In our media-saturated contemporary world, separating the good from the not so good is fast becoming a task too great for each of us to handle individually. In this section Pulp Fiction Comics' growing army of reviewers tell you, straight up and uncensored, what they thought about what they bought -- comics, graphic novels, movies and more.

Fancy your own review? We probably will too. Click here to go to the submission page.

A History of Violence (MA15+)

Director: David Cronenberg
Starring: Maria Bello, Ed Harris, Ashton Holmes, William Hurt & Viggo Mortensen

On DVD Now

Reviewed by Ross

A History of Violence is directed with the usual flair and uniqueness one comes to expect from David Cronenberg. His previous films have met with critical acclaim and notoriety, specifically for the strong content that is usually featured. His credits include The Fly remake, Naked Lunch and Scanners (which has just recently been rediscovered as an early 80s classic) –all of which contain the bizarre and unnerving. It is with A History of Violence, then, that he seems to welcome a territory we are more familiar with.

The focus of the story is the Stall family, who live in a small town called Millbrook, in Indiana. There’s Tom Stall, father and devoted husband, played expertly by Viggo Mortensen; Eeedie Stall, mother and Tom’s wife, a gorgeous Maria Bello, and Jack Stall, played by Ashton Holmes, playing the reluctant son.

They are your small town family unit- Tom owns a small café on the main street, headstrong Eedie is a fairly successful lawyer, and their son Jack is having the usual problems a 15 year old faces- not being understood by his parents and having a rough time at school. Everything seems normal, and if you know how Cronenberg crafts films, then you’ll know what comes next.

Which of course is evident after watching the VERY beginning of A History of Violence- we are introduced to two lowlifes, watching them go through what seems a normal routine for them. Waking up, leaving a motel, back on the road… until we see the murderous carnage they have left behind them. Their path collides with Tom Stall early on in the film, and a few scenes later (after a slow burn), we get a sense of where the story is headed. More ominous villains appear in the aftermath, who seemingly mistake Tom for being someone else- someone with a shady past.

Viggo plays his part brilliantly. He is completely believable in every scene, and this part he has taken demands much of him, which he seems to thoroughly enjoy. His son, nervous and unsure of himself early on was a good part for Ashtom Holmes to take- he is not known for much of a filmography. I think he was well cast, and suits the role of a strong, emotionally charged teenager.

Maria Bello is quite simply the sexiest woman I have seen in film for years. She does not overplay her part at all- perhaps for this reason her performance is heady and alluring for me. It may also be the small detail of a cheerleader outfit she wears in one scene (!) but overall her part is played powerfully and quite stunningly.

Two other parts should get a mention- Ed Harris as a nasty enforcer is completely believable, and William Hurt (who was actually nominated for best supporting actor at this year’s oscars for this very role) hams it up and plays a gangster with relish.

The title “A History of Violence” will raise questions as to its origin- does this relate to Tom’s possible history?… the history of violence throughout the ages… perhaps a nod to many different examples of it’s forms and uses… or indeed all of the characters experiences with it? In essence, “A History” is complex if you let it be.

Originally a graphic novel written by John Wagner and drawn by Vincent Locke, A History of Violence is a short film by todays standards, weighing in at around 90 minutes.

There will be complaints about the sex scenes for those that like their cinema mild. There are two in the film, and without giving plot away they are in stark contrast to one another. The violence too, while not frequent, is in true Cronenberg-style, and IS confronting. Sometimes the camera will linger perhaps a moment longer than most people are comfortable with, but I believe this too has its own message and reasoning- violence isn’t meant to be pretty.

The audience I saw the film with were silent throughout the feature, until an end sequence that contains some very clever, welcome humour. There was a change in mood from the audience then- a palpable sense of relief was felt, and everyone (with quite the sense of relief) were able to laugh heartily. It is with this sense of relief that we all left the cinema, comfortable to some degree that we did not have to endure the events in real life.

A History of Violence has enjoyed moderate box office success, and will be out on DVD shortly. This is a must-see film for those that can handle strong content- the rewards are plenty.

Cronenberg’s finest film since The Fly.

8.5 out of 10

Batman Begins (M)

Review #1

Director: Christopher Nolan
Starring: Christian Bale, Katie Holmes, Morgan Freeman, Liam Neeson, Gary Oldman, Michael Caine

On DVD now

Reviewed by Kyle Jessen

I saw Batman Begins the day it came out. I went in not ready for what I was going to see. I expected another half -assed film like that shocking George Clooney version, Batman and Robin, but what I saw surprised me a little and made me happy.

From near the beginning you can tell it's a darker sort of Batman, a Batman we haven't seen on the big screen before. Unlike the other Batman movies, this doesn't focus on Batman simply defeating a major league villian, this really shows Bruce Wayne becoming the Batman, and in great depth. Batman doesn't appear untill an hour or so into the film.

The action scenes were very fast and a bit confusing, for I didn't always know who was where and what was going on, but besides that the rest of the film was clear.

The Scarecrow is by far one of my favourite Batman villians, and I feel justice has been done to him in the form of Cillian Murphy. Some of the only CGI in the film is done on the Scarecrow, and he looks very creepy at times, especially in some of the last scenes in the movie. I liked them showing a lot of Bruce Wayne becoming Batman, but I felt the Scarecrow should of been in it a bit more.

From start to finish, beginning to end, Batman Begins is dark, and excellent, and one of the best Batmans I've seen on the screen yet.

Batman Begins Review #2

Reviewed by Lucas House

The Joker killed Bruce Waynes parents?

What the hell?

That's the thought that ran through my mind the last time I saw the first Micheal Keaton venture into the dark world of the the Dark Detective from 1989.

To Tim Burton's credit, his original venture helped shape the way comic book adaptations were created to this very day. His Batman was dark and his Bruce Wayne walked the line between rich boy dolt and a man with a secret. After seeing Batman Begins I thought back to Tim Burton's production and one thing came to light regarding Batman's adventure...

It was too easy.

By the end of the movie Batman stopped (killed) The Joker and thus avenging the murder of his parents.
Now what?

The 1989 Batman accomplished what he set out to do and thus any other crime solving he was involved in in future movies was little more then vigalante work. Batman should always have his unresolved guilt of his parents murder in the back of his mind. That is the catalyst that launches Batman on his war on crime.

In Batman Begins, Gotham is too big for one man, but Bruce doesn't care. The odds are well and truly against him, but Bruce doesn't care. Bruce Wayne needs vengeance and he is willing to clean up the streets of Gotham to achieve this. This is not a story about Batman, it is a story of Bruce Wayne.

Don't get me wrong, this movie runs the same roads as other comic book movies we have recieved over the last few years, The director Christerpher Nolan is not an action movie maker and doesn't make the actors dilever their lines with fists of pure ham. The writer David S. Goyer has dipped his pen in other comic book ventures, most noteably the Blade series. Together they created a movie that has the drama of an independent film and the action that makes you feel that Batman could really be in other his head.

What can I say about Christian Bale? After seeing him in American Psycho it was a no-brainer to imagine him in the black cowl. His Bruce Wayne is a little more grown up than the Michael Keaton version in '89, and of course he's a step up from James Van Der Beek who was initially tapped to be Bruce Wayne when the Batman Begins concept was originally announced way back when. Unfortunely they didn't scrap the entire Dawson Creek cast for this venture. Katie Holmes plays the love interest to Tom Cruise... I mean Bruce Wayne, and I don't think she fits. First off between the time that Bruce leaves to when he returns she doesn't change, you would think that the suffering of Gotham City would crack even her delecate shell, but no. Michael Caine plays Alfred and this will surprise viewers the most. You can really believe that Alfried can hold his own like he does in the comics. I really do feel that talking about any of the villains of the movie gives away too much about their purposes. Suffice to say that Cillian Murphy does not disappoint.

All in all this movie has successfully brought the Bat franchise back to life and I am looking forward to many more movies to come.

Same Bat time.

Same Bat channel.



Batman Begins Review #3

Reviewed by Drew Treasure

Finally!

Batman is back.

Christopher Nolan’s vision of the Dark Knight makes you forget the disaster that was “Batman and Robin”, and the extraordinarily ordinary “Batman Forever”. David Goyer (Blade Trilogy) has written a script that revolves around fears, especially those of Bruce Wayne, which lead him to his destiny as the Batman. Finally we get to see on the big screen a plausible reason for Wayne to don the famous suit (thankfully this time without nipples).

Christian Bale gives a great performance as the tortured millionaire Bruce Wayne, and the rest of the cast are outstanding. Gary Oldman is fantastic as Jim Gordon, and could have stepped straight out of the pages of Frank Miller’s Batman: Year One. Michael Caine is perfect as Alfred, conveying the aging butler with more compassion than we’ve seen before. Liam Neeson gives us another faultless role as Bruce’s mentor and trainer Ducard. Ken Watanabe, Morgan Freeman and Rutger Hauer add class and even Katie Holmes wasn’t that terrible. The casting highlight for me was Cillian Murphy as Dr. Jonathan Crane who was brilliantly chilling in the role.

The first half of the film takes us through how and why Batman comes to be. A young Bruce Wayne witnesses the murder of his parents and grows up under the wing of Alfred, the family’s butler. Bruce leaves Gotham full of hate and anger, and spends his time running with criminals to try to get to know their mindset better. He is freed from a Himalayan prison by Henri Ducard, under the employ of the mysterious Ra’s Al Ghul. Ducard trains Bruce in the ways of the ninja-esque cult, the “League of Shadows”. Not willing to devote his life to that of the assassins, Bruce returns home to Gotham and sets about trying to restore the decaying city, and take back the power from the ever growing criminal population. To do this Bruce realises he must “turn fear... against those who prey on the fearful”. With the aid of Alfred and Lucious Fox (think Q from the Bond films), Bruce becomes the Batman, and sets out to do battle with Gotham’s mafia boss Carmine Falcone (Tom Wilkinson). He soon crosses path with the Scarecrow – another character who seeks to manipulate his enemies through fear.

Batman Begins does a great job of providing us with the origin of one of DC’s most well loved characters. The motives for Bruce’s actions are credible and well delivered - the audience feels for him. Gone are the corny one liners, but there still remains a nice balance between seriousness and humour. The love story between Rachael and Bruce is not over the top, and the special effects are great – the Batmobile v1.0 was another triumph.
My only gripe was that we didn’t get much background on Ra’s Al Ghul, but at 141 minutes I guess they couldn’t go into everything. This movie should please casual fans and die hards alike (Joe Chill finally gets a start!)

See this movie.

Rating: 9/10

Catwoman (M)

Directed By Pitof
Starring: Halle Berry, Sharon Stone

On DVD now

Reviewed by Rainixx

I loved the movie, it had good graphics, good acting and Halle Berry in a tight skimpy leather outfit *drools*
The movie had a good story line too, not sure why they changed the character but my guess is that they did it so they didn't have to explain the extensive background with Batman or because they'd have to make her already Catwoman.

If you pay attention to detail then you'll realize that its another Catwoman storyline. In the bit where Ophelia Powers tells Patience that she died and was reborn a Catwoman, then pushes her off the balcony to prove it, she throws a bunch of pictures down to her to show that its happened before; if you look closely you'll notice that one of the pictures is a photograph of Catwoman from Batman Returns aka Selina Kyle.

I loved the movie because it had lots of action, good special effects and a good storyline.

Rating: 7 out of 10

Charlie and The Chocolate Factory (PG)

Writing Credits: Roald Dahl (book and lyrics), John August (screenplay)
Director: Tim Burton
Starring: Johnny Depp, Freddy Highmore, David Kelly, Christopher Lee, Deep Roy

On DVD now

Review by Tina

Just as the music began I could literally smell the mix of Danny Elfman and Tim Burton. It had a very creepy eerie feel to it - almost setting the movie as a horror kiddie flick in a way. The opening itself of the mechanic arms doing all the work made me think of Edward Scissorhands. I doubt that was the intention but that's what I got out of it. The family scenes of the movie (The delightful Buckets) was great. It was lovely to see the entire family, Dad included who was cut from the original movie for some bizarre reason. And to see how much of the book they actually did - they went into Grandpa's story more about the Prince and even showed how Willy Wonka began. It even had the eggs with chocolate birds inside - a favorite idea of mine from the book. The Grandparents were great - especially Grandpa George. Also the small touch of Charlie's Mother calling her husband 'Mr. Bucket' outside. Because they were never given names in the books, that was a cute moment for me.

Open to the four hideous little children.

Augustus Gloop - the big fat greedy nincompoop. I don't know why, but just his face itself was a beauty to behold to me. He was so smooth looking, like a china doll with that blond hair and bright blue eyes and pink cheeks. Sure his body was all fat 'n blobby like but they chose the right boy to play him and one great make up artist to give him that face. His father slowly winding sausages behind him made me laugh, that and how he actually bit into the golden ticket.
Veruca Salt - the spoilt brat. Years ago when I was watching the original movie, Veruca's song sequence was happening. My aunt was watching it with me, and with a throw-away kind of comment she said I was like Veruca. Ever since then the character's sat very uneasily with me, but they chose a wonderful little girl to play her. She was horrid - everything Veruca was in the book. Nice touch of the nut sheller trying to steal the ticket.
Violet Beauregard - the gum chewer. I always wondered what was really horribly wrong with her in the book, sure she chew gum a lot. Okay, all the time. But besides that? But they evolved her character here into an over achieving little girl who seems to have been pushed into it by her Mother. Nice touch, that.
Mike Teevee - the know it all tv addict. In the book, Mike was into the violent tv shows they used to show back then. They transformed Mike into a video gaming chocolate hating know it all brat. I liked that a lot - they updated his character into 'todays' view of some children who really do don't stay children and innocent for long. He was a brat.

The Chocolate Factory was, no doubt, as much a character in the movie as any living person running around inside it. Every room was a different personality. From the luscious Chocolate Room, to the hospital like Nut Sorting Room, the quizzical Inventing Room, the dead like TV Room - all of it was a beautiful composition of design, color and imagination. You could see Tim Burton in there, but you could also feel Roald Dahl's presence. I could feel him from beginning to end - he was a genius to the writing world and his imagination was dark yet funny. And they wound those into this movie very well - with the sometimes haunting opening song to the bubbly and very lively Oompa Loompa songs. Ah, the Oompa Loompa songs. The one thing I was waiting for more then anything else in the movie. The original songs will always have a place in my heart, but these ones. Oh these ones are much more lively. They actually used Roald Dahl's lyrics - which the original didn't. The words sung by all those little men were penned down by Roald Dahl and sung in a way I'm sure he never intended. But that's a good thing - so many different directions for the songs to go in. It's hard to pick a favorite since all of them were lavish stage shows to behold. Top notch, fellas.

Willy Wonka. Quite possibly one of my all time favourite male characters ever created. Do I believe Johnny Depp did him credit? Yes, in a way. He breathed new life into an already well beloved character known by children and adults the world over. He gave him a more quirky personality, having problems dealing with these people. But he also didn't sit right with me, at least 100% wise. He did get a lot of laughs out of the audience I'll give him that much.

Overall the movie is a brilliant blend of Tim Burton and Roald Dahl genius, the magic of the music mixed with the magic of the story mixes together beautifully. Aside from giving Willy Wonka a dark past (Tim's own touch on the story I suppose) which just didn't sit right with a Dahl purist like myself, it's a brilliant movie. Go check it out.

Rating: 8 out of 10

The trailer for Constantine and the somewhat unlikely casting of Keanu Reeves in the lead role had me expecting a Matrix derivative with demons, or another comic book adaptation that incorporates plenty of incidental details from its source material while missing the core ideas entirely. I was pleasantly surprised to find a work both faithful to the spirit of the Hellblazer comics series and an intelligent and engaging horror/action film in its own right.

An early sequence does not shy away from its obvious antecedent in The Exorcist, and as with that horror classic this film combines a healthy number of visceral and psychological scares with a well-developed plot and set of characters. Its intelligent but straightforward screenplay skillfully juggles multiple plots and characters and is patient in unfolding a narrative and backstory relatively complex for a film of this type; in particular, the motivations and background of John Constantine are kept ambiguous until well into the piece, although as a result his function as protagonist is a little shaky during this period. Only the obvious Hollywood impositions of Constantine’s annoying comic relief sidekick and a few incongruous action sequences go against the grain. In his first feature film noted music video director Francis Lawrence takes a relaxed and flexible approach, allowing the characters, story and effects time in the spotlight as appropriate, and has a nice eye for visually interesting shots.

I've never understood the criticism of Keanu Reeves for bringing a lot of his own personality to his performances, and instead thought highly of the obvious preparation time and dedication he has brought to the varied roles of his career. His interpretation of John Constantine may have some purists up in arms in lacking some of the superficial details of the comics version but the essential tragedy of the character and the humanity behind his harsh exterior are effectively and economically conveyed. The supporting players are also impressive; the casting of proven dramatic performer Rachel Weisz in preference to a ‘babe’ actress is a wise decision, and Tilda Swinton is a perfect fit for the complex and crucial role of Gabriel.

In an era in which far too many films are impotently written and directed by committees and focus group testing Constantine is a rare example of how a talented cast and crew, even when working with some creative restrictions, can produce a smart and entertaining film of this type within the big-budget studio system.

Rating: 7/10

Day of the Dead: Contagium (MA15+)

Directors: Ana Clavell & James Dudelson
Writer: Ana Clavell
Starring a cast of unknowns
Rated MA
Available now under the Umbrella horror DVD label

Reviewed by Warren L

If you’re in your local DVD rental library and you come across a copy of Day of the Dead 2: Contagium, you could be under the reasonable impression that it has legitimate links with the George A Romero series, what with the title and lettering of the words “Day of the Dead” being the same as used on the original Day of the Dead advertising.

Bzzzzt! Wrong answer.

This baby is the American equivalent of Lucio Fulci slapping the title Zombi 2 on his flick Zombie Flesh Eaters to make it sound like it’s a legitimate sequel to Zombi (the European release title of Romero’s Dawn of the Dead).

Make no mistake, Day of the Dead 2: Conagium has nothing, repeat nothing to do with the original Day of the Dead (or Night, Dawn or Land, for that matter) other than it being about flesh eating zombies; it totally ignores the world Romero created in his “Dead” series.

And don’t get fooled by the at first glance cool picture of the zombie (give or take the lame teeth) on the cover; that dude appears for about 2.5 seconds in the film and is gone in the first 5 minutes.

Rabid outrage about being suckered into renting the flick in the first place aside, how good is Day of the Dead 2: Contagium?

Well, it’s not great, but it doesn’t reach the pitiful lows of Children of the Living Dead (and that film had a legitimate connection to Night of the Living Dead).

Day of the Dead 2: Contagium begins in 1968 with a military hospital in the process of being overrun by the living dead. The military turn up en masse, including one hilariously bad CGI chopper that will have you rewinding to convince yourself the effect is really that bad…it is. The soldiers move in, shooting everyone that moves, including their own when they get even a minor cut.

At this point it’s worth mentioning that the effects budget doesn’t seem to have run to actually having head wounds for everyone. Instead, every second or third zombie extra just flicks their head back in front of a blood splattered wall. Then there’s the gun play itself, which consists of actors jerking back on the guns to simulate the recoil as a “bang” is heard on the soundtrack. Ordinarily, this would be a bit of worry, but by now the giggles have settled in and you’re looking forward to seeing what the film-makers are going to try to sell us next.

Anyway, one of the staff grabs what looks like a long shuttlecock, but is actually a fancy test-tube sort of device, stuffs it in a thermos and somehow escapes the cordon of soldiers (cue some exceedingly clumsy action choreography). On the run, he slips, the thermos flies out if his hand and he’s shot after presumably turning into a zombie in the time it takes him to get to his feet.

Meanwhile, back at the hospital, the zombies (who don’t seem to know if they’re meant to be of the old school Romero or Dawn of the Dead remake-type) have broken out. Then to add to the confusion, the primary disfigured zombie, who was earlier seen thrashing around on a bed (as one of the extras “holding” the bed is clearly shoving it back and forth) turns chatty in pseudo Return of the Living Dead mode.

After a couple of minutes of zombies chowing down on the soldiers, the hospital is blown sky high…okay, a picture of the building is overlayed with CGI flame effects that make the earlier chopper look good, but we know what they meant.

Then we cut to 35 years later, and meet a cleaning crew from the mental hospital built on the remains of the military hospital. One of their number discovers the thermos pocking out of the grass, nobody having walked through such a remote area in the last three and a half decades (ahem).

After some long winded and faintly tedious character stuff that could just as easily be fast forwarded, unless you really want to know that one of the cleaning crew is a necrophobic, but has found true love with an attempted suicide, we finally get to the fun stuff as the thermos is opened.

That’s the theory, anyway. I mean, you open the thermos, break open the shuttlecock / test tube thingy and the viral agent within turns everyone into zombies and we get onto the gut munching, right?

Wrong.

Instead we get the cleaning crew, the necrophobic’s girlfriend and the cool doctor who treats his patients with respect (we’ll call them “Team Bland” for convenience) looking down at the coloured lights and wisps that float up from the opened shuttlecock. Then late that night, Team Bland are visited by a little floating white light that enchants them and settles on their foreheads. If you’re thinking up jokes along the lines of Tinkerbell of the Dead at this point, you’re not alone.

After some more padding, we get to the crux of the matter…sort of, as I don‘t think the film-makers had worked out the story before they shot the film. The vial contains an agent that reconfigures DNA, and Team Bland are not only linked telepathically, but are turning into something superhuman.

Oh yeah, they’re also dead. And if they eat living flesh they become wise-cracking super zombies.

Meanwhile, one of the orderlies (the evil, nasty one who picks on our noble, troubled heroes) is bitten and turns into some sort of lumpy, blood covered zombie mutant. At the same time, half of Team Bland have tasted Living Flesh and are now trying to get the other half to join them on the dark side.

Then, for no discernible reason, the staff and inmates start turning into zombies (why, I have no idea, other than that the “contagium” must obviously spread under the universal laws of dramatic contrivance). So, at long last, more than an hour into the film, we finally get some zombie action to justify the MA rating and, the odd laugh out loud moment of makeup cheese aside, it’s not too bad. Put it this way, I’ve seen lots worse.

Given that the last half hour consists of little more than running, yelling, flesh eating and the female lead going through nine months of pregnancy in as many minutes (why, I have no idea), culminating in a probably looked better on paper resolution of the Team Bland feud, it’s easy enough to disengage the brain and enjoy the zombie action.

And that, for better or worse (mostly worse) is the film. But, being released on the Umbrella label, there are also a handful of extras, as follows:

4 trailers - Night of Fear/Inn of the Damned double bill, Candyman (again!), Candyman: Farewelll to the Flesh (again!) and Society.

Stills gallery (some fun stuff here)

Behind the scenes, where we get the cast, directors and frighteningly young looking head of the SFX team waxing rhapsodically about the film (and letting us know the best story they could come up with after 5 years is zombies in a mental institution), complete with mostly non-boring film clips. The funniest part of this extra is writer/co-director Ana Clavell raving how this film can be different things to different viewers: a sequel to the Romero trilogy, a prequel and sequel to Day of the Dead or a story that takes place at the same time as the trilogy, but in a different location. Sadly, she neglected to mention the “shameless rip-off that takes our money under false pretences” option. What they don’t explain is how they didn’t get sued for blatantly plagiarising Day of the Dead’s advertising design.

So, over-stretched and mildly soporific mid section aside, Day of the Dead 2: Contagium is saved by its opening 10 and closing 30-odd minutes, and the odd risible moment in the extras.

There’s no real high quality to speak of, but there’s lots worse out there and it’s worth the price of the rental…provided you get it as part of a 2 new release/3 weekly deal or wait for it to hit the weekly racks.

Rating: 5/10

Fantastic Four (PG)

Review #1

Director: Tim Story
Writer: Michael France & Mark Frost (based on characters created by Stan Lee & Jack Kirby)
Starring: Ioan Gruffudd, Jessica Alba, Chris Evans, Michael Chiklis, Julian McMahon

On DVD now

Review by Lucas House

My first comic was a Fantastic Four comic.

It had a big blue four on the cover with four blue-clad individuals standing in their respective action stances. The story in the book combined space action and human drama, the two elements that make Fantastic Four...um...fantastic. (I won't do that again, I promise) I think the former writer of the book, Mark Waid, clinched the concept of the characters in his first issue. These characters are not super heroes, they're adventurers and that is what I hope sets this movie apart from previous comic book adaptations. But that may be a story for another time, because in this movie they have to deal with a prominent threat to New York in the form of Doom.

This is not your father's Doctor Doom. Doom is the core force behind the creation of the Fantastic Four and while he does eventually share some of the same vileness desires as the Green Goblin from Spider-Man, Julian McMahon portrays the disturbed persona of Victor Von Doom (yep, they kept the name in) very well. Reed Richards and Sue Storm provide the scientific elements of the story. More like the Ultimate Fantastic Four than the original, Sue is an integral part of the team and an equal to Reed. Unlike Sue, Reed has the emotional sensibilities of a bendy straw. Like the comic book, Reed spends all his time surrounded by science and has trouble interacting with the other members of the team. Speaking of the other team members, Michael Chiklis and Chris Evans absolutely nail the characters of Ben Grimm and John Storm respectively. I wasn't sure how the Thing rubber suit would come out but it looks really good. You can see the expression on Ben’s face and even the rock sound effects didn't detract from a great performance. I knew they would get John Storm as a character right, he has all the elements of a mainstream action hero. He likes danger, it wouldn't look odd if he was performing all sorts of extreme sports action, and he is funny in the way your annoying little brother is. It was the "Flame on" elements that I wasn't sure about. Again the special effects department did a great job with both the fire and Reed's elastic power. Fantastic Four is also intelligent. Spider-Man suffered from the fact that they only used the point that Peter Parker was intelligent to get him from point A to point B and when it came to fighting the bad guys he only used fists and know brains. Mister Fantastic is also known as Big Brain by Ben Grimm, so he has to be scarily intelligent. It is understandable that some movies simplify their concepts to broaden the appeal, but science and intelligence is even more tied together with the origin and creation of the concept of The Fantastic Four that to remove it would ruin what would make The Fantastic Four unique. The director Tim Story didn't revolutionize the comic book-to-movie conversion, he directed the movie like a straight action movie, but while it didn't wow me like X-Men did it didn't bore me like Hulk did. Tim Story stepped back and let the characters shine and that's what made this action movie a little better then average. While this movie didn't raise the roof it didn't crash and burn either.

Rating: 8/10

Fantastic Four Review #2

Review by Christopher Franks

The current wave of comics-derived movies continues with Marvel's flagship title the Fantastic Four, the latest to be afforded the big screen treatment, but a saturation level of occasionally impressive digital effects is unable to mask aimless direction and a screenplay plagued by contrivance, confusion and weak characterisation.

Although opening with a neat update of the source material, with Victor von Doom a wealthy industrialist and Reed Richards a penniless scientist forced to beg him for funding, the first act is rushed and meandering. In almost no time at all the team is headed into space to meet a cosmic storm but little explanation is given for the nature of Richards' experiment, why Doom and Sue Storm need to be involved when their specialities lie elsewhere, what Ben Grimm does at all, and most importantly why we should care about what is going on. On returning to Earth there are some nice character beats as the leads explore their new super powers -- in a plot framework 'borrowing' rather liberally from the first Spider-Man film -- but a focus on storytelling is soon lost as the film resorts to a string of weakly connected action and effects set pieces, all technically accomplished but none particularly original.

The two excellent X-Men films proved that ensemble pieces are possible with this type of subject matter, but Fantastic Four falters with flimsy characters defined more by exposition than anything they say or do. Jessica Alba was obviously cast more for her figure than her acting ability and isn't called on to do much more than alternately pout and complain, making for an unlikeable Sue Storm; Michael Chiklis manages a surprising level of expression in the unconvincing foam rubber Thing suit, but attempts to play on the pathos of the character's inhuman transformation grow supremely irritating when repeated every two minutes. Only Chiklis and Chris Evans, clearly enjoying his turn as the hot-headed Johnny Storm, bring any real presence to their roles; Ioan Gruffudd's Reed Richards, in particular, vanishes when not doing anything on screen.

Fantastic Four is a textbook example of the growing trend of lowest common denominator filmmaking. In their efforts to craft a blockbuster spectacle appealing to a range of ages and levels of interest in the subject matter those involved forgot to include anything of substance, ensuring a cinema experience that evaporates almost immediately after one leaves the theatre.

Rating: 4/10

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (M)

Director: Mike Newell
Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Michael Gambon, Brendan Gleeson and Ralph Fiennes

On DVD now

Reviewed by Warren Lawson

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is the fourth Harry Potter film in five years, following Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone, Chamber of Secrets and Prisoner of Azkaban.

The film starts strongly, with an intriguing teaser of darkness to come and a brilliant Quidditch world cup final sequence, then Harry and co head back to Hogwarts and the film settles down to telling its story.

When it comes right down to it, though, at over three and a half hours, there’s not an awful lot that really happens in the film. Harry gets suckered into competing in the Tri-Wizard tournament, he goes to the Yule Ball and briefly comes face to face with Voldemort. The rest of the time the film mostly drifts along languidly between the major set pieces.

The tournament scenes, which take up the bulk of the film’s action are spectacular and look terrific, with near impeccable special effects. It’s fair to say that they easily top the set-pieces in the previous instalments. However, unlike the action sequences in, say, a James Bond film, which propel the film along from plot point to plot point, here they bring the plot to a screeching halt while they unfold, then the film has to start up again once they’re over. At least the Yule Ball gives the characters, especially Ron and Hermione, a chance to flex their wings and move forward a bit.

Where Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire slips up most is in the way its story unfolds; in some ways it‘s a real mess. Major plotting gets fired at us in staccato burst in a couple of scenes, drenching us in plot points. One of these, the flashback to the interrogation, is clumsily spot welded into the film and seems to be designed mostly to give us information we‘ll need for future films. Some scenes are obviously important but go nowhere, such as Karkaroff showing Snape his tattoo; while others make no sense in the context of the film, such as Dumbledore’s warning at the start of the final stage of the tournament, which has no connection with what actually happens. Some bits that are just sloppily contradictory, such as Harry continuing in the tournament after, under the clearly stated rules, eliminating himself by setting off the ‘distress flares’. Then there‘s the scenes that are just plain padding, such as pretty much everything with Rita Skeeter, (played by Miranda Richardson, replacing Emma Thompson as this instalment’s completely superfluous character).

Even the approach to the whole ‘Harry being manipulated into the Tri-Wizard Tournament’ angle is unfocussed. Once established, it’s virtually ignored until the finale and the out of nowhere, if nicely creepy return of Voldemort. Instead, the time is spent on the seemingly more important question of no-one believing Harry didn’t enter himself in the tournament, with no-one bothering to ask why. In fact, the film never really explains why such a convoluted plan was even necessary in the first place.

Apparently, this is fully explained in the book, and this is where we get to the heart of the problems with Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. When adapting a book to film, the bottom line is that the film has to stand on its own, and not be a companion piece to the book. Saying it all makes sense if you read the book is no excuse. Everything within the film has to make sense within the context of the film and the world it creates. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire fails to do this.

Despite this, there is much to like in the film.

The cast is packed with top line Brit performers, and there’s a lot of pleasure to be gained from sitting back and watching them strut their stuff, even if Maggie Smith (Minerva McGonagall) and Alan Rickman (Snape) have even less screen time this time round. Others, such as Jason Isaac’s Lucius Malfoy, hover perilously close to “blink and you’ll miss them” territory; but at least they‘re in the film, unlike Harry‘s muggle relatives. Thankfully, Brendan Gleeson, who pretty much steals the film, gets the screen time he deserves as Mad Eye Moody, the latest Dark Arts professor. And, even though their time is brief, the villains are good and nasty, with Ralph Fiennes making a suitably fearsome Voldemort, even if he is outdone by David Tennant, the new Doctor Who, as Barty Crouch Jr.

The younger members of the cast acquit themselves well, with Emma Watson as Hermione and, particularly, Rupert Grinch as Ron, showing that they’re growing into fine actors. It’s good to see Shirley Henderson’s Moaning Myrtle back, and James and Oliver Phelps as the Weasley twins continue to hilariously steal every scene they‘re in. As for Daniel Radcliff…well, either he doesn’t have the ability of his co-stars, or the fault lies in the direction, but he comes across as, frankly, bland and is consistently out-acted by those around him; on the bright side, he doesn’t come across as wooden as he did in the third instalment.

Besides the stunning set-pieces, the film looks sumptuous, courtesy of Roger Pratt’s cinematography and director Mike Newell (Four Weddings and a Funeral) brings a humanity that has been lacking in previous instalments. And then there’s the wonderful soundtrack by Patrick Doyle, which far surpasses John Williams’ work in the first three films.

Ultimately, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire ends up feeling like one of those films that’s actually three or four episodes of a TV series stuck together, rather than a real film in its own right. This is strongest in the final scenes, where Harry, Ron and Hermione seem completely unaffected by the events of the film, and no different from where they were at the beginning. Just like at the end of one of those special story arcs in a series where the central character, say, gets married, but at the end the reset button is pushed and everything continues on as if nothing has happened.

Despite its faults and the fact it tends to kill time for too much of its excessive length, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is as good as the previous films in the series, and in some ways, possibly the best to date; it’s also the darkest so far, deserving its M rating at times.

So, all things considered, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is definitely worth seeing, but just be prepared for something that fits solidly in the “good”, rather than “great” film category.

Land Of The Dead (MA15+)

(With an overview of Night, Dawn and Day of the Dead)

Director: George A. Romero
Writer: George A. Romero
Starring: Asia Argento, Simon Baker, Eugene Clark, Dennis Hopper, John Leguizamo and Robert Joy

On DVD now

Reviewed by Ross

In 1968, director George A. Romero set the benchmark for the Horror genre. His Night of the Living Dead, in eerie black and white, scared the bejesus out of drive-in crowds and cinema patrons alike back then, not only with confronting violence, but with scything social and political commentary on the decade. Personally, I think Night is a very well made film; possibly the best of his Night, Dawn and Day trilogy. I find it quite creepy and scary to this day, with the best horror elements of the film not coming from the living dead, but rather the desperate survivors and how they react to one another while trapped in a farmhouse together. This in essence is what makes a good zombie film- the study of how humans behave in a highly stressful environment; where a small mistake could mean getting killed- or worse, being bitten and knowing in a short matter of time you will turn into one of the flesh-craving dead yourself. Tom Savini (credited with the superb effects and make-up of the original Dead trilogy) remade Night of the Living Dead in 1990, with his version an absolute pleasure to watch, staying true to the original in all but a few scenes (the ending was also tweaked successfully).

Romero’s Dawn of the Dead in 1978 is probably his most famous, with a handful of survivors during the zombie plague living in a shopping mall. While the acting wasn’t A-grade, the movie’s characterisation and incredible sense of isolation keeps it well above the 2004 remake (no connection with Romero) of the same name- in Romero’s Dawn I cared about the characters, while in the new version I just sat back and tried to guess how many of them would die horribly. I use the terms “remake” and “version” loosely here, because the only similarities between Romero’s original and the 2004 movie are their title and the fact that a shopping mall is used as a back drop. While the 2004 Dawn of the Dead is fun and decent in its own right, the real substance only occurs in the first fifteen minutes and, strangely enough, the opening and closing credits. Romero’s Dawn in my opinion is far superior, nastier and more confronting without the turbo-charged running zombies that Dawn of the Dead in 2004 relied upon.

Seven years later, Day of the Dead (1985), the third Romero zombie film in three consecutive decades, met with a luke-warm reception from audiences, even though effects master Savini still delivered the goods on the gore. Day of the Dead recounts the story of a group of soldiers that have holed themselves up in an army bunker, with their scientists trying desperately to find a cure for the undead condition. It is regarded as the weakest of the three by most; in my opinion Day has this mantle because it has a slow-burn script and quite a few unlikeable characters. The last half hour is pure Romero horror, which gets it over the line- however I believe that the rest of the film is underrated. As mentioned before, meaty characterisation is all-important in horror films if we are to take the genre seriously, and this is achieved to great effect throughout Day. The study of leadership and trust (and their abuse) are always evident in these films, and Day contains the strongest content with regard to these topics. While I too believe that Day isn’t quite as punchy as Romero’s first two forays, it certainly adds essential ingredients to the world that Romero has created; the idea that the dead can re-learn human behaviour is one of them. Day of the Dead is being remade and due for release in 2006, without Romero’s involvement. Hopefully it will do the source material justice.

As the trailer to Land Of The Dead announces, Romero has returned to the genre that he created. It has been 20 years since he last visited the world of zombies, and during that time, many film makers have tried to emulate his style. Whether in spoof or with an offering of something much more serious, other directors have met with varying degrees of success while tackling the genre of the walking dead (most have, of course, used their own slant on the subject matter, with the most noticeable difference being the use of “fast” zombies in some films). While I have enjoyed the majority of these outings by other film makers, there has always been something lacking in their interpretations of the genre, something that keeps them underneath Romero’s treatments in one way or another…

…and now, with Land of the Dead, Romero has returned to remind us all how it’s done.

As far as the horror genre goes, Land of the Dead is superb. For those of you who are not familiar with Romero’s previous zombie films, Land is a very well crafted horror film from a master of the genre in his prime. This movie however offers no explanation of the undead plague; this is in my opinion a vital element when crafting a good zombie story. The importance is not whether humans have gone too far in fiendish experiments, or an alien virus has been released, or a higher entity has made a damning decision on humanity- what matters most is the dread and fear of the unknown. However, Land of the Dead is essentially the culmination of the concept raised and nurtured in all of Romero’s previous Dead stories- you get the feeling that humans (for all of their mistreatment to one another) no longer deserve to be the dominant species on Earth.

For anyone that has enjoyed Romero’s films in the past, be warned- with Land of the Dead you get two decades worth of ideas. This essentially means that the amount of content in the film is roughly equivalent to any two of Romero’s previous zombie movies. There is twice the political and social commentary, a riveting storytelling pace… and more original and inventive gore than in any previous Dead film.

Land of the Dead begins unlike any other Romero zombie film. During the opening credits, we are treated to brief glimpses of what has occurred in the previous movies. This is in itself strange yet well thought out, as it successfully conveys the feeling that we are about to see another chapter in humanity’s struggle to survive. All previous chapters have no connection to one another, other than the presence of walking dead, and a sense that time has elapsed between episodes. However, straight after this montage, there is blackness, followed by the ominous statement that this film is set in present day. This means a great deal; the adult characters in the film have therefore grown up with the zombie threat, not knowing a world without it. We are also shown from the very beginning that the undead have also endured the same amount of time to gain experience, and it is this concept that helps to drive a fresh and welcome take on the genre.

The film is set around a walled off section of an ambiguous American city, with a foreboding skyscraper at its centre. Dennis Hopper is well placed as the racist despot Kaufman, controlling the city and segregation of classes from his concrete tower. He allows only the elite social class to live and enjoy the lush lifestyle with him, and they behave as if the horror of the world doesn’t exist. Far below, the rest of the population live in dirty squalor; drinking, fighting, gambling and breeding, yet persumably safe within the walls of his city-state. Kaufman supplies the “rich” with their tastes and needs, simply by giving the lower classes incentives to leave his distopia and scavenge the outer limits. This is of course highly dangerous, and useful for setting up the plot. John Leguizamo (as Cholo) and Simon Baker (Riley) play two of these professional scavengers, armed with a nasty truck-turned-tank called Dead Reckoning. Both of these actors are surprisingly good in Land of the Dead, especially Leguizamo who has been allowed to break free from the restraints of his latest acting roles, playing Cholo with panache. Disfigured Charlie, played smoothly by Robert Joy, is Riley’s back up when things don’t go quite to plan.

At 93 minutes, Land of the Dead is the shortest of the four Dead films (although there are rumours that a Director’s Cut DVD release will feature further scenes). This would be one of my only criticisms of the movie- although it doesn’t feel short, it could have easily been 30 minutes longer.

Land of the Dead is typical Romero, complete with all the sarcasm, cliches and suspense. He pulls no punches with the blood and gore, his opinions on society, the delicious horror themes and an ominous sense of foreboding for the main players. Saying more about Land of the Dead would lead to spoiling the show, except to say that Romero’s use of fireworks to instill the correct mood and setting is a stroke of genius.

I enjoy most zombie films- this is one of the very best.

Rating: 9 out of 10