The Menu - It's Well Done for me!

Some years ago, a mentor took me to a very fine restaurant in Boston. It was one of those places where the menu was select, the cuisine was art and the price was outrageous and you went there because you could and because it said something about your status. As a guest, I was a bit of an outsider and it showed when I ordered the steak - a Kobe steak. Unbeknown to ignorant me, Kobe beef is a delicacy valued for its flavour, tenderness, and fatty and marbled texture. Chefs insist on cooking it rare to medium at best. But unbeknown to the chef, he had a guest that insists on only eating meat well done - me! When I ordered it "well done", there were gasps and the waiter even suggested I should have it medium, but in my ignorance I insisted. When the dish was served medium rare I felt embarrassed. I dared not complain. But my mentor knowingly asked me how my steak was. Quietly, not wanting to cause a fuss, I explained, and he told me that if I was ever going to get what I wanted in life, I had to ask for it. 

The Menu, serves up a movie that is both rare and well done. It focuses on a chef played by the inimitable Ralph Fiennes who, tired of the pretentiousness of his art and his life, decides to break from it all to create an ingenuous and ingenuine menu for carefully chosen guests, - who have no idea what he has cooked up for them. 

This dark comedy/horror will either have you canceling your fine dining reservations and heading to the nearest McDonalds or will leave you pondering how much of your life is still palatable.

One of the key ingredients to understanding this masterful composition is a quote the chef shares with his captivated diners, from Martin Luther King.

"We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed" he tells them as he prepares their next course. 

 

Well it's a lesson many of us never learn, even when we learn it and that may well be the point. Many of us are so caught up in a pattern of living a subservient life that we never, ever truly demand life how we want it. Even when we know we could and should. We would rather sit there and let life serve up what it will, than properly fight for what we want. 

Anyway, as you may have guessed in the end I got my steak well done, and in the process I learned a valuable lesson...or did I?

The Menu...well written, well acted, well done!

The Jungle Book - Oo-oo-oo I want to be like you-ou-ou!

Not sure if you heard but The Jungle Book came out this last weekend and it is making more than a distant drumbeat among movie-goers. Opening weekend receipts topped out at over $100 million and with 94% of critics and 92% of audiences giving it a thumbs up on Rotten Tomatoes you can be sure word of mouth will spread quicker than a jungle fire and the money will keep rolling in for some time with this one. 
So the obvious question is whether it matches the opening hype and whether it's worth the trip to the big screen. And let me just come right out and tell you - if you have seen the original (you know, the classic from 1967?) - well this is better...in just about every way.
The beautiful, rich and stunning imagery is awesome and I know that the word "awesome" seems like a bit of a modern and casual word but it truly is...awesome!
The cast is perfect and I am going to say cast because while someone told me that this was a film full of computer generated imagery (CGI) I didn't see it and I don't believe it. I was watching the real Mowgli with real animals that somehow talked and I understood them and they were real! It was all so real. You will be terrified by Idris Elba's Shere Khan because he is a real tiger and he is standing snarling and scheming in front of you. You will fall in love with Bill Murray's older, wiser but still bumbling Baloo. You will be bowled over by Christopher Walken's King Louie and hypnotized by Scarlett Johansson's entrancing Kaa and impressed with the smooth, serene sleekness of Ben Kingsley's Bagheera. But still the star of the show is Neel Seethi's Mowgli. He somehow just is Mowgli - young and naive and scared and brave and clumsy but clever as he makes his journey through the jungle from man-cub to man.
Award season is a long way away, with many contenders to come but Jon Favreau and his team just outdid a classic by recreating just enough familiar imagery from the original and mixing it with the best technology and craftsmanship and imagination Hollywood has to offer today.
I'm just imagining, somewhere in the old archives, the original can be heard playing on an old projector. And there in the dark, in the flickering frames, deep in the jungle, the faint echoes of old King Louie can be heard singing homage to this masterpiece of a movie, "Oo-oo-oo want to be like you-ou-ou"...

Go see this movie, go see it in all its glorious colour and 3D, go and enjoy what movies were made for! This is a family experience, a movie experience, an experience no-one should miss.

Batman v Superman: Doesn't do it Justice!

OK, first of all this movie is not as bad as a lot of critics made out. It is watchable and decent popcorn fare. I didn't dislike it but that being said I didn't love it either. A lot of what I'm about to say is likely personal preference but for a spoiler-free review, here goes. 
 

Firstly, Lex Luther is too wimpy and flimsical ( I think I just made that word up - a hybrid of flimsy and whimsical). Jesse Eisenberg is playing a slightly deranged Mark Zuckerberg. I don't like it for Lex Luthor. It's not the Lex Luthor of the comics to me. Sure its decent acting but it is just bad casting. Jesse Eisenberg does not fit the profile of Lex Luthor and so we end up with a Lex Luthor who is more Joker than Lex Luthor - madly delirious rather than megalomaniac schemer.


Then there is Superman. Director Zach Snyder continues the analogy of Superman as a Messiah or a God but now the world of Metropolis is starting to question whether they really need him.  That isn't a bad direction to take the underlying themes if it weren't for the fact that with this Superman it seems more and more justified. Superman is supposed to be the Captain America of DC comics - his goodness was always his true power - but Zach Snyder is making him almost Hulk angry and unlikeable!
 
Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman does just enough to impress the traditionalists and the feminists but I can't help wonder if she may have been better served being introduced in a solo movie first rather than here as a competent but constricted cameo.

Finally, Ben Affleck as Bruce Wayne is ok but I love him as Batman - he brings a lot more weight and physicality to the dark knight. Batman was always dark but most movies have made him more flashy playboy than a tortured vigilante (that being said I always enjoyed Bale as Batman but after seeing Batfleck maybe it was Nolan's universe I enjoyed more than Bale himself).  
Many will say that this movie is a little too serious for a genre that has thrived on Marvel's quipping and recently went through the roof with Deadpool's fourth wall sarcasm. The lack of both the Joker and the Riddler who were originally rumored to be in this movie speaks volumes to Snyder's intent to stay ultra-bleak but in the many wandering-through-fields-brooding-taking-itself-too-seriously scenes you can almost hear the Joker whispering "Why so serious?".




Again its not that the movie is bad but you just come out feeling like you got less than you hoped for. In short Dawn of Justice doesn't do it justice!



I think it's worth it for the new Batman, the fight scene between Batman and Superman and for Wonder Woman.
I'd give it a 7-7.5/10

"The Witch" - A Horrifying Deconstruction of Faith

Let me first admit that "The Witch" is a very well made indie horror movie from first time director, Robert Eggers
The lighting in particular stands out, with Eggers using natural light in his shots wherever possible. This not only helps create a haunting visual with its fading light and flickering shadows but also creates an authentic feel for this 17th century Puritan tale of witchery. And in many ways this is a welcome return to the old style horror that relied on cinematography and dialogue to create its tension and scares. But idle movie-goers beware, this is a wolf in sheep's clothing. For though it looks like a horror movie, and passes as a horror movie at first glance, in reality this is a scathing condemnation of religion and specifically, Christianity. The true horror here is the gradual realization that this movie has been subtly constructed to deconstruct and then tear apart a belief in Christ and religion.

Ralph Ineson as William in "The Witch"

The father of the family, William, is clearly set up as a type of Christ. With long hair and full beard accompanied by sad and haunting eyes, Ralph Ineson as William, creates a perfect Renaissance image of Christ. Additionally, from the opening scene where he challenges the established religious authorities, to a scene intentionally reminiscent of the last supper and on to the intercessory prayer scene where William prays that he might take upon him his family's sins, "The Witch" is laced with these moments designed to remind us that William represents Christ. His family represent his faithful followers.


Ultimately, for all his bravado and words, William's faith is shown to fail him and his family. In a scene some Christians may perceive as more horrific than any bloodied body or witch scene, William's daughter, Thomasin (played with just the right balance of innocence and potential sinfulness by relative newcomer Anya Taylor-Joy) tells her father that he is a hypocrite and a liar and that he is useless at providing for his family, he can't farm, he can't hunt and that all he is good at is "cutting wood". This stark assessment of her father serves to reveal the key theme of Egger's movie - that Christ is merely a carpenter and not the Son of God and not the Saviour and helpless to help his children.

Furthering this anti-Christian theme, Eggers shows this originally faithful family overtaken by an ever-increasing sense of despair as evil envelops and surrounds their once-hopeful family.

One might argue that Eggers is merely commenting in general on how religious extremism breeds evil and this message is certainly found within the eerily subtle frames of "The Witch" but its focus on William as a type of Christ is a clear message to all that Eggers wants us to believe that there is no hope in Christ.

It is telling that the movie was intentionally marketed to the Satanic Temple and its followers as a film that would resonate with those that live life "minus the God element".

From a movie-making point of view The Witch is a fantastic debut and quite possibly deserves it's Sundance director prize. As a Christian, I find it's message truly horrifying.

Avengers: Age of Ultron

So you want to know if the sequel to the highly successful Avengers movie is worth seeing? The reality is you'll probably go see it anyway no matter what I say, such is the hold Marvel has on the concept of "blockbuster" movie at the moment.

Marvel have definitely packed a punch in this popcorn extravaganza. You have your mortals, your immortals, your robots and super robots and what looks like a mix of all of those with The Vision and let's throw a couple of mutants in there too! All fighting for peace. 

You have your drama and angst, your action and jokes and there's even time for a romance to rival Shrek and Fiona! 

It's got everything you could want in a Marvel summer blockbuster and if you are a Marvel fan you won't leave disappointed...but...I don't know, I just sense somewhere within I'm getting a little tired of the one-two, crash, bang, wallop and quip feeling that is the Marvel Universe. At some point they have to realize that all franchises have a life span and if they don't get us to the whole point of this soon they may end up sucking the life out of the general viewers (not the die hard fans but the regular movie-goers) long before this story is ever finally laid to rest.

I'm still enjoying the movies and Age of Ultron is a fine addition to the superhero genre but Marvel must make their Universe come of age before it ages all of us. 

McFarland - A Reminder of the Real American Dream

 There aren't too many definites in this world but put Kevin Costner in a sports movie and you can be pretty sure you will get your money's worth.
McFarland is the kind of movie that will never be a blockbuster. It wasn't aiming to be the biggest movie or to "better the rest" based on box office bucks. But it has heart and it has a great message.

Is it formulaic and somewhat predictable? Yes...but that's because "good", more often than not, is predictable.
McFarland is the true story of a coach taking a high school cross-country team from non-existence to competing in the California State Championships. The story is inspirational but it is the message that director Niki Caro has framed around the story that makes this movie stand out. You see, while the story maybe the typical cliche - a white guy inspiring a group of immigrant, unmotivated kids to become something - the message is really of how an immigrant community reminded the white guy of what the American dream really is.

The American Dream used to stand for something. It used to stand for opportunity. It used to stand for hard work. It used to stand for family.  It used to stand for equality and freedom and "in God we trust". Over the years this dream became simplified by mainstream to mean, bigger, better, and brighter. Today, that definition for many has evolved into ego, inequality and excess.
In McFarland we are introduced to a white family, pointedly called the White family, who seem to be failing at what they perceive to be the American dream. The father, Jim White, loses his job as a high school football coach and has to move to a largely immigrant town in central California called McFarland.  His home is downsized, his job is downsized and his expectations are down-sized - all of it far from the super-sized definition of the modern day American dream.

But as the White's are forced to live with the disappointment of their downfall and overcome the distrust they feel in their new surroundings with their new neighbours, slowly, somewhere in the dusty orange groves, and back-cramping cabbage fields of McFarland, they are reminded of the real American Dream.

Is this an overly patriotic American movie? No. Not at all. In fact, you will learn more about the Mexican culture than the American culture on the face of it. But throughout the film, director Niki Caro reminds the audience that it is the immigrant mentality that built America. Not with idle expectation or by demanding rights but on the backbone of hard work, humility and a healthy dose of love and respect for family, community and yes, even God.

You will get bigger blockbusters, you will get better award-winning, fashionable movies but if you want to be reminded of what life is really about, and at the same time enjoy a strong inspirational sports movie with the ever-likeable Kevin Costner, go check out McFarland.

Noah?...ah No!

Darren Aronofsky's Noah was released today. Widely anticipated but with many critics cautious about its cinematic clout at the box office, the wait is over and the result is underwhelming.

Instead of a clear account of the biblical epic, we have a mish-mash of many of the Noah/Great Flood narratives from across the world. Instead of some acceptable creative license for an admittedly lean story we have, for all intents and purposes, a completely new story that cannibalizes its origin. Instead of the anticipated return of the "biblical epic", we have a part-sci-fi, part-60's nature documentary, part-silhouette puppet, part-psycho-thriller, and part-bleak apocalyptic yarn. Noah, rather than the wise, faithful, strong prophet who spoke for God, was merely a delusional psychotic. And Methuselah, reported to be the oldest living man ever to walk the face of the earth, was reduced to a comical bit-part, as a berry-picking hermit.

This movie had so many mixed messages that it was clear that either this movie was an attempt to pander to all religions and cultures, including atheists, or it was just too afraid to pick one version of the story and tell that story.
God was called "The Creator" throughout as a nod to the Aboriginals and Creationists and the message for them appeared to be that nature was in control, possibly through a creator. Darwinism and "survival of the fittest" was introduced in an attempt to pander to the scientific atheists and the message was clearly the fittest will survive and that God, if he does exist, is a killer and not to be followed but rather, ignored. There was enough mention of Judo-Christian elements to suggest they were also trying to please that base but clearly they were not the main audience as they brutalized the traditional story and for the life of me I cannot see how any one particular group can come out of this pleased with the results. I suspect the familiar, faithful Noah was made a murderous madman in an effort to create a storyline for strong women to emerge from. But in truth, even the women still end up being the subject of infanticide, are left to die and ultimately, are only secondary characters.

The cinematography is both bold and bleak, helping contrast the old world to be destroyed with the new world to emerge. The acting is acceptable but never outstanding and while if you ask an expert, the special effects would likely be described as technically superb, visually I was never really wowed. And neither the cinematography or special effects were enough to save this cinematic ark from sinking.
So you ask me - should you go see Noah.
Ah?...That's a No!.

At Any Price - The Moral Corruption of the American Dream

Have you ever gone for a slow drive in the cornfields of middle America in the warm sun of late summer? Do you remember how it felt? Away from the big city and the rush of modern life, there among the green side banks and golden husks and blue skies, didn't it feel just a little like this was how life was really meant to be? Didn't it feel almost perfect?
Ramin Bahrani's "At Any Price" takes you back to that place in this slow burn film about the American Dream and the uncompromising pursuit of it.
Henry Whipple (Dennis Quaid) is an Iowa farmer raised with an "expand or die" mindset in an ever-shrinking, highly controlled and highly competitive market. Meanwhile and much to his chagrin, Henry's two sons, Dean and Grant, are chasing their own dreams - away from the cornfields. Determined to expand the farm for his sons, Henry must eventually choose how much he is willing to pay and how much he is willing to lose to keep that dream alive for him and his sons.

There are some very solid performances from the lead actors Dennis Quaid, Zac Effron and Kim Dickens but for me the star of the show is Bahrani's modern parable itself that highlights how morally corrupt everyone has become in chasing the American Dream and not only morally corrupt but emotionally bankrupt too. Through infidelity, heartache and break up, through corruption and criminal investigation and even through murder, not one tear is shed by the Whipple family. It's as if Bahrani is suggesting America itself is past feeling. Sure we get angry, and greedy and still plenty of lust but when it comes to guilt or compassion or conscience we are on empty.

I'll leave it to you what lessons and conclusions you think Bahrani wants us to draw from this little gem, but it is no coincidence that the one family member who ends up deserting the cornfields and the American Dream at home, is the one who finds it travelling the globe.

A surprisingly good movie that is well worth watching.

Gravity - Go!...but don't let go!

If you want the short verdict before I get all thematic and psychological on you - GO SEE Gravity!

Sandra Bullock plays Dr Ryan Stone, a biomedical engineer, on her first space shuttle mission who is left drifting in space after a spacewalk goes terribly wrong. The duality in the film title Gravity, suitably foreshadows the films exploration of serious themes while keeping you riveted to your seat with its intense action scenes and nail-biting tension. Visually superb, with an absolutely stunning performance from Sandra Bullock, a solid supporting role from George Clooney and a great soundtrack, do not be surprised if this is an Oscar contender on a few fronts come February 2014.

To be quite honest, Hollywood throws a lot of trash at these big screens every year (yes, Lone Ranger, I'm still looking at you!) and often the ticket price is just not worth what is being served up, but if you are going to visit the movies one more time this year and want to make sure you get some bang for your buck, GO SEE Gravity!

Exploring themes of life and death, birth and rebirth, living vs. existing, holding on and letting go, Gravity brilliantly portrays the impact of tragedy in our lives and our responses to it. Terrifying on a very human level, director Alfonso Cuaron (Children of Men, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban) has used space, the remotest of all locations to bring us a very personal and emotional reflection of our souls' innermost struggles. And I use the word "reflection" carefully - you'll notice very subtle placement of mirrors and reflections throughout the movie. 

Everybody at some point in their lives will experience "debris" in life - that is random uncontrollable events that can impact our lives suddenly and without much warning. The gravity of such moments is always experienced in deeply personal ways but for many of us, such turbulent and sometimes tragic times can prove so traumatic that our only reaction is to close up shop and shut down. Sure, life goes on but it is in survival mode, barely existing - almost waiting for the next tragedy to hit us, as it often does. We instinctively impose solitary confinement on ourselves, if not physically then at least emotionally curling ourselves into a fetal ball, sometimes even wishing we had not been born at all.

Gravity captures the awful loneliness of the soul in these moments with breathtaking visual effects, expansive cinematography and an incredibly nuanced performance from Sandra Bullock. 

But Gravity also offers hope, whether it be the simplest sound of a dog barking, or a little baby crying, a tear drop falling into space, or the sight of the sunrise on the Ganges - these simple things in an instant can affirm life, they keep us grounded - they are like our gravity in life. They speak to our soul in a way that sometimes words just can't. They tell us life does go on, it is worth living for. 

In a world currently dominated by terrorists, scare-mongering and fear, Gravity reminds us that trauma and pain is not only part of life it IS life and accepting it and dealing with it no matter how painful and how scary only makes us stronger individually.

45 years ago, Stanley Kubrick created what many claim to be the greatest science fiction movie of them all with 2001: A Space Odyssey, a frightening masterpiece that predicted if not the overthrow of humanity then the enslavement of humanity by technology. 

45 years later, Alfonso Cuaron has created his own science fiction masterpiece where we may be tethered to technology but we are still in control of our own destiny. And in Cuaron's Gravity, life and technology can be very fragile but the true conqueror is the human spirit.

A powerful and empowering movie experience. Go see Gravity.

The Wolverine

Wolverine shows his claws!

Let me start by giving you a couple of pointers. Firstly this is not really a superhero movie for kids. There are a few profanities purposely spread throughout the movie and some scenes that, because Wolverine is a mutant, were allowed in as PG-13 which would have made it an R rated movie had Wolverine been considered a human character by the MPAA. Ironic, when you consider the whole mutant/non-mutant storyline that runs through the whole X-Men franchise.
Also continuing with the rating theme there is implied sexuality which in itself is only implied but for some reason, despite being part of the original Wolverine comic book storyline, just kind of seemed a little creepy considering how young Mariko looks and how old Hugh Jackman looks. I don't know, maybe it's just me but it just didn't feel right. But maybe that was part of the whole anime feel James Mangold was trying to incorporate into the Tokyo-based movie.
Finally, if you plan on seeing this in 3D, don't waste your money. You will not miss out on anything by seeing this in the old fashioned 2D format. Save your bucks for a set of adamantium claws from Walmart this next Halloween.

All of that aside, this was not a bad movie. It was pretty faithful to the comics, it has strong action, a decent storyline and it is not over-filled with mutants and that allows a lot more celluloid space for their strongest asset - Hugh Jackman. It is another fine and physically powerful performance from him. 20th Century Fox have done a fine job overall with the casting of the X-Men franchise and Hugh Jackman as the Wolverine character exemplifies this better than any. But despite the strong performance from Jackman in his 6th outing as Wolverine, something isn't quite right.

There is a scene where the clawed superhero is shot by about 50 arrows all attached to ropes that are attached to 50 ninjas, all pulling him back as he tries to progress forward to save the day. Hugh Jackman, with every sinew in his body twisting and stretching and straining to take another step forward, is riveting to watch.

He IS Wolverine (which maybe explains the MPAA's confusion with the ratings decision).

But this scene serves as a perfect parallel for the entire movie. It snarls and growls and is great to watch - with Hugh Jackman almost literally carrying the movie - but it always feels like, despite him, it is being held back somehow from being the really great movie it could have been.

Part of this movie's purpose was to bring Wolverine physically and mentally back to the X-Men fold, after he had gone AWOL, in time for the next X-Men instalment, Days of Future Past. Unfortunately the method of subconscious/dream sequences that are used to illustrate his personal pain and facilitate that healing path was just plain overused and felt out of place.
Svetlana Khodchenkova as the Viper, while doing a decent job still seems miscast and lacklustre.
The final scene is somewhat underwhelming too.

Listen before I make you feel like this movie is not worth watching, it is. It is good solid entertainment. It's just that is all because of one actor and his ability to make you laugh, make you nervous and make you want to have adamantium claws!

Anyway, do not leave at the end as there is the usual Marvel credit scene that is awesome. And that about sums it up. Finishing a movie with the anticipation of a better movie is never a great sign, is it?

World War Z

Swarming Zombies in World War Z

This summer has been about big budget flops with Lone Ranger, White House Down and Pacific Rim leading the charge downhill!
Prior to release, much of the online chatter had World War Z heading the same way.
With a budget of over $200 million spiralling out of control and widely reported script changes and reshoots, World War Z was looking like it was fast turning into World War Zzzzzzzz.
Instead, director Marc Forster has given us a simple yet extremely effective and entertaining zombie action flick.
Brad Pitt plays a retired UN investigator, Gerry Lane, who has swapped the horrors of war crime investigation for the rigours of making pancakes for breakfast for his hard-working wife (an effective, if slightly 2-dimensional Mireille Enos) and their two daughters. As a global zombie pandemic erupts, our homely Mr Mom is called out of retirement to trace the original infection and help find the solution that will save what remains of the world population.
The plot is hardly original and the script is not going to win any awards but a couple of key decisions make this movie inescapably enjoyable.
Firstly, Marc Forster created zombies that, rather than slowly lurching and dragging themselves somewhat aimlessly after their prey (leaving you increasingly mad at each victim for not having moved a little bit quicker), are fast and furious and swarm at astonishing speeds. In essence you get the feeling very early on that if you are in plain view of them, you are a dead man walking...running...dead man..hmm. Well you get the idea. It's scary and that's what you wanted walking in right? It's non-stop action and intense.
The second thing director Marc Forster did to great effect was to change the balance of the movie. Most movies have an opening act, a middle act, and a final or third act. Each act is designed to build to the climax in the third act where the protagonist (generally the good guy) duels the antagonist (generally the bad guy) and wins the day (see The Avengers and Man of Steel as classic examples). That final scene is the scene where you get all the big action sequences and huge CGI productions. Its the fireworks at the end of the parade or after the big countdown. Except in World War Z there is no big countdown. Within two scenes of the movie opening, the fireworks have already been set off and they keep going until the final third of the movie. Then the brain work begins for the final third of the movie. And amazingly, it works! Part of what makes it work is Brad Pitt's understated acting ability. Really. He actually is a good actor and he shows it as he carries the final third of the movie to it's natural conclusion.
If you don't walk into this movie with preconceived ideas of what you want this movie to be you will walk out thoroughly entertained. And isn't that all you really want from a movie? If so, quit reading now and go see this movie while it is still in theatres.

If you are still reading, chances are you are a bit of a movie geek like me. Maybe action and escapism and a decent review are not enough for you. Maybe you like to see deep meaningful parallels between the movies you watch and the world we live in. You want relevancy. Who knows why. I mean isn't the entertainment business there to simply entertain and provide some escapism from our world? Well if you disagree, fear not. While the masses swarm in and out of movie theatres, dead to everything but the most basic of instincts there are some who believe in gleaning more from what we watch. And World War Z has a little bit of that too - just for us movie geeks - not so deep that it gets lost in its own importance but enough that it adds to your experience and just for a few seconds it adds to your perspective on life.

The truth is we all live in a world that is getting faster and faster and more and more congested, a society consuming all in its wake and a society that dares you stand still for even a second without fearing you may be left for dead. What World War Z does very well and not so subtly is suggest that maybe the best way to survive as a society is to stop, maybe even disassociate ourselves completely from the world, or at least slow down, quiet down a bit and turn off the technology if just for a few moments. From an opening scene where the TV news channel is never completely tuned out by the dad trying to play happily retired Mr Mom to the scene where a cell phone creates an all too familiar disturbance with devastating results, it's clear to us geeks that the enemy here is not so much the zombies but the speed and direction that society and technology and social media is taking us.
Not surprising then that the final third of the movie plays out away from the global scenes of chaos and CGI swarms and without the aid of technology, ending up on a beautifully remote landscape in Novia Scotia. It's a simple truth that gives you pause to think............but really this is just a cracking action movie and I want you all to blog, twitter, text and facebook this instantly to your friends and family before you move on to the million and one other things you have to get done today!

The Lone Ranger

I grew up watching the re-runs of the Lone Ranger on a Saturday afternoon. I got excited hearing the William Tell Overture announcing the beginning of the next episode. It's galloping tune fired up images of strong convictions and justice and a man determined to see things were done properly. This cowboy was the superhero of cowboys. He was the best shot, he could lasso anything and he had the smartest horse. In those early days, he stood tall in his saddle. For a young boy like me who loved heroes and loved cowboys - he was not just as good a role model as any other - he was the best role model.

As I have grown up, while still harboring a penchant for such heroes and ideals of yesteryear, I recognize that the world has shades of gray and that our heroes are not all dressed in shining armour but can be dark knights in fact. So when I heard that Disney were looking to reboot The Lone Ranger I was not expecting a carbon copy of that classic cowboy hero from my childhood. In fact some of the more recent hero reboots - Batman, Spiderman, Man of Steel - have done a fantastic job of reinterpreting the outdated material in darker tones. So I expected an edgier darker view of this masked man.

Wow! Was I ever wrong.


Firstly, this movie was all over the place. When they cast Johnny Depp as Tonto, something inside nagged at me - in this day and age why could they not cast a more serious native American actor in the role, but I dismissed that as nervous excitement. What could possibly go wrong? Alright, so casting Johnny Depp tells us it is going to be a somewhat comedic turn but nothing could have prepared me for his performance. Sometimes he speaks half sentences like a painted desert Tarzan -"Me, Tonto" and other times he speaks in full sentences. One minute you think he is part of an action hero double act and then you think he is the missing act from the Four Stooges.
The same chaos reigns supreme with the title actor Armie Hammer. He is built for the part, he looks the part but for most of the movie he plays the chastened fool to the apparently sometimes wise, sometimes wrong Tonto - as if he is still playing the puppy dog scene from "Mirror Mirror".

The William Tell Overture played at various times but with no purpose other than it seemed they thought they put it in at some point just to announce an action scene was coming up. Given the benefit of the doubt I'd say they didn't know what to do with it.

Then somebody thought, "...wait a minute Helena Bonham Carter usually plays a part in movies with Johnny Depp, where is she?"-  and so suddenly there she is - with no apparent purpose but written in anyway - much like a dead crow on someone's head: visually noticeable but pointless.


And finally, I hate to put spoilers in but seeing as they spoilt my movie experience and I don't want you to go see this movie anyway...well I'm just going to spoil it a little bit more.

Could someone please tell me - what on earth are cannibal rabbits doing in this movie?

Was this some kind of homage to Monty Python's Holy Grail? And if so why?
And what was the point of having a General Custer-like character in there without actually naming him and if we are going Little Big Man on the audience to frame our story why not bring Dustin Hoffman in and forego the expense of make-up?

Come award season this is going to earn some Razzies! That is for sure.

Now to sum it all up in the old movies Tonto used to respectfully call The Lone Ranger "kemosabe" which means "trusty scout" or "faithful friend". Disney took it upon themselves to re-define the word with Tonto, disrespectfully (for comedic effect) telling The Lone Ranger it means "the wrong brother", meaning that all along this Lone Ranger was not the real Lone Ranger. The real Lone Ranger died at the beginning of the movie and we were left with his half-wit brother's version.

So what does that leave us with? Well I don't know about you but it left me feeling like I just came out of the hospital with the wrong baby.

And you know what is most disconcerting of all? I think they wanted me to feel this way. If I didn't know any better, the makers of this movie actually hated all that The Lone Ranger stood for and decided to make a movie that pretended to honor him but ultimately mocked him and what he stood for.

Final exhibit against the defence: the last scene with The Lone Ranger and Tonto together. The "heroics" are done and The Lone Ranger raises Silver on his hind legs and shouts the final "Hi Yo Silver". To which Tonto retorts "Don't ever do that again."

Well I am left with just one more thing to say to Disney, Gore Verbinski, Johnny Depp et al, "Don't ever do that again"!

The Fall

Well let me tell you now - this film is like Marmite. You will either love this film or hate it.
Me? I loved it.
First the negatives - some will find it slow-paced and weird and on the surface level kind of plot-less and pointless. If you are not used to thinking a little harder about your movies this might not be the movie for you.




If you are still reading - well done! - because in reality this is a beautiful stunning movie that has great depth and great acting.

The plot is simple. California, 1915. A little girl, recovering in hospital from a fall, is befriended by a stuntman who is also recovering from a fall that appears to have left him paralyzed.

She is bored and wants company. He is depressed and wants to kill himself.
Out of these needs arises a tale of mystic magic, grand adventure, love, death and ultimately redemption.

Filmed without any of today's special effects so commonly used and relying solely on the lens and perspective, director Tarsem Singh creates a visually stunning and surreal film canvas that is truly a work of art in its own right.
Within the celluloid images, Singh also asks valid questions of his audience - questions about reality and imagination, about religion and deliverance, about love - all the while exploring our love of stories and story-telling.

I do not necessarily agree with some of his points - Singh portrays religion here as a bad thing that betrays our main characters, while Darwin and his pet monkey (oh the irony, I know!) are portrayed as holding the answers to much of the mysteries of life. And yet his conclusion - that love and our own humanity is what redeems us long after religion and science and darwinism have left the scene - is a fitting and suitable ending to this Picasso-esque fairytale.

Singh draws out a very good performance from Lee Pace (Pushing Up Daisies) as the struggling stuntman in need of deliverance. But Singh's greatest achievement in this film is capturing the essence of childlike curiosity and imagination and innocence with newcomer, Catinca Untaru. You will fall in love with this child. The delightful 5 year old Romanian's performance has got to be one of the most remarkable performances of a newcomer on the big screen and well worth making this film a must-see on it's own merit.

Like I said, some people will just not get this film but if you are a fan of movie-making and being challenged and inspired this film comes highly recommended and makes my top three films of the year so far. A beautiful piece of film art and story-telling.

In Bruges

Colin Farrell, Brendan Gleeson, Ralph Fiennes.

First of all, to enjoy this movie you need to not be bothered by the f-bomb. It is used and it is used frequently. You should also not be surprised by the occasional graphic violence - it is after all a story about two hitmen. And then you have to be somewhat savvy with the English culture to get all the jokes. But if none of this is a hindrance, you will discover a gem of a movie in this dark comedy.
Cleverly written and well acted, In Bruge is hilarious and oddly touching and most importantly - original.
Ray (Colin Farrell) is a simpleton hitman plagued with a conscience who is sent to Bruges with his mentor Ken (Brendan Glesson) to wait for their next instructions. Ken wants to sightsee but Ray doesn't and instead ends up finding himself in a number of surreal situations with a few of the locals including a racist dwarf, an arms dealer called Yuri, and a local drug peddler called Chloe. When Ray's boss Harry (Ralph Fiennes) joins the mix, things are set for a killingly funny film.

Don't be fooled by the trailers. This is one of those rare movies where the film is better than the trailer. It is clever, funny, touching and - fan or not - you will love Colin Farrell. He and Brendan Gleeson make a good case here for a more modern and layered version of Laurel and Hardy. Not to be missed also, is Ralph Fiennes performance as the principled crime boss with Tourette's!

Some people's sensitivities may make this film offensive, but that is kind of the point and the joke!
Not necessary to see on the big screen but definitely worth watching sooner rather than later.