Author: Alton Williams

  • Today’s News, Powered By Twitter & Cherry Coke

    Today’s News, Powered By Twitter & Cherry Coke

    As I haven’t done this in a while I thought I would treat you to burst of news and gossip and bits and pieces for you to digest.

    Enjoy, and have pinches of salt ready.

    Christopher Nolan reveals the title for third Batman movie

    15 Years of Fox Searchlight

    J. Jonah Jameson recast for Spider-Man

    Is Robert Rodriguez off Deadpool?

    Bill Murray reimagined as other Wes Anderson characters

    James Cameron returns to Pandora!

    Super 8 will open June 10, 2011

    Harry Potter costume controversy

    Michael Jackson’s Thriller film

    “I’ve got blisters on my fingers!”

  • One Hour Fantasy Girl – One Minute Sledge Review

    One Hour Fantasy Girl is a raw but poignant glimpse of Brandi’s life, played by the lovely and talented Kelly-Ann Tursi.


    Brandi wishes for a better life while working as a fantasy girl who creates and participates in any man’s fantasy as long as she does not have to kiss him or strip (boring). 




    Most of the film focuses on her meetings with two of these men, a lost yet rich businessman, and a young College drop-out. And these scenes are amazing.


    Brandi’s flashbacks as a child, the Diner sequences, are beautiful and are full of some lovely touches. 


    Both the music and sound are well balanced and non intrusive in this film. Edgar Michael Bravo, the director has wisely decided to let the actors breathe and tell the story.  

    © BRWC 2010.

  • Film Review with Robert Mann – Red

    Red ***½

    The latest Hollywood movie to find its inspirations in a comic book series, Red is also the latest such film to provide a far from faithful interpretation of its source material. The comic book series created by writer Warren Ellis and artist Cully Hamner was a three issue mini-series with a rather serious tone that supposedly, if adapted entirely faithfully for the big screen, would come in at about fifteen minutes in length.
    The movie, on the other hand, runs 1 hour 50 minutes long and is an action comedy that doesn’t taking itself seriously in any way or form. The reasons behind the changes are simply the need to generate more material than the comic itself actually constituted, among the changes being the introduction of new characters, but with so much that is different between the film and its comic book inspiration, can it really be considered an adaptation at all? Regardless of how faithful it is to its inspiration, though, this is a film with considerable firepower (both literally and figuratively), boasting a very impressive and somewhat unlikely ensemble of big name actors from the older generations (and a few younger ones as well) and a director with a solid, although far from spectacular, track record including such as films as 2005’s Flightplan and 2009’s The Time Traveller’s Wife – Robert Schwentke. This is a certainly a film with strong credentials but surprisingly every major studio passed on making it, even Warner Bros Pictures who own DC Comics – the company that released the comic itself – before the film finally got made by Summit Entertainment. Perhaps they didn’t think that an action movie whose cast predominantly consists of older actors would sell. The tagline for Red reads “Still Armed. Still Dangerous. Still Got It.” And, based on the strong performance of the film at the US box office, it certainly seems that the likes of Bruce Willis, Morgan Freeman, John Malkovich and Helen Mirren do still have it. But, as the trailer makes the film appear, is Red just The Losers with old people?

    Retired CIA black-ops agent Frank Moses (Bruce Willis) now leads a quiet life, but can’t quite come to terms with such a dull existence, the only joy in his life coming from his telephone friendship with the lonely and frustrated Sarah Ross (Mary-Louise Parker). However, excitement is in store when he finds himself being targeted for assassination and discovers that his friendship with Sarah has made her a target as well. Effectively kidnapping a reluctant Sarah, Frank sets about trying to find who is out to kill them, in the process reassembling his old team of CIA agents – cunning Joe Matheson (Morgan Freeman), crazy Marvin Boggs (John Malkovich) and home-maker/assassin Victoria (Helen Mirren) – and enlisting the aid of an old enemy turned ally in the form of retired Russian agent Ivan Simanov (Brian Cox). Together, they must break into top secret CIA headquarters to find out who is trying to kill them and what they discover is something far bigger than they could have imagined – the biggest of government conspiracies involving corrupt corporate boss Alexander Dunning (Richard Dreyfuss), Robert Stanton (Julian McMahon), the US Vice President with a really dark secret and William Cooper (Karl Urban), an honest CIA agent caught in the middle. The team may be retired but being ‘RED’ – Retired and Extremely Dangerous – they know how to hit the CIA where it hurts!

    Just like this year’s The Losers – another DC comics adaptation about a black-ops team taking on the CIA – Red is a film that doesn’t take itself too seriously. There is an air of silliness within much of what goes on, even as the storyline deals with some potentially dark themes, and its ability to simply be a fun movie without delving too much in the more serious aspects of the plot make for a film that is very fun viewing. Yet, the presence of serious themes that go unexplored also prove to be a slight hindrance. The plot of The Losers was ridiculous enough for us not to care about any deeper aspects of the plot but here this is not so much the case, the storyline often feeling underdeveloped, even with numerous twists and double crosses, and, perhaps more importantly, the film is nowhere near as fun as it is clearly trying to be. The film does indeed prove to be funny but it rarely achieves laugh out loud moments, the humour more likely to raise slight giggles than anything that will split your sides or perhaps even just make you laugh on the inside. Considering how sophisticated the cast is, the humour is also surprisingly unsophisticated. There is no wit on display on here, the kind of thing that could really give the film an edge, with the humour instead coming courtesy of rather silly or improbable situations that the principal characters find themselves in – Marvin taking out a rocket with just a bullet for instance – and scenes that see them wearing silly looking uniforms, donning ridiculous camouflage or carrying around a soft toy pig. The action sequences often prove amusing but in terms of delivering thrills they largely fail to really pop, being more okay than kick ass. This isn’t to say that they don’t entertain but they certainly don’t stand out in any memorable way either. The film also lacks the visual flourishes that can often be found in comic book based movies. There are some distinctive visuals every now and then – the use of postcards to illustrate a change in location is a different touch and one that demonstrates excellent editing work and a zoom in to the headquarters of the CIA also looks very good – but by and large this is a film that fails to offer anything particularly stylish in terms of its visuals. On the acting front, the film does not boast the best performances of any of its cast members but it is clear that they all had a lot of fun making the film and the principal players all entertain, proving quite adept at comedy. Bruce Willis is ample as the hard on the outside but soft on the inside Frank and his rather unlikely love interest is ably played by Mary-Louise Parker, who may not convince in her role but definitely amuses with a performances that can be best characterised as wacky. John Malkovich does not-quite-right-in-the-head very well and here he looks and acts appropriately crazy, both being entirely believable as a character who is borderline insane and thoroughly entertaining for it as well. As for the other main players, Morgan Freeman feels underused with surprisingly little screen time but nonetheless proves very enjoyable in his role, Helen Mirren brings real class to the ensemble and Brian Cox is solid, doing a decent Russian accent. A cameo appearance by Hollywood veteran Ernest Borgnine as Henry, the CIA’s records keeper, is also very enjoyable – he isn’t given a lot to do but at 93 years old he is still a very spry gentleman and his appearance here is a very welcome one. Other cast members, however, are underwhelming with Karl Urban being wasted in a rather pedestrian role and the likes of Richard Dreyfuss and Julian McMahon barely registering at all, although this is due to the limited presence of their characters in the story rather than anything to do with the performances of either actor. All in all, however, the acting is solid and entertaining, certainly enough so to overlook a few shortcomings here and there. So, Red is an enjoyable but not wholly memorable action comedy that undoubtedly provides an entertaining and worthy visit to the cinema but will not fully satisfy die hard action or comedy fans. If nothing else, see it for Helen Mirren. Face it, where else can you see Dame Helen Mirren firing a giant machine gun?

    —————————————————————————————————————————————

    Review by Robert Mann BA (Hons)

    © BRWC 2010.

  • Film Review with Robert Mann – Ramona and Beezus

    Ramona and Beezus ***½

    “The beloved classic series by Beverly Cleary is coming to the big screen” – says the voiceover guy in the trailer for ‘Ramona and Beezus. Beloved, eh? If you’re wondering why you’ve never heard of the series – which began with the 1955 children’s novel Beezus and Ramona (notice that the title has been reversed for the film release due to the fact that Ramona was originally a secondary character to her sister but in the film is given a much more substantial role, much like in the 1988 TV series based on the books which was simply called Ramona) by the aforementioned author and consists of eight volumes, which the film adaptation jumps through while focusing mainly on the seventh – it is likely because it is in America that is a beloved, not so much here in the UK, and based on the underwhelming box office performance of this film in the states, perhaps it isn’t so beloved there either, not anymore at least. Perhaps America’s kids aren’t that familiar with it either. It’s a real shame as well because this is the kind of film that kids really should be seeing instead of the usual rubbish that they so often rush out for. After selling out with this year’s dire Tooth Fairy, it seems that family entertainment production company Walden Media are back doing what they do best – making magical family movies that have as much substance as they do flash and that are far more than just passing diversions, rather being the kind of family films that are ageless. With Elizabeth Allen, director of 2006’s magical Aquamarine, at the helm and a very good cast ensemble, ‘Ramona and Beezus’ really does go a long way to make up for Walden’s previous transgression, even if it does fall short of perfection.

    Ramona Quimby (Joey King) keeps everyone on their toes with her wild antics. She spends her days roaming through fantasy worlds from one adventure to the next. Things don’t always go to plan, though, and somehow she constantly finds herself causing mayhem and in trouble with her adoring parents Dorothy (Bridget Moynahan) and Robert (John Corbett) or her teacher Mrs. Meacham (Sandra Oh). The only people who seem to truly appreciate Ramona’s wondrous imagination are her fun Aunt Bea (Ginnifer Goodwin) and Hobart (Josh Duhamel), an old flame of Bea’s looking to reconcile with her and whose car ends up in a bit of a mess when an attempted good deed by Ramona goes very wrong. Her exasperated older sister Beezus (Selena Gomez) would rather concentrate on her books and love life than on her little sister’s exhausting frolics. But when their house comes under threat and their world is turned on its head together the sisters must find a way to get along together. Ramona is a little girl with a big heart and an even bigger imagination, and she puts her mind to rescuing their treasured family home. Can she find a way to save the day?

    Ramona and Beezus is the latest Walden Media family film to attempt to do something a bit different to the majority of family films produced by Hollywood and, while it falls far short of Walden’s best works, it largely manages to achieve this goal. At its heart, this is a film about the awe and wonder of a child’s imagination – that child being the titular Ramona of course – and much power is drawn from this, the story not only coming with plenty of good wholesome messages that many kids can learn something from but also heartwarming sensibilities, with the plot never shying away from tackling serious issues that many kids may face at some point in their childhood and the sadness that can result but the outcome being so positive that it is hard not to leave the cinema with a smile on your face. At times the film also proves quite magical, particularly in the animated segments which, effectively blended with the live action, portray Ramona’s imagination, giving us a wondrous insight into how this creative individual views the world around her, something that really allows us to know her as a character. The animation in these segments is simplistic but beautiful, the low tech approach proving to be a very apt way to show the imagination of Ramona, being exactly the kind of thing she might, and in one scene does, produce herself. The only gripe here is that these segments are rather few and far between and it is hard not to feel as though director Elizabeth Allen hasn’t gone far enough with this aspect of the film. Fortunately, the charm and warmth on display elsewhere goes some way to making up for this shortcoming. The storyline, while predictable to many, it solid and, while this film is nowhere near as funny as it could be, there are plenty of humorous moments. Additionally, there are also lots of sweet moments with the romances that occur being delightful and, thanks to strong chemistries between Ginnifer Goodwin and Josh Duhamel (something that was missing between Josh Duhamel and Katherine Heigl in recent romcom Life As We Know It), Selena Gomez and Hutch Dano (as Beezus’ romantic interest Henry Huggins), and even Bridget Moynahan and John Corbett come to think of it, very believable as well. The acting in general is decent and it is certainly clear that everyone had a lot of fun making the film. The adult actors may not be given much opportunity to really act but Moynahan and Corbett are likable and even amusing at times, Goodwin is wonderful and Duhamel is charismatic. Only Sandra Oh fails to stand out in the ensemble as a rather uptight teacher. The actors all act well against each other and the familial relationships all convince, us buying Moynahan and Corbett as parents, Goodwin as a fun aunt and, most importantly, Selena Gomez and Joey King as sisters. Gomez is very likable but it is newcomer Joey King who the film really belongs to with her delivering a performance that is totally adorable. So, overall, Ramona and Beezus is a sweet heartwarming feel good family film that is both enjoyable and wholesome that, only let down by the absence of more animated segments, proves to be a major redemption for Walden Media.

    —————————————————————————————————————————————

    Review by Robert Mann BA (Hons)

    © BRWC 2010.

  • Film Review with Robert Mann – Paranormal Activity 2

    Paranormal Activity 2 *½

    When it was released in cinemas last year, the first Paranormal Activity movie became one of the most talked about movies of the year, seemingly repeating the success of 1999 horror film The Blair Witch Project, a film whose popularity largely seemed to revolve around the fact that it supposedly consisted of real found footage –
    something we now know not to be true. Paranormal Activity did not claim to be real in its marketing but nonetheless adopted the facade of real found footage in the film itself. Its massive box office success – it cost a mere $15,000 to make yet grossed $193 million worldwide – ensured that a sequel was inevitable. But does this sequel – or should I say prequel as the film is mostly set prior to the first film and its events actually lead into those of the first film – follow in the footsteps of Blair Witch follow-up Book of Shadows, a film that was a colossal flop when compared with the huge success of the first film, or does Paranormal Activity 2 actually prove to be more than just a mere cash in that will actually be ignored by moviegoers? The massive amount already made at the US box office already makes clear that, commercially at least, it isn’t a repeat of the ‘Blair Witch’ sequel but the quality of the film, however, is a different story.

    After experiencing what they think are a series of “break-ins”, Kristi Rey (Sprague Grayden) and her family – husband Dan, stepdaughter Ali (Molly Ephraim) and baby son Hunter – set up security cameras around their home, only to realize that the events unfolding before them are more sinister than they seem. Gradually becoming convinced that something evil and otherworldly is going on in their house, things only seem to get worse, particularly once Kristi’s sister Katie (Katie Featherstone) becomes involved…

    I did not get the opportunity to view the first Paranormal Activity film so I am unable to comment on its quality but if it was anything like Paranormal Activity 2 I really fail to see what all the fuss was about. Supposedly, this is a film so scary that it will give you nightmares, yet I found very little here that is likely to do this. Sure, the film is scary in places but so are many horror movies and there is little here that really sets this film apart from the many others out there. It takes ages for anything to actually happen and when it does, the scares are mostly just of the jump out of your seat variety and then they are largely achieved by lulling you into a false sense of security first. There is no finesse in any of the scares here and while things that go bump in the night – and in the day – such as creepy noises, things being knocked over, things being broken, shadows appearing from thin air, doors opening and slamming on their own, things moving on their own, cupboards bursting open and people levitating do prove spooky, they will only be particularly scary to those who scare very easily. And the scares that are present are rather fleeting, the majority of the film consisting of nothing of any real interest happening. Watching mundane events night after night becomes rather repetitive, even tedious, and the majority of the film ends up being rather boring. Not only that but there is very little semblance of plot and what there is, while tying rather cleverly with the storyline of the first film (the character of Katie from the first film plays a prominent role here and events that take place here add a level of explanation to events from the first film), just becomes increasingly ridiculous and contrived as the film progresses, leading up to an ending that is just absurd. If there is one thing that the film does achieve entirely successfully, however, it is in creating a sense that what we are seeing is real – which is clearly what we are supposed to think given this film is given this opening statement at the start of it: “Paramount Pictures would like to thank the families of the deceased and the [so and so] Police Department”. On several occasions, things happen that will really make you think: how did they do that? And the combination of home video style footage shot on handheld camera and CCTV style footage real does seem authentic, although dull at the same time, the film tending to seem like an average home video for the most part, i.e. not that interesting to anyone who isn’t a member of the family. Realism is also present in the acting with every member of the cast delivering a very strong performance and ensuring that we really believe we are watching real people rather than just actors and perhaps if we didn’t know it was all staged we might actually believe it all to be real. So, Paranormal Activity 2 is a film that seems very realistic and displays definite technical prowess on the part of the filmmakers behind it but, with few scares that really stand out and a tendency to be rather dull in the non scary majority of the film, it is just too dull and uninteresting to really recommend to anyone.

    —————————————————————————————————————————————

    Review by Robert Mann BA (Hons)

    © BRWC 2010.