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.
Other review sections:
GRAPHIC NOVELS
COMICS.
MANGA

LATEST MOVIE REVIEWS
Try A-L and M-Z for archival reviews of movies

Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem

Directed by the Brothers Strause
Starring: The Predator

Reviewed by Warren

Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem is the sequel to 2004’s Alien vs. Predator. That film was, itself, a cross-over follow-up to the Alien series, which began with 1979’s Alien and the Predator series, which began with 1987’s Predator. Technically speaking, it was a sequel to the Predator films and a prequel to the Alien films, the events of the film taking place after the former and before the latter.

Alien vs. Predator was, to put it bluntly, not a good film, and an insult to the two series that preceded it. It gave us a great, fleeting shot of a Predator standing atop a pyramid swarming with aliens, then spent the rest of the film running around an underground pyramid. This unsatisfying, watered down effort finished up aboard the Predator’s space craft, with an alien/Predator hybrid bursting out of the chest of a Predator. A good image to go out on, but too little too late.

But, Alien vs Predator recouped over $171 million worldwide from its $60 million outlay, so we get the inevitable sequel Alien vs. Predator: Requiem, which picks up immediately where Alien vs Predator left off.

This might seem like a recipe for disaster, but nothing could be further from the truth, as Alien vs. Predator: Requiem is superior to its limp predecessor in every conceivable way and shows us how an Alien vs. Predator film should be done. It’s also one of the best genre fun rides to hit the big screen for ages.

And it wastes no time getting down to business. The alien/Predator hybrid grows to full size and wipes out all the remaining Predators in the space craft, which crash-lands back to earth, outside a medium sized American town.

Alien face huggers escape the downed Predator craft, pursue and impregnate some hunters, including a young boy; so right from the start you know this is a film that isn’t taking any prisoners. The aliens multiply and start attacking the townsfolk, generating more aliens.

Meanwhile, a Predator cleaner, for want of a better word, arrives on earth intent on wiping out the aliens and destroying all traces of either them or his own kind.

The numbers of aliens grows, the military moves in and our growing smaller by the minute nucleus of heroes try to escape the town. And of course all roads lead to the alien infested nest where the Predator cleaner and the hybrid alien/Predator are due to meet in their final confrontation. Not to mention the small matter of how the outside authorities plan to deal with the problem.

No, the story isn’t “Citizen Kane”. Yes, the characters have the depth of a leaky wading pool. And oh, so yes, the action and violence are plentiful and gratuitous. But the Alien and Predator franchises were built on (now) MA levels horror, action and violence. Alien vs. Predator: Requiem simply takes us back there, justifying the rating big time. Chests burst, red, green and acidic blood flies, aliens and humans get torn apart and more than once you’re sitting there with a huge grin saying “this film is evil” as it goes where Alien vs. Predator and most big screen genre films don’t have the nerve (or sheer lack of taste) to go. It even throws in the Predator home world and a “Weyland-Yutani” reference for good measure.

Aliens vs Predator: Requiem is what it is; a violent, unapologetic thrill ride. It doesn’t want to elevate us or improve the human condition. It just wants to make us laugh, jump and go “cool”. And occasionally “I don’t believe they did that”. On that level, it works perfectly. Not only is it infinitely better than Alien vs. Predator, it’s arguably better than a number of the original Alien and Predator films.

So if you like your genre films to be visceral adrenalin rushes, you could do a lot, lot worse than Aliens vs Predator: Requiem. It’s not art, but man, it’s fun.

Rating: (for the sheer enjoyment of the thing) 9 out of 10.

I Am Legend

Directed by Francis Lawrence
Starring Will Smith

Review by Warren

I Am Legend, written by Richard Matheson, was published in 1954. A story about the last human fighting to survive in a world of vampires, it has been recognised as a classic of the genre and has hardly been out of print in over 50 years.

It was first filmed in 1964 as The Last Man on Earth. Richard Matheson requested that his name be removed from the credits, which is a shame. The film may not be perfect, but it’s not that bad and remains the most faithful screen version.

1971’s The Omega Man is much more well known and, in its own right, is a good film. But as a film version of I Am Legend it, quite frankly, sucks.

And now we get I Am Legend, starring Will Smith which, despite the title, is a remake of The Omega Man. View it like that and you’ll have a much better time. If you go in looking for an adaptation of the novel, you’ll just get angry.

Now, I’ll admit that I am a huge fan of Richard Matheson’s original novel, and this inevitably taints my viewpoint. But even being as objective as possible and taking I Am Legend purely on its own terms, it’s one strange hybrid of a film.

For most of its length, especially during all the day time footage of Will Smith’s Robert Neville prowling a deserted New York, his sanity gradually slipping away, I Am Legend is compellingly brilliant viewing. With Will Smith giving one of his best performances, stunning visuals and James Newton Howard’s sparse, effective score, the film doesn’t put a foot wrong.

Then there’s the scenes involving the infected denizens of New York. Except for the name (“dark seekers”), the idea is okay, if smacking of the conservatism and compromise that tends to go with big budget productions, particularly genre films. But it’s the realisation of the infected citizenry, rendered in occasionally sloppy, mostly unconvincing over the top CGI, that comes closest to undoing all the good work the film has done in the daylight scenes. Yes, using CGI is a deliberate artistic decision, but it’s a bad one that irrevocably hurts the film.

Still, for about two thirds of its length, I Am Legend maintains its balancing act, and is considerably more good than bad. In fact, despite setting up, then failing to give us the ‘racing home before sunset’ scene, it often approaches greatness.

Then we get the last half hour. New characters are introduced. Logic goes out the window. The CGI goes into over-drive. And the carefully established pace of the film is thrown out as everything is rushed to a shoddy, unsatisfying climax and a limp ending, complete with clumsy, cringingly embarrassing voice-over as the film desperately tries to justify its title. In order to tell the story they ended up telling, the film needed to be at least another 20 minutes longer and even then they would only have been salvaging a wreck, not crafting something sea-worthy.

As an adaptation of the novel, I Am Legend is a bit of a disaster.

As a remake of The Omega Man, it’s arguably the better film thanks mostly to Will Smith’s amazing performance.

As a film in its own right, I Am Legend is flawed and wildly uneven, disappointing almost as often as it exhilarates. Where it works, it works magnificently. But where it doesn’t work, it crashes and burns spectacularly. So you could say that I ended up loving and loathing this film in about equal parts.

But, all things considered, the concept proves strong enough to carry the film and, in the end, I Am Legend proves to be a mostly fun ride that’s well worth seeing for those many moments that push it into classic territory.

When it works: 9 out of 10. When it doesn't: 2 out of 10. Overall: 6 out of 10.

Cloverfield (M)

Directed by Matt Reeves
Starring Lizzy Caplan, Jessica Lucas, T.J. Miller, Michael Stahl-David, Mike Vogel

Reviewed by Warren

Ever seen one of those monster movies with the monster trashing a city, the populace fleeing and the military hitting the critter with everything they’ve got?

Imagine that one of the fleeing populace at the heart of the rampage has a camcorder and is taping the events. Well, Cloverfield is, basically, that tape.

In New York, one Friday night in May, a man throws a party to farewell his brother, who is leaving for Japan. Then a monster attacks the city and the rest of the film follows the attempts of the main characters to survive, the events captured for posterity on the camcorder one of them is carrying.

So, yes, you get a whole film’s worth of shaky-cam. While it doesn’t come anywhere near the excesses of the Bourne films, nor is it as rough as, say, The Blair Witch Project, it can’t be ignored. But chances are that most viewers will be so caught up in what is happening that it will quickly cease to be a factor.

Cloverfield abides by the traditional giant monster on the loose conventions, but the presentation is anything but conventional. By sticking with a small nucleus of characters and following them throughout, the actual monster often fades into the background, becoming something that more often than not is raging off-screen.

That’s not to say that those looking for a behemoth rampaging through New York will be disappointed, as there’s plenty here to satisfy giant monster fans. It’s just that it’s presented in a grittier, much more subjective style, limited to fleeting glimpses for the majority of the film. After all, the central characters are trying to escape the monster, so the last thing they want to do is stand around filming it.

But when Cloverfield does finally deliver its monster; one that has been shrouded in mystery through the whole marketing campaign; it does so exceptionally well. Co-producer JJ Abrams went on record saying it was about time America had their own giant monster. That time has definitely arrived. The Cloverfield creature is one huge, ugly, brilliantly realised, hideously destructive thing of beauty.

Admittedly, there is not a lot in the way of narrative, the basic story mechanics being somewhat reminiscent of 1988’s Miracle Mile, but there is some post 9-11 subtext there if you want to dig for it. Nor are the characters all that deep. They are brought to life effectively enough by the cast, but we know little about them beyond some basic information courtesy of some old footage on the tape that is being recorded over. While we can understand why they do things, motivation is decidedly wobbly at times. And as for the supporting characters, forget about it.

But when it comes right down to it, narrative and characterisation aren’t the point of Cloverfield. It’s all about mood, atmosphere, pace and tension; and, most importantly, conveying a claustrophobic sense of subjective truth and immediacy. While the presence of the camera comes across as a bit forced now and then, and the professionalism of the filmmakers is clearly evident throughout, the intense feeling of an on the spot amateur recording events never wavers.

So, all up, Cloverfield is well made, intelligent - okay, intelligent enough - and exciting viewing that, at a tight 80 minutes plus, never outstays its welcome. It also succeeds in spectacularly dragging the giant monster movie roaring and screaming into the 21st century. Probably not a keeper, but a great ride that should be experienced at least once. Definitely recommended.

By the way, make sure you don’t leave as the end credits start rolling. There are no more twists, although the very final bit of garbled dialogue might mean something. But you do get the chance to hear the sublimely brilliant “Roar”, the Godzilla-esque Cloverfield theme. It’s worth hanging round for.

Rating: 9 out of 10

 

Control (MA 15+)

Directed By Anton Corbijn
Starring Sam Riley, Samantha Morton

Review by Jesse Sowerby


Anton Corbijn is a photographer famous for taking pictures of artists such as U2 in the 1980s (he did the cover photo for The Joshua Tree album). Now director his first feature film, 'Control' is based on the life of Ian Curtis who was lead singer for the UK band Joy Division. Shot in black and white this is a beautifully artistic film showcasing Curtis' life from joining the band, his marriage, contuining problems with his epilepsy, to his tragic and untimely death by suicide at the age of 23. Newcomer Sam Riley plays Curtis and does such a wonderful job in the film. Some have commented on his likeness to Curtis himself, while others have said he is much betterlooking than Curtis was. Regardless of what you may think his performance is briliant, you really feel for him. Samantha Morton plays Curtis's wife (who incidentally wrote the book on which this story was based) but the real star of this film is Riley. The music of joy division is featured strongly in this film and in a change is played by the actors themselves rather than taken from a soundtrack. This is a harrowing film that must not be missed. Those who grew up with the music of Joy Division will enjoy this film, and those who didn't will be just as interested in the story and its music.

Rating: 9 out of 10

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (M)

Starring Johnny Depp, Orlando Bloom, Kiera Knightley and Geoffrey Rush
Directed by Gore Verbinski

Reviewed by Warren

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End doesn't waste any time on recaps to bring us up to speed, so it's worth noting the cliff-hangers at the end of Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest:

1. Captain Jack Sparrow has gone to Davey Jones Locker (or, if you prefer, died) courtesy of some Elizabeth skulduggery and an angry Kraken
2. Lord Cutler Beckett of The East India Company has started the process of exterminating the pirates.
3. Norrington, Elizabeth's one time would-be beau has obtained the heart of Davey Jones and delivered it to Beckett, allying himself with The East India Company
4. Lovers Will Turner and Elizabeth Swann, Captain Jack's crew and the immortal monkey (see Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl, but keep watching until after the credits have rolled) are on the run
5. The swamp witch has revived Barbossa from the dead in order to help our heroes rescue Captain Jack from the land of the dead.

There are other minor plot threads, such as Will trying to free his father from the clutches of Davey Jones, but this is enough to be going on with. Of course, having a collection of great cliff-hangers does not necessarily mean that their resolution will be great (see Jedi, Return of the).

Luckily, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End manages to more or less resolve things, even if it does sometimes play fast and loose with established continuity, especially with Davey Jones.

That's not to say that Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End is a great film. It's not. It is, however, a good (American) summer film; just not that good.

Essentially the story boils down to Jack, Elizabeth, Barbossa and co rescuing Captain Jack from the afterlife, then everyone, including the bickering pirate legions, joining forces to stop the East India Company and Davey Jones from wiping out pirate-kind.

Unfortunately, this takes 168 minutes, complete with ridiculously over-complex plotting due to most of the characters having their own agendas and the subsequent crosses and double-crosses that arise from these agendas. What doesn't do the film any favours is that these twisting loyalties and alliances are delivered in a series of clumsy, wordy scenes that stop the film dead as characters change direction and loyalties several times in the space of a couple of minutes.

Despite all the unnecessary twists, everyone is eventually in the right place for the finale, which takes up almost the last hour of the film. And as a climax of the Pirates trilogy, it's quite the enjoyably spectacular adrenalin rush, even if the film-makers aren't quite able to deliver on everything they have set up.

Seriously, whose bright idea was it to set up a deus ex-machina (cough*Calypso*cough), remind us of it throughout the film, then do virtually nothing with it at the end? It's rubbery plotting like this, forsaking story-telling for spectacle, that erodes away at Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. And don't even bother trying to make sense of the nine pirate lords / pieces of eight gibberish.

At one point, someone asks of Captain Jack: is he just making it up as he goes along? At times you feel inclined to ask the same question of the film-makers.

On the bright side, as a slice of sheer enjoyable cinema, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End succeeds quite impressively, mostly thanks to Geoffrey Rush, who seems to be having the time of his life as Barbossa. To be honest, Rush even steals the film from the lynchpin of series, Johnny Depp's Captain Jack Sparrow. In fact, those looking for another Captain Jack-fest may even end up feeling a tad disappointed with this instalment. Johnny Depp is on screen for less time (while, conversely, being on the screen more than ever before) and his Jack Sparrow seems rather muted this time round.

As to be expected, the rest of the cast are way behind Rush and Depp in impact, but acquit themselves well enough. Orlando Bloom makes his biggest impact as ‘heart throb leading man', Kiera Knightley gets more to do this time, making Elizabeth considerably more likeable than she has was in the second film. Bill Nighy is astonishingly effective at working around the latex to give Davey Jones a depth and humanity beyond the inconsistent script. Chow Yun Fat is fun, if disappointingly under-used as Captain Sao Feng, while Naomi Harris‘s Tia Dalma, the swamp witch with a secret, is enjoyably eccentric, if vaguely irritating. It's just a shame that Jack Davenport‘s Norrington and even Tom Hollander‘s Lord Cutler Beckett, the chief villain, pretty much get lost amidst the film's antics.

Ultimately, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End is all about spectacle and imagery, and in this respect it definitely delivers, from the surprisingly grim opening scene that tells us this isn't necessarily going to be a light-hearted ride to the awesomely swashbuckling final pitched battle. There's even some fun nods to things like Ray Harryhausen films and spaghetti westerns (okay, that last one is annoyingly dumb). Sure, some scenes are better than others and, in set-pieces such as the Shanghai battle, the editing isn't all it could be, but, with Hans Zimmer's stirring, exhilarating score, the overall standard is consistently high.

So, on the whole, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End proves to be a sequel that does justice to the original film, and is a much more satisfying piece of work than the second instalment‘s disappointing non-film. For all the things you can grizzle about (wobbly plotting, bloated running time, misplaced comedy…) the sheer overall fun of the thing makes it worth seeing.

Just be prepared for the fact that it‘s a long, needlessly complicated film and is the darkest, least amusing instalment of the trilogy.

By the way, if you feel slightly dissatisfied when the end credits start rolling, stick around. Like the first two flicks, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End has a post-end credits treat for those who last the distance; only this time it's not just a cute tag, it's the real emotional finale of the series.

Rating: almost 7 out of 10

Spider-Man 3

Starring Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst
Directoed by Sam Raimi

Screening Nationally

Reviewed by Jesse

The third movie in this trilogy directed by sam raimi has recently been released but unfortunately it suffers by being the worst of the three.This review contains spoilers as to the plot and various elements in the film so if you've not seen the film yet,don't read on.Lead actors tobey maguire and kisrsten dunst return for this film as their respective characters peter parker and mary jane 'MJ' watson and after the events of the second film doctor octopus has been defeated and peter and mary jane and now more confident in their relationship and are very much a couple in love.It is these two actors that make these films irritating to watch.There seems to be no chemistry between them.Maguire's peter parker is a limp,spineless and uncharasimatic character.Even the character in the comics eventually developed a backbone which is more than peter parker can seem to do in these three films.Kirsten dunst's character of Mj gets more screen time in this film but suffers from very little development of her character.At one point we see her on broadway(which could have worked very well as a profession for the character)before getting fired and by the end of the film becomes the a-typical damsel in distress.You're almost on the side of the villain to simply kill the character off by the end of the film.Stand out performances in the film go to rosemary harris who again does a wonderful job as peter's aunt may,james franco as peter's best friend harry osborn(who should have gotten the role as peter parker for my money),and bryce dallas howard who plays the police chief's daughter gwen stacy.The reason for bringing in gwen stacy puzzles me because she is barely used and seems a waste of howard's talents.Perhaps she should have been cast as mary jane.

The villains of this piece; sandman played by thomas hayden church and eddie brock as played by topher grace are pretty well played and could almost steal the show if not for the ludicrously way they are introduced.Flint marko was simply a common thief who while on the run manages to stumble his way into a testing zone at a nuclear reactor and gains instant super powers being able to turn into sand and also being able to control it as a weapon.What possible reason he would have for hiding out at a nuclear reactor is never explained,perhaps a sewer wasn't available.Even more absurd is the introcution of an alien symbiote which comes crashing down to earth right near where peter and mary jane happen to be making out and in even more of a coincidence it escapes spider-man's radar sense.Things get decidedly worse when the alien searching for a host decides to attach itself to peter parker's costume in order to bond with him.What follows is a series of terribly corny scenes featuring peter and also as spider-man under the influence of power this alien provides before discovering the alien's true intentions.To remove the alien he discovers sonics from a church bell are it's weakness and manages to remove the alien before it fulls bonds with it's host.In an even more ridiculous bit of coincidence(there's a lot of them in this film)reporter eddie brock just happens to find himself at this very same church at the very same time that spider-man is there and becomes the alien symbiote's new target for a host.Where peter parker rejected the alien,brock accepts and becomes the villain known as venom.There are too many villains in this film,only one was really needed and brock as venom would have suited nicely.There is even no logical reason when sandman and venom meet each other for the first time and instead of a battle taking place they decide to join forces in classic cliche style.

The movie runs for 140 minutes,the longest so far in this franchise and instead of events being paced well everything seems pushed together in rather a rush.Too many plot lines are happening at one time and it's not until the last 20 minutes that it looks like there's an end in sight.Bruce campbell makes a cameo appearance in this film,long rumoured to have been cast as mysterio he appears as a waiter in a restaurant scene with maguire and dunst and for me while i know a lot of people found his appearance amusing it didn't strike that kind of chord with me.Watching it i felt it wasn't funny at all.The joke was done not once,but at least three times possibly in order to maximise laughs but it only serves to point out how annoyingly bad it is.It's confusing at the climax of the battle between spider-man and the sandman why spider-man allows to sandman to escape considering 'with great power comes great responsibility' has been mentioned to us so many times in these films.It's extremely out of character for spider-man to do this considering how many innocent people were hurt or either killed by sandman's rampage and none of this is even touched upon.The inclusion of cameo appearances by raimi's children and members of his family is also highly inappropriate and adds nothing to the film overall,nor for that matter does stan lee's cameo in what is probably his worst cameo so far in a film based on a character he had a hand in creating.This film has already made over $200 million alone in the united states and a fourth film is looking highly likely,but let's hope that a new director and cast will come with it.

Good Points: Great CGI effects
Bad Points: Terrible Script,Bad Direction and acting from leading actors

Rating: D