Drive

PCMR Verdict: The form over content rule applies here: it looks and sounds great, but ultimately is hollow and forgettable.

PCMR Rating: 6/10

You don't need to watch the E! network (the exclamation mark isn't a typo by the way) and you don't need to follow Perez Hilton on twitter to be aware of a rising star by the name of Ryan Gosling. In their words: he's, like, so hot right now. Gosling is very much in demand: his chiselled features are brooding on loads of posters in your local cinema at the moment, as he's currently starring in no less than three Hollywood productions that are all on release right now.

PCMR should probably first point out that this apparently sudden rise probably started about four years ago, with Half-Nelson. That was a great movie by the way, and earned Gosling a surprise, but deserving Oscar nomination. It seemed then that Gosling's future was assured, but after making a couple more movies ('Fracture', 'Lars and the Real Girl') he went on hiatus for a while. Since last year though, he's back for real, and now seems determined to be in every movie that gets released.

The first of his current trio on release, 'Crazy, Stupid Love' appears to be an American re-imagining of 'Love, Actually', but with more nudity. And where there's nudity, PCMR isn't too far away, so watch this space for more on that one. (For your own information, Gosling is the one in the trailer who is asked if he is photoshopped).

The second - 'The Ides Of March' - is a worthy political thriller, written and directed by George Clooney. This is one that will probably make some Oscar waves, maybe even for Gosling himself, so again watch this space for a review pretty soon.

And the third is this one, which I've just seen so can happily fill you in right away.

'Drive' is a stylish heist drama with great looks, but perhaps not too much going on behind the eyes. Gosling plays an unnamed L.A. resident, who drives professionally for the movies by day, and for gangsters by night. Bryan Cranston (from Breaking Bad) plays the Whistler to Gosling's Blade, so to speak: he's somehow taken him under his wing to work in his auto shop (so make that three jobs - Ed), in a kind of a father figure type deal. And he has a limp. (Hence the Whistler thing).

Irene (Carey Mulligan) is Gosling's neighbour, and he strikes up a relationship with her and her kid, even though her husband is about to get out of prison. This risk taken by Gosling's character is the event that kicks the action into gear. Once Irene's husband gets out, he's quickly required to do one last heist job to clear some debts with some less than savoury characters, and the driver finds himself drawn in... What do you think happens folks, reckon it all goes well?

The dialogue in Drive is sparse, and Gosling's scenes in particular are often punctuated with long silences, or smiles. He does have an undeniable charisma, and although I gave all this the benefit of the doubt at first, it soon got a little trying. The point of all these silences was seemingly to demonstrate his calming influence on Irene, which I guess makes sense, and these scenes were undeniably pretty to look at, with a great electro soundtrack in the background. It's probably damning though, that the best scenes featuring Gosling and Mulligan were the ones without any dialogue.

When the bad men appear, and things turn a little violent, the change in tone is sudden, and the violence is shocking. There are only two or three scenes of real violence, but this is very bloody ultra-violence, almost harking to Tarantino, or his Japanese manga influences in certain moments (there's one moment featuring a bullet and a hammer that is unpleasant to say the least).

So, it's a love story crossed with a heist, and when the body count starts to build up, it gets a little ultra-violent, Tarantino-ish even... what's not to like? Well the thing is, there just doesn't seem to be a heart to the movie. Events play out with panache, and the action unfolds with style, but I never really found myself rooting for anybody. Gosling's character in particular, never really tries to win over the audience. He doesn't have a name, which is supposed to make him mysterious, but is a device that has been overused. He wears a jacket that has a scorpion on the back, but when something is trying so hard to be cool, isn't that uncool!? The few driving scenes are certainly done extremely well, and generally make Gosling look good, but that aside, he doesn't really have any good dialogue, which makes it very difficult to warm to the character.

I haven't read the book that this is based on, so it's very possible that the movie is faithful to the source material. Director Nicholas Winding Refn has a good eye and the film certainly looks great. The soundtrack is also achingly cool, featuring French female vocalists crooning over synthesizers as as Gosling guns his motor around the L.A. nightscapes, reminding the viewer of Michael Mann's Collateral, or Miami Vice perhaps.

The problem is, 'Drive' is pretty, but also a little vacant. I enjoyed watching it, but found it a little too self-conscious to earn a glowing recommendation. The love story aspect lacked chemistry and the violence was shockingly brutal, but the few driving scenes were great. On balance however, it's the lack of likeable characters that really makes Drive difficult to fall in love with.

The Kingdom

The verdict: Slick, tense thriller with plenty of smarts and bucketloads of action.

The rating: 7/10

Nothing at all to do with County Kerry, 'The Kingdom' tells the story of the FBI's attempts to investigate a large-scale attack on an Western housing compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabian. Ronald Fleury (Foxx) heads the investigation team pushing to put their boots on Saudi soil, but the the complex political backdrop, as well as high-profile nature of the atrocity, means that they are not entirely welcome.

The American brass are initially unwilling to send FBI investigators to Saudi on the grounds that they are targets for the fundamentalist Muslim attackers who committed the original atrocity, and that their presence would render the situation even more unstable. The Saudis, for their part, are unwilling to allow interference in their own investigation, especially from non-Muslims. The presence of a female investigator is also a cause for some concern. Cue some serious political wrangling from Fleury.

Once in Saudi, the team are reluctantly assisted in their investigation by a Saudi Colonel, played with real presence by Ashraf Barhom, and the initially frosty association between Foxx and his guide slowly develops into a mutually beneficial working relationship. You know, the old 'frosty at first' kind of deal.

The movie is essentially a tense investigation book-ended by two long action set-pieces, and this structure works well. The investigation is well scripted, and builds the tension well, with all five central characters likeable enough to win the audience over. And why not, when the supporting cast is this good? Chris Cooper is amiable enough as the bomb site investigator, and Jennifer Garner works well; even if she does spend a lot of the movie crying, each episode of tears is thoroughly warranted. Jason Bateman too, continues his career resurgence with a creditable performance as the comic foil, and he has some great one-liners, which serve as a welcome coping mechanism for the audience as the tension builds. Jeremy Piven also has a nice turn as an American foreign department official, popping up every now and again to try and persuade the team to return home, before they do any political damage.

As for the action, well there is a moment about an hour into the movie where things suddenly take a turn into '24' territory, but it works very well. The action is visceral, realistic, and very much in the Paul Greengrass style, with hand-held shaky-cams following the cast, and everything ticking along at a relentless pace. Bullets, grenades and rockets fly, and we are right in the thick of it.

I have reservations about Jamie Foxx as a leading man, but he does a decent job here, despite still needing serious elecution lessons. The script is tight, with almost every central character likeable enough to root for. My only quibble was the Saudi Colonel. Foreign heroes in American movies must be god-fearing, squeaky-clean and have young kids for some reason, and his presence in the movie unfortunately reminded me of the away missions on the old Star Trek shows. Imagine Kirk (Foxx), Bones (Bateman), Spock (Cooper) and Uhura (Garner) beaming down to a planet with an anonymous red-shirted crew member, and you get the idea of the Saudi character's precarious position, right from the opening scenes.

That said, this is a quality movie, a diverting, well-written, actioner with a liekable cast, and PCMR heartily gives it two thumbs up.

American Gangster

The verdict: Thoroughly enjoyable. 'Serpico' meets 'Blow', with Ridley Scott directing Denzel as a bad guy. At 150 minutes, perhaps a little long for some, but not for me.

The rating: 7/10

American Gangster... now here's a genre that's been done before. Da Palma's 'Scarface' charted the ultra-violent rise of a disenfranchised immigrant to 1970's American drug overlord with hees leetle friend. Michael Mann's 'Heat' was a cop and robber character study, toying with the audience's desire to root for the good guy. Sidney Lumet's 'Serpico' was also set in the 70's, and focussed just on the cops, with Pacino this time surrounded by corrupt cops, and very definitely the one to root for. However, the gangster genre was arguably defined immutably by Coppola's 'Godfather' trilogy, and rubber-stamped for good measure by Scorcese with 'Goodfellas'. (Jeez, Al Pacino's made some good movies! - Ed)

So where do you go from there? What can even Ridley Scott bring to the table that we haven't already seen before? Well, casting Denzel Washington as the ganster is an excellent start, and pitting Russell Crowe against him as the embattled moral crusader surrounded by dirty cops is another plus, but when the story is based on fact, well, that adds even further to the mystique.

Set in 1970's New York, the drug enforcement agency is riddled with corruption, and heroin is the drug of choice on the streets. The good guys are far from clean, with institutional payoffs the order of the day, from beat cops to judges. Detective Richie Roberts (Crowe) makes a name for himself in the force as a bit of a Serpico when he and his partner turn in a million dollars in drug money, rather than distributing it around 'the guys'. As a result, he becomes a pariah, and is eventually recruited for a special task force to tackle the drug problem, without involving dirty cops.

Meanwhile, Lucas (Washington) is importing heroin directly from Vietnam, and is bringing heroin to the streets of New York that is purer than his competitors and at a lower price. Interestingly, Lucas dissociates himself from the evil that he purveys with the conviction and eloquently persuasive language of the successful businessman. He is giving his customers the product they demand, at higher quality, and at the right price. They don't care who he is, any more than he cares who is in charge of the national dairy board, right?

The inevitable rise of Lucas to crown prince of Harlem is charted alongside Det. Roberts travails to find the man behind this new heroin product spreading like wildfire on American streets, known as 'blue magic'. Lucas proves hard to catch however, as he spurns does the ostentatious pimp stylings of many of his competitors, and leads a relatively austere existence, albeit with more of the trappings of wealth than De Niro's character in Heat, for example.

This involving story trundles along at a nice pace, and we're in the hands of Ridley Scott here for god's sake, so the length of the movie (two and a half hours) wasn't really an issue for me. The only issue I had with 'American Gangster' was the scope. It is attempting to be an expansive epic in the same vein as 'Goodfellas', but is not quite as tight. The twin track of the stories means that two central characters require equal, and separate development for the story to work, and essentially each character story could have been the lead in a movie of his own. Frank Lucas' story would work in the same way as 'Blow', which was a very similar story of a man named George Jung, the guy credited with the rise of Cocaine in New York in the 1970's. Meanwhile, alongside this, as I've said, Roberts' story is similar to that of Pacino's character in 'Serpico'.

Putting all this aside for a moment, 'American Gangster' is a very enjoyable movie in it's own right. Denzel is excellent as the nuanced bad guy, and should definitely experiment a little more with this type of character. Russell Crowe is also in his area of expertise here, as the troubled good guy, and reminded me of how great he was in 'The Insider'. The setting is excellently rendered on screen, and I wouldn't want to have lived in the projects or anything, but 1970's harlem is a great backdrop for a movie like this.

As a footnote, Cuba Gooding Jr. is in this movie, and he doesn't suck! Unbelievable though it may seem, readers, I shit you not!

This streak of originality aside, although American Gangster is a very enjoyable movie, and will be in most critics 'top 10' lists of the year, it's unfortunaely not imbued with enough originality or style of its own to topple any of the existing giants of the genre.

War

The Verdict: Bog-standard actioner. Disappointing, considering the promising cast.

The Rating: 4/10

Action movies are really about escapism. Total immersion in a good action movie is a wonderful thing, achieved when your attention is totally focussed on the screen, and your immediate surroundings are temporarily forgotten. Even with the best flicks, this kind of voluntary immersion is dependent on a certain amount of suspension of disbelief (SOD) on the part of the viewer. Hollywood producers take note, PCMR has uncovered a scientific formula to calculate how immersed your audience will be! Yes that’s right fat cats, put down the Cuban cigar for the moment, and stop counting those dollars, this formula may make you even richer! Here it is:

SOD = (O – C)

Or in other words, Suspension Of Disbelief is equal to Originality less Cliché. When SOD is less than zero, tolerance levels drop below critical levels, with punters more likely to move to the lobby for popcorn, or to the pause button and the kettle.

With Statham and Li's previous outing - 'The One' – there was enough originality to keep the SOD factor positive, making what could have been a pretty ridiculous movie thoroughly enjoyable. (And Jet Li fought himself! Dude! – Ed). Unfortunately 'War' hits sub-zero SOD levels very very early.

Essentially, Statham's partner and best friend gets killed and he becomes so obsessed with revenge that his previously idyllic relationship with his wife and child breaks down. (3 cliches already!). He's an FBI agent (4) monitoring the ongoing battle between the warring Triads and Yakuza gangs in San Francisco, while keeping an eye out for the rogue agent who murdered his partner. Throw in a car chase here (5), a motorbike chase there (6), loads of standard shoot-out gun play (... say 10), and nowhere near enough chop-socky fights between Statham and Li (one!) and the impulse to say 'sod it' becomes harder to ignore.

Anything original to report? Well, Jet Li is a bad guy... and that's about it really. Everything else here is formulaic, from the hammy, cardboard cut-out Yakuza and Triad baddies, to the cheesy female characters, and the bizarre CSI-inspired belief that to make characters cool and edgy, shades and a leather jacket will do the trick, no matter what they say and do. With an SOD this low, you'll be itching in your seat, pointing out plot holes and less likely to give a toss about what eventually happens. The ending does attempt valiantly to surprise, but by then it's just too little too late.

Jason Statham should really be aiming higher than this kind of bog-standard fare. And Jet Li came out of retirement for this? Take PCMR's advice: avoid this unoriginal, cliché-riddled movie, and consider it a lucky escape.

I Am Legend

The Verdict: '28 Days Later' meets 'Cast Away' in this derivative of 'The Omega Man'. Slow-burning, watchable and inoffensive, but not legendary.

The Rating: 6/10

Will Smith has been at the helm of many star vehicles over the course of his career, so it may come as a bit of a surprise that he’s only been in a couple of sci-fi movies. (Unless you count wicky wicky Wild Wild west!? – Ed). Since the execrable 'Independence Day', he’s flogged a couple of franchises to death ('Men In Black' and 'Bad Boys'), made plenty of home-cooked apple-pie family entertainment ('Hitch' and 'The Pursuit Of Happyness') and even had a realistic Oscar shot ('Ali'). My own opinions of the man and the relative quality of these movies aside for a moment, I must doff my cap to the Fresh Prince, for he has quietly and carefully crafted a Hollywood career for himself, and now sits indisputably in the exclusive A-list category.

Big Willy Will's latest star vehicle had a stellar opening weekend, raking in $76 million in U.S. theatres. However, it may be stating the obvious, but box-office success isn't any guarantee of quality: two relevant examples illustrating this point being 'Bad Boys II' and 'The Pursuit of Happyness'. Hollywood marketing is as powerful as any propaganda machine, and if the right sort of internet buzz is also behind a movie, a wide-scale big bang release at the right weekend can generate a huge return before any negative word-of-mouth can spoil the party.

Although more of a slow-burning cruise than a wham-bam roller-coaster ride, I have to admit, I am Legend is a lot better than many of Will Smith's previous big screen outings. Giving a nod, a wink, and masonically baring its nipple to zombie movie classics, and essentially deriving a story outline from 'The Omega Man' (Smith's character shares the name of Charlton Heston's from that movie), the movie starts with the Fresh Willenium as the last man alive in New York. Around a thousand days have passed since some sort of cataclysmic event, and W2K is struggling to survive, hold on to his sanity, and feed his dog.

The opening scenes are very reminiscent of '28 Days Later', and there is one moment that was almost entirely lifted from 'Shaun of The Dead', but the scenes in an abandoned New York, overgrown with tundra, and awash with wild animals are interesting and unique enough to grab the attention of the audience in the opening moments. The pace of the movie is very different to those two however, owing more in terms of inspiration to Tom Hanks’ Castaway, although without the scraggly beard and cries of "Willsooonnn!" to grate on the nerves.

It's a neat script, with a slow-burning opening sequence, a well-timed turning point around half-way through, followed by a neatly packaged ending. Fresh Willy has enough presence to keep the audience's interest and sympathies in the first hour, and the understandably creeping insanity of his character adds a nice edge to his usually syrupy good-guy persona. The fact that he's accompanied by a dog in the first hour of the movie allows for conventional dialogue (man-dog as opposed to man-volleyball - Ed), and these initial scenes, although the slowest of the movie, are in my opinion the strongest. Although gradually, we learn more about the cataclysm and some rather zombie-like survivors eventually surface, the post-reveal scenes are something approaching more conventional Hollywood action fare, and were less exciting for this reviewer.

'I am Legend' has enough quality and production value to make it watchable, and it certainly has its moments. The thing is, in the hands of a less 'bankable' lead actor, perhaps willing to take more genuine risks, the script could have been a little less flat-packed, and perhaps displayed more imagination. The infected, for example, were simply monsters in the dark, and only scary enough to earn this movie a PG-13 rating. I felt more could have been done with this aspect of the film.

As it is, 'I Am Legend' will reward fans of this genre with references to well known apocalypse and zombie movies past, and also be off-beat enough to engage those new to the genre. Fans of the big Willie will see him acting his socks off, and in fairness to him, he delivers a decent performance.

All in all, another good career move for big Will in terms of the high-stakes popularity contest that is Tinseltown. He may not achieve legendary status as a pioneering craftsman of original movies, but he's certainly a bona fide Hollywood star.

I am Legend is in cinemas now.

Shoot Em Up

The verdict: Clive Owen shoots bad guys while doing stuff (and Monica Bellucci) but even if it's intentionally cheesy and shallow, it lacks the genuine quality to make up for that.

The rating: 5/10

Every now and again, a 'laddish' film such as 'Shoot Em Up' is released that separates the critics into two distinct camps. On the one hand, you have the lads mags, the likes of FHM and Loaded calling it "non-stop gung-ho entertainment", and on the other, you have "big papers" like The Guardian using such a movie as an example of how modern cinema is being dumbed down.

At the level of the average movie viewer, this can often mean that such a movie becomes emblematic. For example, to admit to liking such a film is a statement that you know how to enjoy watching movies. Conversely to criticise such a film can leave you open to being seen as a bit of a cultural snob.

Now, before I give you the reasons why I didn’t like this movie, I'll ask you not to get me wrong, because I like my brainless entertainment as much as anyone. However, I'll add a bit of a proviso to that statement. Jason Statham's better movies (I'm thinking of 'Crank' and 'The One', for example) may appear at first glance to be brainless, but in my opinion this is by design rather than by accident. If you scratch a little below the surface of those movies, you'll find genuine creativity – these movies might be based on simple ideas, but they are at least a little original, they are well executed, and display a good sense of humour and enough quality to entertain.

'Shoot em up' is different. The premise of the movie is so contrived, it could have been dreamed up by Awesom-o. Anyway, the premise is thus: take John Woo's 'Hard Boiled' and remove Chow-Yun Fat. Insert Clive Owen, and numerous scenes where he shoots many many bad guys while doing cool stuff (like having sex with Monica Bellucci). Now, the premise isn't so bad, but there are so many scenes in here that are just crowbarred into the script because they sounded 'cool' (in a thoroughly self-conscious way, which of course, isn't that cool).

The action in Shoot em up is mildly entertaining at times, but the script, story and characters are just props, linking the assorted scenes of over the top gunplay. I don't know about you, but if I don't care whether the good guy lives or dies, then I’m not going to get too worried about whether he survives to the end or not.

Monica Bellucci is essentially a prop in this movie, appearing every now and again to explain what's going on to the audience, and provide a bit of agreeable T&A filler material before the next action sequence. Clive Owen isn't bad, but his dry cool one-liners are really terrible. He just doesn't have the comic delivery of an action hero. Paul Giamatti hams it up nicely, but he's working with peanuts here.

I know we should all be down with post-modern ironic entertainment, where movies like 'Grindhouse' and 'Hot Fuzz' have made it legitimate to make intentionally cheesy movies, as long as there is the occasional nod to the audience and of course, the original source material. However, this approach can wander into dangerous territory if it goes too far, and 'Shoot em up' is in the kind of 'Snakes on a Plane' territory. It's knowingly cheesy, but it's still cheesy. The one-liners might be written with the intention of making you groan, but the effect is the same. The action has been constructed to be ridiculous, but at the end of the day, is that going to give the audience real entertainment? This movie effectively steals from John Woo, and doesn't reward him for invoking his iconic image.

If you watch this film with the lads over a few cans, you might get enjoy it. Maybe I was just too damn sober for it. I'm going to give it a five, but not because I'm on a moral crusade against low-brow entertainment. No, this movie gets a five because I just didn't enjoy it that much.

The Bourne Ultimatum

The verdict: A cracking actioner, requiring just the right amount of suspension of disbelief. The Bourne Ultimatum is that rarest of movie entities: a third instalment that improves on the previous two.

The rating: 8/10

The third instalment of the Bourne trilogy trundles along at such a confident, relentless pace, it would almost be easy to dismiss it as a solid action movie... you know, good popcorn entertainment. Well, I'm happy not to describe Ultimatum only in those terms, simply because it provides an absolutely top night at the flicks.

Be prepared though folks, because this movie is a tale of perpetual motion, right from the off. From the amnesiac hero at it's centre, on the run from the CIA and the NSA, to the hand-held camera style favoured by the movie's director, the now surely A-list Paul Greengrass, everbody in this movie is in a hurry to get about their business. Right from the opening scenes, which pick up as the second movie ended, there is an atmosphere of little time to waste: the dialogue comes thick and fast, and the action, set almost in real time pace, is smart, realistic and adrenaline-fuelled.

This movie follows a similar template to the previous instalment: Bourne is trying to re-discover his identity while being pursued by the CIA, who use cutting edge technology to try and catch up with him before he uncovers a number of dark secrets that their top brass would prefer to keep buried. While Bourne jets from one exotic location to the next, the CIA agents pace up and down in ultra-modern offices, using any means necessary to try and dispose of him, and getting quite irritated with each other as they continually fail to do so. Meanwhile, Bourne must follow a lukewarm trail of limited information from one life-threatening situation to the next, and keep literally just one step ahead of his pursuers all the while.

Matt Damon is convincing, and David Srathairn is excellent as the morally questionable chief investigator. Joan Allen reprises her role as chief pacer in the office, and does have a little more to do in this instalment, but the real star of the movie is the action. The set-pieces never feel overly contrived, as they are all deceptively simple. A few car chases, a chase on foot across rooftops in Tangier, a sniper in Waterloo station, every set-piece is filled with tension, close shaves, and unexpected twists, leaving the audience with just enough time to gasp before the next moment of high drama erupts onto the screen.

The soundtrack pulses with just the right amount of intensity when building tension, but daringly, many of the action sequences occur without any musical backing. When Bourne is fighting hand-to hand, we hear every swipe, every grunt of pain, and every bone crunching hit. When Bourne is in mobile pursuit, we hear tyres screeching, sirens wailing, glass smashing, and shouts of passers by. Overall, the sound in this Bourne movie really is second to none, and heightens the impact of the action scenes.

The dialogue is terse and urgent, and as with the action, there is little waste, with everything happening at real pace. However, there is some depth below the surface in the exchanges we see on screen, with the high-powered executive banter in particular displaying a real wit that you're unlikely to see in many actioners. A moment that sticks in my mind is when David Strathairn's character lambasts Joan Allen for criticising real-time judgements from an armchair, and I interpreted this almost as a challenge from the screen writers to the audience, as if they were saying, go on then, what would you do differently in this situation? Because Bourne generally stays one step ahead, and also because of the pace of the action, we never get the opportunity to poke holes in his decisions, and this is a major strength of the movie.

There are no cheesy one-liners, arched eyebrows, invisible cars or signature theme tune here (unless you count that Moby song.. which I don't). Bourne gets hurt and is regularly in mortal danger, but when he has to fight, he can fight. When he needs to drive, he's as comfortable on a scrambler as in a cop car. He capably speaks foreign languages, he knows how to lose a tail and he uses pay as you go mobile phones to avoid surveillance. Nothing in Bourne is beyond the boundaries of possibility, and that's what pulls you into wanting him to win out in the end.

If this movie is overlooked for Oscar next year, it will be a real crime. Direction, sound and script are top notch here and are the definite stars of the piece. Damon, too though, is understated and quietly effective in the lead role, and Strathairn and Allen have a very watchable sparring relationship, with a real undercurrent of tension (thankfully not of the Unresolved Sexual type).

What more can I say folks, go see it, you'll have a blast. You'll need a little suspension of disbelief, but not much, and for a movie that asks for so little, it delivers in spadeloads. I'm not sure if I want them to make a 'Bourne IV' (the door is left wiide open), but as long as Paul Greengrass continues to make movies of anything approaching this quality, then I'm going to be very happy to keep watching.

The Bourne Supremacy

The verdict: Gritty, action-packed and, unbelievably, it's believable! Bond should look to Bourne for ideas, because this is what a spy thriller should be. Roll on Bourne 3!

The rating: 7/10

I don't know, there just seemed to be no end of fuss and hype about 'Casino Royale'. Fair enough, Daniel Craig delivered a great performance as Bond, and the script and action were the best we've seen from the franchise in years, but when you watch 'The Bourne Supremacy', you begin to realise the failings of the british franchise. The problem with Bond, as Daniel Craig found out so viscerally, is all the bloody baggage that comes with it. Everybody has expectations of who Bond should be, what he should say, what fecking car he should drive.. For film-makers to take on the Bond franchise, they have the weight of expectation around this larger than life character that has an off-screen identity all his own.

Bourne has no such baggage. The first movie was a pacy actioner in which Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) awakes from a spell of amnesia to find that he's a highly trained super-spy, and his life is in danger. Instantly, the rules of the game become fluid. We aren't sure what to expect from Bourne because he doesn't know what's going to happen next himself.

The first movie, with its understated and dangerous hero, managed to relaunch the flagging career of Matt Damon, and luckily there were two more Robert Ludlum books to mine for sequel material. Now, of course we have the franchise, with the third movie 'The Bourne Ultimatum' due out this summer, and featuring Paddy Considine in a lead role, good work, fella!

In an inspired piece of delegation for this, the second episode, the reins were handed to United 93's helmsman Paul Greengrass, and this has injected a dose of grittier, more realistic action to proceedings. Bourne has no catchphrase, and there are no invisible cars on show in this spy thriller.

Right from the opening moments, 'The Bourne Supremacy' sets the ball rolling for a fraught, tense and realistic thriller that is definitely worth the admission price. Greengrass brings an immediacy to proceedings, and the action moves at a real-time pace, with Bourne literally living moment to moment, but always a pace or two ahead of his pursuers.

The supporting cast adds the required level of gravitas to proceedings, with Brian Cox delivering a pretty good turn as the veteran of operation Treadstone, Bourne's training mission. Julia Stiles also shows up, and has a nice few scenes with Damon, where she genuinely looks like she's fearing for her life. Bless.

Crucial to your enjoyment of a movie like this though, is whether you can believe what's unfolding in front of you. To his credit, Greengrass manages the pace of the action very well, and although at times events happen very quickly, the movie never gets ahead of itself. When gadgets are employed, they are sufficiently low-tech in appearance, portable, and conspicuously free of brand names to make them look like they might actually do what Bourne is trying to make them do. One criticism might be that even in the quieter moments of the movie, his characteristic jerky hand-held camera style seems a little at odds with what's happening on screen, but this is a small quibble compared to the positives.

Damon is convincing as the amnesiac hero, and has sufficiently increased in bulk to make you believe he's hold his own in a ruck with a russian mole, or whatever. As I said previously though, Greengrass has foregone the dry cool wit of the action hero, so Damon has no killer line to speak of, of the "Bourne, Jason Bourne" variety. (How about: "I'm Bourne. You're dead." Eh? ... No?... - Ed).. However, given the situations he's dealing with, you'd forgive him for not having the time to throw a witty remark over his shoulder..

I have to say, I was impressed with this one, and am now really looking forward to the third instalment, which will also be direted by Greengrass. In any case, this one is well worth a look on Dvd if you missed it in the flicks...

Transformers

The verdict: The first half hour almost hints at likeable characters, a story.. you know... stuff like that, but the admittedly impressive CGI soon takes over. This is not a good movie in disguise.

The rating: 5/10.

I have a confession to make: I went to see 'Armageddon' in the cinema. Please, please, contain your abuse, there were mitigating circumstances... ahem, ok, so it was a date, she wanted to see 'The Unbearable Lightness of Being', I wanted to see something else... so... we compromised and ended up seeing something neither of us wanted to watch... This is when I learned that a true compromise is a situation where both parties lose. Yes folks, with 'Armageddon', Michael Bay certainly taught me a life lesson.

When it came to the build-up to this movie, my brain may have attempted to remind me of my Michael Bay-related lesson, but I was busy with my fingers in my ears, metaphorically going 'la-la-la-la-laaa'. You see, there is definitely the potential for a really good 'Transformers' movie, if a hungry, talented young director, like a Christopher Nolan, a Len Wiseman or the Wachowski brothers (ten years ago) got their hands on it... instead (sigh), Hollywood gave the man who lost them a cool $100 million dollars with 'The Island' his chance for redemption. And the money men might just have made the right choice from their point of view, considering the business this movie has done. Only one week on release in the US, and its already turning a profit.. not bad for a $135 million dollar flick about toy robots.

So, is it actually any good? Well... to be honest, it's bad, but not 'Armageddon' bad. First, in case you missed it: 'Transformers' is a Michael Bay movie. To explain, 'Armageddon' was a movie where Liv Tyler's 'character' consisted mostly of wordlessly staring, yearning towards the sunset, with the American flag billowing in the wind behind her, while a crew of oil riggers, captained by her daddy (Bruce Willis, not that Aerosmith fella) attempted to save the earth from an oncoming meteor... you couldn't make it up, really. 'Armageddon' sucked in an offensive way, but happily, 'Transformers' isn't nearly that bad.

However, as with other Michael Bay movies, little time is wasted with stuff like character, motivation or (pshaw) conversations. Dialogue is first about setting up the initial explosion, then as a device to move characters from one explosion to the next. In terms of characters, if they can't be understood in one sentence, then they're likely to die rather quickly. We are introduced to Sam (Shia LaBoeuf) who wants a car and a girl and Michaela (Megan Fox) who is hot. That's all. Oh, and then there's Captain Lennox (Josh Duhamel) who just wants to finish his tour in the army and get back to his wife and kid, and the minister of Defence (Jon Voight) who needs to control this mess, and maybe leer a bit...

... ok, ok, so you don't watch 'Transformers' for the characters, I get it. Anyway, the two main leads are more than likeable, so, as long as the robots are cool and have cool fights where stuff gets trashed, who cares, right? Well, I'm happy to say the robots are certainly very well done. The special effects in this one are off the scale, really pushing things to another level. I would have a gripe about the leader of the baddies not being in it nearly enough though. He could have had an awful lot more to smash, given the opportunity.

The story though, is just silly, and possibly ripped off from an episode of the transformers kids cartoon (which was made by a toy manufacturer, incidentally). I've just forced myself to delete a sentence describing the storyline of the movie, for risk of spoilers, because it summed up the entire plot in about sixteen words. Two of those words were 'goodies' and 'baddies'.

Ok, so transformers is for kids then? Well, not quite. There is grown up humour in here, of the 'American Pie' variety, and the action is not light enough for young kids who might otherwise be watching 'Shrek the Third'. About forty five minutes of this movie is crammed with nonsensically fast-moving cameras zooming back and forth around giant robots, with human characters flitting about between their feet/wheels/other mechanical parts. The need for this comparitive scale makes many of the scenes featuring the robots quite difficult to follow. In particular, the last battle scenes are totally chaotic and very difficult for a 29-year-old codger like me to follow, my abnormally short attention span notwithstanding.

If it wasn't so silly and chaotic and two-dimensional, the robots might have saved it, but unfortunately, 'Transformers' just isn't a very good film. The action in 'Die Hard 4.0' was completely over the top, but it was packaged brilliantly. Michael Bay is more like a spoiled neighbour kid at Christmas. He's just got all these toys and, unsure which one to show us first, just shoves three of them in our faces, obscuring any clear view we might have otherwise had, and detracting from any potential sense of wonder. Shame really, but hey, don't worry, he'll probably have another shot, 'Transformers 2' can't be too far off.

300

The verdict: Yes it's got battles 'n' bloodshed galore, and superficially, it looks great. Scratch a little below the surface however, and 300 ain't got a lot to offer.

The rating: 6/10

300 may as well be called 1,800, for that is the number of rippling abs you will see on screen (and I'm only counting the Spartans there). This movie, if anything, is a triumph of muscle definition.

Some of my favourite movies' have been book-to-movie translations ('The Godfather', 'Trainspotting', 'A Scanner Darkly'...) but when considering adaptations, there are also the notable failures, where the screen version just couldn't match the expectation of fans of the book ('Bonfire of the Vanities', 'Catch 22' and 'Frankenstein' among others).

Lately movie makers have begun tapping the graphic novel archives as a new source of material to inveigle for their own nefarious purposes. 'V For Vendetta', 'A History of Violence', 'Sin City' were all good movies, and the forthcoming 'Watchmen' is eagerly anticipated. However, it seems that with graphic-novel-to-movie adaptations, too, there can also be failures to refer to, with the former being in the positive column, and 300 being, well, a qualified success at best.

I haven't read the 300 graphic novel, but I have a strong feeling that the medium of the printed page may be a better delivery mechanism than the big screen for a story like this. You see, the problem with '300' is that, although it looks great, there really isn't a whole lot going on under the surface.

It tells the story of Leonidas (Gerard Butler), king of the Spartans, who heroically stood with 300 warriors against the forces of Xerxes, who commanded an army of a million Persian soldiers. So, it's got battles. Sounds cool so far right? Also, it features a little of Spartan legend, and Sparta was a pretty cool place, as far as history goes. All that kids left on mountainsides to fend for themselves, fierce warriors and death before surrender stuff, cracking material for a movie right? Then you have the mystical Persian army, with their assortment of animals, magicians and monsters to throw at the Spartans, that's got to add to the battle scenes, right?

Well, all that is well and good, but I would argue that a two hour battle does not alone a movie make. You need to care about what happens first. And this is where '300' ultimately fails. Even early on, we learn that the Spartan soldiers actually welcome an honourable death in battle, laughing at their Athenian counterparts who fear it. So... they're happy to die, should we feel any different about their fate? Apparently not, as Frank Miller's story doesn't really try to encourage you to feel sorry for the Spartans in the least. Even Leonidas' wife, Queen Gorgo (Lena Headley) seems so emotionally strong and secure, that we're not sure if she's unhappy about Leonidas' crazy quest to lead these warriors to this impossible battle.

So, it's lacking in emotional depth, fair enough, but what am I, a pussy? Surely people aren't watching 300 for soppy reasons of drama and heartfelt emotion? Well, I disagree, and point a finger squarely in the direction of the film that 300 must surely benchmark itself against: 'Gladiator'. In that movie, Russell Crowe's Maximus had many, many good reasons to fight. He cried wholeheartedly at the death of his family, (with snot too - Ed) he strove for revenge against the evil incestuous emperor, he even had Oliver Reed on his side! We connected with him, and we wanted him to win.

Contrast that with Leonidas' steely impenetrable gazes into the middle distance, as the annoying voice-over proclaims how he is duty-bound not to display emotion... then, against Leonidas we have Xerxes, one of the strangest and campest (if that's a word) bad guys in recent movie memory, but certainly not a figure of evil. He just happens to have a larger army than Leonidas... Because of these two main characters, in terms of one side against another, we're never really concerned with who wins or loses. (No, we just want to see a good bloody ruck - Ed)

The action scenes are impressive, and Gerard Butler has surely made a name for himself as something of an action star with this one. However, too many montages, a rather contrived voice-over, not enough connection with the central characters, and an indifference about the outcome of the battle are the main problems I have with 300. That, and and an uncomfortable number of men in speedos. It is action-packed and has a good sense of humour, but it's no classic. Possibly a good one to watch on Dvd after the pub, when the action scenes are all you really care about.

Spiderman 3

The verdict: Too long, too slow, too self-indulgent. It might just give you arachnophobia.

The rating: 5/10

In this review I'm going to do something this film failed at: I'll try and keep it brief. Spiderman 3 follows the first two slickly imaginative popcorn flicks in the Peter Parker franchise with a tale that weaves a web with important moral messages to deliver around important choices and controlling the ego. This is ironic because Sam Raimi has succumbed to his own ego with this overblown production, and made many questionable choices in its realisation. The result is a semi-coherent puzzle of a big-budget stinker that entertains in fits and starts, creating a mood of impatience rather than exhilaration.

Chief among my problems with this episode are: the dance sequence, the completely superfluous Stan Lee cameo, the excessive use of kids (including one who says 'way cool') and the melodramatic, poorly written character of Mary-Jane, whose behaviour is so inscrutable, most of the audience will have fallen out of love with her long before the end of the movie. Even Bruce Campbell's cameo feels out of place, and it misses the mark in terms of comedy, jarring as it does with Peter and Mary-Jane's first moment of Greco-Roman tragedy.

There are bits and pieces to like about this movie though. Topher Grace is a welcome addition, and he revels in the material he is given. Thomas Haden Church (who PCMR thought was great in Sideways) is also good as the Sandman, and the scene where he takes his first steps is the best in the movie.

The thing is, this movie has ambitions far above its station as a popcorn flick. It’s trying to be a love story, a love triangle story, a moral tale about power and ego, betrayal and making the right choices… which is all very well, but it just feels so cobbled together between the action sequences, and although the action is typically top-notch, the dialogue is truly awful and the characters difficult to relate to as a result. The character of Aunt May, in particular, feels out of place, appearing every now and again to move along the moral message with all the subtlety of Roy Chubby Brown at a Glasgow dockers' Christmas party.

The venom character is good, but when Peter Parker has the dark suit on you just want to make it stop… I mean.. he dances! My eyes!!

Overall, Spiderman 3 looks like it's going to join the ranks of episode 3's that just weren't trying hard enough: Pirates of the Caribbean at World’s End, Ocean's 13, Return of the Jedi, Alien 3, Terminator 3, Rush Hour 3… to name but a few. There may be a Spiderman 4, but my money would be on Tobey Maguire making a quick exit from this sinking ship. If Sam Raimi is allowed make another one, and he has any humility, he'll try a lot harder next time, because this franchise is headed for its very own 'Batman and Robin.'

Shiri

The verdict: Cheesy Hollywood-style action from Korea.

Craziness: Buddy-cop action, shootouts and explosions. Oh, wait, that isn't crazy at all...

The rating: 5/10

There's a song from 'Team America: World Police' that tellingly reveals a device oft over-used in movies: the montage. When you need to move things along, the song goes, you need a montage.. and of course fading out from the montage shows that time is passing... Shiri opens with a training montage, with a nameless female soldier graduating from a rain-soaked uber-badass military training school in North Korea. The montage shows us in around 90 seconds that she's a sharp-shooter, separated from her family, and so damn hard that she's graduating top of her badass class. Then, a second montage shows us what she's managed to achieve since graduating, and it's a pretty impressive hit list. Cut to present day, and agents Ryu and Lee are secret agents, partners, and on her case.

Shiri, features two veterans of Chan-Wook Park's revenge trilogy: the instantly recognisable Oldboy himself Min-Sik Choi, and one of the leads from 'Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance' Kang-Ho Song. Their presence in this movie is proof, at least, that paycheck movies aren't just a Hollywood phenomenon. This isn't just any paycheck movie though, as it is still the highest grossing Korean movie in history.

Ok, the story goes: a dissident North Korean regiment, led by Oldboy, are using grasses in the South to gain access to confidential military information about a new technological development: CTX. CTX is a liquid explosive with identical properties to water, bar one rather important one: when it is exposed to enough light and heat, it explodes with a force ten times greater than any other explosive previously seen.

As the secret agents investigate the movements of the North Korean bad lady, named Hee, they uncover evidence linking her to this regiment, and things really start kicking off.

Shiri is pretty action-packed, but the action sequences are out-of-the-box and everything in here has been done many times before, with bigger budgets and more imagination, by the likes of Jerry Bruckheimer, for example. The action tends to take the form of prolonged confusing shoot-outs between goodies and baddies, and the body count starts mounting right from the opening scenes.

The two partners are buddies right from the start, and this relationship has a conclusion to it that is so inevitable it isn't funny. If you've seen an action movie before in your life, you'll see this coming from about ten minutes in... All that is missing from this element of the film is someone screaming: 'NOoooo!!' (Er, in Korean though - Ed)

Where Shiri almost gets away from cliché is in the love interest, but the dialogue between Ryu and fiancée Hyun is genuinely nauseating. She runs an aquarium and talks about a type of kissing fish called 'Kissing Gourami'. These fish live in pairs, and if one dies, so does the the other. This, if you are asleep, is called a metaphor. It would be a nice one if it wasn't repeated so bloody often throughout the movie.

There is a political context to Shiri, that is possibly the reason it attracted so much domestic interest. The action set-piece that frames the finale of the movie is an historic friendly football match between North Korea and South Korea. The presidents of both Koreas are attending, and Oldboy's dissident military unit want to blow up them both up and start a war.

So, it's laden with action movie clichés, and the love interest side of it is sickly sweet, but is it any fun? Well, there is the occasional moment of comedy, but a movie this ridiculous should have its tongue firmly in its cheek... think 'Face/Off' and how the two leads hammed it up so much that the premise actually became a bit of fun. Unfortunately, Shiri takes itself a little too seriously for that. Possibly due to the importance of the political element to the story, and the desire to make the plot laden with emotional connotations, it just gets tiresome, and long before the end.

Perhaps a guest appearance from 'Team America's' Kim Jong-Il would have livened things up... (I'm so rone-ree... mwaa haa! ... ahem.. - Ed) but given that he's a renowned film fanatic, I think he would have taken offence at his image being used in a film that is quite simply a below-par popcorn actioner.

Harsh Times

The verdict: Gritty, dark, drama, that ends up being unnecessarily bleak for PCMR's taste, although Freddy Rodriguez is very good, and Christian Bale is frightening.

The rating: 6/10

David Ayer first attracted Hollywood attention on a large scale with his script for Training Day, the over-rated gritty cop drama that won Denzel Washington an Oscar. PCMR struggles sometimes to determine why some movies gain more critical praise than others, and Training Day is a case in point. I couldn't see what much of the critical furore was about with this movie. Despite two strong lead performances from Denzel Washington and Ethan Hawke, the movie itself was unsatisfying, and the last half hour in particular left me a little cold.

Aanyway, since when has PCMR’s voice influenced the machinations of Hollywood eh? Since Training Day, Ayer has written the excellent and criminally under-rated 'Dark Blue' (featuring one of PCMR’s favourites, 'Grindhouse' star Kurt Russell), and (ahem) the Colin Farrell auto-pilot vehicle 'S.W.A.T.'. But everyone needs a paycheck movie now and again right? Oh, did I mention that, before Training Day, Ayer also 'wrote' the screenplay for 'The Fast and the Furious'? Hmmm, perhaps Ayer’s resume means his box-office credentials are unshakable, but his soul may well reside in hell when judgement day comes. (Yikes! A little harsh, no? – Ed)

For his first foray into directing, Ayer helmed Harsh Times, a movie he also scripted, and with three big names filling the principal roles. Set in Los Angeles, Christian Bale plays Jim Davis, an Afghanistan war veteram with a desire to join the police force, and a pretty bad attitude. Also soon to star in Grindhouse, Freddy Rodriguez plays Mike Alonzo, Jim’s best mate, and a web designer who is also looking for work. Desperate Housewives' Eva Longoria plays love interest #1, Mike’s Lawyer girlfriend, who is supplying him with lunch money while he looks for a job.

We learn a lot about Bale’s character, Jim in the opening two scenes. He has been traumatized by his war experiences, is in love with his Mexican girlfriend and wants to join the police force so he can marry her and settle down. However, it becomes clear from early on that Jim has some 'unresolved issues' as Dr. Phil might say. Put another way, he’s basically a complete mentalist.

Ayer has set his movie in Los Angeles, and PCMR got the feeling that the film was based on the Cypress Hill song 'Insane in the Brain'. That song starts with a little sample of what sounds like a Hispanic gangster saying "who you tryin’ to get crazy with, ese? Don’t you know I’m loco!?" This quote essentially sums up Christian Bale in 'Harsh Times', and is an indication of the style of dialogue in the movie, set as it is in a principally Hispanic and crime-ridden area of Los Angeles.

This movie is from the 'Training Day' boilerplate, essentially two guys driving round a city with bad things happening. The premise is of Bale driving Rodriguez around while they look for work. Unfortunately, Bale gets refused from the police force quite early on in the movie, and the moment this news is revealed to him turns out to be his first moment of red mist. His response to this news is to 'get fucked up', so the two boys score some weed, get high, and then try to pull some birds. (Shouldn’t that be: "score some bee-atches, puto?" Ahem – Ed) Unfortunately, the very bad things start happening fairly early on in proceedings.

Christian Bale is excellent, as ever, in this movie. Unfortunately, rather than becoming a career-high performance, as Denzel enjoyed from Training Day, Bale’s character is really just an angry young man. We don’t learn too much about this guy before he went to the war, except from one friend who says he 'used to be mellow'. Rodriguez’s character, and performance are possibly more interesting however. All through the movie, Bale’s more easy-going companion marshals him and watches out for him, and the relationship is the core of this movie. Bale’s performance may attract the plaudits from this movie, but Rodriguez is genuinely good as well, in a more under-stated way. One could even argue that playing a psycho freaking out is easier than playing his buddy in the passenger seat, concerned for his friend’s mental health.

The movie is dark and gritty, set as it is on the streets of Los Angeles. However, it is a little bleak for me, and the last act in particular crosses the line into unreal territory that jars a little with the street realism that comes before. The two male leads are excellent however, and PCMR would argue that Bale has the presence and charisma to become one of the best in the very near future. Rodriguez too, makes a great claim for himself as a support player, and 'Grindhouse' should send him into the big leagues. Eva Longoria plays supportive girlfriend #1, and this role won’t exactly endear her to any feminist fans she may have gathered from Desperate Housewives. (Ummm… you haven’t seen the show then? – Ed)

Of note also is a great little supporting turn from Terry Crews, who also turned up in 'Idiocracy', playing the future president of the United States. Crews has a nice few minutes on-screen, and was excellent in 'Idiocracy' to boot. PCMR predicts big things for this guy, who you will most likely recognize as the father from 'Everybody Hates Chris'.

So, 'Harsh Times' is, well, a little harsh. I found it unnecessarily bleak, but thought the two leads were excellent. If you like your cop dramas dark, unsettling, and are a fan of A-list actors playing nut-jobs a la DeNiro in 'Taxi Driver', then Harsh Times may be for you. However, most of the audience may be a little unsettled by it’s misogyny, glib outlook on life, and hollow acts of senseless violence to consider it anything more than big-budget trashy entertainment. Christian Bale may have to choose his roles a little more carefully if he wants to leave behind a body of work to merit the investment he makes in his roles. (Although he got a lot back from this one, being the executive producer and all – Ed)

Curse of the Golden Flower

The verdict: Excellent epic Shakespearian regal tragedy set in Tang Dynasty China... and it's got ninjas, bee-atch!
The rating: 8/10

PCMR's Recipe for Curse of the Golden Flower

Take two cupfuls of 'Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon', and pan-fry with one-third of 'The Last Emperor' (finely chopped).
Next, add half of Mike Leigh's 'Secrets and Lies', a pinch of 'Eastenders' and bring to the boil.
When the mixture is boiling, add a half-pint of 'Macbeth' and two tablespoonfuls of Battle Spices extracted from 'The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers'. (Don't worry if you don't have the Lord of the Rings Trilogy to hand, any large-scale battle spices will suffice, 'Braveheart' or 'Troy' for example).
Now would be the time to add two cloves of cleavage from 'Dangerous Liaisons', and then leave to simmer.
When the mix has been simmering for a good hour, add a sprinkling of 'Oldboy', and just a pinch of 'Ran' to flavour.
After two hours, serve on a bed of Chow-Yun Fat and enjoy!

'Curse of the Golden Flower' is the most expensive Chinese movie production ever to hit cinema screens. Starring a trio of Crouching Tiger veterans, Golden Flower is a tragic tale of the emperor and his royal family, set in the time of the Tang Dynasty in ancient China. Chow-Yun Fat is excellent as the emperor, but this is essentially the story of the empress, and Li Gong steals this movie, so excellent is she as the tragic matriarch of this most dysfunctional of royal families. If you saw 'The Queen' recently, and thought the Windsors had a few issues, you ain't seen nothin yet buddy.

The emperor has three sons, the eldest of which is from a previous marriage, and who the emperor believes to be unfit to inherit the throne. For this reason, he is in the process of deciding to make his second son Jai (Jay Chou) the crown prince. Things get dark and complicated very early on, however, as the Empress appears to be infatuated with the eldest of the three sons, the crown prince Wan (Ye Liu) - but don't worry, no blood relation here, so it's not that bad, right? (Hmm - Ed) Ahem... aaanyway, the emperor may or may not have gotten wind of this, but he has decided to poison the empress, by adding a fungus to her daily doses of anemia medicine that will slowly drive her mad.

What follows includes numerous twists and turns, with each character involved in a dense web of intrigue that threatens to literally tear the family apart. The empress, aware of her husbands intention to poison her, busies herself by embroidering numerous chrysanthemums, the titular golden flower, but does she have a plot up her own sleeve, or is she simply going slowly insane?

The scale of this production is really quite breathtaking. The imperial palace is the setting for almost all of the action, and it is a place of vivid colours and dense ritualistic protocol, playing host to countless servants working on behalf of the different family members. In the scenes where we are exposed to palace life, director Yimou Zhang gives the audience the occasional glimpse of just how much manpower goes into, for example, the preparation of the average day in the palace. Sweeping wide shots of thousands of extras, all costumed and made-up to the hilt, are employed to reinforce the scale on which the palace operates, and the lack of CGI effects only serves to make the effect of this portrayal ever more acute. And the cleavage! There's blummin loads of it on show, more than even 'Dangerous Liaisons', I reckon... smashing stuff.

In keeping with the epic spirit of Crouching Tiger, there is also the required dose of large-scale battle action to enjoy. However, where 'House of Flying Daggers' fell down in this regard, Golden Flower succeeds. Rather than overloading the audience with one immense battle after another, the battle scenes in Golden Flower are used sparingly, and so have greater effect when they eventually splash across the screen in vivid colour, and also notably with nothing but real actors on show.

Also, there are ninjas, dude!! The ninja warriors in Golden Flower are mean, dammit, and they certainly mean business. The scenes with these guys will have people like Quentin Tarantino punching the air saying things like "that's what I'm talkin 'bout!", and why not, because they brilliantly executed and exhilarating to watch.

Although the storyline is tragic to the point of being melodramatic, the balance between the large-scale battle sequences, and the assorted personal difficulties of the royal family members is well handled by director Zhang. The battles, when they occur, are not the focus of the picture, but integrate well with the rest of the movie.

Li Gong's performance is truly excellent, and Chow Yun-Fat, once again, delivers a portrayal of a troubled emperor, loaded with regal charm and charisma, and of course replete with the occasional perfectly-timed arched eyebrow or two. ('Troubled emperor' is always a good part to be offered - Ed) The three sons are each played quite well, but Jay Chou is the best of them, and is the hero of the piece.

This movie deserves to be seen on the big screen, as the scale is honestly larger than anything you will have seen before, with the possible exception of 'Metropolis' or something from Akira Kurosawa. PCMR will recommend it as an intelligent, dramatic story, with seriously excellent battle sequences that are worth the admission price alone. The movie borrows heavily from other similar films that have preceded it, and also from Shakespearian plays such as 'Macbeth', but when the finished product is as coherent, sumptuous and exhilarating a cinematic experience as 'Curse of the Golden Flower', PCMR sees absolutely no problem with this. If you're still unsure, then let me go out on a limb here: it's better than 'Crouching Tiger' or 'House of Flying Daggers'. ('nuff said. - Ed)

Hot Fuzz

The verdict: smart, funny, a good laugh and a great cast, but a tad long.
The rating: 7/10

Simon Pegg’s star is definitely rising at the moment, and PCMR would argue that this is no bad thing. I remember the short-lived TV series 'Hippies' a lot more than the more successful 'Spaced', but the clearest memory I have of that show is a stand-out performance from that man Pegg and his energetic, earnest comedy routine. He also had a small but memorable enough role in '24 Hour Party People', which PCMR would heartily recommend.

But then came 'Shaun of the Dead', inspired by a short sketch from Spaced, and possibly also from numerous sessions on the couch playing Resident Evil with best mate and co-star Nick Frost. Shaun was a clever, good-humoured pastiche of tributes to well-known zombie movies, and was a massive hit for Pegg, Frost, and director Edgar Wright. Personally, I always felt Shaun of the Dead to be just a tad over-rated, but still a very enjoyable film nonetheless. PCMR’s opinion didn’t stop the movie from being a runaway success on both sides of the Atlantic, however, attracting interest from Hollywood big-shots keen to capitalise on a post-Ricky Gervais wave of affection towards British comedies.

In promotional interviews immediately after making Shaun of the Dead, Simon Pegg quipped about what he was going to do next, joking that he would fly off to Hollywood and make 'Mission: Impossible 3'… or something. Well, as it turned out, reality sometimes is stranger than fiction. JJ Abrams, the producer of MI:III, counts himself among a legion of American fans of Shaun of the Dead, and he invited Pegg to Hollywood to do exactly that.

So, with a credible internationally acclaimed home-grown hit, and a big-budget Hollywood blockbuster under his belt, the inevitable question had to be asked: what next for Pegg, co-star Frost and director Wright?

Well, the trio have set out to pay homage to a different genre, the buddy-cop movie, and the result is 'Hot Fuzz'. The story is devilishly simple, Nicolas Angel (Pegg) is an over-achieving London copper, is forced to transfer to a quiet rural small town because his exceptional arrest rates are making the other London cops look bad. He arrives in the village of Sandford still tuned in to big city ways, constantly on the look-out for underhanded goings-on, but all that Sandford appears to offer in terms of criminal activity is under-age drinking and.. well… that’s about it really.

But then, people start dying, and the townsfolk appear more than willing to dismiss these events, stating that "accidents happen all the time". Angel starts to become convinced that something sinister is going on under the surface of the quiet town of Sandford, but is this all just a product of his hyper-sensitive London beat cop instincts, or is he quietly going mad at the prospect of his failed career?

Sandford, like most small rural towns, is populated with its fair share of eccentrics, and this is a source for much of the humour in Hot Fuzz. Angel’s partner, played brilliantly by Nick Frost, appears to be a dim-witted, but good-natured simpleton, constantly questioning Angel as to whether he’s jumped through the air while firing a gun, and such and such.. The supporting cast is impressive, however, with Edward Woodward, Jim Broadbent, Bill Bailey and Paddy Considine all enjoying themselves thoroughly on-screen. Special mention must go to Timothy Dalton though, who revels in the role of roguish upper-class jaguar-driving supermarket chief Simon Skinner.

The movie is essentially a comedy, and for the first two thirds, introduces the array of characters, sets the scene, and essentially sets up the third act. In these early scenes, PCMR picked up on more than a passing reference to 'The Wicker Man', and I don’t believe for a moment that Edward Woodward’s casting was an accident!

In the third act, the movie becomes a balls-out homage to the crash-bang-wallop buddy-cop explosion-fests that Nick Frost’s character loves watching on DVD, such as 'Point Break' and 'Bad Boys II' for example. The action is very well put together, and although large amounts of disbelief must be suspended, there are also a fair amount of laughs in this section of the movie.

What Hot Fuzz has in common with Shaun of the Dead is something that many big-budget Hollywood blockbusters lack. At the same time as trying to make the audience laugh, or give them a wave of excitement, the film-makers are aware that the audience has – cough – actually seen other movies! Referring to other movies is not something Wright and Pegg appear to shy away from in their writing. Quite the opposite in fact, and some of the funniest moments for me were when these movies, which have obviously provided the inspiration for Hot Fuzz, were referenced, either directly in the dialogue, or implicitly in the action scenes.

As a comedy, it is a success, and PCMR would venture that it is funnier than Shaun of the Dead, with quite a few laugh-out-loud moments. Like Shaun, the comedy almost gives way to action roughly two thirds of the way through, but there is still room in the action sequences of Hot Fuzz for some belly laughs, and these contribute to the relentless pace of the final twenty minutes or so.

My only real quibble of the movie was the running time. At two hours, Hot Fuzz felt a little too long for me. Also, because the first two acts were so long, when the action kicked in, it jarred a little, given that the audience had possibly settled into a nicely paced eccentric comedy. Suddenly there’s all sorts of gun-wielding lunatics, massive explosions and cheesy one-liners to be had. I’m not debating the merits of these things, just that they could probably have shed fifteen minutes or so, and ended up with a leaner, punchier movie as a result.

So, it’s funny, but it’s also quite violent. However this violence is in the classic tradition of gross-out movies, in that it’s almost cartoony in its shock value. Fly-kicking a granny in the face might not seem like such a funny thing (Eh? – Ed) but it gave PCMR quite a good belly laugh in the context of Hot Fuzz.

Pegg’s performance is really great though. You would expect him to be good in the more comedic sections of the movie, and he doesn’t disappoint there. However, when he gets pissed off and starts kicking ass, Pegg is quite believable as the action copper, and gives a very good account of himself in some fairly stunt-heavy scenes, inevitably delivering the odd cool quip here and there, to great effect.

So, I’d recommend it because it’s smart, funny and will reference other movies you may have seen. The two leads are great, the script is smart, and the supporting cast are terrific. PCMR predicts big things beckoning for this trio of Pegg, Frost and Wright, but in particular, you can expect Simon Pegg to feature in a few Hollywood outings in the not too distant future. And with a performance as good as this, why the hell not?

Blood Diamond

Blood Diamond is set in Sierra Leone in 1999, a time when the country was in the midst of a bloody civil war. The R.U.F. (militia rebels) terrorised the country's civilian population, killing and maiming hundreds of thousands, and displacing millions. The cause of the conflict was the rich deposit of diamond reserves held by the poor African country, which under international law, came to be known as 'conflict diamonds'. This same law made it illegal to import diamonds from countries in conflict such as Sierra Leone.

This type of situation attracts opportunists, mercenaries such as Danny Archer (Leonardo Di Caprio) willing to transport the diamonds across the border to neighbouring Liberia, where customs officials can be paid off in order to rubber-stamp the origin of the diamonds as Liberian, which in turn means the gems can be exported to first world nations, and made into nice necklaces, rings and other assorted items of 'bling'.

The thing is, the R.U.F. in civil war Sierra Leone used the country's own people to mine the diamonds. Solomon Vandy (Djimon Hounsou) is captured by the militia, separated from his family, and sent to work in one of these diamond mines by the rebels. He unearths the titular Blood Diamond - a 100 carat diamond the size of an egg - a milky gem worth a significant fortune. Solomon just about manages to bury the diamond as the camp is attacked by the army, and all non R.U.F. survivors are imprisoned.

Unfortunately for him, Archer too is imprisoned for smuggling diamonds across the Sierra Leone-Liberian border in what can only be described as strange cargo. While in prison, Archer's attention is drawn to Solomon's story, and he takes it upon himself to try and track down this blood diamond, for his own nefarious purposes.

After getting bailed out, Archer stumbles across Maddy Bowen (Jennifer Connelly) an American journalist reporting on the conflict in Sierra Leone. These two characters quickly come to represent an interesting reflection of the conflicting outsider views towards the internal struggles of African peoples. Maddy is conscientious, a lefty journalist, who believes that simply by being there and reporting to the latte-drinking, interest-rate-discussing people back home, she may be able to make a difference. By contrast, Archer is a grizzled former soldier from Zimbabwe, or Rhodesia as he insists on calling it. After fleeing Rhodesia, he joined the South African army, and fought in Angola. He claims to have seen it all before, and is uninterested in making a difference to the outcome of the conflict, only taking what he can from it before it all explodes.

Solomon's wish to be reunited with his family is Archer's leverage to get to the diamond, but at the same time, Solomon believes he can use Archer to track down his son, now a soldier with the militia. When the militia's marching forces invade Freetown, the capital of Sierra Leone, the two are forced together, Solomon needing this soldier's survival skills, and Archer only thinking of the diamond. Maddy, on the other hand is drawn into their story as a covert means of transport to the diamond mine, in return for a tell-all story from Archer on the people behind the diamond trade.

In a telling scene, Maddy describes her efforts at describing the carnage she is seeing. She admits her reportage may be pointless, that severed limbs, displaced families, and burning African villages simply has no impact on first world readers any more. The phrase is not used, but she is referring to the first world audience and their 'compassion fatigue' when it comes to African struggles. If they are not like-minded with her, in other words, if they think like Archer, how can she convince them of the damage being done in this country? And even if the're willing to make a difference, what can they do anyway? This movie valiantly attempts to explore whether there are in fact answers to these difficult questions.

Blood Diamond is beautifully shot, set against the backdrop of a collection of colourful African rural and urban landscapes. Coastal villages are bathed in sunlight, the dark jungles loaded with shapeless threats, the night-time flame-lit parties in the militia bases ominous and fraught with tension, but the many treks through the countryside are framed by breathtakingly beautiful natural scenery, all captured with real verve by cinematographer Edoardo Serra, and director Edward Zwick.

The three leads are impressive, and Charles Leavitt's script weaves the contrasting beliefs of this trio of characters, and their developing relationships with each other on two levels. At the basic level of the story, they are drawn together through their links to Solomon's diamond, and this yarn is interesting enough in and of itself. However, each lead character acts as a symbol of either Africa or of how Africa is percieved by the outside world, and this layer is subtly transposed onto proceedings in a way that never dominates the action.

The action scenes too, are tense, exciting and on a large scale. Director Ed Zwick is an old hand at directing the thick of battleground action, having taken the helm of 'Glory', 'Courage Under Fire' and 'The Last Samurai'. The shoot-outs are immediate and realistic, and the main players are forced into a physical involvement in the action that immerses the viewer.

Although diamonds were the catalyst for the war in Sierra Leone, and the blood diamond the trigger for the events in the movie, the more viscerally explored theme of the film relates to child soldiers. As the old Mende teacher (played all too briefly by Winston Ntshona) explains in the movie, infantry means 'child soldier', and many child soldiers were used in the war in Sierra Leone. The 'recruitment' methods of the militia are explored on screen, and these scenes are among the most emotive of the movie. These children are separated from their families and become brainwashed into fighting for - and most likely dying for - the cause of the rebels.

'The Last King of Scotland' touched on themes of African political instability, and portrayed events from Idi Amin's perspective, or at least from the perspective of the cossetted bosom of the presidential palace. Blood Diamond, by contrast, plunges us deep into the real madness, and we are there at ground level, witnessing all the bloody carnage.

Put aside your unreasonable dislike of Leo, he doesn't deserve it. DiCaprio is maturing as an actor with every new outing, and this role is another step forward for him, and better than his turn in 'The Departed'. Even from behind the constraint of a Zim accent (pretty much Sith Ifrican here) he delivers a powerful, rounded and mature peformance, and is believable as the hard-hearted refugee, who has become so cold and cynical to African events, that when he witnesses another tragic event that is difficult to comprehend, he simply shrugs and says 'T.I.A.', or 'this is Africa'. (In 'Saving Private Ryan', the same device was employed, only it was FUBAR - Ed).

Jennifer Connelly must surely now be recognised not only as the most beautiful actress of our generation, but as a genuine talent with a lot more to offer than just a pretty face. Her role is the most difficult to pull off, as she is intended to be the antidote to DiCaprio's deep-seated cynicism, but on a more basic level, it is understandable that she might be able to defrost DiCaprio's heart.

And Djimon Hounsou, who most of you will remember from 'Gladiator', is brilliant. His performance varies from being subtly played, in particular the scenes with his son, to the more outward displays of emotion he directs at DiCaprio, but he manages to make it all believable. In particular, PCMR will remember his 'berserker' moment towards the end, where I was sure I saw the fires of hell in his eyes. Excellent stuff.

I would have given this a higher rating, but unfortunately, the last five minutes of the movie had to go and let it down, but only slightly. It may have been a concession made by the film-makers considering how much else they got to show on-screen, but the formulaic last scenes jarred slightly with me, no matter how much I liked the characters involved by then.

So, it's a true gem of a movie this one, and unfortunately Blood Diamond could very easily be buried in the hype surrounding the other oscar nominated movies, such as Babel, Last King of Scotland or The Queen. However, I would argue that - even purely on the level of entertainment - this one would give any of those three a run for their money. In PCMR's book, Blood Diamond is well worth a look.


The verdict: Visceral, powerful, entertaining and emotive. This is proper cinema. Go see it.
The rating: 8/10

Apocalypto

Over the last couple of years, we've seen extensive media coverage of a number of quite public celebrity meltdowns. The Tom Cruise Is Nuts website was in existence long before the man jumped up and down on Oprah's couch, but that episode prompted worldwide questioning of whether Cruise really was a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic. His subsequent media tour to promote 'War of the Worlds' ironically ended up alienating him from Steven Spielberg, due to his irrepressible desire to hold forth on such topics as the relevance of scientology, and, even more bizarrely, Brooke Shields' post-natal depression.

The manner of Cruise's marriage to Katie Holmes, and also the subsequent mysterious birth of their baby, has done little to dim the media spotlights surrounding the Cruiser. In fact, although he was dropped by his studio following his fallout with Spielberg, he has since been appointed at the reins of a large Hollywood production company, and PCMR would argue that he is now even more famous than ever before. (Incidentally, now that Cruise has been bestowed with the power of the green-light, what price on the imminent development of 'Battlefield Earth 2'? We live in fear!)

Mel Gibson, too, has had a very public meltdown recently. Driving under the inflence, escaping from police officers on foot, a rather comprehensively loopy anti-semitic rant, and the now legendary 'sugar tits' remark added up to a story the National Enquirer couldn't have invented in their wildest dreams. In one of it's more prescient moments, SouthPark pre-empted this episode of lunacy with one of their own, lampooning Gibson for being completely bonkers after the success of 'The Passion of the Christ'. In the sensitively titled episode 'The Passion of the Jew', Gibson appears in Braveheart make-up dressed only in his underwear, ranting and babbling to the four mountain town kids after they demand their seven dollars admission fee back. Stan, shocked, declares that "this guy is crazy." PCMR could be wrong on this call, but believes that this episode was made before the whole sugar tits debacle... possibly following either Trey Parker or Matt Stone running into Gibson in some Hollywood get-together.

That's not to say that being crazy is necessarily bad for the potential of Gibson's artistic output. I would argue that his decision to limit his appearances in front of the camera in favour of working behind it, is actually evidence of a rational mind. His more recent forays as an actor ('Conspiracy Theory', 'The Patriot', 'We Were Soldiers') have generally been in awful movies. 'Signs' wasn't all that bad, but you get the impression his acting career would soon be in need of the potential box office jolt provided by Lethal Weapon 5, god help us..

His career behind the camera, however, has been an entirely different matter. After cutting his teeth with 'The Man Without a Face', Gibson made a giant creative leap forward with 'Braveheart' two years later, and promptly picked up an Oscar for his troubles. Possibly due to the difficulty of following up such a career-defining project, Gibson waited some ten years before making his next directorial venture, the ubiquitous 'Passion of the Christ'. Vilified and adored in equal measure, 'The Passion' provoked extreme reaction from zealots and pagans alike, proof that religious themes will not lose their controversial edge for some time to come. Despite the personal and professional vilification Gibson endured with the Passion, it went on to rake in cash hand over fist at the box office, and was probably the biggest hit of 2005, considering it's relatively meagre $30 million budget.

And so, we come to Gibson's difficult decision to follow up what will most likely be the biggest success of his career. With the creative and financial freedom afforded by one of the biggest movies of 2005, Mel announces... Apocalypto, a film about the implosion of the Mayan people, without a single recognisable Hollywood name, and shot entirely in the ancient Mayan language... PCMR can only conclude that Mel is straddling the line between complete lunacy and cinematic genius here, but after seeing the trailer a few months ago, I was definitely keen to evaluate the results of Gibson's potential folly... Now, finally, the results are in. PCMR has survived a viewing of 'Apocalpyto'... so what's it to be: depraved lunatic or misunderstood genius?

Well, the idea of making a movie like Apocalypto, depicting the demise of the ancient Mayan people, was probably considered to be lunacy in Hollywood. I'm sure the critics that Gibson attracted with both 'the Passion' and his D.U.I. episode were rubbing their hands with glee at the the likely imminence of Mel's career implosion. However, the fact that Gibson even managed to get the movie made, and with a budget of $40 million dollars to boot, must be a reflection of his strength of conviction in the movie's worth and relevance. So at this stage of proceedings, the jury is out on Gibson's sanity, and they're out probably out watching the movie before they deliver their verdict.

The movie is essentially a great piece of cinematic entertainment, and I wouldn't hesitate to compare it with Braveheart or even Gladiator, in terms of its affectionate, pain-staking reconstruction of an ancient culture. Gibson obviously has a lot of love for the Mayan culture, and from very early on in the picture, we see these tribespeople as individuals and can understand them, despite the obvious disparities between this culture and ours. For example, the tribesmen work together, they play pranks on each other, they are family-oriented, and they gather round camp-fires for a good story and a bit of a dance... these are basic versions of activities we still enjoy today... although the influence of technology has changed the appearance, fundamentally, it's the same thing.

Apocalypto is the story of Jaguar Paw and his tribe. Their peaceful tribal life is disrupted when a nomad neighbouring tribe passses through their hunting grounds in the first minutes of the movie. This tribe do not have aggressive intentions, however, but make it clear to Jaguar Paw that their lands and people were ravaged, and they need somewhere new to settle.

This episode has a profound impact on Jaguar Paw, played with ferocious intensity by Rudy Youngblood. His father sees the impact on him immediately, and advises his son how important it is not to let the disease of fear into his blood, for it pollutes, and is contagious. However, Jaguar Paw can't shake the feeling, and it proves to be portentous.

Apocalypto has received much critical press describing the level of on-screen violence, and the degree to which the director really shows us what is actually happening in the more violent scenes. I have to say however, and perhaps I was prepared to be shocked, but I didn't see any violent scenes that shocked me. There is one rather prolonged battle scene, but the evocative moments are not from the violence on screen, rather from the visceral emotions that the battle engenders. Families separated, loved ones being captured or killed, this was more traumatic to me than the actual violence, which to be honest, fit quite well with the story. There is one scene reminiscent of Wallace's torture in Braveheart, but the scene in Apocalytpo is far milder than that, for example, and PCMR doesn't recall hearing such a critical revulsion to the violence in Braveheart when it was released.

While the first act is set against the backdrop of tribal life in the jungle, the middle of the movie is the most visually stunning. This section of the movie sees Jaguar Paw travel to the stone-built centre of the Mayan people, where thousands toil on the construction of a huge stone city, and human sacrifices are offered to the gods before the eyes of a thronging city centre. These scenes are incredibly well put together and beautifully shot, and make this part of the movie quite immersive, as you're paying so much attention to the level of detail on show, it becomes quite difficult to predict what direction the story will take.

The scale of these scenes, too, is reminiscent of Gladiator. Wide shots reveal the thronging crowds, thirsty for entertainment and blood, under the guise of offering a sacrifice to their gods. This is Gibson contrasting the depraved Mayan cities with the peaceful tribes, and is a metaphor for any number of contemporary themes, none of which PCMR is going to venture!

The action in Apocalypto is very well shot, and there is a chase scene which surely will go down in the cinematic annals as one of the best. This chase is not 'The French Connection' however, for it is on foot, through the jungle. This is a signature of Mel Gibson's movies: running. Riggs had a running moment in every Lethal Weapon picture, the Scots did loads of bloody running in Braveheart, and now this! I'll forgive him this one though, for the chase scene is great, and for the third half of the movie, there really is little or no dialogue to speak of, and the action does most of the talking.

Thus, the director is the star of this movie, and the production design is the supporting actor. The script is strongest in the first third of the movie, the dialogue is so limited from then on, the action could quite easily have been shot from a story-board from about half way through. There are obvious enough weaknesses in the plot, however, such as the timescale of the action, which means Jaguar Paw experiences a couple of days that normally only reserved for the likes of Jack Bauer in '24'. That's not a major complaint however, because this is essentially an action movie after all. However, one plot point that rankled with me was in the transtion from the second to third act, where Jaguar Paw's escape becomes the chase. It felt a little forced for me, but the counter-weight is that the action continues to flow at a furious pace. The chase is quite intense, as the pursuers are never more than a few metres behind, and the jungle tends to throw up regular surprises from the flora!

Overall, Apocalypto is a great piece of entertainment, and is unique and original enough to stand proudly astride the line between genius and lunacy. It's no cinematic classic, but it is visually memorable enough to be considered a real success for Mel Gibson. I'd recommend seeing it in the cinema, but not if you're squeamish. If Gladiator was a little violent for you, then you won't like this one.

Who needs a 'Mel Gibson is Nuts' website anyway?! If he's going to continue making entertaining, visionary movies like Apocalypto, I personally couldn't care less if he was crazy.


The Verdict: Memorable, action-packed, visually amazing. Violent, but not in a gratuitous way. Worth a look, sugar tits.
The Rating: 7/10