Hoodwinked

I went to see Hoodwinked without any expectation. My logic in choosing it was that it takes ages to make an animated film, so they tend to be well scripted and far too funny for kids. I was right about this one. This sophisticated reworking of Little Red Riding Hood is perhaps the finest example of an animated film aimed at adults I've encountered.

When I say "aimed at adults", I should explain myself. There was no rampant sex, coarse language, drugs or anything that you get the joy of watching when you're an adult. Instead, we had a mystery on our hands. There's a crime scene (Little Red Riding Hood, a Wolf dressed up as Grandma, Grandma herself tied up as hostage and a crazy Woodsman weilding an axe). Within minutes, the police arrive. But before they send everyone 'downtown', a frog bearing resemblance to Hercule Poirot (but with an English accent) arrives to get to the bottom of things. We hear the stories of all four characters, each shedding light on another story until the kindhearted detective solves the crime.

So, it's an excellent script, and this was proved by the silence from the kids in the cinema and the laughing from their parents. Good characters, amusing story, far-fetched scenarios (but somehow you're prepared to go along with it all...just...) and you have a cracking film. Like I said, it is quite far-fetched, and you'll either love or hate that aspect of it. I liked it. The biggest downside to the film was the soundtrack. Awful pop songs that obey all the rules in the book (piano chords, well-meaning lyrics, mushy strings that lift the soul...etc etc blah blah blah). I recommend this film. It was lots of fun, and I'd enjoy watching it again. Pay attention to it, because when it slows down, a great one-liner is about to appear, or some clever screen gag.

7 out of ten.

[Guest reviewer Daniel Johnson]

The Da Vinci Code

Possibly the most anticipated film of the year, based on the multi-million copy selling book by Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code looked poised for as much success in the box office as it had enjoyed in the bookstore. Amazing actors + gripping story = big seller. Unfortunately, hopes were dashed in the theatrical adaptation of this hybrid of thriller and mystery.

Acting: The line up of actors for this film in itself would have made me go to see it. Tom Hanks is one of my favourite actors, Ian McKellen is amazing in Lord of the Rings and X-Men, not to mention a personal favourite of mine Jean Reno added in, it would seem, purely for my personal enjoyment. Sadly, these great icons of the silver screen did not live up to their reputations and past performances.

Tom Hanks as an actor is second to perhaps a handful of people. One quality I love about him is that he doesn't trade in on any supermodel-like good looks for his fame, as many other actors do. Rather, he is a genuinely good actor. However, his portrayal of Robert Langdon was very wooden and he did not engage with the role, nor the audience. His monotone portrayal of a quite charismatic character took much away from what could have been the jewel of his career. Only on a handful of occasions does his voice or face change to express any emotion, which sadly wasn't enough.

Acting opposite Tom Hanks was Audrey Tautou, probably best known in this country for her starring role in 'Amelie'. Tautou's character is the one who doesn't know anything about what they're discovering, and therefore is the one who asks the questions the audience want to know answers to. But she wasn't real enough. Her reactions to something that could "change the course of mankind forever" were, just like Hanks, too wooden and not at all convincing. It would seem that her best quality is her smile, which seems to get bandied about everywhere.

And next we come to Jean Renu, a personal favourite of mine who makes you want to join the French secret service when you watch Godzilla. Playing a French detective, Captain Fache, Renu come across too strongly to be a genuine detective. His performance is just believable, if you take the understanding that he is hell-bent on doing his job. If you don't get that (which isn't made very clear in the film) then he'll be lost on you.

Sir Ian McKellen who dazzled us as Gandalf portrays a Grail expert who is sought out to fill in the blanks as it were. What seems strange is that at first I was as disenchanted by McKellen's performance as I was with Hanks and Tautou's, but unlike them, his performance got better as the film progressed and we saw him do different things. Not terribly consistent, but ended on a good note.

It has to be said that the star of the show was actually English-born Paul Bettany. Known from his roles in 'A Beautiful Mind' and 'Master and Commander: The far side of the world', Bettany plays Silas, a monk of the Roman Catholic tradition, 'Opus Dei'. Outstanding performance all round, both convincing as a bad guy and believable as a committed follower of a fundamentalist sect. His recital of Latin phrases added so much to the background of what was going on with him and why he was doing certain things. In a word, brilliant.

Direction: Interesting, to say the least. No moulds were broken, but some moulds were bent and twisted to the director's whim. Ron Howard, director of 'Apollo 13' (also starring Hanks) and 'A Beautiful Mind' (also starring Bettany) did not fall into the modern trap of using special effects to tell every part of the story. In fact, they were used very little and very tastefully so when they were. However, the film did fall into the trap that all action/thriller films can fall into, whereby the story is told in between action sequences, creating a sandwich of action-plot-action etc. The Da Vinci code fell hook-line and sinker into this one.

Plot: A curator of art in the Louvre gallery in Paris is murdered, and with his dying seconds he creates a treasure-hunt using codes and riddles and paintings by Leonardo Da Vinci for his estranged granddaughter to follow in order to discover a secret that will die with him if she does not. A Harvard professor of symbology is conveniently in town, and together they must discover the secret the old man left hidden for them before the police catch up with them for his murder. Along the way, they will discover a secret that has misled the world for centuries...

Basically, the film is based on the book, but with parts missing and changed and added for cinematic purposes. To be honest, the film is a poor adaptation of a great piece of literary fiction. rated 14th on yahoo.com's top current film list after less than a week of showing, it looks like the film has fallen far short of the novel's benchmark.

I won't go into the historical inaccuracies that occur in this film, because they are the same as are in the book, but if it is meant to be seen as discussing factual history, it missed that mark too.

Overall: I am glad I went to see it, and I would even go to see it again, just to gather information to see how it compares to the book, or if a friend wanted someone to see it with. Sadly though, The Da Vinci Code is a let down. For putting itself in the 'thriller' genre, it lacked pace, which ultimately lead to my having to really focus on what was going on, rather than the film drawing me in and compelling me to know what would happen next. I think if The Da Vinci code succeeds in theatres, then it will be riding on the back of the book. I must confess I doubt whether this would have been my film of the week if it wasn't an adaptation of a great novel.

Rating: 6 out of 10

16 Blocks

Your typical cop-film, featuring Bruce Willis with a tash, which in itself was reason enough to see it! Good cop/bad cop shooter lad flick.

Acting: Quite impressive really. Bruce Willis normally has an air of masculine pride about him, in that he will not stop running about or getting shot. In 16 blocks, however, he plays a depressed cop who really doesn't care anymore. And he pulls it off well! You get the impression that he's actually really good at his job, but doesn't want to do it, rather than some films where you'll find people playing rubbish cops who find their zest for the job mid-film. Nice job from Bruce!

The character of Eddie Bunker, played by Mos Def, was both annoying and believable; annoying because he never stopped talking (which was meant to happen), and believable because as the film progressed, you actually did believe that he was just a kid who was caught up in the wrong crowd and had made some mistakes. Honestly done.

And it was great to see David Morse again, probably known best for his part in The Green Mile. His role as Frank Nugent was a guy who wanted to do the 'right thing', regardless of the cost. I do wonder if he hasn't been a bit typecast into law enforcement roles. I guess time will tell.

Plot: Bruce Willis' character is having a bad day, and has been asked to take a prisoner 16 blocks to a courthouse to testify. When he leaves the car to buy some booze and the prisoner is shot at, he is suddenly on the run ... from several people.

I won't say anymore than that, as I'll give the game away. The basic plot is about morality, what is the right thing to do, and choosing to do that. This was a really warming aspect to this kind of film, because in many cop-shooters its all about the hero committing many crimes to prevent a crime or because a crime has wronged him in some way. In 16 Blocks we see the consequences of wrong and what it does to you if you keep it bottled up.

Though the plot was good, after the first 15 minutes, only one more crucial detail was revealed before the end of the film, so after that point the film was based on action, rather than story.

Direction: 'Speed' rings in your ears in some parts, but other than that it follows the basic "down the barrel of the gun" direction and camera use that is customary to these films. It takes the audience with the action, rather than letting them watch it in the third person. Nicely done.

Overall: 16 Blocks was very entertaining, and I would even possibly see it a second time. It does push the boundaries of its genre, allowing itself to be enjoyed by people other than die hard 'Die Hard' fans. Its main weakness is the way the film relies so heavily on the action after the initial plot is revealed.

Rating: 7+ out of 10

Mission Impossible 3

Yet another sequel hits the cinemas and once again its pegged as something new and refreshing and completely detached from its predecessors, right...? WRONG! Though I went into the showing sceptical yet hopeful, I emerged blown away by it! Marvellous!

Acting: Outstanding all across the board, cannot be faulted by one actor or extra. Tom Cruise gave a performance that I'll be surprised if he doesn't win an Oscar for. Not only a brilliant action actor, but when we see an action actor expressing emotion other than mindless rage against anything with a pulse (for example, remorse, fear) in conjunction with saving the day, it is very much noteworthy. Very impressed with Mr. Cruise.

Michelle Monaghan likewise plays Julie in an incredibly believable way. Never once did I doubt her character not her affection for Ethan Hunt. Her emotions were honest and well done, so well done Michelle!

Every action film needs a baddie, and this villain is particularly sinister. Its actually not too difficult to be a really mean baddie, but the difficulty comes when you try to be a really evil person while making them realistic. Real people who have an evil agenda are rarely all about evil for the sake of it - they have another motive. Philip Seymour Hoffman's portrayal of Davian was unshakably evil while equally realistic. His final scene in the film was very original too!

Direction: J.J. Abrams is one of the producers of Lost and Alias, both of which are very popular TV shows. As far as films go, MI3 is the first one he's done, and kudos to him! Very interesting use of camera work, where the camera would be still for one character but shaking violently for another character, presumably to reflect their mood. The scene that starts the film which leaves you hanging on for more than an hour before you find out what happened was inspired, and echoed very much of Lost, which isn't a bad thing as it works really well in Lost!

The film never lets you get chance to catch your breath, and while some action films seem to be a sandwich of action-information-action etc, MI3 whipped it all together and provided the plot by way of the action - something difficult to do with any sense of continuity. Beautiful job by J.J.!

Plot: Something refreshing about this film was that you didn't need a good knowledge of the first two films to be able to enjoy it. I had seen MI and MI2, but not for a long time, and I didn't find myself at a loose end because of it. Aside from Ethan Hunt's character & occupation and Luther Strickell (Ving Rhames) as his colleague, nothing is continued from the first two, which worked to its advantage. Too many sequels rely heavily on the film they follow, and so you can't enjoy the film you're watching unless you've seen, and know, the ones that came before.

MI3's plot has many twists and turns, and it keeps you guessing all the way until the end, which is a plus. However, the plot did follow a set pattern for this kind of film, and this pattern was its one weakness. It was obvious what was going on, and though the exact details of which were unclear, from very early on in the film you could pan out what was going to happen in a basic sense.

Overall: A very enjoyable film and a triumph for sequelville. If you see no other action film this summer, see this film!

Rating: 8+ out of 10

Tristan + Isolde

"Before Romeo and Juliet there was..." declares the slogan. Tristan and Isolde was one of those films which one could predict the plot of just from the advertising poster. A Classic story of young love gone wrong because of unfortunate circumstances and deceptive misunderstandings. Would I have gone to see this film had I not received the ticket for free...? I still don't know the answer to that one.

Acting: James Franco seemed like an interesting choice to play Tristan, given that his most famous work is as Harry Osborn in the Spider-Man films, and while he does have some love scenes with Kirsten Dunst in those films, Harry Osborn really isn't a romantic role. His portrayal of Tristan seemed quite odd. Not so much that he did anything wrong, per-say, but either he was trying to show Tristan to be quite spaced out from the real world and what was going on around him, or Franco wasn't committed to the role of a young love-struck war hero who's just found/lost/found/lost (etc.) the woman of his dreams. Tristan seemed, at times, to be not terribly interested in Isolde, which undermined a lot of their relationship for me.

Sophia Myles portrayal of Isolde was admirable. She seemed committed to the part and though her Irish accent seemed to come and go throughout the film, Isolde came across as genuine and believable.

Again, Rufus Sewell's interpretation of Lord Marke was brilliant. Believable and likable both when Marke was content and when he was enraged.

Some of the acting that really annoyed me was the child versions of Tristan and Isolde. Although apparently Thomas Sangster (the kid from 'Love Actually') was born in England, in this film he seemed to have an American accent, which I couldn't understand. Also, the blatantly English accent given by Isobel Scott Moynihan to Irish Isolde seemed unforgivable for a film of this fortitude.

The acting in this film seemed, in general, a little top heavy. By this I mean that a lot of the supplementary actors gave better performances than those with main parts, which is sad really.

Plot: 'Tristan and Isolde' is told over a period of two hours, but it could very comfortably have fitted into 90 minutes without missing out anything and to avoid drawing scenes out so they became tedious.

Having said this, Tristan and Isolde's relationship wasn't given enough time to develop into something real. It seemed that their entire relationship was about them trying to get each other into bed, or rather, Isolde trying to get Tristan into bed. He really didn't seem to be bothered either way...

Their love was simply a physical thing and they were given three scenes together, only one alone, before they were having sex. Isolde's remorse for their not being together midway through the film is expressed in "...but you have touched me, and I you." The majority of their conversation is about how they, usually Isolde, cannot wait another minute longer to be with each other, or examples such as this,

"Isolde: How many did you love before me?
Tristan: None.
Isolde: And after me?
Tristan: None."

With very little said about how they actually feel for each other. Enough said on that point. The basic outline of the plot is that they want to be together, but cannot for political reasons. Tristan is a valiant warrior and enjoys a good fight. Basically, if you put 'Braveheart' and 'Romeo and Juliet' in a blender and hit the puree button, what would drip out would be Tristan and Isolde.

Direction: Kevin Reynolds has done nine films before Tristan and Isolde, but only two in the last ten years. Probably best known for "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves" or "Waterworld", I felt the techniques used in Tristan and Isolde were standard yet consistent. Nothing was ventured and nothing was gained, but what was used was alright. Nothing special, nothing awful.

Overall: 'Tristan and Isolde' was certainly entertaining, but it was hardly 'edge of your seat' action or 'don't see with your Gran' romance. It didn't really know what it was and I felt it stretched itself too thin, while somehow being tedious in places. If you're a fan of myth and legend, certainly go and see it. If you're a couple looking for a bit of a chick flick crossbred with some mindless violence, go see it. However, if you fall into neither of these genres and have the option to see something else, do so.

Rating: 5 out of 10

Ice Age: The Meltdown

As far as sequels go, its usually in the film franchise's best interest to keep them to a minimum lest the respect of the original film be tarnished irreparably (the 'Jaws' franchise springs to mind... I like to pretend that those sequels don't exist). This is what I feared when I heard that Ice Age was to have a sequel.

Animation: Ice Age had a very unique style of animation which encompasses an almost caricature-like way of portraying its characters, which in the first one this also included humans. This caricature method of animation is also present in the second film, which is good to see continuity of style. The animation of the main characters is consistent and brilliant, but it has to be Scrat, the little acorn-loving critter who takes the prize for animation. Though no 'acting' happens as such, animation happens in place of this, and so is worthy of praise when done well, and worthy of criticism when done badly. Scrat's character isn't in anyway realistic, but that isn't what’s being attempted with him; he is expressive and entertaining.

Plot: In the first Ice Age the plot was basically a lost-and-found film, with a baby human getting separated from his parents and a 'herd' of random animals trying to return him. It also has a large emphasis on loyalty; "that’s what you do in a herd, you look out for each other". In Ice Age The Meltdown, the ice is melting fast and so all the animals must flee from the pending flood. Along the way, different realisations come upon Manny, Sid and Diego as they travel, and various side stories circle around these different realisations.

One thing I was curious to see was how the film would work with the loss of a main character, 'Pinky' the human baby. It seems to cope well, but having introduced three new main characters in the place of one missing one this is inevitable. To be honest, a lot of time is taken explaining the background to these new characters, which detracts from the other ones. As with any follow-on story, the more characters, the less depth we get with each one. However, in a sequel to a film which already had a strong character base, I guess this is almost a necessity. Having said all this, I must say that the new characters did annoy me more than entertain me.

Direction: Where-as the first Ice Age film had two directors, this sequel only had one. Both of the original directors are fairly new to the film scene, and given that in 2002 Ice Age was the first film either of them had directed, they did a pretty good job. However in Ice Age The Meltdown, only one of the remaining directors remains, Chris Wedge is nowhere to be found. This is evident by the manner in which the film is portrayed. In the first film it seemed like they were trying to be realistic but still have the characters in a caricature of their own. Ice Age The Meltdown, however, seems to have a more cartoon effect about it, with some quite surreal moments of animation style used. Its interesting though...

Overall: Quite an enjoyable film really. As is the case with most sequels, the hype outweighed the actual content, but as is not the case by most sequels, not by much. Lots of fun moments, though with a weaker storyline, as well as film in general, than its predecessor.

7+ out of 10