A Boy, His Dog, A Drunk, and Some Treasure

This is not your normal comic book adaption. There are no super heroes, no amazing gadgets, and no Marvel or DC. Just a boy, his dog, and a drunken sailor. Finally it's time to see Hergé's classic comic on the big screen and with such a fine cast and crew behind it, what could go wrong. Let's talk about The Adventures Of Tintin: The Secret Of The Unicorn. (Woah, mouthful!)

Tintin (Jamie Bell) and his dog Snowy innocently buy a model boat at a street stall. Suddenly, the boat receives a lot of interest from a couple of mysterious men. Intrigued, Tintin keeps a close eye on the boat... Until Snowy knocks it to the floor. Inside the mast is a secret message. A clue. Clearly this is what one of the mysterious men was after as the flat is broken into but the clue remains safe. Tintin teams up with Captain Haddock (Andy Serkis) and foolish inspectors Thompson and Thomson (Simon Pegg and Nick Frost respectively) To unveil the secret of the Unicorn before Ivanovich Sakharine (Daniel Craig).

There's no witty caption here. Just look at how wonderful that CG is.

Now this cast would be outstanding in any live action movie, and it’s just as spectacular in Motion Capture. It is important to remember that this is motion capture and not animation.  They’re not just voice actors, they’re actually acting. And yet, not a single character seems too much like the actor playing them. If you weren't aware which actors were in the film, you wouldn’t be able to tell. Try to tell the difference between Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, I dare you. Daniel Craig is also superb. At no point did I realise that it was him who played Ivanovich Sakharine. Andy Serkis is absolutely hilarious as Captain Haddock. Only once did his comedy seem to dip into ‘dumb humour’, (Burping into a plane engine in order to keep it flying.) but that's a writing issue... I literally have no complaints about the acting in this movie.

Visually, this film caused my jaw to drop like no film has since Avatar. The very first shot of a person’s face caused a communal intake of air from every person in the cinema. It was simply breathtaking. And the transitions between scenes were completely flawless. Not only that, they were stunning. I've never been so captivated by a scene change. Even the opening sequence was a treat for the eyes. A miniature Tintin adventure as the creative teams names float around the screen. On top of all these things, the movie contains action sequences that rival any big scale blockbuster and they'll also make you laugh until it hurts. The first of two notable examples is a city wide chase sequence. There are bazookas, tanks, floods and a hell of a lot of chaos, and all in a single shot! The camera never cuts away from the action. The second incredible action sequence comes in the form of a flashback to the days of pirates. The story of the unicorn. A battle involving two ships with action on a scale to match, and beat, battle scenes in any Pirates Of The Caribbean films. I was in awe of this scene. The fire jumped off the screen, perhaps due to the 3D, and every single gun shot or cannon fire made me hold the edge of my seat. The whole scene is cleverly re-enacted later using cranes. You'll understand. I don't want to put any spoilers. And all that with just over half the budget for Avatar.

Captain Haddock thought he was in his favourite movie, North by Northwest and was overjoyed

Directed by a man considered a legend in the film making world and produced by an man of equal stature. Both Oscar winners, Steven Spielberg (director) and Peter Jackson (producer) know what they're doing. Hegre was even quoted to say that he believed on Spielberg could do Tintin justice. Personally, I have very few criticisms of this movie. My only big one being that it was too short (even at 107 minutes). Fortunately, there is going to be two more movies, so that's good. I laughed my socks off and was completely hypnotized by the picture. Sometimes, jokes did fall flat and admittedly, snowy was a better detective than Tintin at points, but the movie is a major achievement. I highly suggest it. However, I can't find myself able to give it the full five stars. It misses something. I'm not sure what.

Best bit? Personally, the battle between the two boats was just so outstandingly done I have to say that. It was simply stunning as well as incredibly exciting. 

Die Hard. Again. And Again. And Again. (Part 1)

Since I've been gone for a while, and you guys definitely miss me, I thought I'd treat you. Four movie reviews, two post. Why do I suddenly seem drawn to the idea of these four movies? Well I watched them all today, in one sitting, with my totally legit sports team. What do these movies share in common? They all contain two words: Die Hard.

So I'll try to keep these reviews fairly short. Movie one: Die Hard. Officer John McClane (Bruce Willis) leaves New York to spend Christmas with his family in LA. However, soon after arriving at his wife's work, Hans Gruber (Alan Rickman) takes over the building with a group of terrorists and seals off all contact with the outside world. Holding the workers hostage, he plans to steal $640 million stored in the buildings vault. McClane manages to get into maintenance areas of the building and tries to alert the police about the situation. The police, apart from Sgt. Al Powell (Reginald VelJohnson), are useless.

McClane, I bought you a woman for Christmas.

This is Bruce Willis at his very best. He is the epitome of cool. He has the pout, the never ending ammo and the ability to talk coherently with a cigarette perched between his teeth. Action-wise, this movie is outstanding. It is the perfect genre film. If you were introducing someone to action, start here. Something I'll refer to a lot in this post is Die Hard Science. It is essentially the science that exists in the world of Die Hard, but not in reality. For example, one man may be shot in the head and just crumple, another's head may explode. Rickman was also superb. He's such a perfect antagonist. He's creepy but isn't aggressive unless he really needs to be. He's menacing and powerful without being loud or violent. This is perfect for the villain of this movie.

One thing that I particularly love about this movie is the location. A single location, but a massive location. Despite the film only taking place in one building, this is a forty story building; there's more room in a forty story building than in a wood. This allows for the sense of claustrophobia, but still has the ability to create grand scale action. Bombs, tanks and abseiling with a hose pipe. This movie has it all.

A great start to a great franchise. Witty, action packed and plain cool.

Best Bit? There's something extremely touching about the bromantic hug between McClane and Al but the best bit has to go toMcClane using a hose pipe to lower himself down the building.

Movie Two! Die Hard 2, aptly tag lined 'Die Harder.' Often criticised for being a simple rehash of the first one. Well in some ways it is, but more about that in a moment. Firstly, the plot.

John McClane, once again wishing to spend Christmas with his wife, is waiting for her plane at the airport when he notices some suspicious behavior. Upon investigating, he gets shot at, destroys a mans head, and almost gets arrested. The complete lack of help from airport security leads him to turn to his old pal Al Powell (via a new creation called 'a fax machine') who informs him that one of the men that shot at him, was dead according to records. Somethings afoot. Cue evil plan to keep plane's circling until the demands of the terrorists' have been met, despite all aircraft being low on fuel. Oh, they also take over all the planes' computers and communication so that they can crash them at their will. McClane steps into save the day.

Nobody was happier in an ejector seat than John McClane

Once again, Willis proves that he is the coolest man alive. More pouting whilst shooting, more talking with a cigarette, and more throwing metal painting towers over. He even plays chicken with a plane! Once again, he's helped out by a friendly black guy, Leslie Barnes (Art Evans), who is great fun. Exactly what John McClane needs, a wise cracking, good willed, black guy that stands up to his superiors in order to help McClane. And the antagonists of this film are brilliant. I don't just mean the outstanding Col. Stuart (William Sadler), I also mean the not-quite-baddies-but-you-really-want-to-punch-them baddies. This includes Capt. Carmine Lorenzo (Dennis Franz), in charge of airport security who tries to over power McClane at every turn and, reprising his roll as the selfish and ignorant journalist, William Atherton is brilliant as Richard Thornburg.

Like the first movie, the film takes place in primarily one location, the airport. And again, there's that feeling of claustrophobia despite being in a large area. This is a typical sequel. It's bigger and more ridiculous. That Die Hard Science we mentioned earlier plays a huge part in this film. Plane's crash, with no fuel, and yet explode into an unbelievable fireball. The brilliant aiming of the bad guys suddenly disappears when they shoot at McClane. Several planes can fit onto a very small runway despite it being covered completely in snow. This film does require complete suspension of disbelief. That being said, it's still great fun and 100% worth watching, especially with a good crowd of friends.

Extremely similar to the first movie, but not in a bad way (not like Hangover Part II). It's a bit sillier, a lot bigger, and twice as action packed, with twice as many plot twists. Not quite as good either, but still a great, fun movie

Best Bit? The cool as snow (Gettit?) ending. John McClane proves he's a BAMF all over again after fighting on the wing of a plane and then simply using a lighter as a form of attack.

Tinker Tailor Soldier MOLE!

I'm back ladies and gentlemen! Have you missed me? Probably not. Well here I am none the less. And I return with a movie hailed as a modern masterpiece! But is it? Let's break this down. It's Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy.

So what is it even about? In the most simple of descriptions, it's a spy thriller. Set in 1970s' London during cold war hysteria, the movie tells the story of the struggles within MI5 and MI6 after a disastrous mission in Budapest, Hungary in which Jim Prideaux (Mark Strong) was shot. This fiasco causes Control (John Hurt) and George Smiley (Gary Oldman) to leave the Circus (the name given to the top ranking members of the service) but Control is under the impression that there is a mole within the Circus. After Control passes away, Smiley comes out of retirement to try and catch the mole. The four remaining members, Bill Haydon (Colin Firth), Percy Alleline (Toby Jones), Roy Bland (Ciaran Hinds) and Toby Esterhase (David Dencik), were all considered suspects by Control, as was Smiley. With the help of Peter Guillam (Benedict Cumberbatch) Smiley sets out on finding the mole.

At the MI5 library, they have boxes, not books.

As far as casts go, this one is incredible. The finest British actors all in one movie and all of them provide exceptional performances. the stand out role for me is definitely Benedict Cumberbatch. Not only does he have the coolest name known to man, he's also a damn fine actor. My favourite scene in the entire movie contained very few words, just Cumberbatch working his way through a library where he should not be. It'll keep you on the edge of your seat the whole time. Gary Oldman is also superb. There is not a bad word to say about that man. When you've starred in both Batman and Harry Potter, you know you're on the road to success. This is his finest performance in recent years and I'll be damned if he doesn't at least get nominated for best actor. The rest of the support are outstanding. Another particular mention to Tom Hardy as Rikki Tarr, a rogue agent who has a bit of a scuffle at one point with Benedict Cumberbatch.

And yes, the IMDB.com forums are full of arguments. They are always bound to be when you release a movie classed as a spy thriller and it's not action packed. Don't be mistaken, this film is long. It is not a James Bond type spy thriller. It's a sophisticated, intelligent, whodunit. The whole film is an investigation and for the film to reach it's potential, you have to think about the evidence shown to you and try to figure it out yourself. Director, Tomas Alfredson, isn't known for his fast paced movies. That's not his style. His previous film, Let The Right One In (reviewed here) was a vampire movie that was beautiful. He tells a story and he tells it well.

And of course, let's spare a quick word for the more technical elements. I love the way this film was shot. The formerly mentioned library scene, another tense scene involving a plane landing. The latter scene in particular was wonderfully shot. A still camera shot as the propellers got closer and closer. The soundtrack was subtle and perfect. The style of the film, the dark, cold way in which it was shot really emphasises the notion of the cold War. The depression, the fear and the anxiety. Technically, this film was outstanding.

Colin's rendition of 'I'm a little teapot,' didn't go down very well with The Circus

'But Phil!' I hear you cry, 'What do you think of the film as a whole? You sound like you loved it.' I enjoyed it, yes. I don't feel I can go as far as other critics and claim it's perfect or that it's a masterpiece. It is a very well made film. However, the very slightest distraction can make you lose the entire plot. Need to run to the toilet? You're going to have a lot of thinking to do. It is also very slow. I found myself making jokes too often in an attempt to make the movie more interesting at points. I say points because it truly is a fascinating movie and you should see it. But you need a decent attention span. Personally, I'd prefer to watch Let The Right One In over this, but that's just my personally preference.

So in a nutshell, pay a lot of attention, you'll love it. Get distracted easily and you won't understand what is happening and therefore you're unlikely to enjoy it. And unfortunately, I just can't find myself able to give it a fifth star.

Best Bit? As I have already mentioned, Benedict Cumberbatch's tense trip to the library.

So it's a Sequel, Not a Remake? You sure?

There are a few sequels which take the first movie and redo it with a slightly different scenario. Please don't. Here's why: The Hangover, Part II.

Quickly, let's list the key points in the first movie:

1. Some one is getting married.
2. the Bachelor party takes place somewhere famous for night life. (Vegas)
3. The main characters get very drunk/drugged, loose a friend and remember nothing.
   
4. The main characters search for their lost friend, finding a helpless person (a baby) and an animal that belongs to someone else (a tiger that belongs to Mike Tyson.)
5. Eventually they find their friend somewhere they really should've checked.
   
6. They make it back to the wedding on time.

All of this is the same in the second movie, except in Thailand with a old monk and a monkey who belonged to some Russians. From Stu doing something stupid to his body, to him confronting someone at the wedding and speaking his mind.

Phil and Stu were shocked by Alan's choice to become a Britney Spears impersonator.

Okay, let's start with good things. Ken Jeong was brilliant reprising his role as Mr. Chow. Definitely the best character. Mainly because he wasn't in the first movie as much so there was room for a whole new layer of his character. Bradley Cooper and Ed Helms were both good as Phil and Stu respectively. Their characters developed a little. Admittedly, in Stu's case, it wasn't entirely in a good way. The character who had been developed the most was Alan. He was also the least amusing. In the first one, he was stupid. In Part II, he had delved deeps into the realm of mental difficulties and had lost a lot of what made him funny the first time round. no other characters were really major enough for any serious analysis. Yeah, Doug still wasn't in it. I would've loved to have seen Doug get caught up in the mishaps.

Stu thought his new tattoo made him look really tough. It didn't.

So, the writing and directing. Clearly, Todd Philips and his team took a laid back approach and said, "Hey, it worked before, lets do it again." And I don't just mean the plot. I mean every joke, every gag, even the same characters. Yes I liked Chow. But where the hell were the new characters? Even Eddie, the chapel manager from the first movie, made an appearance. (Though as a different character. Copy and pasted but with a name change and some hair.) Even Paul Giamatti's cameo was very disappointing. There were trade overs, mistaken identities, hookers and lots more of recycled jokes. The first movie still strikes me as a brilliant work in comedy in recent years. This does not.

I wouldn't suggest spending money to see this. Just watch the first movie again. That will stay good. This won't. Twice as vulgar and twice as silly, but half as good. Sillier you say? There was a drug dealing monkey. Enough said.

That's enough from me. I don't want to talk about this movie anymore. I heard it wasn't good, but I thought surely no. I was wrong. It wasn't very good. I was disappointed.


Best bit? When Chow was onscreen. He was hilarious. Particularly the car chase. A good scene in an otherwise poor movie.

Ghosts Really Like Tiny Tim,

With horrors often passed over or frowned upon by film enthusiasts, it takes something different to cause a decent audience reaction. Recently we had Paranormal Activity but now we have internet sites full of images from James Wan's new film. Why? Let's see. This is Insidious.

Despite the expectation of horrors being poorly acted and weak in terms of plot, Insidious tries to be successful in both film-making and creating scares. The plot is a fairly generic premise for a horror. A family made up of mother, Renai (Rose Byrne), father, Josh (Patrick Wilson), and three kids move into a new house. Soon after they move in, things start to go wrong. After being lured into the attic by strange noises and opening doors, one of the sons, Dalton, falls down a ladder and goes into a coma shortly afterwards. Slowly, Renai starts to see and hear things around the house. A voice on the baby moniter. A man in her baby's room. The usual. So the family move. But nothing gets better.

So Phil, does it beat the expectations of horrors? Well, let's see. In terms of acting, it's not the best piece of work. We are never presented with a real fear. Admittedly, the worst acting is in the last three seconds but overall it's nothing special. Patrick Wilson, lacks conviction while Rose Byrne presents most of the good acting. Though, contrary to popular belief, working with children can work. Ty Simpkins and Andrew Astor (playing Dalton and Foester respectively) both show us that the younger generations can act. Still much room to improve but good enough. The light relief of the movie comes in the form of 'ghostbuster' double, Specs (Screenwriter - Leigh Whannell) and Tucker. (Angus Sampson) Their humor may seem out of place in a film full of jumps but the transitions between comedy and horror are so seem less that I don't see it as an issue. And finally, Elise, the psychic, (Lin Shaye) is the serious, all knowing figure. Something about her whole performance seems somewhat half hearted and never really becomes real.

Darth Maul's cameo is often missed.

But really, it's the film making that moves this film up from a normal horror. Wan and Whannell, the writing team that created Saw and Dead Silence, know a think or two about making horrors. No doubt they'll make a clown film soon. They've done psycho killer. They've done puppets. Now they've done children. Wait... I should re-word that. Made a horror movie revolving around a child. Better. What really struck me about this movie was the subtlety and the tension in the first half of the movie. Moments which made you question what you had seen. Not just because they came and went so quickly. Things in the background where you say, 'What was that? Did you see that? (See what) That thing in the corner.. It looked like...' Etc. There were several moments like this (including a cameo from Billy the Puppet.) These moments kept you on the edge of your seat.


However... The second half of the movie, while not without it's good bits, is a lot more cheesy. It becomes a bit too supernatural. It moves from the realms of paranormal experiences to a whole Further realm. (little inside joke for those of you who have seen it) Some of the most terrifying moments loose clarity here. What I suppose really should have been a big twist, despite being creepy, was not shocking. My opinion on why it looses clarity? Too much face. Demon's are A LOT scarier when you're unsure what you saw. The unknown is always scary. Showing a face for longer than a second, particularly a CGI or made up face, allows the audience to see what they're dealing with and see it's not as creepy as it first seemed. It gets a bit silly and far fetched.

I'll be honest. I'm not sure why she wore this in the movie. But it's creepy.

The music was old school. It reminded me of films like The Shining and Psycho. Lots of strings. Lots of sharp, jarring notes. The inclusion of Tiptoe through the Tulips, Tiny Tim's version, was one of the creepiest uses of a cheesy song since the alarm tone in 1408. Well, until the second time it played. Camera work was nothing special. Very plain and basic. With a horror, lighting becomes very important too. The use of strobes, odd shadows and complete blackness is used to great effect.

Overall, not a bad film. Nor the next great horror. Enough to install hope for future horrors. Scary but also silly. If you have trouble sleeping after these sorts of movies, you may want to just think twice. James Wan and Leigh Whannel have gone downhill since Saw but still haven't reached that standard that other horrors hit.


Best Bit? There are a few really good bits. Personally, I loved the bit with the dancing kid. But that may just be me.

Enter Through The Door - Part Of Documentary Day... Or Is It?

Nominated for an Oscar and was a huge hopeful for the win due to the director's need for secrecy. Speculation arose to what would happen if he won. A monkey suit perhaps? Maybe he wouldn't turn up. Who knows. We'll never know. It is however, a documentary. Or is it? This is Exit Through The Gift Shop.

Famous street artist Banksy takes up the task of directing. Well, sort of. Let's start at the beginning. Thierry Guetta, a French shop owner living in LA, films his every move. Everything he does, he has a camera in his hand. One day, while visiting his family, he discovers that his cousin is street artist, Space Invader. Fascinated by the night time world of the street artist, he goes out with Space Invader to film him working. He thinks it's a wonderful idea: to create something you're passionate about and putting it out in the open for all to see. Space Invader then takes a trip to LA to spread his work to America and introduces Thierry to other street artists, in particular, Shepard Fairey. Eventually, Thierry decides he's going to publicise the world of street art in the form of a documentary. But his film is missing something. The famous Banksy. The elusive British artist reamins hidden... that is until Banksy needs a hand in LA and a friend of Thierry's suggests that Thierry could help. The two strike up a friendship and do everything in LA together. This friendship leads to questioning by Disneyland, a terrible documentary by the name of Life Remote Control and the invention of Mr Brainwash.

Banksy wasn't sure about being filmed. He could smell a rat.

Is it real. Oh gosh. I really don't know. Arguments for and against are both rather solid. But it doesn't matter. It's a great film. It's funny. But most of all, it's a brilliant tribute to the talent and reasoning behind street art. Thierry is supposedly a real man despite claims he's not. He's mostly a nice guy. He's helpful, determined, always willing to help and smart. He's fun to watch as he's a really bubbly personality that emits happiness. Banksy's occasional input keeps the audience aware of how we should feel towards the events in the movie, particularly Mr Brainwash near the end. Other inputs are equally entertaining such as police turning up every now and then and causing Fairey to fall of his ladder.

When the late 1800s phoned and asked for their mutton chops back,

Thierry was very offended.

The often overlooked point of the film is a statement about the nature of art and popular culture as well as a look into the deeply secret world of street artists. If you're a fan of street art, this is a must see. From small pictures of space invaders to inflatable Guantanamo Bay prisoners in Disneyland, this movie gives an otherwise unseen insight into the creating process of street art and the passion behind it. It also shows how that can be lost through commercialism. Whether it is real or fake does not matter. The fact that one can't tell makes it all the more impressive if it was staged. However, the film producers are apparently very upset that people think it's a hoax after all the effort that they went though to search all the tapes of footage. Apparently, to just pass it off as a hoax doesn't give it the credit it deserves. And I agree. I personally believe it to be real, at least to a point. Call it ignorance, I call it acceptance.

Great movie, less than 90 minutes long. Definitely worth watching, especially if you're an art fan. To see one of my favourite installation pieces (The crumpled phonebox) being created was really cool.
Best Bit? I loved all the 'Behind the scenes' of art sort of things. Particularly with Fairey and at Disneyland.

P.S. I researched this film a lot to decide how authentic it is. I ended up having twelve movie related tabs open on my computer. I still can't decide. That's how good it is.

Internet Fish - Part Of Documentary Day... Or Is It?

Advertised cunningly as, "Forget The Social Network - This is the Real Facebook Film." Sneaky considering both movies tell incredibly different stories that involve Facebook. However, this is a documentary. Or is it? This is Catfish.

The trailer suggested something Blair-Witch-ish. Admittedly, the marketing campaign for this movie was extremely misleading. The movie is about a photographer Nev (pronounced Neev - Get it right Channel 4) and his relationship with a family in Michigan. Trouble is, he lives in New York. This means Nev's only forms of communication are online and through the telephone. His brother, Ariel, and friend, Henry, decide to document Nev's friendship with the youngest daughter, Abby, who is a child prodigy in art. However, as Nev starts getting friendly with the rest of the family, he becomes rather attracted to Abby's half sister, Megan. As the friendship develops and infatuation begins, the trio discover a few of Megan's deepest secrets.

Hidden cameras provide fairly useful in the final third of the movie.

Having never reviewed a documentary, I'm not sure where to start. I guess with the movie as a whole. I'll try to keep it spoiler free. It's great. It's suspenseful, fun and super unnerving. Nev is a great person to follow. He's normal, friendly and most importantly, he's easy to relate to. What's great about this self classed 'Reality Thriller' is the reality of the emotions. What is on screen is real and the audience are drawn in. But wait, is it real? The authenticity of the film has been question by many viewers including celebrities such as Zach Galifianakis. The film makers stand by their statement that it's 100% true. Ariel said that it all felt too perfect to them too. However, both himself and Henry are use to filming plenty of everyday life and it finally paid off. Supposedly. The mystery surrounding how real the film is only adds to it intrigue. Whether or not it's a hoax, it still raises real issues that are out there relating to social networking sites like Facebook.

Photoshop - As crucial to distance lovers as attention seeking teenage girls.

It's not impossible to guess what happens in the film without even seeing it. That's not important. Even if you know how it's going to end, which as the film develops you're likely to do, it's still the extent of the conclusion that makes the reality of the situation so shocking. Once the trio reach Michigan to meet the family, we are left squirming at particular moments. There are bits that are hard to watch and there are bits that border on disturbing. That reality may be too much for a movie that starts off fairly light. If you're a fan of something a bit more real and are welcome to see a darker side of the internet, this movie isfor you.

Despite the questions regarding it's authenticity, it's a gripping documentary. You grow to like the characters, you react when they react, and you feel just as uncomfortable as Ariel when he states, 'I just want to leave.' it encompasses a whole range of emotions as well as nailing the Facebook Zeitgeist right on the head. Enjoyable as well as unsettling.

Best Bit? It's tricky. Two moments stand out for me. The song discovery scene and the Painting of Nev scene near the end. Note: I have given these scenes these names. You'll understand if you watch the movie.