minutes.
Media: Blu-Ray.

I saw this film yesterday on Blu-Ray disc, thinking it would be some soppy love story, and to a degree I was right. I did have to bear in mind that the movie was based on memoirs by Liz Gilbert by the same name, of which I hadn't read, but my partner had... She saw the film with me and said there were a few discrepancies between the book and the film, but these discrepancies are not the focus for this review...

While Julia's portrayal of Gilbert is fantastic, I couldn't help but feel that those who produced it tried too hard to market it as a comedy-drama... While there were a few amusing scenes within the film, the storyline itself gave little of the comedy and more of the drama, which really kinda kicked off towards the end of Gilbert's year long quest for self-discovery throughout Italy, where she stuffs herself with eggplant parmigiana and pappardelle with rabbit ragout; India, where we see her do more arguing with a guy called Richard from Texas than she does attaining inner peace; and Bali, where she tries to find some inner balance within herself regarding having left her previous life, a marriage, and a rebound relationship; and falls in love with a Brazilian guy called Felipe...

Felipe, played by a Spaniard, Javier Bardem, took a fair amount of brunt from reviewers such as myself saying that he was a poor choice because his Portuguese was poor... I'd like to come to the defense of the film here by saying that if they wanted to have Mr. Bardem speaking more Portuguese they would have done so, but from what I saw only a few lines were spoken of the language and more focus was given on the Italian side, where Julia Roberts seemed to excel incredibly well with her incredible accent. Speaking from somebody whose nationality stems partially from Naples, she did an incredibly good job.

I feel that although it is a bit soppy in the end with the "spurned love proclamation and reconciliation" cliché, I still found this a great film... The India part of the film I think fell a little flat... But I feel I may have to ask my better half for the book so that I can read it for greater insight to the film. In the meantime, this film gets four stars.

We Bought a Zoo

Running Time: 123 minutes.
Media: Cinematic Release.

I had the unique opportunity to see the new movie with Matt Damon, called "We Bought a Zoo" about two weeks ago with my partner... I had my initial reservations, naturally, given that I thought this movie would be a very sappy rendition of a family that bought a zoo, which seems like the appropriate assumption given the title...

To my delight, I found this film quite appealing, only due to the fact that there were warm cuddly animals, and Scarlett Johansson ;) Matt Damon plays journalist, Benjamin Mee, who basically quits his job and moves out to the country to take ownership of Dartmoor Wildlife Park. His daughter Rosie has no issues with the move, in fact she relishes it. His son Dylan, is the usual teenage stereotype rebel; talented, smart and resents his school, his family, the move, the animals, and probably the rest of the known universe...

This film has the clichés that tend to result from the usual biopic with a family involvement... The hard-working optimistic father; the token rebellious older child; the token irrepressibly cute younger child, who usually has one line that cracks the audience up in laughter; the hard-working but socially-inept love interest that everyone knows will be honing in on the protagonist at the very end of the movie, picked out by the audience from the moment they see her, the person who seems a little out of place because they're either a bit crazy, a bit drunk, or both; the predictable happy ending...

These and the saccharin sweet performances of  Maggie Elizabeth Jones and Elle Fanning (who plays Lily, Dylan's eventual love interest), kinda taint the storyline a bit... From what I've read about the back story for this movie (seeing it is based off real life events) there are a number of discrepancies that changed the movie for a more suitable audience in the States; stuff like the actual location of the zoo... Rosemoor Wildlife Park was based off the original zoo, Dartmoor Zoological Park, which is actually located in Devon, England. Although the necessary changes that were made to the film for a US audience were approved by Benjamin Mee for the film itself, I can't help but feel that the true story itself has changed considerably as a result.

As much as I enjoyed this film, I'll have to give this film 4 stars... Don't get me wrong, it's an excellent movie, but I feel that the number of changes made to the original story make it less "based on a true story" and more "trying to appeal to as many US movie-goers as possible." I guess that's Hollywood for you...

IT

Running Time: 181 minutes.
Media: DVD.

I never thought I would say this, but this movie still gives me the creeps after 21 years... I don't know whether it's because of the horror element, or whether Tim Curry just scares the bejeezus out of me... But Stephen King movies are designed for that one purpose, to scare the living s[CENSORED]t out of the audience; and he succeeds very well! This movie was a two-part series that was screened in the US back in 1990 over two days. The DVD came out some several years later as a double-sided disc, at a whopping 181 minutes... You actually had to flip sides half-way through...

The movie flips back and forth between two timelines of the lives of seven kids from the fictitious town of Derry in Maine. Seems Mr King has a fascination for Maine... which kinda makes sense seeing he was born in Maine so he must know the area rather well... IT is based on the novel of the same name, one of 49 he's written as of this time in 2011... A big achievement i would say in his genre of expertise, but I digress. These seven kids are taunted by the wise-cracking Pennywise the Clown, a character which is apparently just a shell for a being that awakens every 30 years to feed, and it seems that the concept of the "kid's meal" is taken a little too literally by Pennywise, who is apparently responsible for a number of murders then and even further back then.

The kids defeat him (or so they would believe back in 1960), and find out that he's come back some thirty years later, performing more kiddy murders... So we're now faced with a bunch of 40-somethings who then team up to go through the motions yet again and hopefully rid Derry of It once and for all...

I really enjoyed this film, but often felt the hairs of my neck stand up on end, and I love a good horror film that is capable of doing that! It was actually amazing to see both John Ritter and Richard Thomas in the same movie after so many years of starring side by side in the TV series The Waltons... What surprises me the most now is that Jonathan Landis, the guy who played the pre-teen Bill Denborough in the film actually committed suicide some few years back, a bit of a sad loss really. John Ritter also died some time back from heart-related issues. Tim Curry, who plays the role of Pennywise/It is outstanding and outlandish and fits so well in the part, it makes you realize how unique a talent he really is... it truly explains the reasons behind his acquiring the various other roles he has obtained in his career: Tim Curry has talent!

I would recommend this movie for anyone who wants a decent scare... they're guaranteed that with watching IT. I'm giving this 4 stars due to its great storyline, and I look forward to actually reading the novel by King. I'd give the movie 5 stars but there's a reasonable amount of disbelief that I have to take into consideration about the way some of the acting is portrayed at the start of the movie, a little hammy... but you tend to ignore it if you love movies the way I do.

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (2009)

Running Time: 152 minutes.
Media: DVD.

The book on which this movie is based, has but of course, become the next thing since the Harry Potter series and the Twilight Saga. Stieg Larsson brings his characters to life in the Millenium series, the first, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, is a best-seller. It seems every second person is reading this book... The Movie Madman has only just finished it last week, and is soon to follow it up with reading the sequel, The Girl Who Played with Fire.

But the real question is, how well does The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo translate onto the silver screen? I missed out on seeing this in the cinema and so I've had to resort to watching it on DVD. So I'll give you the best review I can.

One thing you'll come to notice is that this movie is in Swedish, and with English subtitles, so one thing I've come to learn is that you are continuously looking at the subtitles, as if watching a foreign movie on SBS. This can get annoying if, unlike myself, you are not used to having to read a movie. The title itself "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" isn't even the actual translation for the Swedish title "Män Som Hatar Kvinnor" which translates to "Men Who Hate Women"; which kinda gives you a bit of an idea of how dark this story can actually become, and considering the movie features much more graphic and somewhat violent scenarios, the book seems a little lean in comparison. Having read the book recently, I've always been curious to see how well the book translates into film. Accordingly, I tend to have somewhat high expectations of such book-to-movie transitions. I have to confess, even some fifty minutes in, the movie does adhere considerably to the storyline, with a few minor alterations to help speed the story along, but nothing that would detract from the original altogether.

Noomi Rapace stars as Lisbeth Salander, the enigmatic gothic computer security consultant; who is actually quite gorgeous, despite the black make-up and piercings. She'll actually be starring in the new Sherlock Holmes movie coming out in December alongside of Robert Downey, Jr. Mikael Blomkvist, played by Michael Nyqvist, who stars in the newest film in the Mission Impossible film franchise, Ghost Protocol, is also pretty much spot-on in his portrayal of the troubled journalist. If anything, he fits my expected interpretation of his description from the book.

This movie does come with a caveat from me, as it does contain scenes of violence and sex-related themes which may offend or upset some people. To be honest, I would highly recommend reading the book first before even considering watching the movie as I am doing now; kinda prepares you for what you end up seeing. Mind you, now having seen the movie, I now have a strange desire to eat meatballs and herring, and buy stuff from IKEA.

I personally would love to see how the American remake of this film, starring Daniel Craig and Rooney Mara, as Mikael and Lisbeth respectively, plays out in comparison. I'll be giving this movie 4½ stars for an excellent interpretation from print to screen.