Futurama: The Beast With A Billion Backs - DVD Review

Futurama: The Beast With A Billion Backs, is not the snappiest of titles. This won’t stop the legions of Futurama fans from buying the feature length DVD. The previous DVD release, ‘Bender’s Big Score’ to me was an absolute triumph in all respects. It was everything I wanted it to be; clever, witty, touching, and even managed to keep the continuity of the series going, even after several time travel outings into previous episodes. TBWABB directly carries on (although does not mention the previous film at all) and is number two of four direct to DVD outings for Futurama, which will essentially make up a new series.

Unlike Bender’s Big Score however, TBWABB fails to deliver to the incredibly high standard that Futurama has set for itself. The main problem with it for me was the plot. It weaves in and out of so many needless story lines that the central theme is entangled and ends up being confusing and uninteresting. At times, it even seems like the guest stars are added just for the sake of it, rather than actually having some meaning to the story. This is most evident when the Robot Devil and Stephen Hawking appear, for no real reason other than to ‘feature’ and then disappear for the rest of the film. The recurring theme of togetherness and love doesn’t really make for an interesting episode, at least not at this length.

I think it was trying to be clever and mix together all the parts which make up love and relationships into the plot, using the sub story lines, and maybe it lost some of its direction along the way.

The classic Futurama wit is still in there though, and there are lots of scenes which will get plenty of laughs. The Death Ball scene is fantastic and the marvellous Zapp Brannigan appears on screen much more this time around, which can only be a good thing. There aren’t as many laughs as in Bender’s Big score, but there are still enough to keep the fans happy.

The film is still snappy, funny, and worth a watch (it’s mainly one for fans though) but the plot is key, and the dull main story just doesn’t grab you the way Benders Big Score did.

Overall - 6.5/10

Iron Man - Film Review

Iron Man is another in the trail of the Marvel Comic to film conversions, and could just be the best yet. Generally speaking, the comic books turned films have been very good - Spiderman, Batman, X-Men, all to me were very enjoyable. I have to admit, Iron Man to me is one that I can’t remember at all from childhood, and even the trailers couldn’t fully entice me but I went along to see it anyway.

Iron Man follows the script that you would expect, with lots of CGI, one central ‘hero’ character, and an outlandish plot to wrap it all together. Even though they all have similar themes, what makes each one unique and different is the hero. Apart from X-Men, all the others focus on one character, the hero, and it’s this that makes each film enjoyable in its own way.

This also means that the actor playing the hero role has to be perfect. If the casting of the main character is off, the film is absolutely doomed. Fortunately, Iron Man is played by Robert Downey Jr who completely makes the film what it is. His character Tony Stark starts as an extravagant billionaire, living the playboy lifestyle in casino’s and living day-to-day. Stark then goes through a major emotional journey, going through various attitudes towards his work and colleagues, before ultimately deciding what to do with his money and his engineering talents. It’s done in a likeable way though - one thing (maybe the only thing) about one of the Spiderman films that annoyed me was that Toby McGuire turned into a goody two shoes overnight, and dumped (before getting back with) Kirsten Dunst in order to save as many people as possible. I know its noble and a hero is supposed to be like that, but its still annoying. Iron Man is a good guy, but he does the right thing for his own good and for his own revenge against the people who originally kidnapped him - not because the villain is a threat to society or anything sad like that. So even though he should be a bit of an asshole, he’s actually very cool and likeable, and crucially, not annoying or frustrating to watch. Just the opposite in fact.

CGI effects are very good throughout the film, and are done in a similar way to the Transformer film. It looks realistic and tangible even though it is obviously done on computers. The Iron Man Suit effects are shiny and eye-catching, even more so than Spidey’s undies, and the mechanical components that pop in and out shooting missiles and what not, are sublime.

The storyline is a bit silly, even for me, but I’ll forget about that. You know its not going to be based on real life events or anything serious so who cares. The ending is a bit OTT but satisfying nonetheless (and wide open for a sequel).

Pepper Potts, played by Gwyneth Paltrow, has the somewhat typically role of the obedient, under-appreciated, plain yet secretly glamorous assistant to Tony Stark. Although everyone else thinks she was great, I think the role could have been better cast. This is being a bit picky because she does do the role OK, but for such a good film you would expect slightly more from her.

Iron Man is a great film to watch - thrilling, fast paced, frequently comical and absolutely owned by Robert Downey Jr who makes the film what it is almost single handedly, without him, the film would have been only a 5/10 and you can’t imagine the role going to anyone else after seeing him in it.

Overall - 8.5/10

21 - Film Review

21 is loosely based on a true story about a group of students at MIT (A private American university, with an emphasis on Science and technology) who decide to cheat casino’s all over the world by winning at Blackjack by card counting. The controversy around the film was a surprise to me when I only stumbled onto it after trying to find out more about Jim Sturgess. The original students were all Asian-American, and in the film only two members are of Asian ethnicity - one is shown to be a petty thief and a slot gambler. This would probably bother me if the script wasn’t also changed dramatically from actual events. Remember how I said ‘loosely based on a true story’? The original MIT team did it for the money and just to see if they could do it as much as anything else, which is drastically different to the film. Because it is ‘based on’ actual events and not a documentary there can be certain allowances, obviously made to appeal predominantly (rightly or wrongly) to an American audience. This is an American film, so the fact that most of the cast are white American isn’t that big a deal. Enough, onto the film.

The script was changed from real events so that the main character Ben Campbell (based on Jeff Ma, who actually appears as a table dealer in one of the casino’s, a neat touch) decides go to go along with the scam to pay for himself to go to Harvard Medical School. Typically, he ditches his old friends and starts living the high life in Las Vegas buying expensive clothes, partying and going to strip clubs etc. The changes in Ben’s behaviour are predictable and not very subtle, even annoyingly blatant and over exaggerated. As the team wins more and more money, Ben becomes addicted to the winning and doesn’t stop even when he has enough to pay the Harvard fee’s.

The casting is very strong, and Jim Sturgess does a solid job as the lead geek-turned-cool role. In fact, he’s had a busy year having featured in four films in 2008 already. I haven’t seen him in a film before and I thought he was all right, but the main downfall was the script and the somewhat predictable turns in his character, as he becomes addicted to the thrill of counting cards his morales go out the window but then the next day he’s back to his old self feeling bad for deserting his friends.

Kevin Spacey plays Mickey, and is on typically superb form. He excels as the leader of the gang and is entertaining whenever he is on screen. His corrupt status of an MIT teacher is believable enough and even when not actually on screen, his presence and influence on the other characters stands out. One excellent scene shows the students arguing over whether to carry on by themselves, and it shows how afraid they are of him and the tension around the group is crystal clear.

Kate Bosworth on the other hand, while usually a positive point in any film, was pretty dire. I’m not sure whether it was the script, the character or just her acting but it was fairly woeful (I used to absolutely adore her in the Blue Crush days, but recently her appearances in films have been intermittent and generally disappointing). Her character Jill’s relationship with Ben has more ups and downs than a roller-coaster, and moments of closeness don’t make any sense and are purely random. She seems to flirt with him all the time but at other times she pushes him away as far as possible. I don’t think she even has the same sex appeal that she had a few years ago in Blue Crush (which is a great film for a chick-flick by the way). It was also way to obvious what was going to happen between them (as in most films) but in 21 they didn’t even try to create any suspense or drama - they just kind of switched the on/off switch to on when it seemed right, and back to off at serious moments.

Laurence Fishbourne should be insulted by his lack of action in the film. He plays a very bit-part character and even though he plays the part superbly well, there isn’t nearly enough of him in the film. There was so much potential for his character to be developed, and his relationship with Mickey to be explained further than the five minutes that it actually had. While part of the plot near the end was yet again far to obvious, his character Cole Williams still has a crucial role. If only the directors and producers could have put more effort into it, it would have easily made the film much, much better. Laurence Fishbourne is a great actor, and deserved much more screen time than he got.

It would also have been good to know a bit more about the other students. They are skimmed over so quickly its hard to remember anything about them. They are just introduced and then forgotten about in the next scene. They are in most scenes in one way, but always in the background saying and doing very little.

There is a positive feel good factor to the film of seeing the casino’s being screwed over by the little guy, and you come away thinking how cool it would be to actually go and do it. The special effects are minimal, and are mostly just fancy camera angles and switching effects. That said, it is directed and shot very well, making the most of the Las Vegas dazzling landscape of hotels, fountains and skyscrapers - the party atmosphere of Vegas is captured perfectly. A lot of scenes from Las Vegas will be ones you have seen a hundred times, but there are enough effects to make it stand out at least a little bit. The film does a good job of being intelligent where it needs to be (remember these guys are supposed geniuses), and is clever in the way it explains the rules and strategies of Blackjack in a simple format so those who have never played before can quickly get the jist of it - which is essential in this sort of film. I think whether people will find the film cool or not, really depends on the individual. Some will like it but others will find it boring.

Generally speaking, the acting is great (minus Kate Bosworth) has some cool settings and effects and the individual characters are very solid, but 21 is let down by lots of little things. I get the feeling it could have been fantastic, but that special something was missing. For one thing, there was not nearly enough explanations of characters’ background - especially Mickey and Cole. Without giving anything away, there are plenty of continuity and plot errors that anybody with common sense could have avoided. 21 is a good film, but could have been so much more. Think back to what Ocean’s 11 was like and why that was so good, and you realise that with a bit more fine tuning in places, 21 could (and perhaps should) have been so much more. 21 is a decent offering, nothing more.

Overall - 7/10

The Golden Compass - Film Review

Before I even started to watch The Golden Compass I was nervous. The Dark Materials trilogy by Phillip Pullman are among the best books I have read, and only a handful of novels come close to the imagery described in the book. Since film conversions from books are never as good as you expect (think Jurassic Park, Sphere, James Bond, and of course Harry Potter) you could understand my apprehension. Not only that, but from what I had heard beforehand, changes to the script ranged from slight to drastic in some places, not to mention the fact that the title has been changed - the book which the film was based on is called ‘Northern Lights’. Pullman was fine with these changes in script apparently, saying that “every film has to make changes to the story that the original book tells - not to change the outcome, but to make it fit the dimensions and the medium of film” which is OK in theory, but it’s a sure fire way to annoy those (like me) who have already read the book, and know what the outcome will be.

Not unlike the Harry Potter films, huge chunks of plot are missed out and you will never have the same connection with the characters. You can’t imagine the settings the same if you see it on a screen in front of you, and the characters are never what you expect. Still, this is obvious stuff so onto the actual film.

The casting of Nicole Kidman was spot on as the devious and spiteful Mrs Coulter, and she plays the villain part very, very well indeed. I think Mrs Coulter is the only character who looks, sounds, and acts almost exactly as I had imagined. Superb casting. Daniel Craig plays Lord Asriel, although he only plays a bit part, at least in this film - if he does any sequels (as predicted) he will play a much more important role. The lead character Lyra Belacqua is played by Dakota Blue Richards and was surely a daunting task for such a young and inexperienced person. Making your début in such a highly publicised and well known book adaptation was never going to be easy, especially at only 14, and having never acted before - ever. With this in mind, Richards does a decent job. The language differs slightly from the book, probably another minute script change a lot of people won’t notice. In the book, Lyra’s accent is more similar to Eliza Doolittle’s cockney accent from Pygmalian, but there’s only the occasional word in the film. The acting is generally very good. The cast stick well to their characters, and the voices for the Daemons are equally impressive (more on them in a moment) I thought Iorek the armoured bear (voiced by Sir Ian McKellen) was done superbly well, and the animation was top notch. At times his voice didn’t really match though, and it wasn’t what I had imagined. There was not a deep, growling or aggressive tone at any time, even in the fight and action scenes.

The Daemon’s are the key to the book, and thankfully the director realised this and did a great job in capturing the way a Daemon and character react to each other, and as it was all done using CG effects, credit goes to the actors and actresses as well. The bonding sense that a human and Daemon comes across very well, although the whole taboo of touching someone else’s daemon is not mentioned. The relationship between Lyra and Roger is also not explored very well. You don’t get the impression that she particularly cares about him, but is just bored at school so she decides to go after him. Finally on the subject of Daemons, Mrs Coulter’s Daemon the golden monkey was not as scary as he was supposed to be, even in the books I was creeped out, but the film does a poor job of conveying the terror and horror that the monkey conveys.

The diluting of religious elements from the book was not really a surprise given it is essentially a children’s film. The film shows the Magesterium as a general religious organisation with a sinister side to it. The book goes into much more detail, and Lyra has the meaning of Original Sin and what is essentially Christianity taught to her, and why it has a sinister side to it. It’s a huge difference, and you can see why the Catholic Church was up in arms about the book. Despite the morality of using Catholicism in the book, it is an essential part to the story (more so in the final book/film) so it will be interesting to see how the script is changed for this.

The ending to the film was so sudden I was shocked. It just sort of, stops. No conclusion to what happens to the other characters, although it does set up the sequel nicely it has to be said. To get the most of the film(and inevitable future releases) you simply MUST read the books. This goes for Harry Potter, and all the other book to film releases - no matter how good the special effects, sound, music, cast, settings etc, you will never get the same definition to a persons character, you cannot form your own vision of what someone or some place looks like, and you will never get the whole story crammed into an hour and a half.

The Golden Compass while a decent enough film, rushes through most of the story and it’s hard to follow at times. However, the acting and special effects are generally very good, and so is the sense of magic and wonder. It’s not the northern Lights however, and it never will be, but it is worth a watch if you’re into your fantasy films, and I’m sure that kid’s will love it, so it is a good family film to watch.

Overall - 6.5/10

Vantage Point - Film/DVD Review

Vantage Point is out at the cinema right now, and after seeing it earlier this week, I came away very impressed by it.

The acting is very good and generally quite convincing. Dennis Quaid, Matthew Fox, Forest Whitaker, Sigourney Weaver and William Hurt are the main cast and although there isn’t one central character, each plays a very important part, as will be explained later.

The premise is simple; The President of America (who else) is giving an anti-terrorism speech in Spain when there is an assassination attempt on him. The plot as you can see is the most clichéd one around, and must have been done a hundred times over with slightly different circumstances, but always the same outcome. What makes Vantage Point different from other thrillers is that the story unfolds in front of you from multiple perspectives. First, you see the events unfold from the view of a bodyguard, which doesn’t give much, if anything, away, but after each showing from a different viewpoint, you find out a bit more about what is really going on, and the plot thickens each time with twists and turns. Needless to say, nothing is as it seems and the plot twists and turns at every opportunity, although some are predictable, most will leave you surprised. It’s also a good film for those (like me) who try to figure out what might happen next, or who is behind what.

What I particularly liked about the film was that the first scene (the attempt to kill the President) shows all the main characters in some way (you have to look carefully, but they are all there), but shown from a different point of view so it slowly explains why they are there, and what they are doing, or planning to do… I imagine it was all filmed in one take, as the timing would be impossible to recreate over and over again - I think this is easier to understand if you have seen the opening scene.

I was slightly confused and disappointed to find out that Vantage Point has generally received a lot of negative press and generally poor reviews, and I find it difficult to understand why this is. I can only assume it’s because of the somewhat repetitive ‘must save the President’ attitude, and the annoying flashback scenes which separate each section of the film. There are more slightly negative points, but these would be major spoilers for those who haven’t seen the film.

The special effects are decent enough, although most of it is in the initial explosions, there is one superb car chase which takes place (not unlike the chase in The Bourne Ultimatum) through crowded streets and has the usual crashes and power slides. I would recommend the film for it’s originality and the way it keeps you guessing right until the end. The cast is good, the acting solid and while the plot ending is somewhat predictable, the way it gets there certainly isn’t. If you like thrillers, or even twisting story lines like Lost, then I would highly recommend it.

Overall: 8/10

The Bourne Ultimatum - Film Review

The Bourne Ultimatum was on over Easter, and after seeing Bourne numbers 1 and 2 I knew it would be worth a watch. The film continues from The Bourne Supremacy (film number 2 of the series) although it isn’t necessary to have seen the previous films. While it would obviously make the film more interesting, I think you could watch them all in any order and still enjoy them. The continuing plot while intricate is not too complicated, so unlike some spy thrillers, the Bourne films remain interesting throughout and you don’t lose interest half way through.

Specifically in Ultimatum, the story revolves around Jason Bourne trying to piece together the final remnants from his early memories, when he is reported in a newspaper (The Guardian or The Times, I can’t remember which) to be working for the CIA (incidentally, you can catch a glimpse half way through the film of the CIA using Norton AV to protect their computers, which gave me and my brother a chuckle). He meets with the reporter who wrote the article, and they quickly get deeper and deeper into the organisation which trained Bourne. The tempo of the film is quite high throughout, and even flashback scenes or communicative plot filler parts are kept tense and somehow nerve racking.

The trademark Bourne action sequences however are were the film really excels. There is a motorbike and a car chase (similar to the one in Supremacy) which take place on the streets of real cities, through crowds of people at top end speeds, so it’s mind blowing just how they did it when you think about it. I didn’t think the combat scenes however were up to scratch. The fighting was blurry and the camera was far to shaky and jumpy to actually see what was going on most of the time. The camera position switched almost on every punch or throw, and it just made me dizzy. It might just be the style of the film as in the earlier films, but the director needs to look at the Matrix fight sequences - make it one or two longer scenes done in one take from one camera. Maybe that’s a bit picky on Ultimatum because it doesn’t spoil the film or anything, I just think it could have been done better.

Background music is very good, as are the special effects, and I can’t really find too many faults with the film or the trilogy as a whole. I like how Ultimatum is very realistic (alright, as realistic as a spy/thriller can be) and it uses real life cities, in crowded places, it makes the film more believable than say, James Bond in the Arctic being chased by a giant *insert Dr Evil voice* “laser”. The chase scenes of Bourne leaping through windows, Motorbike sequences, music, sound, settings, and characters are all top notch, and the plot drives on and on without getting tiresome or boring.

The only downside I can think of is if you don’t like action/spy thriller type films then you might want to avoid the trilogy. For everyone else, it’s a must see.

Rating: 9/10

Eragon - Film Review

Eragon is a film from 2006 and got lots of bad press and poor reviews, most around 2 stars or below 20%. I saw it was on Sky Movies so thought I’d watch it to see just how bad it was. I was shocked, not because of how bad it was, but because of how much I enjoyed it. One of the biggest complaints about the film was how similar it was to Star Wars. Young, poor boy with a good heart has his family murdered and begins a journey to defeat an evil king. It sounds similar, but are these critics serious? You could say exactly the same about Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, and countless other fantasy stories. Because of the nature of some genres, it’s hard not to have similar themes - like in horror films, you know most of the cast won’t be alive to see the end credits rolling, and in War films, there’s always a tragic death that someone has to seek revenge for. Does it make Harry Potter, Saw, Saving Private Ryan or Enemy at the Gates any less enjoyable? You know what to expect but they can still be a great watch.

Eragon is no Lord of the Rings; the budget, cast and promotion are no comparison at all. But the story about legendary Dragon Riders is compelling, and while the plot is skimmed through somewhat briefly at first, there are developments later on when the two plots comes together. This is essentially a family film (PG rating), so it’s not complex or mind boggling stuff, but it is still intriguing and should keep most people interested throughout.

The dragon Saphira (think Vauxhall Zafira and you have the right pronunciation) is voiced superbly by Rachel Weisz, and Edward Speleers plays Eragon in the lead role. John Malkovich, Jeremy Irons, Sienna Guillory, Robert Carlyle all play their parts very well, and there is a brief cameo by Joss Stone as a mysterious fortune teller. I mean seriously brief, as in less than 2 minutes, and I’m not too sure of the point really, maybe she has a bigger part in a sequel or something.

The special effects look great, particularly in the vast, sweeping battle scenes shown when swooping down from above. But it’s obvious most effort went into the dragon Saphira, and the connection between Speleers and his dragon really grows and becomes key to the film. I don’t usually care when a character is in trouble or when there is a will he/won’t he die moment, but Eragon is a film which is really good at creating atmosphere and again, the relationship between the main characters help draw you into the film.

Eragon is not LotR, and a lot of people will find it slow or will think its not edgy enough to be taken seriously. To others it will be what it is intended to be, fun, family-friendly and a nice watch overall. Well worth watching if your into your fantasy films and/or want an easy to watch film. Or if you just like dragons.

Rating - 7/10