Thor Review

Despite Marvel and Paramount's best marketing efforts to convince otherwise, Kenneth Branagh'sThor is a perfectly satisfactory piece of popcorn entertainment. It is cheerfully silly and openly operatic, but played out with absolute conviction. It is no great landmark in the realm of comic book films, but it is easily the best of the Marvel-financed films thus far released. It has larger-than-life action with human-scale emotions, and Branagh directs with an unexpected confidence that seeps through the finished product. It is no great piece of art nor defining statement of our times, but its good-natured pomp makes its obvious flaws almost endearing.

A token amount of plot: Young Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is about to be crowned king of Asgard when the pesky Frost Giants attempt an act of robbery/murder with world-threatening implications. King Odin (Anthony Hopkins) wants to deal with the matter in a diplomatic fashion, but the headstrong and angry Thor insists on violent retribution, with action that threatens full-scale war. Enraged that he nearly put a petulant would-be child on the crown, Odin banishes Thor to the distant planet known as Earth, with the implicit instructions that he not be allowed to return until he earns his birthright by learning of his humility. Stuck on Earth with no powers, he immediately has a run-in with three traveling scientists (Natalie Portman, Kat Dennings and Stellan Skarsgard) and attracts the attention of Shield (once again personified by Clark Gregg). As Thor acquits himself to a human life and finds himself falling for Dr. Jane Foster (Portman), Odin's other son, Loki puts himself on the throne and sets some most unpleasant plans into motion. Can Thor win back his throne and defeat his brother's machinations? Considering that The Avengers is coming out next year, I'm guessing the answer is some variation on 'yes'.

First off, unlike the heavily-tinkered-with Iron Man 2, Thor remains a mostly stand-alone adventure. There are a few references to Tony Stark and Bruce Banner, and Greg Clark once again hints at a larger universe, but the film is first-and-foremost a character journey for Thor himself. Even with a second act that has perhaps a bit too much Shield material (which could have been better spent developing the undercooked romance between Thor and Jane), this feels more like its own film with its own beginning, middle, and end. Even a brief cameo in the second act feels somewhat organic, even though it was in fact added at the last moment. As a result, while the film has few plot twists, I was indeed surprised by a couple climactic story turns.

As an action picture, the film unfortunately peaks right at the beginning. The first-act battle, Thor and his friends versus the Ice Giants, is a whopper of a curtain raiser. It starts out as one of those overly-edited, shot-too-tight battle scenes but slowly expands its scope and fluidity. It also shows these mighty warriors at the peak of their abilities right off the bat, which a refreshing change of pace from the standard origin story cliche. But the rest of the action, while not unimpressive, fails to equal the scale and scope of that initial conflict. Even the finale, which puts Thor and Loki against each other on the visually dazzling rainbow bridge, is brief and perfunctory. Compared to the action we've already seen in films such as Sucker Punch, Thirteen Assassins, and Fast Five,Thor doesn't quite get as epic as it perhaps should have.

Fortunately, the picture works as a character piece. Pretty much every actor treats this, appropriately enough, like Shakespeare. Hemsworth takes this gift of a role and runs with it, delivering a star-making turn that makes us sympathize with Thor's initial recklessness and yet still believe his lightning-fast transition into a better person (the 'rock bottom' moment is potent enough to make us buy Thor's instant humility). Anthony Hopkins once again shows that he is at his best in pulp fiction entertainments, delivering a passionate piece of performance art. Portman is looser than usual here, as she openly swoons over the studly and charming would-be warrior god while remaining steadfastly committed to her research. I didn't buy their relationship as anything more than a brief flirtation, but most 'great love' stories in genre films fail that test.

Skarsgard is basically around to provide exposition (although I imagine he'll be a character who hops around the Marvel universe ala Greg Clark) and Kat Dennings is purely charming comic relief (on a prurient note: long-haired Dennings + nerd glasses = 'winning'). Tom Hiddleston steals the picture, as his thoughtful and compelling villain makes the film work as an emotional fable. While Loki is indeed sinister, his motivations are reasonable and his feelings are genuine. Like Willem Dafoe in the first Spider-Man film, he brings everyones' game up a notch and his big dramatic scenes with Hopkins and Hemsworth are the highlights of the picture. Alas, most of the rest of the cast is used for background scenery. Rene Russo returns from retirement (as Thor and Loki's mother) for only a single scene and a few lines here and there. Idris Elba has fun as the guardian of the rainbow bridge teleportation device, but his screentime is painfully brief.

The technical aspects of the film are a mixed bag. Branagh's infamous Dutch-angles are so ever-present that I half-expected William Dozier to break in and announce that The Penguin had just robbed a bank. The special effects are not exactly what you would call photo-real, but their obviousness frankly adds to the film's goofy charm (the shots of Thor and company flying through the inter-dimensional portals are just plain neat). The 3D is invisible, which is arguably a good thing as it also doesn't seem to darken the image all that much. 3D qualms aside, it is a film worth seeing in IMAX if one is so inclined. There are genuine leaps in logic (Loki is very smart except when he is very stupid) and some real head-scratchers. Norse mythology is acknowledged in the picture, yet no one suspects that trickster-god guy of being, I dunno, tricky? It's the same logic that has the Autobots SHOCKED when they get betrayed by the DECEPTicons.

But these obvious issues (especially the needless Shield material) didn't bother me as much as one would expect. Maybe it's because I have no hard fandom of Thor, so I was only expecting a piece of colorful and larger-than-life entertainment starring actors I happen to enjoy. Maybe it's becauseThor is a far humbler picture than the arrogant and entitled Iron Man films or the patronizingly dumbed-down Incredible Hulk (aww, did Ang Lee make you think too much?). And Thor is quite a bit of family-friendly fun (the PG-13 rating is a joke, this is PG material all the way), and its gee-whiz innocence allows you to overlook its narrative issues.

It doesn't quite score as an action film and not every element works. But the raw emotionalism of Tom Hiddleston and Chris Hemsworth raise the picture above its obvious flaws. The scale and opulence of the Asgard material balances well with the quirkier Earthbound middle act. Kenneth Branagh's Thor is not a patch on the best films of the comic book genre (X2: X-Men United, The Dark Knight, Superman, Spider-Man), but it is a genuinely enjoyable adventure. For this casual observer of the world of Asgard, that's enough for now.

Grade: B

Hoodwinked Too! Hood VS. Evil Review

Consider this: In 2011, making a straightforward, unwinking animated fairy-tale might be a borderline-radical move. After Shrek, its sequels, and Shrek-inspired movies like Happily N’Ever After and theirsequels, ironic takes on the worlds of the Grimms and Mother Goose look like the new normal. Is it possible that a whole generation will know fairy godmothers, big bad wolves, and their ilk only as characters who deliver wisecracks and riff on pop culture?

Hoodwinked Too!: Hood Vs. Evil, a sequel to the 2006 filmHoodwinked, does little to reverse the trend or suggest there’s much life left in it. Stepping into a voice role originated by Anne Hathaway, Hayden Panettiere plays Red Riding Hood, an agent of the Happy Ever After Agency, a Mission: Impossible-like task force charged with assuring that fairy stories end well. Having disappeared to be initiated into the same secret society as her secret-agent grandmother (Glenn Close), Panettiere finds her relationship with her crime-fighting partner—a big bad wolf voiced by Patrick Warburton—has become strained. When the two are charged with rescuing Close, who’s been kidnapped alongside Hansel and Gretel (Bill Hader and Amy Poehler), it becomes tenser still as they attempt a rescue while navigating a sea of faux-epic fight scenes, one-liners, and references to other movies.

Hoodwinked Too! is at its most tolerable when it stops to catch its breath. Running gags like Warburton’s insistence on the power of fake beards to fool bad guys in virtually any situation, or the much-abused, endlessly cheery, banjo-playing goat work a lot better than the endless action sequences, which only highlight the meager resources of Blue Yonder, the animation house behind the Hoodwinked films Happy Ever After Agency. (Especially when rendered in unimpressive 3-D.) It raises the question of who the movie is for in the first place: Kids have seen much better animation in other films, and it’s hard to imagine too many grown-ups ready to smile and nod at yet more smirking takes on famous moments from Scarface and The Silence Of The Lambs. There’s no happy ending to that half-assed combination.

Fast Five Review

n the very first sequence of Fast Five, former federal officer Brian O’Conner (Paul Walker) slams on the brakes of his muscle car, and a bus slams into it at an angle. If you are a fan of physics — or just happen to live on this planet — you can guess what should happen. If you guessed that the muscle car would be obliterated, welcome to the human race. If you guessed that the car would cause the much, much heavier bus to flip over spectacularly, then welcome to the world of Fast Five.

It is with this intro that you are given the rules to the universe of the film you are about to watch. At every bend, there is a casual disregard to the laws of nature; almost a “take that, physics” approach to life. And that is fine. The Fast and Furiousseries is an escapist fantasy. We watch the $100,000 cars driven by beautiful women and tough men, then we jump in our beat up Civics and station wagons and drive home, probably a little faster than we should. You don’t want to put too much thought into the logic of it, and honestly, reality would only get in the way of enjoying this series.

But a bigger issue for the franchise than just its propensity for flipping off science: How do you keep a series fresh after five outings? There are only so many ways to race, and explosions can only get so big (although don’t tell that to Michael Bay). The answer is that you take what works about the series and shift it subtly into a new direction that is original, but doesn’t feel alien to the franchise. That is what director Justin Lin has done by making Fast Fiveinto something of a traditional “heist” movie. And it not only helps to breathe life into the franchise, it helps to deliver the best movie of the series to date.

Have car, will travel

The fifth Fast and Furious installment picks up exactly where the last movie ended, with Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel) on his way to prison while O’Conner and Dom’s sister Mia (Jordana Brewster) lead an assault to free him. After the rescue, O’Conner and Mia, both very much in love, head to Rio to rendezvous with Dom, and end up staying with Vince (Matt Schulze), the stereotypical “angry guy” from the first film. He has a job for them, and when Dom shows up, they all head off to steal cars. Off a train.

Things go bad quickly, and after a physics-be-damned style escape, the group is being hunted by the resident kingpin of Rio, Herman Reyes (Joaquin de Almeida), because of something they accidently took with them. Mia soon admits that she is preggers, which inspires Dom and O’Conner to eschew running from the forces closing in on them, and instead pull off one massive job that will set them all up for life and cripple Reyes’ operation. But to pull it off, they need a team.

The team is a collection of the Fast and Furious all-stars throughout the years. From the second film 2 Fast 2 Furious, Roman Pearce (Tyrese Gibson) and Tej Parker (Chris “Ludacris” Bridges) return. From the third film The Fast And the Furious: Tokyo Drift, Han Lue (Sung Kang) appears. From the previous film, Fast & Furious, Tego Leo (Tego Calderon), Rico Santos (Don Omar) and Gisele Harabo (Gal Gadot) fill out the crew.

Unbeknownst to the super friends, an elite DSS agent, Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) is on their trail, and with the help of local Rio officer Elena Neves (Elsa Pataky) and a group of highly trained agents, he sees it as his duty to bring them all to justice.

The many moving pieces

In terms of continuity, here is the strangest part of the film. Fast Five is the fifth movie in the series, but like its predecessor Fast & Furious, it takes place before the events of The Fast And The Furious: Tokyo Drift which is last film in terms of continuity. The only reason to do this is to include Sung Kang’s character of Han, who died in the third film. Now, Han is a good character, and Kang is undeniably a charismatic actor, but it feels a bit like buyers’ remorse than anything else — the producers obviously regret having killed him. It doesn’t make any difference to the story to have Tokyo Drift set in the future, but it might confuse some.

For this series, the change to the heist theme feels natural and right. Fast Five is in many ways closer in tone to movies like The Italian Job, or even Ocean’s 11 than it is to the previous films in the series. In fact, there is very little racing at all in the movie, and only one extended driving sequence at the end. It was a fairly bold move at that. There is one scene where a car race is about to happen, but it skips the actual racing to further the plot. While it is somewhat counterintuitive to say about a franchise based around fast cars, impossibly beautiful women and the like, the series has actually matured. At least a bit. While there is still a ton of ridiculous action, it is not thrown in just to look good, it all serves a purpose.

Each of the characters has a part to play, and while it is always hard to stand out in an ensemble cast, the actors all compliment each other and mesh surprisingly well. In fact, it is something of an accomplishment in itself to have so many big name stars work together, and that is a testament to Lin.

You can almost feel the growth of Justin Lin into a solid action director over the course of the last three Fast and Furious movies. Lin has always had an eye for action, even when he was just starting out and filming on next to no budget with films like Better Luck Tomorrow. As he has learned and grown as a filmmaker, the way he frames scenes has drastically improved, as has his eye for color and aesthetics — something that was at times an issue in the previous film. It’ll be interesting to see where Lin goes from here. Hollywood is currently in love with him, and he is attached to direct the next Terminator starring Arnold Schwarzenegger, so his name may be one that you hear for years to come.

The rest of the crew turns in solid preformances as well, and you can almost feel that they had a good time making this movie. Despite the intense action, this is a movie you are meant to have fun with, and having actors enjoying themselves is important in selling it. Perhaps the most difficult role to play in the film was also perhaps the best cast—that of DSS Agent Hobbs, played by Dwayne Johnson. On paper, the role is fairly bland. You have a dogged federal agent that isn’t particularly funny or likeable, trying to stop the antiheroes that you have become invested in after four previous movies. Johnson is, and always has been undeniably charismatic, and few can convey as much without saying a word as he can. It was an inspired casting choice, and further proof that Johnson deserves the success he has earned. A less actor in this role could have killed this movie dead and made an interesting plot line cringe-worthy. In fact, with so many moving parts in this film, any one of a handful of badly cast actors could have derailed the entire film, but it all works well.

Diesel again plays Vin Diesel, while Walker has nearly perfected the art of acting while looking perpetually stoned. Whether you love or hate them, your opinion probably won’t change much based on this film. But of the two, Diesel is unquestionably the focus, and so he should be. While Fast Five isn’t going to make AFI’s top 100 movies of all-time list, it is an entertaining film thanks partly to the performances that most will enjoy, as long as you don’t think too much about the details.

Conclusion

Fast Five isn’t high art, nor is it trying to be. There is so much testosterone in this movie that even women in the audience may leave with a mustache. It fulfills the traditional summer movie pre-requisites and has a ton of explosions, gun battles and fistfights, just like you would expect. In that sense, it is a very, very traditional film. If you are looking for that one unique snowflake in the snow storm of summer movies, this aint it.

It is, however, the best film in a series bred for its visual extravaganzas. Films like this can go three ways. They can veers towards the ridiculous, as they did with 2 Fast 2 Furious, they can repeat the same formula over and over as they did with the third and fourth films, or they can do something a bit ballsier and take the franchise in a different direction altogether. It doesn’t have to be a wholly original direction, just original for the series. In this case it worked, and likely saved the franchise. A sixth movie has already been greenlit, and while it might at first glance seem over saturation to film six movies based on an action franchise like this, the fifth movie has proved that there is enough life left in the series to justify it. It helps that Fast Five was already released internationally, and in eight days has made back over $30 million of its $125 million budget, so odds are it is going to do alright at the box office.

By the way, make sure to stay through the first block of credits to see a scene with a few surprises that set up the sequel.

While Fast Five isn’t the type of movie that will appeal to the art house crowd in even the smallest way, it is what it intends to be — a summer popcorn movie that is beating the other big name summer films to the theaters by a few weeks (or a week, counting Thor). If you enjoyed the previous films, then you will leave pleasantly surprised at how they have managed to resuscitate the franchise. The action is unbelievable — literally unbelievable — and physics take a punch in the nose, but the film does so with a wink and a nod to the audience, so you accept it. If you can’t, then you are in trouble.

For a fifth film in a franchise, Fast Five offers a slightly mindless, but fully enjoyable heist movie starring a cast of up-and-comers, borderline A-list stars, and directed by a guy who will likely be a household name in the future. Although it isn’t quite summer yet, Fast Five has begun the summer movie season on a good note.

(Fast Five is rated PG-13, with a running time of 130 minutes)

Madea's Big Happy Family Review

Tyler Perry gets a lot of flack from critics, but I go into every one of his movies with high hopes. I like that he's working outside the system (even if it means he doesn't screen his films for review). I appreciate that he respects his fans enough to speak to them directly, and for me, at least, the sight of him swanning around in Madea's housecoat still hasn’t gotten old.

But it's not enough for him to assume that people will buy whatever he's selling, simply because he's selling it.

If last year's "For Colored Girls" indicated an interest in taking some risks, "Madea’s Big Happy Family" is a giant step backwards. He's recycled the same material so many times, it's starting to turn rancid.

Madea (Perry) is still funny as ever, and each time she takes the screen, we're reminded of Perry's eternal promise: to entertain with empathy and enlightenment. But even the most lighthearted Madea movies have a dark side, and this one is uglier than usual.

Perry's characters have always been drawn with broad strokes, as heroes or villains. In this case, all the villains are young women, and all the young women in this film—without exception--are monstrous. 

The story begins at the hospital, where Madea's niece Shirley (Loretta Devine) learns she has terminal cancer. A modest, God-fearing woman, she wants nothing more than to gather her children and share the news. 

Unfortunately, this isn't as easy as it should be. Tammy (Natalie Desselle) can barely organize her own obnoxious kids long enough to be in one room together. Byron (Bow Wow) is torn between a crazy baby mama (Teyana Taylor) and the gold-digging girlfriend (Lauren London) pushing him to deal drugs again. And career-obsessed Kimberly (Shannon Kane) is just plain nasty, especially to her husband, Calvin (Isaiah Mustafa). Anyone who’s seen a single Perry movie will instantly guess the tragic secret that fuels her anger.

The older cast members do a nice job with their roles, both sentimental and silly. An understated Devine is typically touching as the pained matriarch, while Cassi Davis provides necessary comic relief as the perpetually-stoned Aunt Bam. And Madea’s outraged lectures to her wayward relatives are the reliable highlights of the film. 

But too much about this movie is cheap and easy—not just the familiar plotlines, but the current of cruelty that runs through them. What's made Perry so successful is a sense of understanding, paired with compassion and advice. Here, he seems disconnected from his core female audience, in a way that feels dismissive and condescending. 

Honestly, it's hard to know why Perry even bothered to write a story about these women, since he despises them all so much. When his movie's biggest running gag is a hotline for men called "1-800-Choke-Dat-Ho," it's time to start over
.

African Cats Review

In recent years, Disney, who is famous for making many classic films involving memorable cartoon animals, has begun making Earth Day documentaries that follow the real adventures of various wildlife around the globe. Their latest, African Cats, is an exceptional piece of work, that is a beautiful, and sometimes heart wrenching, display of just how hard it is for these animals to raise a family in one of the most dangerous places on earth.

There are two separate cat families that the camera follows: Fang, a battle-weary lion, and his pride; and Sita, a strong, independent cheetah, who has just given birth to five cubs, and must raise them alone. With hours upon hours of footage no doubt filmed over the course of two years, the two stories actually intertwine more than once on this great adventure. It’s something that I can’t believe would be possible to foresee, especially with the cameras having followed the two groups from such an early age, with no real idea of how their stories would unfold; however, while the creators add the names, and narration, it’s the animals who are telling the story, and that’s how it happened.

While the stories both follow the same basic idea about how hard it is for mothers to raise their young against the hardships the untamed land has in store for them, they both also have their own voices. The story of Fang, and his pride, is really more about the eldest lioness, Layla, and her 6-month old daughter, Mara. During a hunt, Layla is injured after being kicked by a zebra, and is left behind by her pride, who can’t afford to be slowed down by their wounded comrade. Her daughter, although risking her life by doing so, chooses to stay behind with her mother, who together set off in an attempt to catch up with the pride, and avoid certain death.

Sita’s story, on the other hand, is much different in tone, and really focuses on the young cubs, and how much more challenging it is for a lone mother to fend for her children with nobody else around to care for them while she’s off hunting. Of course, it’s also a very interesting story, because cheetahs aren’t usually represented strongly as far as wild cats are concerned. Sure, we know they’re fast, but that’s pretty much it. Usually the more famous lions and tigers take the spotlight, yet here, we get to see just how unique a cheetah is from the rest, and how they use different techniques in order to survive than their larger, stronger feline counterparts.

Both stories have their heartwarming moments, though Sita’s is definitely the one that causes the most smiles, at least early on, with how cute, and carefree, her cubs are. As far as intrigue goes, however, one must turn to the side story that follows Fang’s pride from the very beginning, and that’s the group of male lions that live north of the river. Leave it to Disney to be able to find the perfect villain in a nature documentary who both looks and acts like the perfect bad guy. Kali, and his four sons, reign over the north of the river, while Fang rules the south. The river keeps Kali, who is keen on expanding his kingdom, at bay most of the time, but all bets are off later in the season, when the river dissipates and Kali prepares to make his move.

The two stories are narrated by Samuel L. Jackson, who does a solid job of doing so, following in the footsteps of James Earl Jones (Earth) and Pierce Brosnan (Oceans). The emotion in his voice shines through, and his larger than life pronunciation of words really adds to the scenes filled with suspense and danger, which are bountiful in this film. At the same time, he also has a playful tone that helps add an extra bit of joy to the cheery, fun moments shared by the cubs and their mothers.

The film’s directors, Alastair Fothergill and Keith Scholey, both do fantastic work here. Fothergill worked previously with Disney on Earth, the company’s first foray into Earth Day releases, and he’ll be doing so again in next year’s release, Chimpanzee. Both men, and their crew, deserve a great amount of praise for the work they’ve done here, as the shots, and stories told, are magnificent. The cinematography is amazing, as some of the places the camera goes is astonishing, and almost unbelievable. Sure, they’re all likely at a safe distance, but there are no second takes with wild animals, and when these guys make it so that the audience is actually on the hunt with a lion and cheetah (we’re talking literally right behind them on certain occasions,) it’s something special.

The musical score is also something that can’t be ignored, as it helps create the atmosphere that the stories command, and brings even more life to a place absolutely filled with it. The entire crew that put it together, conducted by Alastair King, did a wonderful job, and really hit the film’s soundtrack out of the park.

With all the praise, there are a few drawbacks, as the stories sometimes do feel a little long in the tooth at points, even with a solid 89 minute run-time. Some may also argue that this is no different than any other documentary you can find on any wildlife channel at any time of the day, which may be true on some level, but it’s still a wondrous sight to behold on the big screen.

While African Cats is a Disney film, with heroes and villains and all, it’s still a documentary, and an account of the hardships of life in the wild, and as such, parents should take note of this before bringing their kids to see it. Though it’s just the circle of life, this isn’t The Lion King, and certain scenes will no doubt scare younger viewers, and the pacing of the film, while alright for adults, will likely begin to bore them as well. Of course, you know your kids better than I, so don’t let me dissuade you if this is up their alley, as African Cats is a gorgeous film that tells two powerful stories that deserve to be seen.

Water for Elephants Review

There was a very good movie to be made out of Water for Elephants, Sara Gruen's period novel that was thick on atmospherics and melodrama but thin on character development. It would have required some tweaking, some bold choices from screenwriter Richard LaGravenese in his adaptation, and most of all a willingness from all involved to liven up these characters as more than glamorous paper dolls in the Complete 1931 Circus Set. Instead they have remained true to the book and its faults, creating a movie that's good and engaging but never great, almost exactly as rewarding as the novel but also slightly underwhelming in the end. 

Embodying Water for Elephants's polished lack of personality is Robert Pattinson, who occupies the center of the film but never particularly seems to earn it; his character is Jacob Jankowski, an almost-graduate of veterinary school who literally runs away with the circus when he is orphaned after a car accident. The Benzini Bros. Circus is shabby in a romantic way, occupied by friendly exotic dancers and a gruff midget clown with a heart of gold, and Jacob fits in quickly as the resident veterinarian, a role that becomes doubly important when the circus picks up a new elephant named Rosie. Working closely with the circus's star attraction Marlena (Reese Witherspoon), who is of course married to the meanie of a ringmaster August (Christoph Waltz), Jacob can't help but fall in love-- both with Marlena and the elephant, who as it turns out is smarter than everyone and has a taste for liquor.

That's pretty much it as far as plot goes in Water for Elephants-- much of Gruen's book gives itself over to the atmospherics of circus life, and the impeccable cinematography from Rodrigo Prieto captures it well, though occasionally it veers from agreeably glossy nostalgia into some serious old-timey hokum. Pattinson and Witherspoon, despite the limits of their earnest and fairly foolish characters, eke out a real spark of romance between them; several slow dances between them crackle with unspoken feelings, and even their lame flirty jokes feel genuine. Lurking over them both like some ghoul of violent circuses past is Waltz's August, essentially Hans Landa in the big top but less fun to be around. Waltz brings shades of honor and even pity to August, but the movie is written in such broad strokes of right and wrong that from the moment August beats Rosie with an iron bar, there's nothing to do but root for his inevitable downfall.

Water for Elephants is two hours long and feels longer; a frame story in which an aged Jacob (Hal Holbrook, believe it or not) tells his story to a patient modern-day circus employee (Paul Schneider) could have been excised entirely, and in the hands of a more capable visual storyteller than Lawrence the specific details of circus life, not to mention Jacob and Marlena's forbidden romance, could have been conveyed far more efficiently. But, perhaps taking a cue from the book, Water for Elephants is a beach read of a movie, broad and unchallenging but spirited and sometimes moving too. It's the kind of froth just strong enough to sweep you up if you'll allow it. 

Scream 4 Review

DISCLAIMER: This review may contain spoilers which may be of detriment to the film’s viewing experience.

As I was walking out of the Scream 4 media screening, I overheard a man say, “It was a piece of sh*t, but stupid people will pay money to see it.”

Well, anonymous stranger, I must be stupid, becauseScream 4 is one of the best follow ups of a horror franchise I have ever seen.

It’s got everything – a solid, well-written script, an original cast and a hot new one, the right amount of gore and most importantly, character development.

From the opening scene, writer Kevin Williamson (who wrote all four Scream movies and who created Dawson’s Creek) shows why he’s one of the best in the business.

The movie focuses on Sidney’s (Neve Campbell) return to Woodsborough on a promotional visit for her debut novel, Out of Darkness. It’s the 10th anniversary of the original murders, so surprise surprise, guess who returns to wreak revenge? But the conundrum for Ghostface is, after the inevitable saturation of horror flicks in the movie industry, how can he keep the element of surprise alive without resulting in a predictable mess?

With a whole new set of characters, including Sidney’s cousin Jill (Emma Roberts) and her hot group of classmate friends including Kirby (played by Hayden Panettiere, who’s sporting one of the ugliest hairstyles I’ve ever seen), Ghostface has a field day. Plus, cameos by Anna Paquin and Kristen Bell, to name a few, are welcome surprises as throwbacks to past Scream flicks.

Within all the gore, Williamson weaves sub plots and social commentaries on - arguably - the joke that has become the horror industry, the rise of the phenomenon that is social media and the continual debate over the differences between Gen X and Gen Y, while giving his characters the right amount of development and soul.

In between all the killings (there’s eleven deaths in total), Williamson manages to create humour that keeps the film light-hearted when needs be. The lines are hilarious.

“You forgot the number one rule of remakes,” Sidney says. “Don’t f*ck with the original.”

“One generation’s tragedy is another one’s joke,” says another character.

“How do you think people become famous? You’ve just got to have f*cked up sh*t happen to you,” says another.

It’s great to see Neve Campbell back on screen. She’s so comfortable as Sidney it’s almost too believable. She brings a destroyed and tortured soul to her character, but also one of a girl who - after notching up so many runs on the attack-o-meter - has learnt how to survive when others don’t.

Then there’s Courteney Cox and David Arquette, whose characters Gale Weathers-Riley and Dewey Riley are now married after sparking a romance in Scream 3 (ironically, Arquette and Cox seperated after 11 years of marriage last spring for those who have been living under a rock). Cox is brilliant as Gale, the now washed-up author whose built her success on the Woodsborough murders, while Arquette, although great to see him back and an integral character in the film, was a little lacklustre.

While I highly recommend this film, I won’t go without saying that of course there’s the usual cliches. The phone ringing, the idiots who leave a crowded area to go home, alone and holding a ‘stabathon’ party the night of the anniversary.

In saying that, Scream 4 has again redefined what it takes to make a successful horror remake. When you’ve got a franchise with such history, all it takes is to create a storyline and history to your main characters, and the audience will soak it up. Just like we did.