- By Anthony Sherratt
- 14 years ago
What’s it about?
It has been five years since the disappearance of Katie and Hunter, and a suburban family witness strange events in their neighborhood when a woman and a mysterious child move in.
What did we think?
Having played every one of their suspense tricks in the first three instalments, the Paranormal Activity franchise takes a different tack in the fourth by turning it into a game. With viewers now expecting subtle movement in the peripheries, the makers taunt us with long shots to get the audience guessing what (if anything) will happen. Surprisingly it works well especially with a few added laughs.
Nowhere near as scary as any of the first three, it’s an okay addition but doesn’t auger well for a fifth.
Killing them softly
- By Anthony Sherratt
- 14 years ago
What’s it about?
A professional enforcer reacts to a heist that went down during a mob-protected poker game.
What did Anthony think?
An anti-American film masquerading as pseudo-intellectual bullsh**. Painfully slow and mostly pointless, this arthouse-wannabe all seems to be one drawn-out set-up for the last few lines of the movie. Five-star cast, one-star movie.
Lawless
- By Stephen Scott
- 14 years ago
What’s it about?
Based on the true story of three “indestructible” brothers beating the depression by brewing the best moonshine in Virginia … and waging a war with a hypocritical corrupt cop.
What did we think?
Stephen says: There’s a lot to like about Lawless. But there’d be a lot more to like with some better editing in the first half – it drags like a tarred and feathered redneck being pulled behind a pick-up truck. Once it picks up, you’re in for an engaging tale of a boy becoming a man in a brutal world.
Shia LaBeouf and Guy Pearce must have wet their pants when they read Nick Cave’s script – their roles are actors’ dreams come true. There’s cussin’ and graphic violence and smokin’ and gun-totin’ gangsters and graphic violence and creepy corrupt cops and friendships broken and love found and graphic violence and graphic violence. Exactly what you want from underdog heroes battling the seedy underbelly of corruption.
Looper
- By Elizabeth Best
- 14 years ago
What’s it about?
In a future where time travel has been invented, mob bosses send their enemies back to the past to be killed by “loopers”. Joe lives the high life eliminating whomever the mob bosses send back, no questions asked. Which works fine, until they send future-Joe back to be disposed of… and he escapes.
What did we think?
Elizabeth says: A taut, well-paced thrill ride, this feels like one of the freshest takes on the whole time travel schtick in a long time. The script sets up the sci-fi premise of the tale, before cleverly a shifting the focus onto the characters, giving Looper an emotional weight I wasn’t expecting. Joseph Gordon-Levitt does a great young Bruce Willis, and Bruce Willis plays a great old Bruce Willis. And who doesn’t love Bruce Willis? Serious acting props also have to go to the creepy kid (Pierce Gagnon).
It doesn’t pay to look too closely at the logic behind this flick; there are holes in the time travel theory and thinking about them may make your brain explode. But really, when a movie is this entertaining, who gives a damn about logic?
Wuthering Heights
- By Anthony Sherratt
- 14 years ago
What’s it about?
A Yorkshire hill farmer “does the Christian thing” and takes in a homeless boy. The boy falls in love with the daughter and becomes obsessed with her.
What Angela Bowen thought:
This adaptation of Wuthering Heights is dark and disturbing. There are moments that are beautiful, ominous and some that are just weird and uncomfortable. I’d pop a few no-doz before this one and prepare to feel depressed for exactly 129 minutes.
The scenery shots are so plentiful it starts to feel like David Attenborough should be commentating but the real problem is that the relationship between Cathy and Heathcliff misses the mark. Stitched together by a lot of flashbacks that aren’t particularly moving to start with, the film features limited dialogue and is certainly not for animal lovers.
The redeeming feature is Solomon Glave’s performance of a young Heathcliff. His violent and animalistic up-bringing is heart- wrenching and you just want to reach out and give him a big hug. This movie is one that can be appreciated after it’s over. If you stay awake.
Taken 2
- By Anthony Sherratt
- 14 years ago
What’s it about?
Former CIA operative Bryan Mills returns to our screens with the father (and crime boss) of those he killed in the first movie, seeking revenge and targeting both Mills and his family.
What did Anthony Sherratt think?
Quite simply this should haven been called Taken Lite. A suprisingly logical premise justified the sequel but the general action from then on mirrors the original to a point where you’re left wondering where the ‘meat’ was.
It’s not bad – in fact it’s quite fun and worth seeing – but there’s a lack of originality that leaves it feeling like quite a short romp that really had little point to it other cashing in on the popularity of the awesome first flick.
Quote simply it’s the Diet Coke version of Taken. Less calories, less filling.
What’s Popular
Seventh Son
What’s it about?
An evil witch (Julianne Moore) seeks revenge in a war between supernatural and humankind. The only hope of her demise lies with the Seventh Son – an inexperienced boy who soon becomes a chosen apprentice.
What did we think?
Elodie says: Good, not great. There’s a decent storyline and convincing CGI dragons help with special effects. However, all this only hits the mark if you can understand the mumbling of drunkard “Spook” and trainer of the apprentice, Master Gregory (Jeff Bridges). If you can’t, you’ll scratch your head wondering what on Earth is happening. I left wishing I’d read the book instead.
50 Shades Of Grey
What’s it about?
A creepy sociopath manipulates a stupidly innocent girl into becoming his sex toy. But it’s OK because he’s very good looking. And because housewives everywhere say so.
What did I think?
Anthony Sherratt says: Not even flashes of nudity and titillation can disguise a hodgepodge of two-dimensional characterisation and cliche. The lead male lacks any real presence and his youth only adds to the unbelievable nature of the plot. The dialogue is poor (but to be fair it was in the book as well and a lot of people didn’t mind) and the overall themes are irritating. Even the sex scenes have been toned down, robbing the movie of any real appeal. A poor man’s Pretty Woman but without the charisma or charm. To be honest it’s not quite bad but it’s certainly not good. It’s actually 50 shades of beige.
The Gambler
What’s it about?
A literature professor (Mark Wahlberg) owes a lot of money to some dangerous people after his gambling problem spirals out of control.
What did we think?
Amy Currie says: This approximate remake of the 1974 film of the same name is full of gangs and high stakes, but isn’t the heisty caper you might expect. Wahlberg’s character has everything going for him, but repeatedly throws himself into harm’s way in fits of depressive whimsy. He’s frustrating and unlikeable, and yet eventually you can’t help but care for him (even as you want to slap him). The get-the-money-in-a-week plot suffers from a few loose threads that seem to be leftovers from the original, but the strong supporting cast is a definite plus, and John Goodman is particularly excellent as an underworld creditor. Definitely worth a look, but be warned – you’ll spend a few hours after you see it trying to decide whether you liked it or not.
The Theory of Everything
What’s it about?
The life and times of renowned theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking (Eddie Redmayne) and long-time wife Jane Wilde (Felicity Jones), including his scientific breakthroughs and their struggles with his motor-neurone disease.
What did we think?
Dominic Barlow says: Redmayne’s lead performance is far and away the highlight, not only for being so transformative but also for finding deep warmth and humour beneath the mask. Jones is lovely as his faithful wife, and the film uses some nice visual touches to bring certain moments to life, like Super-8 footage and images of deep space. For the most part, though, it’s a bog-standard biopic that taps off the milestones of Hawking’s life without having a distinctive view of its own.
Editor's Choice
Seventh Son
What’s it about?
An evil witch (Julianne Moore) seeks revenge in a war between supernatural and humankind. The only hope of her demise lies with the Seventh Son – an inexperienced boy who soon becomes a chosen apprentice.
What did we think?
Elodie says: Good, not great. There’s a decent storyline and convincing CGI dragons help with special effects. However, all this only hits the mark if you can understand the mumbling of drunkard “Spook” and trainer of the apprentice, Master Gregory (Jeff Bridges). If you can’t, you’ll scratch your head wondering what on Earth is happening. I left wishing I’d read the book instead.
50 Shades Of Grey
What’s it about?
A creepy sociopath manipulates a stupidly innocent girl into becoming his sex toy. But it’s OK because he’s very good looking. And because housewives everywhere say so.
What did I think?
Anthony Sherratt says: Not even flashes of nudity and titillation can disguise a hodgepodge of two-dimensional characterisation and cliche. The lead male lacks any real presence and his youth only adds to the unbelievable nature of the plot. The dialogue is poor (but to be fair it was in the book as well and a lot of people didn’t mind) and the overall themes are irritating. Even the sex scenes have been toned down, robbing the movie of any real appeal. A poor man’s Pretty Woman but without the charisma or charm. To be honest it’s not quite bad but it’s certainly not good. It’s actually 50 shades of beige.
The Gambler
What’s it about?
A literature professor (Mark Wahlberg) owes a lot of money to some dangerous people after his gambling problem spirals out of control.
What did we think?
Amy Currie says: This approximate remake of the 1974 film of the same name is full of gangs and high stakes, but isn’t the heisty caper you might expect. Wahlberg’s character has everything going for him, but repeatedly throws himself into harm’s way in fits of depressive whimsy. He’s frustrating and unlikeable, and yet eventually you can’t help but care for him (even as you want to slap him). The get-the-money-in-a-week plot suffers from a few loose threads that seem to be leftovers from the original, but the strong supporting cast is a definite plus, and John Goodman is particularly excellent as an underworld creditor. Definitely worth a look, but be warned – you’ll spend a few hours after you see it trying to decide whether you liked it or not.
The Theory of Everything
What’s it about?
The life and times of renowned theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking (Eddie Redmayne) and long-time wife Jane Wilde (Felicity Jones), including his scientific breakthroughs and their struggles with his motor-neurone disease.
What did we think?
Dominic Barlow says: Redmayne’s lead performance is far and away the highlight, not only for being so transformative but also for finding deep warmth and humour beneath the mask. Jones is lovely as his faithful wife, and the film uses some nice visual touches to bring certain moments to life, like Super-8 footage and images of deep space. For the most part, though, it’s a bog-standard biopic that taps off the milestones of Hawking’s life without having a distinctive view of its own.