The Gunslinger (The Dark Tower series, book 1), Stephen King

I wanted to like this book. I knew it was Stephen King's magnum opus that he'd invested 12 years into, and I liked the idea of a western-style gunslinger in a sci-fi story.

I'm really disappointed to say it just doesn't deliver. The writing is unnecessarily windy and poetic... but not the good kind of poetic, the clunky type you write in college in the early morning that you think is really good until you read it sober the next day.

There isn't too much to say about it because there really isn't too much to the book. The gunslinger is on the trail of the man in black for purposes to do with his past and presumably the destruction of the world he knew and grew up in. Not everything is revealed to us in the first book.

From the reviews I've read (to figure out whether to persevere with the rest of the series), I figure it does actually get better, then it gets kinda bad.

You can read the New York Times review in its entirety if you want, but here's an excerpt:

"That's not to say there is nothing to enjoy about ''The Dark Tower.'' For starters, there is the sheer absurdity of its existence. You're left astonished at the devotion of the readers who will follow King down his labyrinthine pathways of plot, through the thickets of ALL CAPS paragraphs, only to emerge from a story within a story...

The revelation of the penultimate book was that King had put himself into the book as a character. Roland shows up in Maine in 1977 and hypnotizes a young horror writer, telling him he must finish the ''Dark Tower'' story because the fate of the world depends upon it."

Egotistical much?

Which is weird because King doesn't really seem like an egomaniac - at least not from my reading of On Writing, which I really liked.

Anyway, not planning to continue with the series. But if you've read it and think it's worthwhile, please let me know.

The great library challenge: Bazell, Josh Beat the Reaper

You're right, there have been a lot of 'greats' in the titles of my blog posts recently. Hopefully the content will one day catch up to the overuse of the word.

But back to my great library challenge. Author 'B' (Josh Bazell) is now down and out for the count. So was it the 'ice cold and ferocious read' we'd been promised? Yes, yes and more yes!

The plot begins like a whip held overhead, ready to crack. When it comes down, it takes you with it on a heartpounding ride that races back and forth from his past to the present. It's enough to give you whiplash.

The hero of the book is Dr. Peter Brown, a seriously tough guy in witness protection with a mafia background who is now a doctor. His first person narrative is punchy, informative (complete with footers for the detail-minded) and intelligent. He's a man who's got it all: the smarts, the toughs and a history worth hiding from. But when a patient from the past intrudes into his present, he finds himself in a race to... you guessed it: beat the reaper.

When I googled it for the cover image, pictures of Leonardo Di Caprio abounded, being apparently it's being turned into a movie with Leo playing the main role. Woot woot!

So onto author C of the great library challenge: I chose C for Classic, C for Capote, Truman Breakfast at Tiffany's.

The great library challenge: Akunin, Boris Turkish Gambit

The first author of the alphabet is now down, with Boris Akunin's Turkish Gambit complete and under my belt. Actually, I just found out his real name is Grigory Chkhartishvili, so perhaps he should've been my 'C' author.

I mentioned previously that Akunin had been compared with other Russian literary greats like Tolstoy and Dostoevsky. The similarity for me as a reader was in that I wanted to skip all the war bits and get down to the human drama. I'm not sure if T or D would have written political crime fiction if they'd been alive today, but if they did, I'm guessing there would have been less swashbuckling action and more human tragedy.

Instead, what we get in Turkish Gambit is Erast Fandorin, a 'gentleman sleuth' in the epicentre of war between Russia and the Ottoman Empire, surrounded by intrigue, espionage, and a strong-willed and spirited young Russian woman, Varvara  Suvorova. In fact, there's so much political intrigue that it's sometimes hard to follow.

Turkish Gambit is part three of a series of Erast Fandorin novels by Akunin, and knowing this, I now wish he'd intruded more in the narrative than he does. I like what I've glimpsed of him so far – super-cluey, intelligent, modest to a fault and highly respected – sounds like my kind of guy. In this book, he's the modest hero who does the grunt work, while the story is told from the point of view of Varvara, who has journeyed to the Balkan front to reunite with her fiance, a war telegrapher who is wrongly jailed.

The ending is a little... unsatisfying, but the story resolves of its own volition, thanks to the hero. Also thanks to the hero, Russian crime lit has just gone up in my radar.

Now, onto B. I've chosen Beat the Reaper by Josh Bazell, apparently an 'ice cold and ferocious read'. Is it really? I'll let you know.

Kick-Ass, movie review

I should not be this giddy about a film so chock full of extreme violence and an 11-year old girl with a potty mouth. I should not, by rights, be so enamoured with this film about a teen geek superhero-wannabe who wears a wetsuit to save the neighbourhood. But I LOVED it. Enough to see it twice in the opening weekend. It, quite simply, kicked ass.

The script is funny, clever and very current. It's full of one-liners and hilarious teen moments that pepper the film and balance the violence and mayhem that escalate as the story goes on. The action, although violent, is never particularly realistic enough to be disturbing. It's stylised in the brand of Hong Kong super-director John Woo (it bugs me the number of reviews that refer to it as 'Tarantino-esque' – Woo is the original), and brings to mind the early movies starring Chow Yun Fat. But the graceful balletic violence is transferred to a comic book setting, which works brilliantly, and delivers most of its lethal blows through an 11 year old girl. This move has seen some major controversy in the media lately. Considering my belief system (Christian, and usually predictably conservative), I should've been joining in the ranks of the outraged, but frankly this movie got me from the premise and delivered everything it promised. It's become one of my favourite movies of the last few years at the very least.

In a short summary (no spoilers), the story is about a teen geek, Dave Lizewski (played by British Aaron Johnson) who wonders aloud why noone's tried being a superhero in real life. Armed with his newly-purchased green wetsuit, a mask, baton and MySpace page for for his alter-ego Kick-Ass, he goes out to save the neighbourhood. 11 year old, purple-wigged Hit-Girl bursts into the scene during a rescue mission gone wrong, saving his life and delivering the devastatingly funny line to his attackers, 'Okay you cunts, let's see what you've got,' and then wastes no time laying into them with a flurry of bloody knife-action. Turns out Hit-Girl (Chloe Moretz, 11-year old action prodigy) and her father Big-Daddy (Nicolas Cage in a career-reviving role) are pseudo-superheroes who are going after the bad guys to avenge the death of their wife/mother. The 'bad guys' are Frank D'Amico (the wonderful Mark Strong), the local mob boss with an artillery of goofy gang members, and increasingly also his teenage son Chris (Christopher Mintz-Plasse, McLovin' from Superbad and Role Models), who creates his own superhero alter-ego, Red Mist.

Due to the controversial nature of the film, apparently no film studio wanted to touch it unless Hit-Girl metamorphosed into a 28-year old crime-fighting machine, but creators Matthew Vaughn and Mark Millar refused to budge. As a result, it was privately funded (largely by Brad Pitt, no less) so the directors had absolute control over the film.

While the plot is quite simple, not unlike most superhero movies, there are layers in this film that take it beyond simple entertainment to potential cult status. Kick-Ass satirises the superhero genre (the heroes don't have any superpowers, Big Daddy's costume is a rip off of Batman and the hero at the centre of the action is a geek in a wetsuit), while genuflecting before its altar thematically and otherwise (good versus evil, Hit Girl's super-agile abilities and the incredibly choreographed fight scenes), all the while offering a smorgasbord of humour from light (the quips and banter of Dave and his friends) to dark (the comic book violence). Its irreverence is bound to resonate with teenagers while the cleverness of the script and brilliant action sequences will appeal to anyone who likes a good laugh and doesn't mind a bit of violence. Okay, a lot of violence, but slick and brilliantly choreographed.

Most reviews that pan the film seem to focus on the irresponsibility of placing central focus on a violent and foul-mouthed preteen, and while I agree it's not healthy by any means, in this case it does what it's meant to: be shocking and entertaining and awe-inspiring all at once. Once in her costume, Hit Girl's charisma, casual swearing and violence become something of legend, and I, for one, would have been very sorry to miss it, had she been turned into the 28 year-old studio doll most likely with a big pout and sexualised leather costume. I'll take Hit Girl dropping the f-bomb any day.

2012, movie review

Roland Emmerich has been responsible for a number of end-of-the-world movies, but apparently 2012 is his biggest yet. The only other one of his movies I've seen is Independence Day, and a number of parallels can be drawn. There's the fact that things always happen in America - in this case it's an Indian researcher who discovers the first signs but it's the Americans who lead the way in acting on them. There's also the huge scale of effects - the catastrophe spans the entire globe as huge chunks of earth are ripped away, entire islands and landmasses become nothing but molten lava, millions of people are wiped out in minutes. And there's also the close-calls for the heroes, who are snatched from danger just in the nick of time. Literally. Unbelievably. And multiple times, which makes it all the more unbelievable.

Despite the many clichès and terrible segues and huge sound effects and overbearing music, Emmerich manages to redeem this movie halfway through when the emphasis turns from disaster element to the human element. The cast is really good, and you actually care what happens to John Cusack and Amanda Peet and all. There are some really big eye rolling moments and more than a few overly sentimental ones, but there are a number of laughs to lighten the load and on the whole it's not a bad way to spend 2.5hrs. Yes - it's very long, but you could do worse.

District 9, movie review

Unlike every other big alien movie, the aliens in District 9 do not target New York or any other city in America - instead it has landed over Johannesburg, South Africa, and the aliens are not a destructive force of superbeings. Something has gone wrong, the ship cannot return to its home, and the one million-strong malnourished, dirty aliens are rescued/herded into an area (District 9) which quickly becomes a slum. Fascination turns to impatience and anger and the humans, led by the MNU (Multi-National Unity), are now on a mission to drive the 'prawns', as they are derisively called, out of the city and into a designated area set up much like a concentration camp.

The central storyline follows Wikus Van De Merwe (Sharlto Copley), as he leads the MNU team into the slum to serve eviction notices to the aliens. Director Niell Blomkamp (a South African who based the film on elements of his childhood experience during the apartheid) begins the movie as a documentary with the shaky hand-held camera affect, but evolves it seamlessly into movie-mode as a tragedy envelopes Wikus and takes him beyond his limits.

District 9 is didactic in its racial commentary through its portrayal of the very worst of human nature in its dealings with the aliens, but it's done in a way that's fresh, real and very confronting. As Wikus' story unfolds (I won't give away the crux of the story), we see a man - an ordinary man - pushed to his extreme limits in every manner possible. With every new assault, with every push to break him down, we begin to see true humanity emerge.

This movie is absolutely gripping and, in my books, absolutely brilliant. And not just for its portrayal of racial division, but just as a movie. As my 14 year old nephew said afterwards, 'How good was that? I think there was some sort of politics going on in there, but I don't really care. Did you see those heads explode? Those alien guns were awesome.'

Interesting facts:

• Neill Blomkamp was set to direct the movie version of Halo before it fell through.
• Apparently Peter Jackson and his wife bankrolled much of District 9 themselves to get it started.
  
• Never heard of Sharlto Copley before? That's because he's a high school friend of Neill Blomkamp's who had never acted before. I find that unbelievable because he did such an amazing job as Wikus.
  
• The slum used to film District 9 were real slums in South Africa, and many of the inhabitants were still in the process of being evacuated into better housing by the government when they started filming.
  
• All the aliens (except the carcasses in the MNU test lab) were CGI - an amazing job once you've seen the movie. And more kudos to the actors for a brilliant job.

Okay, enough proselytising - go out and see it if you haven't already.

G.I. Joe, movie review

G.I. Joe had one redeeming factor: it increased my endorphin levels. I couldn't stop laughing at the terrible dialogue, hokey plot, lame accents and one-dimensional characters. At one point, the evil geniuses (genii?) are two bald, burnt men hobbling away by foot – yeah, scar-ee. You couldn't help but feel sorry for Dennis Quaid, who is lumped with a few clichès and a pretty thin hapless part in his role as the head of the Joes – supposedly an elite fighting squad, who somehow manage to stay one step behind the villains all the way through the movie, despite their fancy gadgets and high tech weaponry. Channing Tatum does a credible brooding job as Duke, the central character and one of the newest Joe recruits, but Sienna Miller... what's with the catwalk strut all the way through the movie? Is she normally that bad an actor or was she simply embarrassed to be part of this film? Marlon Wayans gets a few laughs in his black-sidekick role, but it doesn't come near the calibre of Chris Rock, who perfected this part a long time ago.

Questions (spoiler alert):

• Why was the US buying the nanomite weapons in the first place, knowing that they're so destructive that the rest of the movie is made up of trying to stop the bad guys from using it?
• Why do weapons need to be 'weaponised'?
• How is it possible that so many ppl on the two opposing 'elite fighting teams' have random ties to one another?
• If the Baroness is suddenly meant to overcome her mind-control device at the end when she suddenly recognises and remembers her previous life with Duke, then why, at the beginning when they cross paths, does she say, 'you of all people should know'?
• Why the hell would her younger brother suddenly turn into an evil genius after one bomb blast?
• Why are the martial arts flashbacks set in Japan, but the kid (Storm Shadow as child) speaks Korean?
• Doesn't a white ninja suit defeat the purpose of being a ninja in the first place (to be unseen)?
• As much as I like Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who the hell cast him as the evil mastermind? He still looks like a 12 year old.

Rating: Go watch it if you need a laugh, but if you want a good tight action film, look elsewhere.

Quantum of Solace, movie review

Quantum of Solace is another James Bond movie that's touted to be 'different from the rest'. I'm not sure exactly what's different here, except that Bond is more rough around the edges than his smooth predecessors, but we already knew that of Daniel Craig from the last movie.

From the thrilling car chase at the beginning to the blow-em-up firebomb at the end, it's all in, all action, all over the world. From Italy to Bolivia, Bond chases, bashes, rescues, pursues, shoots and maims all manner of people. The plot is thin, and why he rescues and ends up tying his fate (and the storyline) to the girl Camille (played by Olga Kurylenko) is never quite clear. That sort of non-self-interested chivalry seems out of character considering that he's so driven by avenging the death of Vespa. Or is it avenging the attempt on M's life? Who knows. Who cares. The action takes over and the multiple 'coincidences' that happen to speed along the story are a mild nuisance rather than a showstopper.

Personally I never liked Bond the smoothie who ended up in bed with a different girl in every movie, and this Bourne-like angry action Bond makes better viewing in my opinion. The sexual tryst in Quantum of Solace seems more like a token nod to Ian Fleming's misogynistic original than the Bond that Daniel Craig delivers. A better plot and some sharper dialogue would've made it a better movie, but the action is great.

Pronto, Elmore Leonard

Elmore Leonard, prolific author of crime comedies such as Get Shorty, Out of Sight and Be Cool, does what he does best in Pronto. His stories are slick, the plots fast-paced and characters cool - misfits in the above-board world, they're right at home in the criminal underworld, and so, it would seem, is Elmore Leonard.

In Pronto, Harry Arno is part of the Miami underbelly - a crooked bookie who skims from his mafia boss, Jimmy Cap, and then gets set up by the FBI as a fall guy in order to get Jimmy. Enter US Marshall Raylan Givens, a Stetson-wearing niceguy who, despite having been given the slip twice to the jeopardy of his career, still likes Harry and tracks him down in Italy in order to capture, as well as protect, him from his old boss and the FBI.

Pronto is a good read - quick, interesting and funny. The plot isn't overly convoluted, and although there are a number of big and small characters involved, Leonard fleshes them out nicely. The only criticism is that the protagonist switches halfway through from Harry to Raylan, which requires a mental adjustment that jars an otherwise smooth plot. But on the plus side, he teaches Italian swear words along the way, like testa di cazzo -'dickhead'. A crime caper that's also educational? Couldn't ask for more.

Eagle Eye, movie review

The idea around which Eagle Eye centres is not particularly new – at it's core, it's a question of whether artificial intelligence in the form of Big Brother (or in this case Big Sister) justifies the loss of personal privacy. And of course, Big Sis inevitably turns on her creators 'for their own sake'.

The action is carried by two main stars – Shia LaBeouf of Transformers fame plays Jerry, the less-accomplished twin in his family (this is an important fact) and Michelle Monaghan, a single mum who's motivated by the safety of her son. These two are thrown together as fugitives in a string of incidents orchestrated down to the split-second in order to accomplish a mission they're not even aware of. It soon becomes evident why Jerry has been selected for the task, but it's less obvious why 'the female' (as she's called by Big Sis) was selected – especially at the end when she doesn't complete the order she's given and Big Sis simply goes 'well don't worry about it, I'll do it some other way'. One senses that the female is simple there to provide a romantic counterpart for Jerry, but to the movie's credit, this doesn't become evident until right at the very end. The plot of the movie isn't that complicated, but the journey that Big Sis sends the pair on is rather convoluted – you'd think that a computer with super-intelligence could simplify things a little.

What Eagle Eye lacks in originality, it makes up for in action. Cars get smashed, people get blown up, a fighter plane gets involved – this is one $$expensive$$ film. The action is not really taut as much as it is just plain BIG. Lots of cars get smashed. Big explosions occur. Director DJ Caruso (who also directed Disturbia) gives Michael Bay a run for his money in epic collateral damage. But then, I'm sure I saw Steven Spielberg's name as an Executive Producer, so that explains that too.

Billy Bob Thornton surprisingly appears as a Government agent who predictably goes from foe to friend of the fugitives, but this role is too thin for his abilities and one can't help feel that he's been wasted in this film. The release of Eagle Eye was timed for the school holidays, and I think that's where the audience is - high schoolers and pre-teens to whom the concepts might still be relatively new, who will appreciate the explosions and graciously overlook the lack of subtlety.

Personally, I think i-Robot did artificial intelligence better (minus the gratuitous Will Smith-in-the-shower scene).

In Bruges

In Bruges is a film about two hitmen sent to Bruges (a picturesque medieval town in Belgium) by their boss, Harry, after a job goes wrong in London. Bruges is their purgatory - with no idea what they're doing there, Ken (Brendan Gleeson) and Ray (Colin Farrell) await orders from Harry, killing time with sightseeing, offensive behaviour (the scene between Ray and the fat American tourists is hilarious, as are his observations on 'midgets') and conversation with a depth you don't expect.

Much of the enjoyment of In Bruges comes from the dialogue, which is witty and funny and perfectly delivered. The three leads are just immaculate in the portrayal of their characters. Colin Farrell was a pleasant surprise - I honestly didn't like him after his Hollywood movies, but here, as the immature rookie hitman with the moral dilemma, he really shines. Ralph Fiennes also delivered a great performance. For the greater part of the film, you only hear Harry's voice over the phone, and it was a shock to find that that voice (with the accent and potty mouth) belonged to him.

The film, although quite violent at times, portrays the characters in three-dimensions. They're not simply hitmen, but men with consciences and their own code of honour who possess endearing qualities despite their obvious flaws. In Bruges is highly enjoyable, funny, ironic and refreshingly different from the usual Hollywood blockbuster.

Hellboy 2

Hellboy 2 would've been a hell of a better movie if they'd stuck to the action, one-liners and stunning visual effects of the film. Unfortunately, they also had a go at bringing in some complicated emotions, but with a character that's big and red and a girlfriend that can't act, it's an ask that was too big to be delivered with any conviction – even by the talented Guillermo del Toro.

The strengths of the film lie in the action scenes, character designs and the creation of a whole fantasy world that exists so close to the real one. It's to del Toro's credit that the underground lairs near the subways and the market beneath the bridge seem so plausible. But in between the action scenes, Del Toro attempts to bring depth to the movie by developing its main characters, and this becomes the film's weakness.

First, there's Hellboy's continuing superhero-struggle of wanting to fit in and be accepted but having to face the hard fact that he's very different from the rest of mankind. This isn't given enough screen time to be developed with any depth, so the sentiment it adds to the movie is counteracted by the fact that it's done poorly. Secondly, tensions flare up between Hellboy and his girlfriend Liz, but there's no conviction in this plot so you don't really care (can someone please teach Selma Blair to act). Also, their friend the fishguy falls in love – the star-crossed kind that makes him act totally out of character at the end, but it wasn't developed enough to be plausible.

It's a fun ride with some interesting characters, but the downside was the lack of originality – too much of the movie smacked of other big budget flicks:

LOTR - an object of power gets split up among different races to ensure peace; also the long-blond-haired elegance of the elves seemed very a la Peter Jackson

Matrix - the fight scenes with the elven prince

Indiana Jones - a small and humble team of protagonists face the sheer overwhelming number of the golden army in the final scene

MIB - the whole 'secret organisation' thing

Rating: 7/10

It's pretty much what you'd expect but nothing more.

Die Hard 4.0 (known in America as Live Free or Die Hard)

Yippikaiyay for old school action heroes!

‘You’re a Timex watch in a digital age, ’ says arch-villain Thomas Gabriel to Detective John McLane, and I'd have to agree - but in a good way. Although the plot is based around post-9/11 security measures, the movie has a distinctively retro early-90s feel. Bruce Willis reprises his imperturbable balding working-class-hero character with ease, and manages to look surprisingly good while he’s doing it.

As with the last 3 movies in the Die Hard series, McClane is the reluctant hero thrust into the position of having to save the world (a.k.a. America). He’s bombed, shot, blasted, thrown out of things, onto things and off things, which make him look tougher and cooler than ever – especially compared to his sidekick, geeky hacker extraordinaire Matthew Farrell (played by Justin Long, who will forever be known to me as ‘Mac guy’ from the excellent Mac/PC ads). Their odd-couple chemistry is great and the one-liners fly almost faster than the bullets.

McLane's feisty daughter Lucy becomes the hostage of choice by the baddies (not a spoiler - it's pretty predictable), and the FBI are always one step behind. Good thing that Det. McLane is always on the ball - even if it means having to kick skinny Asian ass (very tough attractive ass at that).

It may be a little corny and obvious at times, but there’s genuine humour and great action throughout. Throw in the goodwill built up from the last Die Hard movies, and this is definitely one that’s worth watching.

Rating: 8/10
They don’t make them quite like this anymore. Yes it's a little formulaic, and the newer action thrillers may be smarter, wittier and quicker, but this is pure action with likeable heroes - can't ask for more in my books!

Transformers

How can something so Bay be so good?

Although director Michael Bay has copped a lot of flack for some of his previous movies, he won’t be paying for another drink for a long time after this effort. With this one film, he managed to please the hardcore Fanaticons who had any part of their (extended) childhood in the 80s, as well as the more newly initiated Transformers-fanbase – including my 10 and 12 year old nephews who went in expecting something ‘kinda lame’ and left the cinema begging for Optimus Prime and Bumblebee toys.

The effects were truly incredible and have to be seen to be believed. The Autobots and Decepticons literally transform before your eyes from cool-looking vehicles (lucky GM!) into giant alien robots and back again. You could practically feel the testosterone levels rise each time they transformed, and the scenes were invariably accompanied by a duly respectful rippling of woahs across the cinema.

The plot was brisk and full of action and humour that was carried brilliantly by the computerised robots and human characters alike. I’ve never seen Shia LaBeouf before, but he totally won me over as the fast-talking, smart-mouthed, hormone charged teenager Sam Witwicky: ‘It's a robot. You know, like a super advanced robot. It's probably Japanese.’

Somehow, the movie seems to have successfully bridged that gap between genders and ages, because everyone I know who's seen the movie - from my hard-nosed sister to my pre-teen nephews, arguably grown-up boyfriend and my 7-month pregnant flatmate (and the unborn baby in her stomach who was kicking up a storm during the movie) - genuinely enjoyed Transformers.

And by the way, you absolutely have to check out the Real Transformers. Seriously, the lengths some fans will go to...


Rating: 9.5/10
Did what a movie should do: absorbed you fully into another world, engaging your emotions and humour. So why the missing 0.5? Well it wasn't exactly... you know, like, 'deep'.

Curse of the Golden Flower

Directed by Zhang Yimou, of Hero and House of Flying Daggers fame, this is a Chinese movie about palace intrigue, treachery, incest and betrayal amongst the most dysfunctional royal family in history – real or fictional.

State secrets are whispered through flimsy rice-paper walls, ninjas fall silently from the sky and, as with most Asian action movies, there’s a lot of stylish but unrealistic violence full of poses, 360 degree kicks, flying through the air… no one does it like the Chinese. Half the population is decimated in the main battle scene as the royal family descend into madness and cruelty, but when the bloodshed is over, endless resources of fresh soldiers (and chrysanthemums) seem to appear from nowhere.

Surprisingly, there are more cleavages than kicks (who knew Asian women could have such an abundant excess of bulbous white protuberances?) and the scenes are heavily plot-driven rather than going from one beautifully choreographed fighting scene to another, as we’ve come to expect from Yimou. Filmed on a grand scale with rich imagery (the costumes, palace and courtyard are incredibly impressive), the movie fails to engage because, as William Thackeray says of his book Vanity Fair, it’s a story without heroes. The only character worth liking (Prince Jai) is used as a pawn in the machinations of the only the two left standing at the end of the movie – the Emperor and Empress (played by Chow Yun Fat and Gong Li) who are the cause of the excessive bloodshed and heartache.

Rating: 6.5/10
It’s madness... literally!

Shooter

In Shooter, Mark Wahlberg plays a military sniper for the U.S. army who gets played for a fool, is scapegoated for an attempted presidential assassination and ends up wanted for annihilation by the FBI. On the run, he wants revenge, justice, honour and all the other good words that get your blood going. He’s a skilful military man thrown in the hot seat and now on the run from the government he tried to protect. Throw in a buxom love interest, some powerful bad guys (senators and other Washington heavies), one good guy who believes his story and guns - lots of guns - and what you get is a pretty decent 2 hours of cinematic escapism that doesn’t strain the brain and occupies you with a lot of eye candy.

But don’t expect anything too clever – like a plot with any sort of depth. In this movie, what you see is what you get. There is no subtlety. From the moment that his best buddy shows us a pic of his wife/girlfriend back home in Kentucky (or some other Southern state), you just KNOW he’s gonna be blown apart. And it happens maybe 30 seconds later. The FBI agent that Wahlberg disarms while running away is shown in lingering detail afterwards so you just KNOW he’s going to be important to the plot later. And of course, he is. There are clunky plot reveals and foreshadowing dropped like a granny’s loose drawers throughout the movie, but on the plus-side, it’s never boring. you just have to get through the camera’s Mark Wahlberg-worship without groaning too much. He takes bullets, fights hordes of bad guys single-handedly and undertakes every single clichéd hero-shot ever created since the invention of celluloid: the mountain top conqueror, walking out of explosions with a halo of smoke and fire, tending to bullet wounds while wincing in understated masculine pain… you get my drift.

Ironically, the movie propagates a big-bad-America political view while simultaneously putting the U.S. on its usual Hollywood pedestal. Greedy senators: bad. Patriotic underdog: good. The plot never delves deeply enough to feel for the victims of the government’s tyranny (the good victimised people of Africa, who have provided so much fodder for Hollywood moviemakers of late), and vigilante justice is seen as the only way to stop the baddies, as the government’s hands are always bound by the powerful.

The good thing about Shooter is that it doesn't pretend to be anything other than a good action flick, and on that front it delivers. It’s not particularly clever, not complicated in any way and there are a lot of explosions. Otherwise, I wouldn't recommend it to any but the most hard-core Mark Wahlberg fans who want a bit of a perve.

Rating: 7/10
Bourne Identity does it better.

300

Kings and warriors, heroes and villains, demi-gods, hunchbacks, monsters, valour… this movie had the lot. Beautifully filmed in a sepia wash, this movie manages to tell a simple story on a grand scale, engaging viewers with constant action and some emotional depth.

Ordinarily, I hate violence in movies and a reliance on slow motion. 300 utilises both to an abnormally high degree, yet I found it thoroughly enjoyable. The battle scenes were almost poetic, particularly the individual fight scenes within the greater action. It was choreographed so beautifully that you can’t (and don’t want to) avert your eyes from the screen.

The only things more relentless than the action are the six-packs on the Spartan men, who fight in leather-looking underwear and red capes. They look amazing, but I don’t know how practical it is. However, practicality is not the point of this movie – hence pitting 300 warriors against an army of millions.

Finally, I make dishonourable mention of the totally gratuitous sex scene in the beginning and the horribly painted eyebrows of the multiple-facial-pierced demi-god. I thought they made him look like a vain Asian woman.

Rating: 8.5/10
I think I enjoyed this movie mainly because I chose to take it for what it is: a mythical story of battle-heroics that doesn't promise to be a cinematic masterpiece.

Hot Fuzz

This movie was hilarious! It would be particularly appreciated by those who enjoyed the film-makers’ previous offering, Shaun of the Dead. This is seriously a laugh-out-loud movie that simultaneously mocks and mimics other action films while maintaining a touch all its own.

Sandford, a beautiful sleepy town and multiple winner of the annual ‘Best Village’ award, has no recorded homicides for over 20 years. However they have a suspiciously high ‘fatal accident’ record. Which turns out to be no accident at all.

Enter Nicholas Angel. A highly decorated officer who gets ‘promoted’ to Sandford because his top-notch arrest record was making everyone else on the London force (sorry, ‘service’) look bad. The gags are funny, the action scenes are great and the spoofs of Point Break and Bad Boys II are absolutely hilarious. The cast is perfect and I really really really enjoyed this movie. No more to be said. It’s great!

Ghost Rider

Despite its M rating, the demographic in the cinema was pretty much exactly the age group of the 5 kids I was chaperoning to this movie – mostly pre-teen boys aged between 9-12.

Ghost Rider is based on a Marvel Comic character about the legends of certain guys who make deals with the devil for something they really want. In exchange they transform into strange immortal characters by night and are bounty hunters for the devil. The loose plot in this movie is that the son of Mephistopholes (the fancy Faustian name they give the devil) is getting too big for his britches and wants to overtake his dad. So the devil gives Nicolas Cage, the Ghost Rider of his generation, the arduous task of taking him and his cronies down.

The greatest flaw in this movie would be the fact that it just didn’t make much sense. No, let me re-phrase that. The plot makes sense, but it’s just stupid. I won’t go into any great lengths to explain it because frankly it just doesn’t deserve it. At least that’s what it felt like the movie-makers thought: Forget about plot, just use loads of CG, a skeleton hero whose skull bursts into flame, a cool looking bike and a walking cleavage for a heroine. Cool!

The best thing about it is that because it’s not a realistic movie, Nicolas Cage’s acting really suits the part. He goes from mild-mannered to manic in 3 seconds flat: arms-stretched heavenward-gazing evil laugh and all. Overall, the characters didn’t really sit well with me: he seems a little old to be a dare-devil (his character’s chosen profession), and the exceedingly well-defined 6 pack he displays in the mirror (which literally caused the boys in the row in front of me to go, ‘woah!’) looked over-tanned, over-oiled and over-Photoshopped... or maybe over-steroided. And in every scene, his female counterpart (Eva Something) wore clothes one size too small with one button too many left undone.

However, the move-makers judged their audience quite well. The action and cleavage suits their pre-teen audience and the dialogue was corny but simple to follow (Nicolas Cage’s scariest line to terrify his victims is ‘Look into my eyes…’). Let's just say, not a movie for the grown-ups.

Deja Vu

(I watched this around 2-3 week ago but forgot to write about it, so it’s not quite fresh in my mind.)

Denzel Washington plays the usual hero-cop in a time-twisting thriller that’s only as full of as many plot holes as most other time-travel movies. One of America’s many secret services has a machine that enables them to fold time back on itself to witness events three (?) days past in a continuous, parallel thread to solve criminal cases etc. Denzel Washington risks his life to travel back and save a beautiful black woman (who can blame him?) whose death is the key to a major explosion killing a boat full of innocent people. The ending is a bit too convenient (the disposal of his second, time-travelling self) and a bit abrupt. When the girl is saved and meets the original Denzel (the one who hasn’t travelled back in time and has no idea that he’s done that), she doesn’t seem all that surprised even though I don’t recall the second Denzel telling her that he’s come from the future.

Highlights:
Jim Caviezel (who shall forever be known as Jesus) playing a dangerous psychopath – he’s such a great, intense actor.
Val Kilmer, who’s great as always, if a little bloated and aged.
The very pretty heroine who plays (of course) Denzel Washington’s love interest.

Lowlights:
The pace was a bit off – it took too long to get to the important bits and was a bit predictable at times.

Overall, it was a decent movie and while I wouldn’t pay to watch it again, it’s worth watching when you have a spare 2 hours and nothing important to do.