You can now follow us on twitter  for our all new FILM WATCH mini-review tweets.
Stay up to date easily and simply with Pie Magazine.

American Pie: Reunion
Sports Editor, Robert Davies
25.04.2012

 

2/5 Pies - "Falls flat, so don't have high expectations."

13 Years after the first American Pie film we return to East Great Falls as all members of the “original gang” reunite for American Reunion.


We return suitably to the original setting of American Pie for the class of ‘99 reunion and, while the purpose of this reunion is for high school graduation, it has to be noted that these characters have since reconciled for both American Pie 2 and American Wedding since then, although much of the context appears to be directed solely at the first film.


As our main characters reunite in East Great Falls, the activities of all the members are quickly established as they plan a typically wild (like old times) reunion weekend. We’ve very quickly been returned to the feeling of the original high school setting, while the characters’ lives have changed – not necessarily for the better – the friendship between them is as it was before; and we also establish that they have kept in somewhat regular contact with each other. As the original gang members reunite for the first time in years we are prepared for what the whole film is about: The High-School Reunion.


We open the film with original main characters Jim and Michelle in bed at what I assume is their home, and we are given an indication right away that their lives have drastically changed since “The Wedding” - and we learn that having a kid has ruined their sex life. The purpose of the scene is to set up the main character and establish what ground Jim and Michelle’s life is currently on while at the same time ensuring that American Pie nostalgia. Although the jokes are below par, the scene doesn’t fail to remind us all of original.


As the opening scene provides a good introduction to the film and two of the main characters, the next scenes takes us back to more familiar ground as a phone call between Jim and Kev leads to a vital recap of the main characters since we last saw them; Kev is now married, Oz is a B-list celebrity working as an NFL sportscaster, Stifler works as a temp at an investment firm, and Finch’s whereabouts are somewhat unknown. The first thing that happens after the opening credits is the announcement of the reunion weekend, and while this provides a quick set up of the story, we haven’t received enough background information on the characters yet. We just assume that they’re all gonna be there. As we see the characters in their new lives, we get a sense of disharmony which obviously gives a good reason for them to reunite. We see Oz is now in an implied unstable relationship with a younger, model girlfriend; Stifler is still pretty much exactly the same as before; and Jim works in an office and his marriage isn’t working out. We are given good reason to feel sympathy for the characters: the perfect time for a reunion, where everything is likely to work out.


Now that we have the movie plot set up, it’s time to put our ever loved characters back together; this is where the film begins to build up. All the guys reunite at a bar, they reminisce of times gone by before Stifler shows up - and it has been established that Jim, Oz, Kev and Finch haven’t kept in contact with him. But Stifler joins them and they make plans to make the reunion weekend “their bitch”. It’s ok to be excited; everything was still looking promising at this point.


As the plot wonders on through we see our main characters visit “the falls”, a place where of course they visited back in ’99. During this scene we are introduced once again to Vicky and Heather, and we learn Heather now has a boyfriend which sets up a story that we could all predict very easily. We are also reminded that our characters are now older, as a younger generation territorially take over the falls.


From here we have the whole movie set up, and it’s much like the first; each character has their own sub-plot to the overall story, which although could have been entertaining, it seemed all too evident that the plot of this film is way too similar to the first American Pie.


While the individual storylines of the characters weren’t quite up to par with the first film, I did like the characters themselves. They can be compared to the early days and have a certain amount of development on them, certainly an adequate change for this kind of film; you don’t expect fancy changes and amazingly in depth characters, you just expect a realistic change which is exactly what has happened.


So, I need to establish that the things I enjoyed about this film are 1. The characters, 2. The nostalgic feeling it brought, 3. Stifer. Everything else was a bit of a let-down, most notable the jokes which have changed from the originals and not for the better. Rather than the clever quips provided before, there’s been a modern comedic twist added, and when a film makes jokes referencing Twilight, Justin Bieber and Stifler’s facebook page, I’m reminded that this style isn’t for me - nor is it anywhere near as funny as the jokes in American Pie were. The tone has changed and these jokes are horribly “easy” (e.g really obvious fart jokes...I mean, really?)


Well since this is a reunion film let’s compare it to the first American Pie, shall we?
While I was happy with the nostalgic feeling it brought, which of course was the whole idea, I wasn’t happy with the simple fact that it’s not nearly as funny or original as it could have been– it’s too blatant that the script feels the need to borrow too much from American Pie to remind us of everything that happened, rather than let the story tell itself. Little things like seeing a magazine cover with “Y2K”on it, clearly there to remind us “oh yeah, class of ‘99”, and adding a senseless sub-plot involving the “MILF guys”, not to mention the cameos of other certain characters. It was all a bit needy and mirroring several of the original scenes in this was really unnecessary.


So while it gave a good reminder of why we loved these characters in American Pie while giving us a few laughs here and there, American Reunion just wasn’t up to standard and the story has borrowed too much from the original, making it a tad messy. Still worth a watch if you’re a fan of the original films, but don’t have high expectations.
 

The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel
Editor in Chief, Ben Franks
29.02.12





4/5 Pies – “An excellent piece of cinema”
 

In a quick glance over other newspaper’s reviews of this film, I found myself getting quite heated up. I know sometimes the predictable can be a perceived flaw of a film, but in an acclaimed rom-sitcom as wonderfully British as ‘The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel’ it seems insane to degrade it because of cliché. What critics seem to have forgotten is that people, ordinary folk like you and me, don’t go to the cinema necessarily to see a pioneer of the craft but to enjoy, savour and laugh along with a feel-good film.


Director John Madden’s The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel is certainly that: a feel-good film offering you plenty of moments to go home with. With an all-star cast of the British greats, flag shipped by the undoubtedly fantastic Dame Judi Dench, this film provides plenty of “aw”, “mmm” and “haha” moments for any audience. Even if the film doesn’t shy away from its obvious conform to the older audiences it is just as appealing to young people too.


In fact some of the life lessons of material values, love and simply enjoying yourself form the core morals of the film. These kinds of messages don’t just make a fine piece of cinema but encourage young people all over the world to value what’s good. Even Dame Maggie Smith’s excellent portrayal as the middle-class cockney-like racist breathes a soft spot of the good of humanity as she turns to appreciate Indian culture through the film – and the racism is pretty much forgiven by Smith’s unequivocal acting talent at provoking a proper good laugh!


Based in Jaipur, seven unlucky pensioners embark on a holiday to spend their twilight moments in a hotel run by Slumdog Millionaire star Dev Patel. Patel, who The Observer describes as “would-be Casanova”, also has his own love story in winning over the love of his life – however this subplot is probably rather more blatantly predictable than the others and does little to inspire tensions.

 

In the airport, the seven leading actors await their flight to Jaipur.

Although the film has an extensive running time of over two hours, the stories of running into one another, experiencing culture and addressing love won and lost, remain completely engaging. The film evokes sympathy and enjoyment as well as offering a steady stream of laughs to keep up the feel-good luggage the audience takes through the whole journey.


One of the most interesting stories is played out by star Tom Wilkinson as Graham, a gay judge returning to India to find his long lost love. Following his determination and his appreciation of India certainly causes the audience to not so much address his own story’s outcome but to feed on the values of relationships and moments in time – not the materialism, wealth and routine arguably embodied by Britain.


Therefore this film is excellent in deporting audiences of all ages into the fantasy-cliché culture of India and inspiring all the values we take for granted. It’s an excellent and enjoyable piece of cinema which is crafted to a perfect delight. Even if it is predictable, who cares? I had fun. You will too, unless you’re looking for holes.

The Adventures of
Tintin
The Secret of the Unicorn

Oli Richards, 20:31 - 20/11/11

4/5 Pies

Hérge may have been on to something when he professed that ‘Only Spielberg could direct Tintin.’


When the news broke that a film adaptation of the adventures of Belgium’s biggest export since Audrey Hepburn was in the works, many hardcore fans reacted angrily. How would any film-maker capture the youthful yet timeless exuberance of Hérge’s comics successfully? Who would even consider taking this challenge? Well, the answer to both of these questions lies with not one, but two of the most revered film makers of recent times, Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson.


Whisper it, but Spielberg’s directorial output has been fairly quiet as of late, perhaps due to the tragic flop in the form of the fourth Indiana Jones film. Taking to the director’s seat for the first time since 2008, three years to anyone but Spielberg might seem a reasonable break; it took the support of Peter Jackson and an award winning crew to bring him back to form. At his best Spielberg is a master of nostalgic, fantastical film, and he brings this to the plate, breathing fresh air into Hérge’s work and bringing the be-quiffed Belgian to life.


In order to create this Spielberg and team have made the most of the current cinematic climate, 3D - as for now, this is where the money is - and he and his team have manipulated the technology in such a way that it suits Tintin and Snowy’s adventures perfectly, using performance capture to give the film its style. This certainly pays off; style is where this film excels. Many were wary of how Hérge’s line drawing style could be brought to the big screen, and rightly so. It is a relief then that under the watchful eye of Jackson and Spielberg the characters brim with life, both recalling Hérge’s drawing style and contemporary animation in equal measure, and to great effect. Many of the characters resemble caricatures of the comics’ basic charms, leading to a great opening gag which alone makes the film worth seeing.

As for the humor, Tintin is largely a success. Early on in the film’s production the news of the identity of the screenwriters let many fans begin to believe in the adaptation and trust it to do their hero justice. In short the writing team consists of three of Britain’s most promising writers/film makers, resulting in a match made in heaven: Steven Moffat, Edgar Wright and Joe Cornish.


If these names mean nothing to you then you have sorely missed out on some of the UK’s best recent cinematic and television productions. Moffat of course, is the head writer of the current run of ‘Doctor Who’; Wright is one of Britain’s great hopes; ‘Hot Fuzz’, ‘Scott Pilgrim’… ‘Shaun of the Dead’, enough said; As for Cornish, his recent debut piece ‘Attack the Block’ cemented him as a big name in the industry. They each bring something to the writing table; Moffat’s mastery of adventure and plot complexion, Wright’s sheer inventive wit and Cornish’s grasp of believable dialogue.


It is a sign of the film’s promise that I could go this far without even mentioning the cast; as with the film’s other elements, they are largely a success, but not always.


Newcomer Jamie Bell brings a youthful charm yet aged wisdom to the lead role; he is careful not to overplay the role and his performance is a master class of subdued brilliance, bringing the best out of Tintin without deviating too far from the character’s roots. Daniel ‘Bond’ Craig excels as the villain of the piece, offering a believably corrupt opposite to Bell’s Tintin. The addition of Simon Pegg and Nick Frost as the twin investigating team of Thompson and Thompson at first seemed like an enticing offering, however they somewhat disappoint. Whilst it is great to know that they are working with Edgar Wright again prior to the final film in the Fuzz and Shaun trilogy the two best friends bring almost nothing to their characters. In the comics the two blundering investigators are a great source of simple, slapstick comedy; this is less of a success on the big screen. Hitting about half of their gags and missing the same amount; not to mention their voices are so anonymous that it is almost impossible to tell which twin is Pegg and which is Frost. This was perhaps the point, an in a joke at the nature of the characters; however when dealing with comic veterans like Pegg and Frost you can’t help but feel they are wasted.


This disappointment is not true with Andy Serkis in the role of Tintin’s flawed companion Captain Haddock, bringing the perfect balance of light hearted humor and tragic vulnerability to the character, often giving us the most hilarious, as well as the most touching, sequences; the story itself revolves around the Haddock family and the search for a sunken treasure of yester year. Serkis, a veteran of motion capture - his performance as Gollum is testament to this - suits the role perfectly. Haddock is a booze-ridden, largely flawed but ever loyal friend to Tintin; their friendship drives the film’s plot, adapted from three different Tintin comics. It is this friendship that leads our hero to investigate the sunken treasure and sets him off on his adventure. 

Life Can Be Hilarious When There's
No Strings Attached

Review by Ben Franks, 13.11.11 - 16:45 GMT
 

4/5 Pies

"Funny, Crude & Simply Wonderful"

Just another Hollywood, Indie Rom-Com I hear you groan. Well, no. This one isn’t.


Despite being based on a typical boy-meets-girl and wins her over scenario, with the girl not being the usual relationship kind’a lass, this film has much more to offer than the usual yankee conventions.


Starring sexy and suave Academy-Award Winning actress Natalie Portman and the charming Ashton Kutcher, this already trumps and ticks boxes in the casting – Portman is a comedy natural. Surprised? I wasn’t after she tanked out a film with Seth Rogen for the stupidity-trophy blockbuster that was Your Highness, or after collaborating with The Lonely Island to produce the crude, rude and obscene track, Natalie’s Rap.


The two have good chemistry on scene and the sex-jokes are seriously wee-yourself funny. At the start, you’ll no doubt sit there thinking, ‘Hang on, this movie is so outrageous it’s mucked up’, but before long your sides will be in stitches and you’ll be crying at quite how forward this cracking film is.


The romance is pretty much abundant for the start of the film, allowing all you anti-romanticists to be sucked in, craving the comedy. However, inevitably towards the end you’re succumbed into the romance tumbles of love and love-lost, missing what you had and desperate to get it back – but because you’re already so engrossed, this is not off putting… in fact, it’s rather brilliant. First Rom-Com in ages I will happily admit I was a wee emotionally captivated.


Now and again the love-making scenes drift between hilarious to appealing to down-right cringe-worthy, but this is exactly the kind of medicine this film thrives upon. To many comedy-loving fans, this could be the film to get you trying out and watching many more romantic genre films; I’m quite the fan of the genre of rom-com, but pretty much anti-plain old love drama – there’s something secretly special about laughing at love. Perhaps that’s just me.


Don’t get me wrong, this film isn’t by any means perfect… nor is it really that original, but it still excels in being fun, lively and entertaining. It seems these are the three features a lot of critics forget when they come to throw their opinions at films. No Strings Attached is stuffed to the brim like your Nan’s Christmas turkey with cheeky smiles, catching your lover’s eye and gorgeous gags which will have you bursting out with laughter.


If you’re not convinced, at least give the film a try; It’s actually rather smashing.
 

TOP NEWS

Article by Ben Franks, 6/11/11

 It was recently announced that filming had begun on the 23rd Bond film; that’s right, it’ll be a reality. Bond fans all over the world grinned wildly, cried with joy and jumped up and down in a victory jive. Along with the press conference, which was to kick-start the date when filming began, was the revealing of Bond 23’s name.

Skyfall.

Clean, crisp - and elegantly Bond - the revealing of a 007 movie-title is no “ordinary” spectacular. There is something typically Western to guess at it until its released and, despite Bond 23’s name being “the worst kept secret in London”, it was no less a mass-turn out to the tradition of revealing it.


 Skyfall, which rings quite similarly to the epic Elder Scrolls game Skyrim, got its name, according to producer Barbara Broccoli (daughter of Albert Broccoli, the original producer of the Bond franchise) because the title “has an emotional context that will be explained in the film”. 


 Daniel Craig is back to star as the most famous spy of all time for a third instalment. His own comments have been to ensure this film be the “best Bond film ever made”; he also jokily comments that he will be taking his shirt of – after all, it’s “part of the gig” he laughs. 


 Does Bond still have a place though? It has survived competition from fantastic espionage thrillers such as the Bourne trilogy (which took America by storm but seemed to ultimately co-exist with the Bond franchise) and, lately, John Le Carre’s George Smiley thriller, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. Bond had even survived the recession, as MGM plummeted. 


 There could be many reasons for Bond’s success but it seems the thriller with the same cocktail – beautiful Bond girl, suave hard-as-nails Bond, the reappearance of Moneypenny, and the action phenomenon of bang-bang, kiss-kiss – never loses fan-base and doesn’t fail to grow upon new generations. It is the longest running, second-highest grossing movie franchise of all time, with only J K Rowling’s incredible Harry Potter series grossing more. 


 Rumour has it that Skyfall will be more in tune with Fleming’s books, adopting a similar style to Casino Royale. Although Oscar-winning director, Sam Mendes, does tell fans that while Skyfall may continue the re-embellished character of Bond it will most certainly be “lively”. He continues by crushing the rumours the new Bond film will be "action light", by saying: "The action is part of the main body of the film. Every decision is mine. The action needs to co-exist with the drama."


Mendes also makes it crystal-clear that Skyfall is "it's own story" and promises Bond-viewers "a lot of surprises." Daniel Craig excitedly jumped in with a response to the journalist's questions over filming, stating "I'm tremendously excited... we start shooting today. This is it."


French actress Bérénice Marlohe (left) has been cast as the new Bond girl for Skyfall. The tall, stunning brunette admits to having been a fan of the Bond films when she watched them back in her own country during her childhood. Her characters name, she says cheekily, is Severin, who she tells us is a "glamorous and enigmatic character."


The new film contains a star-studded cast choice, with the amazing Dame Judi Dench returning to play “M”, Spanish award-winning actor Javier Bardem playing the new Bond-villain; the star would not disclose any details about his role to the press but didn't hesitate to say happily, "Who told you a villain is a bad person? For me, it's an honour to be at this table for many reasons. It will be fun to do." Although, let’s not forget the reappearance of M’s sidekick Tanner (Rory Kinnear) and, of course, Naome Harris who has been casted to bring back the James Bond beauty of the old movies in the stylish form of Miss Moneypenny. 


“I’m the money,” quirks Eva Green. “Every penny of it,” quips back Craig as Bond in Casino Royale. Such great screen play foreshadowing and subtle dialogue hints returns in Skyfall, with the group on board the production team calling it one of the best Bond scripts in a while. 


Mendes also tells us some details of what locations Bond will be heading in 2012 film, Skyfall. He says Bond will be going to China, Scotland and Istanbul, along with filming inevitably occuring in England homebase, Pinewood Studios.


After the slightly disappointing Quantum of Solace, the production team avoided the route of a “trilogy-within-a-franchise” and turned to create the secret organisation of Quantum in a very similar light to that of Spectre in the classic James Bond films. Expect to see this black-market, money-greedy, “we’re everywhere” organisation in a lot more of the new and modern Bond thrillers.


So, the name has been revealed and, as shooting begins on 4th November 2011, we only have to wait just under one year to feed our cravings for yet another stylish, action-packed, sophisticated and tang-of-humour cocktail that is the most incredible film franchise of all time’s new, 23rd film: Skyfall.
Bring it on.

Skyfall is destined to be released October 26th 2012

The Invention of Lying

Ben Franks, 18/10/11 - 15:18 GMT
Copyright Note: Also published to Escapist Magazine User Reviews
 

Starring Ricky Gervais, Jennifer Garner and Louis C. K
 

Egotistical Gervais Outshines Extras and The Office

Now I know that to many of the British die hard comedy fans out there, the above statement may seem incredibly bold to assume that one of Gervais' movies outshines two of the most critically acclaimed sitcoms to exist, but there is truth in what I preach.


At first, the world of no lying and simple truths seems a bit eratic and chaotic. You have people pleading their dissapointments of life, couples telling their partners that they don't really love them and Gervais repeatedly being called tubby in different ways. The interesting thing to note is that it was, of course, written by Gervais. This means that we get the same constant circuit of priceless sarcasm and standard "day-to-day" British wit. Gervais is one of Britain's most successful comedians and, whether you like him or not, his writing is pretty original.


Gervais' character develops and begins to learn how to lie after losing his job. Now, this is where the story comes in beautifully. There's nothing more human than nodding approvingly at one of Gervais' first uses of his ability to lie: he goes up to a woman passing by and the woman automatically says "Don't look at me, you're not attractive, get lost" and Gervais replies, rather well, "You need to have sex with me NOW or the world will end!" Of course, this isn't amazingly funny and is, by all means, very cliche. However, the woman then says "What, right now? Or do we have time to find a motel room?" and, brilliantly, Gervais says: "We have a little time."


The best thing about this movie is that while it has all the bits you could ever long for in a comedy (the clever wit, laugh out loud scenes and glorifying smiles) it also has a solid love interest, a moral teaching about greed and a very amusing friend named Greg, who is played wonderfully by Louis C. K. - an actor who I'd not really heard of before.
 

So, this movie pretty much throws everything into one, stirs it up and - script, plot and comedy wise - spills it out perfectly. However, this movie isn't perfect...
 

A Stylish and Fresh Bit of Writing

One of the best things about The Invention of Lying is the to-the-left trio. We have the sadistic, sombre and sarcastic Gervais - who plays a failing "history" lecture writer - we have the fairly stupid, constantly drunk and rather amusing fellow that is Louis C.K.'s Greg - who plays Gervais' good old "pub" friend - and we have the genetics-obsessed love interest who's played fairly stupidly (in a good sense for the movies context) by Jennifer Garner.


As well as a good main character base, the writing introduces a plot that pokes fun at all contexts of life. Most notably the construction of faith, based loosely on Christianity, that Gervais reads out the rules of off of the back of some Pizza boxes. The scene that controversially pokes amusement at religion is actually pretty intelligent, bringing to light the number of life's unanswered questions.


However, it's not amazing. Trying to develop a world where everyone must tell the truth is bound to have some inevitable plot holes and, although the ending is amusing, it does fall flat on its face a bit.


All you truly come away with when you watch this film is that this was something different, something new and something that made sure you were going to laugh - and not cheaply either.


There's no real argument, no real "stand-up and take this" point to it all and not really any revolutionary acting - Gervais basically plays himself, but without the ego.

Overall

The Storyline: 4/5 - Original and fresh
The Characters: 3.5/5 - Gervais, C.K. and Garner are a well casted trio, but there's a few annoying characters too
Music: 3/5 - Nothing particularly special
Directing: 3/5 - Gervais isn't as good a director as he is a writer, but this movie has clean, well devised shots throughout
Comic Rating: 5/5 - very clever and witty, pure Gervais through and through (with a sprinkle of Stephen Merchant, naturally)
Attention Rating: 4/5 - Distracted me from everything else, so plus points
 

Rating: 4/5 PIES

"A Gem that's Not to Be Missed"

Season of the Witch

3/5 PIES

Review by Sarah Merritt (28/8/11, 19:26 GMT)

When I first began watching Season of The Witch (directed by Dominic Sena and starring Nicholas Cage, Ron Perlman and Claire Foy) I was unaware that it was a 15.


However, this soon became apparent from the first scene when a woman, accused of witchcraft and hanged from a bridge, springs back to life with a ghastly crunching of neck bones and hangs the very priest who sentenced her. If you’re already dying to see this film you won’t be disappointed – there’s plenty more where that came from – but viewers expecting to see something out of the ordinary should walk away now.


This $40m adventure/horror set in the 13th Century, featuring Cage and Perlman as battle-hardened crusaders turned against the nature of their cause, sees both men issued a quest: to transport a girl accused of witchcraft to a distant town to await trial by monks. This sounds simple enough (and was apparently a common Pastime in the Middle Ages) but of course there’s all the life-threatening perils to trek through first. So to help them on their way through a wolf-infested forest and conveniently dilapidated bridge – why does there always have to be a bridge? - they are accompanied by other faces such as Stephen Campbell Moore as a tight-lipped priest and Stephen Graham as a slimy swindler, presumably to give the quest a more Lord of The Rings feel.


The acting is bearable enough – particularly from Cage and Perlman – and, despite the minor blip of them sporting American accents 400 years before America was discovered, they perform convincingly. Also notable is Robert Sheehan who makes his breakthrough performance here as Kay, an alter-boy turned warrior who tags along with the group for good measure and also exhibits an American accent (I have a feeling there’s some sort of conspiracy going on here…). Despite the occasional cheesy line such as, “Honour is not a thing to be dismissed or forgotten!” (pronounce your ‘t’s, please!), Kay is charming and endearing in his eagerness to prove himself a worthy knight; I found that he was the only character I really cared for.


As you might have gathered from the slightly unnerving prologue, the film makes full use of its 15 certificate and does not hold back with the blood, pain and startlingly-realistic-if-not-a-little-too-dramatic boils brought on by the Black Death ravaging Europe at the time the film was set. A particularly momentous ‘ouch’ moment is when the Witch (Foy, excellently cast with her deep black eyes and ability to produce a very ghoulish expression) stabs the priest’s cross through his own hand, pinning him in place. The film packs on the suspense and chill-factor from the very beginning, leading the viewer to question whether the girl has been wrongly accused or whether she really is guilty. In fact, I was surprised, though connoisseurs of horror films may be less impressed. Unfortunately the real demon, when it shows itself, appears to be sporting nothing scarier than a child’s Halloween mask, meaning the build-up to its unveiling is far more effective.


Despite this being an action-packed and overly enjoyably watch, it is, of course, let down by the perfectly bland script. No character ever says anything out of the ordinary and Cage and Perlman’s characters seem to repeat the generic old-English lines of “My friend” to each other a little too often – making their friendship unconvincing. This is disappointing; as an average film that might have been made great had it been written a little more aptly, it instead falls unceremoniously into the pile marked ‘Over expensive and easily forgotten’. Only occasional lines, such as the priest’s terrified muttering of “This is no witch…This is no witch!”, as the demon inside the girl begins to take its true form, have some impact. Cage’s line of “No man has spilt more blood in God’s name than I!” also has an effect, causing the viewer to reflect for a moment on the mindless slaughter of the Crusades. Unfortunately he screams something impossible to understand a second later, thus destroying the thoughtful atmosphere that was created. Never mind.


Overall, I would give this film 3/5 Pies because, as sadly seems the case with most modern films, a high budget cannot quite distract from the flaws in the screenplay and character building. But, if you don’t tend to despair at the nature of modern film-making like I do, this makes for an entertaining viewing.

Four Lions

Review by Jonas Jurgens (20/08/11, 01:32 GMT)

4/5 PIES

"Marvelously funny, original and relevant"

Following the attack on World Trade Center on September 11th 2001, the subject of terrorism was suddenly elevated to being one most discussed topics in the media. Certainly not because terrorism was new to the world, but because of the sheer scale and symbolic meaning of the attack. In the decade that has passed, the world has experienced terrorist attacks many times, and we are constantly reminded of that past event in New York. But what exactly goes through the mind of terrorist who takes the conscious decision to blow himself up, taking as many innocent bystanders with him as possible, sacrificing himself for some opaque cause? Chris Morris’ film “Four Lions” attempts to answer just that question, showing the story from the perspective of the terrorist, though it is done with wonderful dry and dark humor, that heavily satirizes the terrorists’ behavior.


The Sheffield-based terrorists, or jihadists, are lead by Omar, the only somewhat sensible person of the lot. He is challenged by Barry, a convert, who seems to be the one holding the strongest grudges against his country, while the other three members are fairly clueless about the whole thing, seeing it chiefly as a swifter path to paradise. The viewer follows them through a horribly failed trip to a training camp in Pakistan, through their utterly inept planning of the attack, to the final attack. One is left not with sympathy, necessarily, but wonderment. How could such seemingly normal and likeable guys carry out such a horrible act? How could they on one side participate normally in society, even speaking with the local accents, yet harbor some hidden resentment for the country they are living in?


At its core, the film seems to state that they are not fully aware of what they are actually doing, but rather do it, in the case of Hassan, just to be a method of showing some anger and frustration with his role in society, or poor, clueless Faisal, who just follows directions. Mostly, they just repeat buzzwords regarding their scorn for Western living, yet gladly divulge in the many things offered to them.


Thankfully, the film isn’t decidedly serious, as most of these points are delivered in spectacularly hilarious situations, often involving explosives gone awry. Have I perhaps just been reading too much into the story, seeing points that were never intended to be there? Was the film just intended to be a slapstick comedy that just happened to contain misguided jihadists? Probably not, and Morris has stated that he researched information for the film over a period of three years, indicating that he definitely has had an ulterior motive in making this film. The humor isn’t always up to par, but at those moments, it is quite possibly the funniest film I have seen in a disturbingly long time. And what better way to deal with a serious subject such as the roots of terrorism than with humor? After all, the situation seems so absurd to most fairly rational people. Why would anyone willingly blow themselves up in a crowd, even under the assumption that you would go straight to paradise for your deeds for the faith? Humor is the best tool in showing bizarities and absurdities.


“Four Lions” is a massively entertaining film that simultaneously deals with a very serious and potentially controversial topic. Admittedly, the film did have some troubles getting proper funding, perhaps due to its nature of taking the perspective of jihadists, who, understandably, aren’t particularly popular. But don’t all stories deserve getting told? Whether the main character(s) are good or crooked, wise or misguided is irrelevant. A film like “Four Lions” is an opportunity to guffaw heartily and contemplate.
 

Suckerpunch

Review by Sam Weeks (12/06/11, 21:30 GMT)

1/5 PIES

Suckerpunch, all style, zero substance
 

Suckerpunch is a movie that tries hard, it wants to succeed, it wants to be more than a cynical, money-grabbing cash-cow. However it fails on almost every single level. 


Suckerpunch is the latest film from Zach Snyder, Director of comic book adaptations Watchmen and 300. This is, however, Snyder’s first film that he has shared writing duties on. The most recognisable thing about Suckerpunch is Snyder’s eagerness to create a recognisable stylistic tone in the vein of Quinton Tarantino. However, while Suckerpunch has an interesting use of colour palettes, music and a non-chronological use of time to (try to) hammer a point home, it lacks depth, characterisation and most importantly entertainment value. Baby Doll (Emily Browning) is a young girl condemned to a mental asylum, framed for her sister's murder by her evil step-father, and is scheduled for a mind-destroying lobotomy. Moments before this act she retreats into a fantasy world: a brothel in which she meets four other girls and quickly devises a plan to escape. 


Suckerpunch has lots of heavily stylised action which doesn't entertain in the slightest; it goes on for too long, each action section is alienated from the rest of the movie in an obvious fashion; each action 'scene' is between ten and fifteen non-stop minutes of girl on monster fighting, none of which pose the slightest hazard to our heroine. Not only are the robots, clockwork world war one era German zombies and medieval knights surpassed in skill by scantily-dressed twenty-somethings with no training, but in Zach Snyder’s mind human beings are rather more resilient than in real life.


One memorable moment consists of a main character being blow-up mid-air in the demise of a Zeppelin, hurtled thousands of feet through the air at considerable speed and smack their head on the top of a trench... only to pick themselves up again seemingly unphased. Normally these two problems would be bad enough in a film dedicated to action, but Snyder divorces action from any kind of consequence by setting it in another fantasy world that Baby Doll creates whenever she 'dances,' because of this none of the characters are in any danger whatsoever and that renders these scenes nothing more than a boring, grunting light show, with assault rifles.


Another vital aspect of Suckerpunch is the missing characterisation, the so-called 'main characters' are little more than paper-thin, and those that aren't are clichéd to all hell. (See Oscar Issac's 'Blue') The characters are given little time to develop beyond their corresponding roles in the plot, which manages to be both confusing and remarkably simple with its use of multiple fantasy/alternate realities that are only slightly different from the 'real' one that the film creates.


Next I want to get on to Suckerpunch's 'neutering'. I say this because the film seems to have had its age certificate mandated by the seemingly ever-present 'studio executives.' The film is rated 12A in the UK, and PG-13 in the US and it really shows. At its heart Suckerpunch is an exploitation flick, it contains gratuitous violence, blatant sexualisation of women and a simple plot, but it is kept back from reviling in its sleaze by the certificate; any blood that is shed on camera is replaced by sparks or steam and in situations where this would be impossible the violence occurs off camera, any hint of actual bare flesh presented for sexual gratification has been stripped out, replaced by the god-awful action scenes.


Suckerpunch is simply not worth your time. You will be disappointed if you wanted to see a stylish action film, an interesting commentary on perspective within cinema (oh yes Suckerpunch tries to play that card, although with zero effectiveness due to its heavy handed and ineffectual approach) or if you wanted to watch a good old fashioned skin-flick. It's not the worst film I have seen, the director obviously wants to make a great film rather than a net profit of $636,297,228, he just hasn't been very successful.

X-Men: First Class

Review by Ben Franks (02/6/11, 21:00 GMT)

3/5 PIES

The new release of a new take on the origins of Xavier’s X-Men was surprisingly good, fashionably trumping its predecessor X-Men: The Last Stand (AKA X-Men 3) and levelling out to the stands of Wolverine: X-Men Origins.

James McAvoy plays Charles Xavier, an expert on mutants and a man capable of telepathy and mind control. McAvoy had some strong boots to fill with the “adult role” being played by the world renound Patrick Stewart, an issue similarly difficult for Michael Fassbender who had to live up to Sir Ian McKellen’s Magneto. Surprisingly, there were pretty much no disappointments from the acting capabilities of this duo and they filled the roles particularly well, with McAvoy even bringing Xavier into his own light and creating his own characterisations.


It was the classic X-Men storyline that proved to make it just about par but not quite anything special. The writing was full of cheesy references, such as Xavier’s future haircuts, and was a bit superficially comical in some of the drama lines – I recall the Captain of the US fleet remarking his “pleasure” of serving alongside his crewmates in the face of imminent defeat. It grew on the old Magneto’s mutants Vs Xavier’s mutants, making the dominant plot feel less important and demoting the film’s uniqueness.


Some of the love interests were appealing, such as the relationship crafted around Xavier and Mystique, but then you come to realise the entirety of the love speculates revolved solely around Mystique’s character. This was a shame because it echoed the Cyclops-Wolverine-Jean love triangle of the original X-Men films and drew away from the film’s potential once more.


This movie also falls to its knees in the villain’s powers. It seems completely cliché for movies to always make the villain appear above superhuman and the same thing happened here again. There’s nothing wrong with that – for a plot does need a challenge, after all – but it meant the villain, Dr Shaw, was a very flat character and thus a very uninteresting villain.


In terms of the movie’s CGI and special effects, there’s no let down at all. Like all the X-Men movies, what you see visually – especially in the action scenes – is always fuelling and exciting, breathing modernity into its digital projection.


The movie is in no doubt exciting but it just isn’t anything special. The only real enticing soundtrack, for example, is over the end credits; the rest is mainly special effects or bland compositions. X-Men First Class just doesn’t bring itself into a league of its own – apart from perhaps a rather cheesy one – and it’s a shame because it expresses quite a bit of potential throughout.
 

FILM FESTIVE MAY: 100 Movies in 10 Minutes

Ben Franks writes reviews... mini style.

Now and again, you stumble across the ratings section for an endless list of games in the back of a Console magazine, streaming to you their star-ratings of many upon many creations by that industry, or you read a film magazine and marvel at the big stars and the one-line critic printed bold and big right underneath. Well, now ePie has a very special 100 list mini reviews for films of its own. If you buy our Annual (released in January 2012) you'll be able to see the same list with more in-depth reviews from Ben.
 

1. BATMAN BEGINS (2005)
4/5 PIES – “EXCITING”


2. THE DARK KNIGHT (2008)
5/5 PIES – “MUST SEE BEFORE YOU DIE”


3. THE ITALIAN JOB (2003)
2/5 PIES – “BIT OF A LET DOWN”


4. THE ITALIAN JOB (1969)
3/5 PIES – “A CLASSIC WORTH WATCHING”


5. THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH (1999)
4/5 PIES – “ONE OF THE GREATEST MODERN BONDS”


6. CASINO ROYALE (2006)
5/5 PIES – “A STUNNING AND FRESH 007”


7. SCOTT PILGRIM VS. THE WORLD (2010)
5/5 PIES – “A PROPER GOOD-FUN MOVIE”


8. GREEN ZONE (2010)
3/5 PIES – “REALISTIC ACTION THRILLER”


9. KILL BILL VOLUME I & II (2003/4)
5/5 PIES – “TARANTINO PROVES HE’S A GENIUS”


10. KUNG FU PANDA (2008)
4/5 PIES – “A FABULOUSLY FUN ANIMATION”


11. UP (2009)
4/5 PIES – “A TRULY FEEL-GOOD FILM”


12. QUANTUM OF SOLACE (2008)
3/5 PIES – “A LIVELY, ACTION-PACKED BOND MOVIE”


13. SHAUN OF THE DEAD (2004)
4/5 PIES – “AN AWESOME ZOMBIE-COM”


14. PINEAPPLE EXPRESS (2008)
2/5 PIES – “A MAD, LAUGH-AT COMEDY”


15. PREDATOR (1987)
3/5 PIES – “A SHOWCASE OF MOVIE ONE-LINERS”


16. PREDATOR 2 (1990)
1/5 PIES – “A FELL-FLAT-ON-ITS-FACE SEQUEL”


17. GET SMART (2008)
3/5 PIES – “AN AMUSING AND INTELLIGENT COMEDY”


18. TERMINATOR 2: JUDGEMENT DAY (1991)
4/5 PIES – “ACTION-PACKED, GENRE-BREAKING THRILLER”


19. TERMINATOR 3: RISE OF THE MACHINES (2003)
2/5 PIES – “A POORLY EXCITING FINALE”


20. THE LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN (2003)
1/5 PIES – “A DESPERATE AND DISAPPOINTING ACTION MOVIE”


21. V FOR VENDETTA (2006)
4/5 PIES – “BEAUTIFULLY MADE GRAPHIC NOVEL ADAPTATION”


22. HOT FUZZ (2007)
4/5 PIES – “GUARANTEED LAUGHS”


23. THE BEATLES: HELP (1965)
3/5 PIES – “IMPOSSIBLE NOT TO FIND AMUSING”


24. THE BOAT THAT ROCKED (2009)
4/5 PIES – “A FUNNY, MUST-SEE COMEDY”


25. LOVE ACTUALLY (2003)
5/5 PIES – “THE BEST ROM-COM EVER MADE”


26. SUPERBAD (2007)
2/5 PIES – “STUPID & NUTS, BUT FUNNY”


27. THE NAKED GUN (1988)
3/5 PIES – “WELL ROUNDED COMEDY”


28. STARSHIP TROOPERS (1997)
3/5 PIES – “WORTH A WATCH”


29. DODGEBALL: A TRUE UNDERDOG STORY (2004)
2/5 PIES – “PRETTY FUNNY”


30. WEDDING CRASHERS (2005)
3/5 PIES – “ONE YOU’LL REMEMBER”


31. SNATCH (2000)
3/5 PIES – “ONE OF GUY RITCHIE’S BEST”


32. INCEPTION (2010)
5/5 PIES – “BEST HOLLYWOOD MOVIE IN YEARS”


33. VALKYRIE (2008)
4/5 PIES – “STAR-STUDDED CAST, QUALITY MOVIE”


34. THE THOMAS CROWN AFFAIR (1999)
3/5 PIES – “STYLISHLY BRILLIANT REMAKE”


35. BRUCE ALMIGHTY (2003)
3/5 PIES – “CARREY RETURNS TO A CLASSY TOP NOTCH ROLE”


36. EVAN ALMIGHTY (2007)
1/5 PIES – “A REMAKE FOR THE SAKE OF ONE”


37. KUNG FU HUSTLE (2004)
4/5 PIES – “HILARIOUSLY GOOD KUNG-FU COM”


38. AUSTIN POWERS: INTERNATIONAL MAN OF MYSTERY (1997)
4/5 PIES – “MYERS IS BRILLIANT”


39. AUSTIN POWERS: THE SPY WHO SHAGGED ME (1999)
4/5 PIES – “JUST AS MEMORABLE AS THE FIRST”


40. AUSTIN POWERS: GOLDMEMBER (2002)
3/5 PIES – “CAINE HOLDS THIS MOVIE UP”


41. WATCHMEN (2009)
2/5 PIES – “A PUNCH TO THE LEGACY OF A GOOD GRAPHIC NOVEL”


42. INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS (2009)
4/5 PIES – “GENIUS”


43. HARRY BROWN (2009)
4/5 PIES – “BEST BRITISH GANG-FILM IN YEARS”


44. BORAT (2006)
4/5 PIES – “A BRAVE CROSS-THE-LINE PIECE OF BRILLIANCE”


45. TROPIC THUNDER (2008)
3/5 PIES – “STILLER CRACKS OUT A GREAT COMEDY”


46. RAT RACE (2001)
5/5 PIES – “ONE OF THE BEST COMEDIES EVER PRODUCED”


47. A BRIDGE TOO FAR (1977)
3/5 PIES – “A GENIUS WAR MOVIE WITH A DEAD END”


48. AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS (2004)
3/5 PIES – “TOP NOTCH REMAKE”


49. ROBIN B HOOD (2006)
2/5 PIES – “FISH OUT THE WATER COMEDY”


50. ROBIN HOOD (2010)
3/5 PIES – “CROWE IS THE TRUE ROBIN HOOD”


51. HELLBOY (2004)
2/5 PIES – “QUITE DISAPPOINTING”


52. SPIDER-MAN (2002)
3/5 PIES – “QUICK-PACED KICK START TO THE COMIC TRILOGY”


53. LOCK, STOCK AND TWO SMOKING BARRELS (1998)
2/5 PIES – “CHEESILY STYLISH BRITISH GANGSTER MOVIE”


54. STAR WARS EPISODE IV (1977)
5/5 PIES – “THE START TO THE GREATEST SCI-FI ON EARTH”


55. STAR WAS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE (1999)
3/5 PIES – “ACTION-STUFFED SPARK TO A DEAD MODERN TRILOGY”


56. THE ONE (2001)
1/5 PIES – “A CLICHÉ TYPICAL ACTION MOVIE”


57. RUSH HOUR 1 (1998)
4/5 PIES – “A COMEDY DUO MADE IN HEAVEN”


58. RUSH HOUR 2 (2001)
4/5 PIES – “NO DISAPPOINTMENTS, TIP-TOP”


59. RUSH HOUR 3 (2007)
5/5 PIES – “THE THIRD BECOMES THE BEST”


60. DOWNFALL (2004)
4/5 PIES – “INTERESTING INSIGHT TO ONE OF HISTORY’S MOST PROMINENT EVENTS”


61. MIAMI VICE (2006)
1/5 PIES – “EVERY BIT OF THIS FILM IS FORCED”


62. THE BOURNE IDENTITY (2002)
5/5 PIES – “AMERICA’S RESPOND TO BRITAIN’S 007 COULDN’T HAVE BEEN BETTER”


63. THE BOURNE SUPREMACY (2004)
4/5 PIES – “AN EXCITING BIT OF GENIUS”


64. THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM (2007)
5/5 PIES – “ONE OF THE GREATEST FINALES OF ALL TIME”


65. BURKE & HARE (2010)
3/5 PIES – “VERY FUNNY BUT LACKS MUCH ELSE”


66. PAUL (2011)
4/5 PIES – “ANOTHER PIECE OF GREATNESS FROM FROST AND PEGG”


67. JOHNNY ENGLISH (2003)
2/5 PIES – “A CLASSIC, BUT YOU CAN ONLY ENJOY IT ONCE”


68. FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE (1963)
5/5 PIES – “THE BEST CONNERY-007 MOVIE EVER MADE”


69. ESCAPE TO VICTORY (1981)
4/5 PIES – “A FEEL-GOOD PRISONER OF WAR MOVIE”


70. 300 (2006)
3/5 PIES – “ACTION & GORE GALORE”


71. MEET THE SPARTANS (2008)
3/5 PIES – “LITERALLY THE WORST MOVIE EVER MADE…PURPOSEFULLY”


72. MEET THE PARENTS (2000)
3/5 PIES – “ONE OF STILLER’S BEST”


73. MEET THE FOCKERS (2004)
3/5 PIES – “A GOOD, FUNNY FOLLOW UP”


74. MEET THE PARENTS: LITTLE FOCKERS (2010)
3/5 PIES – “SURPRISINGLY GOOD”


75. DUDE, WHERE’S MY CAR?
1/5 PIES – “AWFUL”


76. CHEAPER BY THE DOZEN (2003)
2/5 PIES – “MADE STEVE MARTIN THE ANNOYING PERSON HE IS TODAY”


77. LARA CROFT: TOMB RAIDER (2001)
3/5 PIES – “EXCITING, IF FAR-FETCHED, ACTION MOVIE”


78. SAVING PRIVATE RYAN (1998)
5/5 PIES – “THE GREATEST, EMOTION-PROVOKING WAR MOVIE EVER”


79. LAW ABIDING CITIZEN (2009)
3/5 PIES – “CLEVER AND EXCITING THRILLER”


80. OUTLAW (2007)
2/5 PIES – “VIOLENT MOVIE WITH SOME FLAWS”


81. NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN (1983)
1/5 PIES – “NEVER GOOD, NEVER THE TRUE BOND”


82. KING ARTHUR (2004)
3/5 PIES – “EXCITING MOVIE, TOP NOTCH SOUNDTRACK”


83. THE INVENTION OF LYING (2009)
4/5 PIES – “ONE OF GERVAIS’ BEST WORKS”


84. THE SCHOOL OF ROCK (2003)
4/5 PIES – “THE RARE MOMENT WHERE JACK BLACK’S IN A GOOD MOVIE”


85. SHREK (2001)
3/5 PIES – “ORIGINAL, WELL ROUNDED ANIMATED ADVENTURE”


86. THE INCREDIBLES (2004)
2/5 PIES – “TAKES ITSELF TOO SERIOUSLY”


87. HANCOCK (2008)
2/5 PIES – “A COMEDY… WHERE?”


88. CRANK (2006)
2/5 PIES – “ADRENALINE JUNKIE FILM”


89. NATIONAL TREASURE (2004)
4/5 PIES – “SURPRISINGLY ENTERTAINING”


90. KEEPING MUM (2005)
4/5 PIES – “MAGGIE SMITH IS PURE PERFECTION”


91. THE MATRIX (1999)
5/5 PIES – “TRULY UNIQUE AND ENTERTAINING”


92. MATRIX RELOADED (2003)
4/5 PIES – “ACTION-PACKED SEQUEL”


93. THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING (2001)
5/5 PIES – “AN EPIC MADE EPICLY”


94. THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE TWO TOWERS (2002)
4/5 PIES – “A FANTASTIC FANTASY”


95. THE LORD OF THE RINGS: RETURN OF THE KING (2003)
5/5 PIES – “A BEAUTIFULLY MADE ENDING”


96. OCEAN’S ELEVEN (2001)
4/5 PIES – “CLASSY REMAKE TURNED OUT BRILLIANT”


97. OCEAN’S TWELVE (2004)
3/5 PIES – “EYES-GLUED, CLEVER CON-THRILLER”


98. OCEAN’S THIRTEEN (2007)
3/5 PIES – “A CONSISTENT, GOOD ROUNDED FILM”


99. SALT (2010)
3/5 PIES – “ACTION-PACKED, FAR-FETCHED TRILLER”


100. YES MAN! (2008)
4/5 PIES – “ZOOEY DESCHANEL’S BEST MOVIE – CARREY IS FANTASTIC”

127 Hours (2010)

by Jonas Jürgens (03/04/11, 19:38 GMT)

4/5 Pies - "Masterful"

Directed by Danny Boyle
Contains spoilers!


“An action movie with a guy who can’t move”.


This is how director, Danny Boyle, (Slumdog Millionaire, Sunshine and 28 Days Later) describes his latest work, 127 Hours - based on Aron Ralston’s autobiography: “Between a Rock and a Hard Place”.


Shooting such a film requires incredible directorial skill, but here Boyle masters his craft and has created one of 2010’s highlights.


Danny Boyle is without a doubt one of the most versatile contemporary directors. From his debut Shallow Grave, showing the dissolution of solid friendships by the allure of money, 28 Days Later, a solid vitamin injection to the zombie genre, Sunshine, a sci-fi philosophical pondering on why the Sun has been worshipped as a deity, to Slumdog Millionaire, the tale of a poor Indian boy on a quest for his love - which netted Boyle an Oscar. With all these films under his belt, Danny Boyle has shown himself to be a daring and innovative director. Alright, I’ll admit it. I am perhaps a bit of a Danny Boyle fanboy.


Now he has changed course again, setting his eyes on Aron Ralston’s tale. Aron Ralston is an American climber and daredevil, whose reckless adventures in the Blue John Canyon, Utah, got him into a precarious situation, to put it mildly.


While going through a crevice, a boulder dislodges and smashes onto his arm, causing him to get stuck in place, his arm utterly shattered. With limited food and water, he attempts various elaborate plans to get himself out of the mess, but is met with failure every time. Realizing that he has also neglected to tell anyone of where he was going, cementing that there is no chance for him to be discovered in time, he takes a drastic decision: to survive, he must amputate his own arm.


James Franco, who was honored with an Oscar nomination for his performance, does an absolutely phenomenal job playing Aron, as he grows increasingly delirious and experiences hallucinations due to lack of water and blood loss. The scene where he acts as if he is participating in a talk show is particularly strong, and shows just how desperate and rambling Aron has become. And of course I cannot avoid mentioning one of the last scenes, i.e. the one where he amputates his arm. Rarely have I experienced something that grueling and harrowing on screen. It is shown in almost macabre detail, and the camera shifts confusedly all around the place.


If there’s more appraisal I can give for Danny Boyle, it would be that his films generally blend visuals and music masterfully. This is no different. A. R. Rahman’s score is excellent, and of particular interest is “If I Rise”, which he made with help from Dido. It too was nominated for an Oscar this year, and I was particularly distraught over it not winning for Best Original Song.. Throughout the film, “If I Rise” is used in the background, and adds a wonderful ambiance to the scenes. Check it out at once!


As mentioned, a film taking place in just one tiny location is very hard, never mind turning it into a compelling 90+ minute feature. Yet Boyle makes this look easy by showing the viewer much of Aron’s past and drawing a picture of what type of person Aron is. it is here, I think, that the film’s theme is established.


Aron is continuously shown as being quite a narcissistic fellow, constantly taking pictures of himself on his adventures and not really caring about his worried mother and sister who call him. It is only when he gets stuck he realizes just how much they mean to him and this leads to a particularly memorable scene where he hallucinates that all his family and friends have gathered in the cave, watching him. Although not there physically, they are the ones who keep him going, keep him hoping.


Lastly, I think Aron can be compared with another daredevil who found comfort in solitude. Chris McCandless, depicted in Sean Penn’s “Into The Wild”, based on Jon Krakauer’s novel by the same name, who perished the Alaskan wilds. Both are only truly free when they are in the wild, away from the constraints of society. Who hasn’t experienced something similar? Like running over a field on a late summer night, just letting go of everything.


If there’s one lesson Boyle’s 127 Hours gives us, it’s to always leave a note saying where you’re going. Just in case.
 

Dr Metal Reviews... Battle: Los Angeles (2011)

by Yegor Gatselyuk

1/5 Pies - "Dreadfully Disappointing"
 

Here’s the long story short: generic army characters battle it out against alien forces in LA.


These generic military types would've made it good for a game but this story does not translate well into a film. The characters are so stereotypical that you have a young soldier about to get married, an older, battle scared Sarge who is days away from retirement and a young lieutenant, who has never seen a battle but thinks he is fit to be a general. One thing that surprises me about the characters is the sergeant not saying "And I was supposed to retire tomorrow", or something cliché like that.


Other than that, you can pretty much break this film up into several parts:


Part 1: Character introductions and some news reports about incoming meteors – Nothing special here then.


Part 2: Mass panic and evacuation as it becomes obvious that it’s something bad. In all that panic comes the dilemma that some civilians have hidden in police station and, as the whole area is about to be carpet bombed, need to be rescued. So the squad is sent to get them out. Some battles are going on and dotted around, a few are quickly injured during a first encounter with the aliens… that take up to about 3 magazines of full auto fire to kill.


Part 2.5: extraction chopper does not come, so they need to move out. Among this chaos, they grab an incapacitated alien and start cutting it up and stabbing its organs. Then they find an organ stab it and, naturally, the alien dies. After this aliens suddenly seem to die like flies to their fire – and that annoys me because the alien’s organs are relatively small and very well protected so the easiness of the squad to take down their weakness is surreal.


Part 3: race against time, more shooting, deaths, heroics and further disappointment.


Part 4: Suddenly a load of new found courage and a suicide mission that ends up being a success with barely any one being dead. Far fetched much? Alien forces have what looks like a bio-tech hybrid as a soldier, hundreds of drones controlled by a single server and the ability to adapt their tactics (such as seeking out radio chatter). Yet they seem to be ignorant of common sense in the war, such as they seem to have no reserves. When a station-controlled drone aircraft gets blown apart, one would expect a new one to be dragged out of the ocean soon or one to be dropped out of orbit. Considering drones are capable of vertical flight, one would also think that they would have the software protocol to land and go into standby mode if they lost signal to the station.


That being said, I do feel that the happy ending is very inappropriate. It seems that the first part of film does paint a good picture of how insignificant man can be and then it ends with themes of courage and heroism… and proud waving of the American flag.


The best part of this film is the combat with the aliens. Although most of the time it is confusing and unclear. The camera work during combat is shaky; a lot of it is obscured by fog/smoke, so the actual combat is left to feel... Well, it feels like it could’ve been done better.


In conclusion: A generic war film, which could work better if combat was shown more clearly and if the ending had some weight behind it. Go and see this film if you like a generic, unimaginative shooter, which the gaming industry pushes out every single day. If you like good movies go to a video shop and rent something good instead. This is a disappointment.

The Social Network (2010)

Review by Ben Franks (16/3/11, 17:48 GMT)

3/5 Pies – “Worth a Watch”
 

Directed by David Fincher

Screenplay by Aaron Sorkin based on the book by Ben Mezrich

 

Interestingly enough for a film that has the tagline “You don’t get to 500 million friends without making a few enemies”, Jesse Eisenburg’s character – the world’s youngest billionaire and creator of social network phenomenon facebook, Mark Zuckerburg – literally has very few friends beyond his computer-programming duo of roommates, his best friend Eduardo Saverin who is played by supporting actor Andrew Garfield and business-failure but contact-saturated Napster founder Sean Parker, portrayed by Justin Timberlake.
 

The movie follows how Zuckerburg becomes a notorious face in Harvard after setting up a site called FaceMash that compares the hotness of female undergrads and crashes the Harvard server at four in the morning due to the huge amount of traffic it ends up getting all the way to a million-member, multi-continent social network named facebook. Zuckerburg’s first impressions to the audience are derived from the breaking up with his girlfriend at the very start of the movie and most audiences would see him as a bit of a nasty guy with a snobby attitude. These character themes stay constant throughout most of the film and in terms of any real character development there is little – besides Eduardo Saverin getting worked up about the social network as a business and his jealousy-fuelled rivalry with Sean Parker.


The movie has some particularly funny moments and really starts to get rolling with the drama after Zuckerburg embarks on the building of facebook and sometimes, with a stretch, breaches on being quite insightful into relationships and inventing business. However the movie lacks any true hook and for most of the movie you’re only watching it because it keeps flashing forward to the parallel lawsuits Zuckerburg is facing: one for screwing over his best friend Eduardo and one for three Harvard lads who supposedly spawned the original ideas for the social network – and the only reason we stay watching is because the movie positions you in one of two places: you either really want Zuckerburg to get sued for screwing everyone over to pursue his website hits or you want him to not get sued because you’re sympathetic towards him, something that’s a little hard to evoke in this film.


In terms of love interest, most of this is ditched at the start of the film but brings up the odd bloke-needs-girl college themed scenes to create that extra nail of realism. At the end of the feature there is a mild desperation of repetitively refreshing a page because Zuckerburg has a crush but all that really comes together as is some “he got what was coming to him” empathy and, again, it is clear that realism or morals has been hailed as the main aim here.

 

The Social Network then is one of those movies that have been white-washed with astonishing film criticisms because of its timing of release and relevance in the modern day. It gained its accolades for being down-to-earth and perhaps for a favour in pro-realistic character portrayal as opposed to interesting character portrayal. Yet the film lands itself in terms of entertainment in the same disappointment that the multi-award winning Hurt Locker did. It just lacks anything special. If you’re looking for something that tries hard to be insightful and offers a realism to your feature films then by all means you’ll probably disagree with my cynical views of this movie, but either way it is definitely worth watching.
 

Casino Royale (2006)

Review by Joe Harker (8/3/11, 22:09 GMT)

Rating: 5/5 Pies, "Magnificent"

With rumours that a new James Bond film is in the making I had the urge to watch Daniel Craig’s first two outings as the world’s most famous spy. After ‘Die Another Day’ the producers felt that the Bond franchise needed a reboot. Because Pierce Brosnan had portrayed an older Bond, the decision was made to cast somebody new: Daniel Craig.


The story Craig would have for his first outing as Bond was Casino Royale, never done by MGM because of the 1967 satirical take on the book, starring David Niven and Peter Sellers. This is the first James Bond story and is executed incredibly well. The first scene is a fantastic way of demonstrating Bond’s killer instinct and his exploits that lead to his ‘Double-0’ status.


Daniel Craig is a much more physical Bond than Brosnan and it is apparent. This is demonstrated in a thrilling chase through a construction site with brutal fighting and a truly hilarious moment where Bond charges straight through a weak wall. In fact in the first half of the film Craig looks very beaten and battered in a way Brosnan could not have achieved. However, it is the second half of the film where the best moments lie with the suspenseful poker scenes providing as much drama as any fight in the film.


Although Craig was criticised before the film, there is no doubt that when he is first seen in his signature Bow tie and Dinner Jacket that he is James Bond. His opposite number, Mads Mikkelsen in the villain’s role of banker Le Chiffre, is suitably sinister. The rest of the cast are well suited to their roles with Judi Dench on fine form as M, there are some excellent exchanges between her and Craig. This is the start of their working relationship and they certainly don’t get on. M is constantly frustrated at Bond knowing too many things about her and their verbal jousting when he breaks into her flat is a joy to watch unfolding. The beautiful Eva Green portraying cold hearted Bond Girl Vesper Lynd is spirited and mysterious.

Casino Royale is a brilliant restart for the franchise, showing a more vulnerable Bond being thrown into the world of international espionage. Everything comes together well and combines thrills, suspense and tragedy. If you’re a fan of Bond this is a must see. If you’re not sold on the films, watch Casino Royale because it’s great fun anyway. It grabs you from the first minute and never lets go.

 

The King's Speech (2010)

Review by Anonymous (21/2/11, 15:32 GMT Time)

Director: Tom Hooper

Starring: Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush, Helena Bonham Carter, Michael Gambon

Screenplay: David Seidler

 

The somewhat unorthodox story of King George VI’s stammer and the endeavour that followed is brilliantly recounted in The King’s Speech, a film that highlights the magnificent acting versatility of Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush.


British films about royalty can often be bland, dull and one dimensional, with the plot repeatedly revolving around betrayal, ancestry or death. The King’s Speech is a different case. A majestic cast, immaculate acting and impeccable dialogue make this film close to perfection. Colin Firth’s display as King George VI gives British actors a good name with a truly inspiring performance while Tom Hooper (Director ‘The Damned United’) captures the frustration of a man’s struggle to overcome an infuriating obstacle, and expertly moulds an unconventional story into a milestone in British Cinema.

A story filled with admiration begins with a scene that’s sheer awkwardness sets the tone for what’s to come. We see Prince Albert (later King George) preparing to give a speech at Wembley Stadium in 1925, and his horrific stammer becomes immediately apparent to the audience. The opening shot of the prince walking out to face the gaping capacity crowd is so realistic that it makes us feel nothing but sympathy for him. As the camera follows from behind Firth, it suddenly pans upwards to show thousands of people turn to face a nervous wreck from his point of view, which his throws us right into the deep end of the story’s core, as we become aware of his problem and what lies ahead for him.


Albert later seeks advice from, what we are told, is yet another speech therapist. The annoyance of the doctor is blatant and the impatience of Albert is desperate, culminating with him storming out. He gives up hope of overcoming his stammer, even though he is duly required to speak publicly on a regular basis, until his wife (Helena Bonham Carter) seeks advice from Lionel Logue (Rush). Albert reluctantly agrees to attend sessions with Logue, even though he insists in calling Prince Albert ‘Bertie’. Before long the hard core speech therapy begins and steadily, gradually, slowly, leisurely (you get the idea…) Albert’s stammer somewhat deteriorates and the film builds up to the climax leading up to the Second World War when along the way Prince Albert Frederick Arthur George becomes King George VI and gives the famous ‘King’s Speech’. How did he get on? You’ll have to watch the film…

It makes a lot more sense to acknowledge the positives without mentioning awards and accolades because they hardly ever provide a fair reflection of a film and don’t necessarily mean anything (Remember when Avatar was nominated for nine Oscars…). Firstly, the story is so simple that it becomes easy to understand while remaining pivotally in depth and undeniably interesting. Whether you’re a retiring historian with a whole library dedicated to books about the thrown or you’re just someone who enjoys watching the occasional film, this will cater to your needs.
 

What forces all audiences to enjoy this experience is the ironic humor. The gleefully sarcastic wit of just about all the characters is gloriously side splitting, particularly Rush as Lionel Logue, who’s one liners are so hilarious they put shame on Lee Evans. Hardly five minutes pass without some kind of fanciful remark or jocular banter. And not just the humour, but the whole script is masterful. It adapts to each character’s persona without being ‘all over the place’ as it were, which really does give this irrelevant story the twist it needs to cross the line between average and intriguing.


Now, it’s hard to get through The King’s Speech without noticing the direction of Tom Hooper, without his down to earth style of character portrayal the story would be so much harder to comprehend. He brings the atmospheric feeling of confoundment to the table, along with straight up realism and no-nonsense bemusement while providing authenticity to a wonderful cast, taking the characters to a whole new level of righteousness.


From Bertie all the way down to Winston Churchill (Timothy Small) the characters are brilliant. Dramatic, comical and three dimensional in abundance the attention to character detail gives the plot an interesting push in the right direction. Colin Firth alongside Geoffrey Rush is one of most dazzling on screen partnerships in a British film for quite some time, the way in which the two work off each other shows just how capable they are. A supporting cast including the likes of Helena Bonham Carter and the legendary Michael Gambon as King George V are due credit for their flawless performances.


Last but not the least, the musical score (Alexandre Desplant) is quiet something to behold, contributing to the tempo of the story as well as anything in the production and to ignore its brilliance and avoid appreciation would be mental. Steady during one scene, fast tempo in the next, the score produces another side to the narrative.


If you were to put a label on anything that disappoints it would have to be the core story. This is only down to the odd and presumptuous back story of a man’s stammer. When you hear that the whole film is based on someone’s speech impediment you can be forgiven for thinking it might be bland to a certain extent. Not in this case. For a film about a King’s stammer this is a masterpiece and it goes to show that a movie can be made from any story when given the right cast, dialogue and direction.

 

The Godfather II (1974)

Review by Ben Shipway

RATING: FIVE PIES (MAGNIFICENT)

As you start to read this review you may be asking yourself why am I reading a review about a film made over 30 years ago? I will tell you now that if the film had been made 100 years ago I would still review it, simply because it is an excellent film.

I chose not to review the first Godfather film for two reasons: firstly because I watched the second one more recently, secondly because the Godfather II is just better than its predecessor. The story is excellent with all actors involved performing their parts to such a degree that I had trouble remembering it was a film! Not only is the acting excellent, but we’re given two stories for the price of one. We have the continuation of Michael Corleone’s story as well as being sent back in time and see how his father (the original Godfather) rose to power.

My only criticism of the film is that I found Vito Corleone’s (the Godfather’s) rise to power more interesting and more enjoyable than Michael’s, and the fact that they seemed to focus on the continuation of the main story was a plus point. But really that’s fine because both are utterly enjoyable and, if this film had been a prequel to the original, it would’ve been half the length and half the quality. Personally I would like to watch as much Godfather as possible.

For this film I would give five hundred pies, but the maximum is five, so that’s what I’ll give it. This near perfect film deserves to be watched over and over by everyone; no matter what type of film you’re into. It will not be taken over by films that are there to look good rather than provide a top notch story with a brilliant cast and the best settings I’ve seen in a long time. If you have some money, buy this film. The Godfather II will blow you’re mind and, just when you think you’ve gotten out, it’ll just keep pulling you back in.