District 9

Throwing aside the overly obvious real-life racial parallels, District 9 actually aims to do a pretty good job at telling a science fiction story with a difference, an aim which is aided no end by the fascinating concept on which the story is based. Sectionalised refugee aliens in Johannesburg, courtesy of a South African independent film certainly doesn't sound like the basis of your bog standard extra-terrestrial romp, but with Peter Jackson's assistance as producer, newcomer director Neil Blomkamp had plenty in his arsenal to make this work. All that being said, District 9 is a bit of a game of two halves for me. Stylistically intense (albeit a tad overly grotesque in places), the story is truly brilliant (driven almost entirely as a character drama rather than science fiction), and the fact that it is all set in the cinematically 'alien' landscape of South Africa is absolutely spot on. It would have been so easy to have commandeered the story and set it in the skies of Philadelphia or New Orleans, but an American backdrop would have lost every ounce of gravity that this final product has ended up with. However, and it's a big one, despite wanting to like District 9 for all the technical brilliance of the above, there's just something about it that makes it hard to do. Partly down to the frustrating mix of documentary extracts, found footage and 'real' narrative which never quite seem to gel together, the film is a little tricky to penetrate, and never quite managed to immerse me in the goings on of the people we're meant to be caring about. Although therefore able to appreciate it from afar, it's difficult to cast any meaningful judgement on a film that just didn't bring me along for the ride.

Are you happy with your gas and electric supplier?

 

Vital Statistics
Director	Neil Blomkamp
Cast	Sharlto Copley, Jason Cope, David James
Length	112 mins
Post Credits Scene	No
TFC Mash-Up	Independence Day swaps interstellar warmongering for alien refugees. Cue "what does it mean to be human?" filmmaking.
Star Rating

Dredd 3D

So this seems like a rather obvious disclaimer, but anyone expecting the comic action of the previous (Stallone) Judge Dredd incarnation are going to be rather surprised by this one... Gone is the comedy sidekick, action parody villains and 90's whimsy. Instead, 2012's Dredd has opted for violence that would feel more at home in a horror film, a storyline with drugtaking at it's core, and an 18 certificate.

At it's heart, the plot is a relatively simple one (and actually, all the better for it). What starts as a routine drugs bust with a new rookie partner (sorry, I should have issued a cliché alert), rapidly escalates into a lethal fight-against-a-gang-to-get-to-the-top-of-the-building (again, nothing terribly new here - keep an eye out for last year's 'The Raid') to cast judgement on the ruling drug-lord who's lockdown of the apartment block has them trapped. Now although Dredd 3D doesn't necessarily bring anything new to the genre from a story point of view, the film-makers have certainly made very particular choices in an effort to make sure that the finished product still feels fresh. Confining the action to a single (indoor) location has obvious advantages from a filming and production point of view, but it also allows for even more spectacular explosions, and indeed gives a better perspective of the action in 3D (which is the only way it is possible to watch the film). Aside from those points however, the story centres on the manufacture, distribution and ultimately, taking of a new super-drug (Slo-Mo) which alters the perception of time to 1% of normal. Sounds standard enough, but it's addition seems to come with the sole intention of being able to whack the colour saturation up and switch to some luscious uber-super-slow-mo sequences. Visually stunning, but it does make for pretty gruesome viewing during particular shoot-out scenes.

Erm... run!

Overall, I'm struggling with Dredd 3D. Truth be told, my judgement is going to go against the opinions of the majority, but then this kind of gruesome violence (no matter how "beautiful" as someone described it to me) simply doesn't appeal to me. The film itself is actually relatively enjoyable (despite the clichés), but the vivid depictions of being skinned alive, or having your brain melted from the inside out just don't quite 'do it' for me. What a girl.

Die Hard 2

So this certainly isn't going to be the most modern film I'm ever going to review. In fact, at the time of going to press (I've always wanted to write that!) it's the oldest movie to find a place in my blog. With a 1990 release date, I was only 5 when Bruce Willis returned to the screens as John McClane, and I wish that was a good enough excuse as to why I'd only ever seen random half hour scraps of it until now. Shamefully though, despite being one of the most iconic action franchises ever, my baptism to McClane's exploits came rather late in the day...

Given the 1990 release, the film could be forgiven for feeling a little dated. Sadly though, it's looking more than just a little old, coming complete with jokes about not being tech-savvy enough to use a fax machine... (Aah, the early nineties!). That said though, the entertainment value is in no way diminished, coming pretty much entirely from the overly bombastic explosions and shoot outs that still look pretty passable even for today's standards.

In all fairness to Bruce, snow is terrifying

One thing does have to be said for the acting though. Sadly, despite being his second outing in the role, Die Hard 2 is an object lesson in how even a well respected actor of modern Hollywood needs to 'grow' into his talent. This film proves, more than anything else, that monologues were certainly not Mr. Willis' strong suit.

Bar some other minor irritations (like our hero being a worryingly accurate shot seeing as he never seems to aim the gun) Die Hard 2 still brings the action magic to the screen more than twenty years after it's initial release. A defining moment in 'don't take it too seriously' cinema, the original installments of the franchise are still capable of delivering the goods.

The Dark Knight Rises

So the time has come - the finale in Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight franchise, and the release of one of the most anticipated films of 2012. And while there's certainly a lot riding on this given the quality of the previous two films, Mr. Nolan has made rather a rod for his own back, making audiences expectant of his last minute plot twists, and hoping to catch him out at every turn. His latest effort is a decided mixed success, with parts that could be critiqued for being somewhat predictable, yet others that can only be praised for being comprehensively uncrackable.

Away from the storyline itself, Nolan's unmistakable cinematic style is evident in abundance. The word epic is all too often bandied around without much in the way of justification, and yet there are few other words that seem fitting to describe The Dark Knight Rises. The sheer scale of the special effects is just mind-blowing, made all the better in IMAX which over an hour of the movie is shot in (more than double that of it's trilogy predecessor).

Bane always kept a photograph of Ben Fogle with him, just in case...

On the flip side, I seem to be have been getting hyper critical over film length of late, and unfortunately The Dark Knight Rises isn't faultless in this respect. Though thoroughly entertaining throughout, there are moments that I felt could have been kept a smidgen tighter, and closer to the two and a half hour mark. I know there are countless who won't agree with me, but some scenes do feel more self-indulgent in their inclusion, with particular mention going to the Karate Kid-style philosophical sideline of self-discovery which added nothing to the main story arc at all.

As ever, it's nice to see Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who's fabulous performance certainly doesn't let him down as a new addition to the Dark Knight franchise. That said though, he is just one of a stellar cast list as we have come to expect from the trilogy, with Michael Caine once again being the standout, turning in an Oscar-worthy performance from start to finish. Aside from all the big names though, a personal little side mention is needed for Christopher Judge - an actor very much a part of my youth years who will have bounced onto and off the cinema screen in his role in this film without notice from anyone but myself and perhaps a handful of others; it's great to see such a familiar face in such a big movie. As other familiar faces go, this film very much represented the conclusion of the trilogy, and as seems to be tradition, many old faces (friendly and not) were brought back to see us off. There were some lovely touches made to bring back all the big names (some particularly fleeting), with only Heath Ledger notable by his absence for obvious reasons.

Did anyone really think I'd manage to write a review of The Dark Knight Rises without a picture of JGL in it? Shame on you...

Overall, The Dark Knight Rises seems a fitting finale to such a phenomenally successful trilogy, which has grown in epicness (yes, I'm inventing words now) throughout every installment. Hats off to Nolan for still being able to catch an audience out (despite everyone's best intentions in the cinema), but my biggest praise is being reserved for the duo in charge of casting. Such a collosal story needs a properly outstanding cast list, and this film certainly delivers both.