Pride – film review

I guess we’re all gifted from birth with quirks, traits, inclinations or ways of life that make us unique individuals, but that individuality can also make us outsiders to the many larger communities we find ourselves in once our lives get going.

PRIDE is a film about the solidarity between two groups of outsiders who, in their shared love, respect and feelings of fear and isolation, eventually come together to make each other feel a little less alone and strive to make a difference for one another.

I have very little first hand experience of the 1980s miners strikes in Britain as, to be honest, I don’t think our family were in the country at the time. Due to my dad’s military service we moved around a lot and in the mid-80s we were living in Holland; in addition I was only about 4 when this film takes place so I was hardly sat reading the newspapers and discussing politics over great mouthfuls of sugary cereal in the morning.

However, along with my bisexuality and visual impairment, being raised as a military brat has at times, at many times in fact, made me feel like an outsider, to the point where I’m willing to say that it’s probably the one thing about myself that I’ve still not been able to reconcile.

The positive note in there is that I’m managing to conquer two out of three. For me the internet has been what’s helped me feel less alone about my sexuality ever since I figured out who and what I was. In fact, due to my social phobias, I don’t know what I’d have done without it. Through an LGBT message board that I’ve been a member of for eleven years now I’ve experienced the sort of close-nit, supportive community that PRIDE depicts, although I must admit that I’m a little jealous that I couldn’t have experienced it with people in person (although I have on occasion, with mixed results) – I just find face to face social interaction in groups overwhelming without help.

PRIDE is ambitious enough not only to tell the story of an LGBT community and a portion of striking miners coming together to support each other, but also to tell a handful of personal stories about coming out and dealing with being treated and feeling like an outsider.

There’s surely a character in there for everyone – the brash, the brave, the shy, the awkward, the scared and the downright daft.

It’s an ensemble piece and so performances are justifiably and commendably strong. The script goes to great lengths to give the central characters as much screen time as it can without compromising the story, which drives along at a great pace. This is an epic tale on a small scale that’ll make you want to punch the air and clap your hands as loudly as you can by the end.

I’m not one for wearing my heart on my sleeve, but even I felt like hugging my friends as we left the theatre.

“Friends”, you ask? Long story.

The film also inspires a little work on your part too as, even though it provides a suitable narrative and emotional conclusion, it teases enough about the true story at its heart that you’ll want to go out and learn more for yourself and maybe even get involved with, well, something, which is to PRIDE’s great credit.

A special acknowledgement goes out to Dominic West who I’ve heard of a lot through his breakout television roles but have never actually seen perform. Here he plays the elder statesman of the LGBT activists who carries the weight of a man who’s seen it, done it, bought the t-shirt, had the t-shirt stolen off him and had somebody lend him a t-shirt so he can carry on. He’s a big brother/sister figure to these bunch of beautiful “perverts” and it’s West’s dignified and intelligent performance that drives the character to shine.

So yes… whoever you are and whoever you do, go and see PRIDE and remind yourself that we’re all in this together, no matter what “quirks” happen to make you and me an individual.

Feeding Frenzy - film review

PART 1

So a little context to start things off I think: I came across RedLetterMedia while browsing Wikipedia's List of Films Considered the Worst and in the Critical Reception section for Adam Sandler's flop Jack & Jill found mention of a review that raised the question of whether the inflated budget of the film (a cheap looking comedy) when compared to the actual quality of the finished product was something that should be investigated by the financing studio's accountants.

 

It was a left-field but realistic and smart approach to reviewing a film that, as a former finance clerk who used to spend his days looking for anomalies in spending, I appreciated and respected. It's not how I go about reviewing movies - which is in a more traditional fashion - but it's one that, well, I guess took me back to my previous "life" in accounts in a not wholly unpleasant way.

 

The review turned out to be written, produced and presented by Milwaukee based video production company RedLetterMedia headed by Jay Bauman and Mike Stoklasa, both of whom present in person their "flagship" movie review series Half In The Bag both in and out of the guise of two lazy VCR repair men.

 

It was from watching Half In The Bag and browsing their website that I learned about their 70 minute Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace review.

 

It was then that part of my life took a turn for the better.

 

From out of the blue I was able to put something behind me that had been plaguing my life since 1999.

 

The Phantom Menace review, which Stoklasa narrates in character as Mr Plinkett - a creation of their friend and fellow RedLetterMedia veteran Rich Evans (and regularly played on and off screen by both men) - goes scene by scene through The Phantom Menace not simply criticising it but asking why things don't work and attempting to provide some answers... no matter how depressing. It made me realise that I wasn't alone in thinking that something was broken with the Star Wars prequels and helped me move on. It was geek therapy and I'll be eternally grateful to them for that. So now, instead of regularly watching The Phantom Menace and trying, without success, to "get it", RedLetterMedia have helped me accept that there was never anything there to "get" except ulcers.

 

So with the added help of the subsequent release of the Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith reviews, I no longer watch the Star Wars prequels or "special" editions of the original trilogy at all - just the untouched theatrical versions of parts IV, V and VI that were bizarrely released as a bonus feature on yet another abhorrent special edition DVD outing.

 

But while I've been getting up to speed with RedLetterMedia's ever growing back catalogue of Half In The Bag and Mr Plinkett reviews, another successful series has sprung up based on some early Half In The Bag episodes that addressed so-bad-they're-good b-movies such as Troll 2, Zaat and Samurai cop... Best Of The Worst.

 

I'd call my taste in movies eclectic and lacking any sort of attention span whatsoever. I'm in the mood for a different genre of movie from one hour to the next and often end up not buying movies because by the time I've added them to my wish list and saved up enough money to buy them I've lost interest altogether. But - fear not! - for in another week or so I'll be back into that sort of film again and might finally get around to buying it... only to have lost interest again by the time it arrives in the post.

 

You'd be forgiven for wondering how I get around to watching any movies at all.

 

But I do, somehow, and since I'm not prejudiced about what I watch I'll generally give anything a go under a vague set of guidelines that I've never properly managed to narrow down. I'm discerning - I'm just discerning about trash.

 

Which is why Best Of The Worst appeals to me so much - it tries to find a glimmer of hope and entertainment in even the worst of movies, because Jay & Mike and friends know that movies are generally made for artistic reasons (Adam Sandler movies being an exception) - even though the reasons or methods gone into producing them have been horribly, horribly flawed and misguided - and maybe somewhere in the rubble of what results is something to enjoy... even if it's just the sheer naive badness of it.

 

But bad movies are also cautionary tales. I've wanted to make movies since I was a kid (writing screenplays and attending a media studies course when I was a teenager) but have always suspected deep down that what I'd produce will probably be terrible, because making movies is hard, time consuming and expensive. Even the cheap ones. And with my crippling lack of confidence and social skills I probably wouldn't be able to command such a project anyway. That's why I sit here, an armchair critic, venting spleen about stuff other people have been brave or crazy enough to at least try.

 

And RedLetterMedia respects the people who try. They respect that it's hard making movies because they make movies too, which is probably why they (especially Stoklasa) find the Star Wars prequels so offensive: George Lucas has been very open and strangely proud in implying that, even though he had all the money in the world and was surrounded by talented people prepared to give their all in making a great set of prequels to a movie saga they loved so much, he just couldn't be bothered to do it right - he just sat there in his comfy director's chair after spending a week writing one draft of a screenplay he hadn't thought out properly and filmed a bunch of people in front of bluescreen quickly and waited for IT nerds to do all the hard work for him.

 

If you've ever had a dream that's just been a little out of your reach it's hard NOT to find that offensive.

 

So after being so entertained, informed and helped by RedLetterMedia's output I thought it was time for me to give something back.

 

They had derisively mentioned a few times in their videos about one of the films they'd made before the birth of the 70 minute The Phantom Menace review, Half In The Bag and Best Of The Worst called Feeding Frenzy and I was curious to see whether the knowledge of film and low budget movies they'd used to such great effect in those series had been wielded to create and not just to criticise.

 

The result?

 

CONTINUED IN PART 2...

PART 2

 

Get on with it, right?

 

Well.

 

I'm not sure how to process the concept of Feeding Frenzy originally being intended as a series of gore sketches made as filler for a "45 minute long gratuitous erotic shower scene" - unless the shower fore-and-afterplay (perhaps involving incredibly slow stripping and meticulous drying) was going to be the bulk of it - so I'm inclined to believe that what it turned out to be is what it was meant to be from the start. 

 

But, regardless of my own personal conjecture, the filmmakers assert that the completed film was more an accident born out of their caring about what they were doing - they just couldn't in good conscience half-heartedly produce something with such a narrow vision.

 

And Feeding Frenzy certainly doesn't feel like that.

 

With Jay Bauman and Mike Stoklasa both being fans of the horror genre (Bauman seems to prefer Raimi/Jackson/Gordon style comedy splatter while Stoklasa favours based-on-real-events exorcism/haunting shlock) making a movie to pay homage to their cinematic idols must have seemed inevitable, in fact their love of the genre has shone through visually during some of Half In The Bag's fictionalised bookends and they've discussed their predilections on both HITB and Best Of The Worst in detail. I think prior to Feeding Frenzy they made a serious horror film called The Recovered which I'll definitely be checking out as (spoiler alert!) I think I'll prefer it to Frenzy.

 

After having produced a collection of amateur short films in the 90s and early-to-mid 00s the trio (including Rich Evans) first came together for a feature length outing with the ill-fated but eventually "remastered" (a from-scratch post production phase more akin to Apocalypse Now's Redux release) Gorilla, Interrupted in which they all look like they're about 12 years old. But I'm sensing that, because of the negative experience of making Gorilla, Interrupted in 2002, they've wanted to play things safe ever since... and "safe" is how Feeding Frenzy feels in places.

 

Perhaps to it's disadvantage.

 

Gorilla, Interrupted seems to have served as its own cautionary tale to the directors, in fact the co-featuring documentary on the Gorilla, Interrupted DVD - How Not To Make A Movie - goes into insightful detail about what went wrong and perhaps why. But while they all still seem rather traumatised by that experience you can't help but see the end result as a quaint "student project" which, while clearly teaching them a few important lessons, they probably shouldn't agonise over too much. 

 

After all, they actually did create something with the energy that Feeding Frenzy lacks at first.

 

The creative core of the filmmaking group was initially a foursome, much to my surprise, with Garrett Gilchrist being "The Fifth Beatle" if you will. However, it seems that Gilchrist turned out to be more like the Syd Barrett of the group, being perhaps a little more eccentric in person than the other three were expecting when they all first met online (with Stoklasa in particular having to be very diplomatic on record about their working relationship at times).

 

Gilchrist's eventual fate is left omitted from both How Not To Make A Movie and the audio commentary for Gorilla, Interrupted it seems.

 

As I watched Feeding Frenzy for the first time I had trouble getting into the swing of it, most likely because I had expectations that viewers without any knowledge of previous RedLetterMedia projects wouldn't have. My main concern beforehand was that Bauman and Stoklasa were about to break the well-known rule (either consciously or unconsciously) about not trying to purposefully make a funny-bad b-movie... and I was right. What people advise is to be sincere and to let any comedy come unintentionally, if at all. What breaking this rule has done is create a Feeding Frenzy that suffers from an identity crisis - it's neither funny enough to work as a comedy (much of the humour actually manages to make some scenes confusing and generate what Rich Evans calls "non-medy") nor shocking or scary enough to be a truly successful horror flick.

 

It's Evil Dead II Lite, I suppose.

 

Ironically, the non-professional performers seem to come off better on screen than the semi-pros. I wonder if that's because, as the creative force behind the film, the amateurs had an advantage over hired thesps such as Ron Lipski and Gillian Bellinger, with the former mentioning in the behind the scenes featurette that there was little space on the practically zero-budget production for individual rehearsal time.

 

But everyone's really trying, so you can't accuse anyone of being unprofessional.

 

I think another problem is that since Feeding Frenzy is trying to subvert a genre that's already been subverted a fair number of times our two protagonists lack consistent motivation, in fact Stoklasa even admits during the audio commentary that he kept changing his own character from scene to scene. Saying that, he's one of the few who actually comes across as natural on screen. 

 

Sadly though, we just don't care about our two leads, who lack much needed chemistry and depth for the audience to cling onto: Jesse's pathetic and downtrodden - a perfect combination for a protagonist you'd think - but the dialogue alone failed to capture my sympathy and I lost interest in his "heroes journey" as the film went along. Christine seems just too horrible for the person with whom we're suppose to sympathise to believably be in love with. There's no reason that Jesse wants to be with Christine other than libido and that's a pretty limp hook to peg an entire movie on.

 

It's Scott Pilgrim Vs The World all over again.

 

I was sad to see Jocelyn Ridgely being underused in a scene which looks cut down to its bare bones. She turned out to be great in the Mr Plinkett Star Wars reviews, especially the one for Attack of the Clones and the "epilogue" to Revenge of the Sith where her character exacts revenge on Mr Plinkett. She's got genuine talent and I wish her great success in the future.

 

Elsewhere, Rich Evans as Mr Plinkett knocks the ball out the park as usual with his sinister but comedic performance, it's almost a shame that Bauman and Stoklasa mention in the audio commentary that they saw the actor as a bit of a liability due to his health issues and lack of range. He's always seemed game to me and whatever might be going on in his personal life it certainly doesn't affect what he's doing on screen.

 

Stoklasa, playing multiple roles, has some great line delivery and an abundance of charisma that gleefully contradicts his Half In The Bag persona of a low energy misanthrope. He unfortunately misses the mark on a couple of comedy skits though, that probably should have been left on the cutting room floor but, well, they weren't.

 

Jay Bauman has the best character, I'd say - it's just a shame they felt the need to cut out his backstory of being an Air Traffic Controller who's off from work with stress which, once you learn that in the supplementary DVD material, makes him a lot more interesting. I'd even go so far as to say that I'd like to see a return of Martin at some point (if he hasn't already somewhere).

 

Other RedLetterMedia regulars pop in and out to bolster the ensemble, with my favourite being the terrifying but brilliant Lora Story whose RLM characters always seem preoccupied with things emerging from their many orifices. She's wild and off the leash in a way that the rest of the film probably should have been. The Wizard (his full name escapes me but I think his first name is Josh) and his character's roommate have some genuinely funny moments during a party scene; and Jack Packard admirably immerses himself into the role of Mr Plinkett's son and makes you feel a rare moment of genuine emotion.

 

But where the film lets itself down the most is with its love story that could easily have been cut back or fertilised with a little more on-screen chemistry. It sort of reminds me of Sam Raimi's Spider-man films that went a little too far in trying to stuff emotion into what should have just been fun but smart action flicks... instead they came across as wet in places. So when Feeding Frenzy should be cinematic and full of energy there's often just people standing and talking, or sitting and talking, or making bad jokes and improvisation to the tune of an unengaging romance.

 

And that's not fun.

 

All of these negatives could have been solved in editing, but while Bauman has stated on Half In The Bag that filmmaking is a series of choices he - as the film's credited editor - has failed to choose to tighten or leave stuff out when, in my opinion, doing so would have improved the enjoyment of the film.

 

In the positive category the film looks great for what it is and every so often has a Spaced era Edgar Wright vitality to it, with my favourite scene being later on in the film where Jesse, Carl and Christine are sat around formulating a plan of how to deal with creatures terrorising the neighbourhood. It's got a stripped down, stark simplicity to it that I very much approve of, with the addition of an important mission being given to Martin that completes his character arc (had we known it was a character arc, of course) in a way that's worthy of applause.

 

The fact that the film was "slapped together" by a crew of just two is not something you notice and Bauman and Stoklasa have proven that they've become talented b-movie craftsmen.

 

So I've covered a lot of ground here, including bonus features and other films/videos by RedLetterMedia, but if you were to ask me whether I'd recommend Feeding Frenzy on it's own terms to a stranger who knows nothing of Bauman/Evans/Stoklasa's other works I'd have to say: no... it's technically solid but fails to bite down on either the adrenaline gland or the funny bone and is - mainly during the first half I'd say - a little cringe-worthy in places (if you don't turn away during the serenading sequence in the coffee shop you're a stronger person than I). But I'll definitely be watching it again, only from now on with the audio commentary on like I do with James Cameron's also cringe-worthy but great looking Titanic, so it's in impressive company there.

If you like the Bauman/Evans/Stoklasa chemistry then you'll enjoy these DVDs for their great supplementary material which gives you a keen insight into the men behind the shlock and their ever-maturing working processes.

As mentioned previously I'm curious to see The Recovered which looks like more of a straight piece that puts all the larking about on hold, so I might download the digital edition of that and watch it in the next few weeks as I'd really like to see them do something truly unique and visually inspired. I'm looking forward to their upcoming film Space Cop because their work seems to have grown in confidence since 2010 and I can imagine it'll be a more focused piece.

We shall see

But for now I'm still left with that one all important question: what did happened to Garrett Gilchrist?

Sniper Elite V2 - first impressions

The third instalment of this series has just been released so I thought I'd go back and give the last one a go until there's a price drop on the new one. I hadn't heard about these games at all until I watched a Let's Play the other day and thought it looked right up my street.

I was expecting something a little rough around the edges or outdated since I hadn't heard about it through word of mouth before, but after giving the demo a quick spin I was relieved and impressed to find it had top notch last-gen gameplay and visuals.

I'm not a fan of FPS games which mostly descend into chaos when I'm playing, so the idea of a third person stealth adventure seemed sorta perfect for me. I was really enjoying Deus Ex: Human Revolution until I met the first big boss (remind me to get that Director's Cut) so was mightily pleased to find something in the same vein - I much prefer sitting by a windowpane with a pair of binoculars for minutes on end searching for heads to pop up so I can blow 'em off! I've turned off the mood music as always which makes the experience a little more helpfully sedate and massages my patience.

Beyond crouching inside doorways or behind burnt out cars with your trusty sniper rifle you do have the option of close-quarters shooting with a machine gun and silenced pistol if you break cover by accident, however the third person perspective and poor accuracy of the smaller weapons makes it rather tricky... I guess it's the game's way of persuading you to keep your stealth hat on as intended.

I'm playing in cadet mode so there's no need for me to adjust my aim for wind resistance or gravity, although if I ever complete the single player campaign I'd be tempted to go back and try out the more hardcore experience just for contrast.

Actually, considering I'm such a bad shot some wind resistance may inadvertently make me a pro.

Stranger things have happened.

Anyway, the one thing that's bothering me the most about the game so far is how it seems to punish you for achieving stuff. If you succeed in completing one part of a task (other than snipering) a wave of new enemies (who're apparently psychic) will be set off even though you've been meticulous in going through the local map gleefully picking them off one by one in relative silence. The surprise influx of footfalls generally leads to panic and close-quarters chaos, which feels kinda forced and against the otherwise immersive vibe of the game.

Maybe there's a way of coping with these incidents more successfully than I am doing but, well, I'm just not there yet.

For anyone with poor eyesight the fact that the game is keen for you to take things slow will be a plus. Even when there's disorientating contrast between bright pools of sunlight and grubbily shaded piles of rubble there's always time for you to sit staring at possibly nothing just in case there's a brief sign of life. I've now moved onto a nighttime mission which is proving to be almost impossible, but considering it's at a steel mill where steam is pumped into the air to provide cover and/or confusion for you and your enemies I'm guessing there'll be few with decent vision who'll find it easy.

Even so, as with all games I'm finding little tricks to circumnavigate visual roadblocks, which isn't perfect but it'll have to do: starting the same checkpoint over and over again is one of them; starting off a section by running in and seeing where all the shots come from so I can make some sort of plan for when I respawn is another.

I'm sort of making it up as I go.

Well, I've been playing for most of the day and am looking forward to cracking on with it again tomorrow. I'm not all that curious to see how the story pans out as it's hardly a personal journey you're on, but what's keeping me hooked is waiting to see what locales the game has in store for me next. I'll definitely be buying the third game once I'm done with V2... perhaps by then I'll even have gone next-gen with a PS4.

We shall see.

I'd heartily recommended this for all those who like a bit of peace and quiet while they're mercilessly murdering video game sprites from a distance.

Gravity – film review

I feel like I should be sitting in the corner with a dunce’s hat on like a naughty boy for having not seen this at the cinema in 3D as it was intended to be seen, but after having just viewed it at home on the small screen I can honestly say that, what with my deteriorating eye condition (Retinitus Pigmentosa), I wouldn’t have been able to see much of it on the big screen anyway.

So, guilty admission and sort-of explanation/excuse aside, I really enjoyed Gravity for the one-note cinematic experience it was clearly designed to be (rather than a standard narrative film). Don’t get me wrong – it has a structure in the form of a simple series of events that you can follow, but characterisation is purposefully kept to a minimum and the claustrophobic tension is ranked up by never leaving the protagonists’ side.

This is an 87 minute rollercoaster ride in virtually every sense of the word – there’s absolutely no room for baggage on board at all.

My expectations were mixed because regardless of how many positive things I heard I just couldn’t ignore the fact that I’m not one of Sandra Bullock’s biggest fans and Gravity hasn’t changed my feelings on that matter. Not that I don’t like her, I think she’s fine in stuff but that’s about where my praise ends. Unfortunately, though, because she’s the film’s lead and one and only actor after George Clooney vanishes the film really could have done with more than just “fine”. She doesn’t say much and all the script requires of her is to be either frightened or angry, but the role needed somebody with a bit more charisma and versatility to make you care, which she just doesn’t have in my opinion.

I feel awful saying that. Sorry, Sandra.

But the film did remind me of how much I like George Clooney. I’ve never seen him as much of a looker but he does have an abundance of natural charm and charisma and, like I said, he vanishes fairly early on.

In reality, as long as they had the required acting skills, anyone could have played these parts, but with the absence of any drama other than basic human survival the marketing campaign understandably needed two big names to sell it. There’s nothing wrong with that at all, but it probably would have been more interesting with two unknowns who you had no predetermined thoughts or opinions of.

On the technical side I was surprised by how intrusive the musical score was, but I’m hoping to watch it again with some headphones on and get a better idea of the mix as I’m wondering whether the television I watched it on unintentionally flattened out the mix, an effect which spoiled the experience a little. But if the score was meant to be that intrusive then it was a bad choice by the filmmakers. I often found myself craving silence while music was banging me over the head and telling me how to feel.

Yes, I know I should feel frightened. Yes, I know I should feel suspense. Yes, I know I should feel relief. Shut up and let me feel it in my own way.

The attempt to keep the use of editing, like everything except the music, to a bare minimum felt more distracting than immersive. Just some plain camera and editing techniques would have worked just as well – maybe even better – as having the camera zoom around the place in zero gravity in continuous takes. Like with the music, I just wished the camera would stop sometimes.

Going back to the allusion of a theme park ride this was never more apparent than when the film ended. There’s a real jarring lack of a coda to help you come down from the incredibly tense experience. You’re just pulled out of your seat, pushed out of the way and told to make way for the next customer. Thanks for your business, don’t forget to visit the gift shop, do come again.

Metaphorically speaking, of course.

Well, apart from the fairly minor bugbears (or maybe they’re not so minor… they felt pretty big) I found Gravity to be a great looking film that people clearly put a lot of thought and effort into that turned out to be a fantastic ride and an experience which I’m looking forward to strapping myself in for again and analysing a little closer.

I’d definitely recommend it to anyone and everyone, but with the caveat that they not expect a standard movie going experience.

This is a ride and nothing more.

Machete Kills – film review

If the first Machete was the illegitimate love-child of a fake trailer carrying a surprisingly sincere and strong message about immigration from the side of the immigrants, then Machete Kills is its crazed half-brother wandering from town to town never really achieving anything but having a blast in the process.

In a way this outing has unwittingly (or wittingly… who knows) become a prime example of the sort of so-bad-it’s-good movie experience that the whole Grindhouse “event” was meant to be paying homage to {but not actually being}. Machete 1 played it relatively straight (wherein lay most of its humour). however Machete Kills absolutely does not in any way shape or form. And that’s not such a good thing.

Worryingly, the film borders on (and perhaps even crosses over into) Austin Powers/Hot Shots territory on too many occasions and sanitises much of the sexual content that was dealt with so gratuitously in Machete 1. There are no nude women pulling mobile phones out of their vaginas or incestuous mother/daughter poolside romps here. In fact, apart from the odd swear word and suspiciously heightened cartoonish blood and guts, you could almost mistake this for a rejected Spy Kids outing (none of which I’ve seen, but I get the funny feeling I'm watching something similar).

It’s quite short at 103 minutes (compared to a Michael Bay or Gore Verbinski snooze-fest) but feels longer, to the point where I actually had to check the back of the DVD box at one stage to see how long I had to wait until I could go to bed. Which is a sad state of affairs.

This film tests your loyalty but also rewards it. It seems to be trying so hard to make you hate it, but you can’t because all the things that made you love Machete 1 are still here (albeit embarrassingly sanitised): the blood, the babes, the bazookas and the babes. But unnecessarily thrown into the mix are protracted scenes of exposition and flashbacks spliced with convoluted and recurring plot strands and characters that don’t add anything to the experience.

We don’t need to know, we don’t want to know and, most importantly, we don’t have time to know.

There’s a bomb to defuse. Or something.

Get on with it, indeed.

Danny Trejo's limitations as an actor are woefully revealed by a script that simply gives him far too much to say. He's more effective as the strong, silent type, especially with that beautifully grizzled face that says more than ten pages of dialogue ever could. Bizarrely, his character has become somewhat cowardly since we last met him, but like the secret formula to most television sitcoms, it’s not the title character that’s interesting, it’s the entourage of weirdos they just can’t seem to shake off and who inadvertently end up taking over the whole show. I think the official Hollywood term for this is “Cybill-itis”. But this time around the roll-call of has-beens isn’t quite so interesting and neither are the newcomers (Carlos Estévez is no Charlie Sheen). Dissociative identity disorder-suffering bad guy/good guy/naïve pawn Marcos Mendez played by Demián Bichir is embarrassingly irritating (was he meant to be? I hope not) and you can’t help but feel sorry for Mel Gibson for stooping to this level; he’s not in this to be ironic like Robert De Niro (although De Niro does seem to be putting his career into a nose dive on purpose just to annoy everyone) – he actually NEEDS the work now.

I still like Mel, though.

Who can hate that face?

Oh yeah... everyone.

So, gone is the where-do-I-know-them-from sideshow novelty aspect, effective political satire/activism and shocking level of sex and violence of the first film, and arrived has the watered-down, confused, silly shenanigans that we were all sort of expecting in the first place but didn’t realise we didn’t want or need.

I think you can call this a mixed review.

I just hope that Machete Kills Again… In Space turns out to be less bad-Bond-film and ALL MACHETE.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug – film review

I found the mixed reaction to An Unexpected Journey a little surprising, as to me it came across as a lot more faithful to the tone of J. R. R. Tolkien’s work than Peter Jackson’s own Lord of the Rings trilogy.

Even though I really liked LotR, what bothered me about Jackson’s treatment of it was that great wads of story were left out in favour of tiresomely endless action set pieces that originally may only have taken up a paragraph’s worth of material in Tolkien’s prose, so with the decision to expand The Hobbit into three films Jackson is proving that – had he had the chance to make nine LotR films – they probably would have been a lot more satisfying to the Tolkien purists.

Basically, The Hobbit feels like how LotR should have felt – like a travelogue; a sprawling collection of notes about a journey and the peoples encountered on that journey with the odd sprinkling of peril thrown in.

The Desolation of Smaug starts off how I thought AUJ should have started off: with Gandalf and Thorin Oakenshield meeting at The Prancing Pony for the first time, however the decision to move it to the second film provides the audience with a reminder of what’s going on and why. A clever device, for sure, but it still feels a little strange tacked on to the start of this episode.

The first quarter or third of the film worried me enough to think I was about to experience a repeat of the mess that was The Two Towers, but once the scenes with Beorn are out of the way (The Hobbit’s answer to Tom Bombadil – an odd character who doesn’t serve much purpose to the overall thrust of the story… and a character that’s hard to bring to life on screen, at that) the film hits its stride perfectly.

The spider attack in Mirkwood forest made me turn away just like I thought it would (luckily my failing eyesight cut out a lot of the really yucky stuff for me) and the barrel riding sequence surpassed my expectations and won me over by providing a real rollercoaster ride of a chase without feeling like it was dragging its heals.

The mean elven king Thraduil (played to villainous glee by Lee Pace) was marvellously devilish and the addition of Evangeline Lilly as the likeable and spunky Tauriel to girl-up the testosterone heavy cast was a brilliant choice. Luke Evans’ Bard is understandably given more to do considering the key role he should be playing in the third film and Evans carries the weight well. Such beefing up of the characters and plot is entirely justified considering the very slender series of events and characterisations that appear in the book.

I was surprised to find Jackson and his team pinching amiably (but most likely unconsciously) from both Alien 3 and Ninja Scroll when it came to the dwarves tackling Smaug the dragon in the Lonely Mountain, but it was a pleasant surprise of a sequence that added yet more meat to the bone.

I was expecting more of Martin Freeman in this one, but he’s yet again sidelined in what has now officially become The Richard Armitage Show. That’s not to say Freeman isn’t good, he just has a lot to do but not much to say, making his character crucial but lacking the memorable lines and humour that the dwarf pack are blessed with. In fact Bilbo is painted with much darker shades now that he’s become a Ring Bearer and unaware of the trouble he’s found himself in until it’s too late. He’s a tragic figure here, even more so than Frodo in that he has no idea what’s happening to him, whereas Frodo did.

So yes, after an unassuming start the film rises to the perfect pitch that An Unexpected Journey managed and gives those who felt Jackson raced through Lord of the Rings something to savour at last.

If you’re a true Tolkien fan then ignore any negative or mixed reviews you read from those who simply don’t get it… you’ll love it!