Preston.....Preston....Sam, Sam Preston....

Title: Batman Begins

Number: Two Hundred And Three

Directer: Christopher Nolan

Writers: Christopher Nolan, David S. Goyer

Genre: Superhero.

Released: 2005.

Seen on: DVD.

Seen Before: Several times before.

Starring: Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman, Liam Neeson, Katie Holmes, Cillian Murphy, Tom Wilkinson, Rutger Hauer, Ken Watanabe

Running Time: 140 minutes.

Favorite Performance: Christian Bale as Bruce Wayne/Batman.

Favorite Moment: With Wayne Manor burning above them, Bruce questions what good he ever did. Alfred, using words that had resonated with Bruce from a young age, shows Bruce he believes in him. Bruce reacts like a young child, showing how much he still struggled every day.

Favorite Line: Why do we fall, Bruce?”

Thoughts: When I was a child, two of my favorite TV shows were the completely opposite, Adam West “Batman”, and the animated “Batman”. The first tapped into my childish aspects, the over-the-top humor, whereas the latter tapped into the darker aspects of creating a realistic superhero. Ever since, Batman was always my favorite superhero. Tim Burton’s movies have changed over the years for me, when I was younger, I loved the first one and the second one was okay. As I grew older, I began to like them both less and less. The problem for me was that the first one felt like it had the best Batman in Michael Keaton, but I didn’t enjoy the portrayal of the Joker, it didn’t feel true for me. The second Burton film, I actually hate. It isn’t a Batman movie by Tim Burton, it’s a Tim Burton film that happens to co-star Batman. Neither of them are the Batman I ever wanted.

Joel Schumacher, is an unfairly ostracized director. Granted, the two Batman films he directed are painfully garish and colourful, to the point you cannot take them seriously at all. The weird thing, is that the year after “Batman Forever”, which wasn’t so great, he released “A Time To Kill”, a fantastic law drama that starred Samuel L. Jackson, Matthew McConaughey, Sandra Bullock, Kiefer Sutherland, Donald Sutherland and Kevin Spacey. Years before Batman, he also directed the popular cult film “The Lost Boys”, which I personally enjoyed. But the Batman films were a major misstep, which his career has struggled to get over.

In fact, probably the best Batman film I’d seen, up to this point, had been “Batman: Mask Of The Phantasm”, a feature length movie based on the animated series, which was dark, intelligent, fun, and true to the characters. And then, in the lead up to “The Dark Knight” debuting in cinema, I decided I’d be tempted to watch it. To prepare, I sat down for the first time to watch “Batman Begins”.

Roger Ebert himself could not put it any better than what he said for his review: “the Batman movie I’ve been waiting for, more correctly, this is the movie I did not realize I was waiting for.” The difference between this and the other Batman films is that, I can believe in the character of Bruce Wayne. The idea of “Begins” was to show the true origin of Bruce Wayne, a subject yet to be looked at in film. The first half of the film shows not only the aftermath of the death of Bruce’s parents, but also the build-up to the death of his parents. Instead of faceless shadows in a flashback, they are human characters, mostly presented by the father, Thomas. Thomas is played by the underrated Linus Roache, who infuses a loving relationship between him and his son, which means the death of him and his wife, which occurs half an hour into the film, is as impactful upon the audience as it is on Bruce. The loss of a father figure begins Bruce’s journey for self-discovery, as well as a search for a new father figure. His search for a father leads to a flirtation with the League of Shadows & Ra’s Al Ghul, but it is the loving care of his carer, Alfred, that truly brings closure to Wayne.

And it is in the performances that sells the film, the emotional arc of Bruce Wayne. Christian Bale was a solid independent actor who cemented his place as a leading man when he took the role of Bruce Wayne, throwing himself into both the physical and emotional state of Wayne. He buffs himself to a size that taps into the comic dimensions, he can both look like the playboy Wayne, and the determined Dark Knight, desperate for both revenge, and then justice. This is probably the best Batman film about Bruce Wayne.

It is also the best Batman film about his supporting cast. Gary Oldman infuses a weariness to a weathered down Jim Gordon, whose ideals are challenged by the city he inhabits. The introduction of Batman infuses him with a new spirit, and Oldman demonstrates this very well. We also have Michael Caine, who depicts an Alfred who has the compassion & loyalty of previous depictions, but also has a strength of capability when battling villains, unafraid to stand up for what is right. His strength is what helps to inspire Wayne, and the relationship between Caine & Bale is beautifully understated. And finally, Morgan Freeman introduces a newer ally, Lucius Fox, a former friend of Thomas Wayne who helps build Bruce’s new ‘toys’. Freeman is a legend when it comes to roles of older mentor, and here, he just brings his usual A-Game, offering many of the lighter moments, as does Caine. Three outstanding actors helping lift the film from a normal comic book film to a great drama/crime.

However, one of the only disappointing roles comes in the love interest. Katie Holmes isn’t a truly terrible actress, she just isn’t up to the level of the other actors, who are some of the best in the business. She just comes across as very lightweight in comparison to the others, sightly blown away when acting opposite Bale or Caine, who she mostly interacts with.

However, in direct comparison, we have the villains, who are fantastic. Cillian Murphy has the ability to invoke a cold intensity despite his welcoming, soft looks, his eyes able to communicate a madness that leaves the audience terrified. His soft spoken demeanor and intellectual attire makes it that much more impactful when he uses his fear gas on his opponents. The smoke induced appearance of his character is full of nightmare fuel. There is also Tom Wilkinson as mob boss Falcone, who similar to Murphy as Dr Crane, uses fear to rule his roost. Wilkinson adds enough nuance to his character to make him feel as if he had potential for his own film, representing the crime-ridden depression that enslaves Gotham. And finally, we have Liam Neeson as the dark father figure that causes Bruce’s quest for revenge to reach a crossroads. Neeson mixes the loving embrace of a father figure and the maniacal edge of a megalomaniac, certain that his way is not only the right way, but the only way. Neeson brings an undercurrent or rage that motivates his character, making him fascinating to watch.

Nolan & Goyer write a great superhero comic story that taps into the human and everyday side of Batman. Whereas most comic book movies would be fascinated by the villains and the costumed superhero, Nolan is fascinated by the man behind the mask, and it is this refreshing outlook that helps elevate this film. By emphasising the emotional context, this film has less the feel of a superhero film and more the feel of a drama. The shaky fight scenes utilises the allegory of the fear and rushed view of the gangsters, helping to make Batman feel otherworldly and terrifying. His “Swear to me!!!” scene is probably the first live action film that makes you believe that Batman would leave Gotham criminals quaking in fear. Nolan also uses great globe trotting aspects to help normalise Bruce Wayne’s search, making you believe in his journey.

Thumbs Up, 9 out of 10

Title: 1 Million Years BC

Number: Two Hundred and Seventeen

Directer: Don Chaffey

Writer: Brian Clemens

Genre: Adventure Fantasy.

Released: 1966.

Seen on: Film4.

Seen Before: Never before.

Starring: Raquel Welch, John Richardson, Percy Herbert, Robert Brown, Martine Beswick

Running Time: 100 minutes.

Favorite Performance: Ray Harryhausen’s puppetry.

Thoughts: This is a film I first heard of when I was about 12 years old, watching at the time classic “Sinbad” movies that utilized Harryhausen’s classic puppetry. I never really went out of my way to watch this film, and to be honest, having completed it, I don’t feel I really missed out on much.

Yes, Harryhausen, as always, creates fantastic puppetry that mixes well into the scene and help populate the world around them. They have an other-worldly element to them and are fascinating to watch. But, to be honest, if they hadn’t of been there, I would have been bored stiff.

Raquel Welch made her career with this film, especially with the infamous ‘fur bikini’, but I wasn’t all that impressed. She had a good body, and looked fantastic in her outfit, but apart from that? Didn’t feel all that impressed by her. There was also supposed to be a classic ‘catfight’ between her and another female character, that I’d been told about, but really, it was slightly pitiful. It included a minuscule excuse for a fight that was groan-inducing.

One thing that surprised me was the level of violence. There was a dark edge to many of the scenes, many of the characters displaying murderous tendencies over little reasons. Why this may have been an attempt to display a more realistic standard of relations between characters, it left me feeling slightly uncomfortable as so many nameless, indistinguishable characters killed each other on a regular basis, it just wasn’t what I expected.

Maybe I wasn’t prepared for the movie, maybe it just wasn’t my type, but for a supposed classic, it left me feeling mostly cold, and unimpressed. If you are a fan of Harryhausen, you could watch it, or if you are attracted to women in bikinis, but as a film? I wasn’t impressed.

Thumbs Down, 4 out of 10

Title: Paranormal Activity 2

Number: Two Hundred and Thirty-One

Directer: Tod Williams

Writer: Michael R. Perry, Christopher B. Landon, Tom Pabst

Genre: Supernatural Horror.

Released: 2010.

Seen on: Sky Movies.

Seen Before: Never before.

Starring: Katie Featherston, Sprague Grayden, Brian Boland, Molly Ephraim, Micah Sloat

Running Time: 100 minutes.

Favorite Performance: Sprague Grayden as Kristi Rey.

Favorite Moment: Kristi is left alone in the house as Dan & Ali take the dog, Abby, to the vets.

Thoughts: I remember seeing the first film, and instantly loving it, I loved how stripped down and bare it was, how it used invention and tension to create an unnerving concept and execution. In fact, it was slightly reminiscent of the first “Saw” movie, where it stuck to mostly one room/small house and several cameras. Now, “Saw II”, expands the universe, moving from one small room to a large house, and brings in new, multiple characters, who expand on the history and characteristics of the universe they inhabit. Does “Paranormal Activity 2” attempt the same thing?

Yes, in a word. We now have a new house, one that is larger, and instead of simplistic, handheld cameras, we have security cameras in all the main rooms and outside, allowing to build up more tension without having to include the characters within the scene. This was the right step, as it allowed the stakes to rise, as well as still tie into the previous movie.

Whereas in the first movie, you had two distinct personalities, one believer, one skeptic, a Mulder-Scully relationship, so to say. Here, the cast is broadened, introducing a believer (Martine), a skeptic (Daniel), a character who is uncertain but excited (Ali), a character who is uncertain and terrified (Kristi), and two innocents, one who can defend themselves (Abi) and one who can’t (baby Hunter). The six differing characters allow a lot more relationships to develop between several characters, building them up in fluctuating amount, offering more possibilities for the film as opposed to the previous movie. I liked the fact that several of the characters develop, their emotions changing as the film develops, in particular Ali, who goes from not believing at all, to believing slightly and interested, to becoming terrified.

Several minor scenes and hints suggest the idea that there is more to the situation than we had already seen, again, as said, expanding the universe to an amount that is unexpected for the audience, the build-up of this movie tapping into the previous movie, introducing new elements that give extra resonance to the characters Micah & Katie. I thought this was a clever inclusion, making the films feel less stand-alone.

Overall, I liked this film, it stuck to the style of the previous film, allowing tension to slowly build up, as well as allowing quiet moments in between the terror, so as to allow character interactions. The wait for something to happen allows your imagination to create a larger terror in your mind, the minimal usage of effects a clever method. For me, I will always enjoy “Paranormal Activity II”, and I am definitely looking forward to the third film.

Thumbs Up, 6 out of 10

Title: An American Tail

Number: Two Hundred and Thirty-Three

Directer: Don Bluth

Writer: Judy Freudberg & Tony Geiss

Genre: Animation.

Released: 1986

Seen on: Sky Movies.

Seen Before: Several times when younger, but not for a long while.

Starring: Phillip Glasser, Amy Green, John P. Finnegan, Nehemiah Persoff, Dom DeLuise, Christopher Plummer

Running Time: 80 minutes.

Favorite Moment: When Fievel is knocked off the boat, the ocean storm evokes imagery of Chernabog from ‘Fantasia’.

Thoughts: I had earlier this year seen “The Secret Of Nimh”, and whilst it was slightly enjoyable, I felt it was more animation orientated as opposed to story orientated. Don Bluth is a master of animation, able to craft dark, intense animation that offers a perfect counterpart to idyllic surroundings of the protagonist. Here, it is depicted in the relaxed, comforted home scenes with the Mousekewitz family, that are then intruded upon in violent action by the darkly demonic-orientated cats, an animated surrogate of true prosecutions of any minorities over the last century or so.

And that gave the film a more impactful aspect, and probably quite strong resonance for any audience. The subject matter of prosecution upon minorities and family immigrants is a difficult subject at the best of times, but here the subject matter flexes throughout the entire film, adding extra context and emotional deposition to the more simpler main plot: a young mouse trying to find his family again.

The idea of a young child being torn from his family and attempting to find them again, is a simplistic storyline that the audience can emotionally connect with, mostly children in this case, cheering on the protagonist, Fievel, to succeed. The objective of this Russian-Jewish mouse attempting to reunite with his family in the utopia-esque America, whilst being chased by the evil cats, at times is surprisingly violent and terrifying, a clever use of subtext referencing the history of similar Russian-Jewish humans. I really liked the feeling that I wasn’t watching a thrown together story, but one full of allegory and subjectivity in relation to history.

The voice actors do a good job, with Dom DeLuise, a favorite of Bluth, in particular, bringing the standard of the film up a level with his humorous actions and enjoyment. It is actually probably not a surprise that in later films, DeLuise’s role was made much larger to help capitalize on his ability. I do feel that the earlier scenes may have been slightly more elevated if he’d been included.

I think if you are a fan of Don Bluth, you will love this. If you watched these films as a kid, you may be slightly surprised by the darker inclusions within the film, as the sequels gradually lighten up. For me, it was okay, I enjoyed it, it was very quick, concise, and well-paced. But again, Bluth seems more style orientated than substance orientated. Still, worth a watch.

Thumbs Up, 6 out of 10

Title: The Tree Of Life

Number: Two Hundred and Fifteen

Writer & Directer: Terrence Malick

Genre: Drama with Experimental Elements

Released: 2011.

Seen on: Sky Movies.

Seen Before: Never before.

Starring: Brad Pitt, Sean Penn, Jessica Chastain

Running Time: 139 minutes.

Favorite Performance: Brad Pitt as Mr O’Brien.

Favorite Moment: A quiet heart-to-heart between Mr O’Brien and young Jack.

Thoughts: This is not usually my type of film. I don’t really enjoy minimal films, and experimental films annoy me usually, as I feel they are vague just for the point of being vague. I also usually don’t enjoy visual movies, one that seem to depend upon beautiful imagery to make the film, I usually enjoy dialogue, action, such as that.

However, I found myself slowly getting more and more into this film. First of all, I will say, I think there are sections that can be cut out. The entire scene dedicated to the creation of the universe and dinosaurs, whilst looking beautiful, was to me, nothing more than an example of self-gratifying. Supposedly, Malick has always wanted to make a film about the creation of the universe, but never had a chance, so included it in this film as a ‘visual theme’. It was the point I was least interested, and legitimately had to stop the movie for a few hours, out of sheer boredom. It was self-pleasuring from Malick to include it, and felt out of place in my eyes. Maybe if had been used in the credit sequence, or maybe even as a visual inter-title?

I also felt that the inclusion of Sean Penn, actually wasn’t that needed. They could have cut out every scene with Sean Penn, and I would have probably have enjoyed the film more, giving it an extra star. This isn’t because I dislike Sean Penn, I think he’s a fantastic actor who usually adds to the movie, but here, he just feels superfluous, unneeded for the movie, and his performance doesn’t even seem that good, it just exists. Supposedly, Penn himself is unimpressed with his role, feeling what he was promised in the script didn’t occur on screen.

Now, what I did like? Everything set in the 1950’s, which thankfully, was most of it. I don’t think I have ever watched a Brad Pitt performance I haven’t enjoyed, and this year, I have seen him, surprisingly, in just one film, the amazing “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford”. Here, he plays a harsh, strict patriarch of a family, and unsurprisingly, Pitt knocks it out of the park. The camera spends a lot of time looking up at him & keeping him at arms length, creating a visual aloofness and uncomfortable feel to him. Pitt displays a gruff, stern attitude, his every words cutting through his sons’ hearts. His body language suggests one who is ill at ease at the world around him. However, as the film increases, and we get more in touch with who he is, the camera gets closer, removing the aloof nature between the sons and the father, with the sons being the audience surrogate.

He also has a good on-screen touch with Jessica Chastain, who blew me away in the awesome “Take Shelter”. Here, she represents the softness of the family, a graceful love who cares for her children, and wants to inspire their enjoyment of life. Whereas her husband preaches about the importance of the real world, she wants her children to embrace the beauty of life, enjoy the world around him. Whilst her character could have been quite weak and forgettable, Chastain grasps the role with both hands, entrancing the camera as an ethereal beauty, beautified by her sons.

I was very impressed by the performance of Hunter McCracken, as Young Jack, who I felt inhabited the confusion of the teenager very well, at times confused by the seemingly hypocritical views of his father, at times disgusted by the lack of strength from his mother, he demonstrates an ability to carry the emotional epicenter of the movie. Whether working with Pitt, practicing fighting and seemingly afraid of hitting his father, to an unbridled rage at Chastain attempting to discipline him, he was the closest thing the film came to showing an emotional analysis of the character. Because of McCracken’s strong performance, Penn didn’t feel needed.

I have never seen Malick’s style before, but he does know how to utilize the camera. The cinematography and direction are beautiful, immersing you into the scene, creating a wondrous entrancing of just the simplicity of life around you. You are unlikely to see a director creating such a distinctive dream-esque style to the level that Malick can. For all his faults, and I do feel he has them, he treats the camera like a loving, tender hand, caressing the beauty of the world into a fascinating film. I just feel that maybe he needs a strong hand next to him to, so to say, ‘trim the fat’.

The supposed nostalgic beauty of the 1950s is gradually broken down until the human uncertainties unveil themselves, the fraught relationships fascinating for the audience. But whenever the film moved away from the 1950s, showing the present day confusion of Older Jack, played by Penn, or revealing a thematic representation of life, it begins to drag from me, feeling as if too much had been included. If the entire film had just been the 1950s, and what’s more, shown in a chronological order, I think I would have given this a 10 out of 10. But for now, I can’t give it.

For the beauty of the direction, the strong, natural performances of the 1950s family life, and the distinctive originality of the film, I will give this a great mark, but I can’t help feeling it could have been even better, in my eyes.

Thumbs Up, 8 out of 10

Title: Teeth

Number: Two Hundred and Twenty-Three

Writer & Directer: Mitchell Lichtenstein

Genre: Comedy Horror.

Released: 2007.

Seen on: Horror Channel.

Seen Before: Never before.

Starring: Jess Weixler, Hale Appleman, John Hensley, Josh Pais, Lenny Von Dohlen

Running Time: 88 minutes.

Favorite Performance: Jess Weixler as Dawn O’Keefe.

Favorite Moment: The gynecologist scene.

Favorite Line: “I won’t bite.” says Dr Godfrey.

Thoughts: This is a film I first heard of when the previews and posters started up. At the time, I instantly became interested, wondering how a movie would work revolving around a ‘vagina with teeth’? Unfortunately, it would take another five years before I finally got to see it. In the end, it seems that due to the slightly ridiculous premise, they decided to go for a mixture of horror-comedy. When placed into certain situations, whilst there is a degree of horror, there is also an underlying slapstick element to the ridiculousness of the scenario, a ‘wink’ at the audience, which actually works within the movie.

The film really is lucky with the choice of lead actress, Jess Weixler. Playing the afflicted woman with “vagina dentata”, she begins the film as a mild-mannered teenager who is determined to be abstinent, but also comes across as very human character, struggling with her attraction to people she falls for. As she struggles with her feelings of sexuality, so the horror gradually builds up, a subtle build up, akin to “From Dusk Till Dawn”, so when the horror suddenly occurs, it shocks the audience, feeling out of nowhere, but in a good way.

Now, the actual horror itself, i.e. the ‘dentata’, isn’t terrifying, meant to scare you, but more of a slow build-up leading to a feeling of dread, knowing what could happen. What then occurs, is the most disturbing crunch noise possible, the gradual realization for both you and the male victim, and then a terrified reaction from the victim. As your imagination wracks you over, you are suddenly, in a bit that surprised me, shown the aftermath. THAT becomes the most cringe-worthy aspect of the movie, and represents the horror.

I felt Weixler demonstrates a good leading ability, she ends up having 3 main male characters she interacts with, and as the movie proceeds, her interactions with them slowly develop. With the first male, her character feels very weak in relation to the male, struggling to assert herself; with the second, she feels slightly more empowered, but only to the level of feeling an equal, which effects her; and the final meeting, she enforces herself as a position of strength, no longer viewing her “dentata” as a horror, but instead as weapon. The fact the difference in character is both subtle and gradual makes it feel more realistic, and shows Weixler to have a good ability in film.

The comedic elements are very slapstick in style, including a scene based in a gynecologist office that had me giggling from the ridiculous, but it also helps alleviate at times from the horror element, allowing you a breather, and it also causes the horror elements to feel more impactful. I do feel that this film was an interesting exercise, and with such a premise, they execute to the best of their ability. I would say it is definitely worth a watch.

Thumbs Up, 7 out of 10

Title: Panic Button

Number: Two Hundred and Twenty-Two.

Director: Chris Crow.

Writer: Frazer Lee

Genre: Independent Horror.

Released: 2011.

Seen on: Sky Movies Anytime.

Seen before: Nope.

Starring: Scarlett Alice Johnson, Jack Gordon, Michael Jibson, Elen Rhys, Joshua Richards

Running Time: 92 minutes.

Favorite Performance: Joshua Richards as Alligator.

Thoughts: I mostly watched this film on the recommendation of a friend of mine…once we clarified it wasn’t “Panic Room” she was talking about. Reading the premise, I felt myself becoming interested very quickly, wanting to see how the premise would work. Overall, whilst the premise was in actuality, quite a simple premise, and some of the plot twists weren’t all that surprising, the actual execution of the movie makes it better than it would have been.

The performances from the four main characters take what could have been stock characters and add nuances to their characters, giving the appearance of a multi-dimension to their characters that may not have existed in the original script. The actors start off as stock characters, and as the layers are peeled back, revealing the secrets of their lives, so do they start to exhibit an extra dimension. The solidness of the four actors give extra enjoyment to the movie. Scarlett Alice Johnson as Jo was a solid main character, but it was really an ensemble, good performances from Jack Gordon as Max, Michael Jibsen as Dave (he definitely impressed me, a supposed sleazy character gradually demonstrated a hidden side) and Elen Rhys as Gwen, who seems to be mostly unknown.

The villain comes across as slightly creepy, the use of a computer animated alligator face suggests it is inspired by “Saw”, which isn’t all that surprising. However, tapping more into “Scream”, it is the vocals that work best, the voiceover creating a seemingly omnipotent horror, possessing the main characters lives in their hands. The real lack of explanation of how everything is achieved may frustrate some, but I felt the ambiguity gave it a true horror feel.

It isn’t a terrifying film, more of an unnerving concept, the dangers of social networks feeling like a slight “public danger” instruction, but it does tap into realistic fears that exist in the present day. Is it a brilliant film? No. Is it a terrible film? No, not really. What it is, is middle-of-the-road, solid, B-Movie, and for that, I enjoyed it

Rating: Thumbs Up, 6 out of 10

Title: Bambi

Number: Two Hundred and Sixteen

Directers: David Hand, James Algar, Samuel Armstrong, Graham Heid, Bill Roberts, Paul Satterfield, Norman Wright

Writers: Perce Pearce, Larry Morey, Vernon Stallings, Melvin Shaw, Carl Fallberg, Chuck Couch, Ralph Wright

Genre: Animation.

Released: 1942.

Seen on: DVD.

Seen Before: Several times when I was younger.

Starring: Bobby Stuart, Donnie Dunagan, Hardie Albright, John Sutherland, Paula Winslowe, Peter Behn, Sam Edwards, 

Running Time: 70 minutes.

Favorite Performance: Paula Winslow as Bambie’s Mother

Favorite Moment: Not my favorite, but the best, is the infamous scene where Bambi’s Mum dies. Just a brilliantly emotional moment.

Favorite Line: “Man was in the forest.” About to get serious.

Thoughts: I was kind of surprised when watching this film, I hadn’t watched it for over a decade and presumed it was mostly events in the life of a fawn. Instead, it turned out to be more than that. It was the life story of a fawn, growing into an adult deer, and  the education of life. At the beginning, everything is wondrous, and surprising, with all babies feeling protected. As Bambi grows up, his sheltered world is attacked by the evils of Man, and in this, he is forced to grow up to survive.

The beauty of the summer scenes and gentleness of Bambi and his mother really contrast with the harsh, darkness of winter and death. The comforting nature in the summer creates a happy atmosphere, a cheerful demeanor that calms the audience and makes them smile, which therefore makes the sudden horrors that occur more impactful. The only problem with this, is the mood whiplash that sometimes occurs. For instance, after the very harrowing death scene midway through, which probably caused most children to cry buckets of tears, we suddenly have a shot of a water stream with birds chirping happily. It may be uncomfortable for certain audiences.

The film is also slightly reminiscent of ‘Wall-E’, in that not much dialogue occurs, maybe 1000 words over 70 minutes, which actually isn’t that much. It means a lot of time is dedicated to tension building and beautiful animation. If you enjoyed ‘Wall-E’, or any Disney movies, you will probably enjoy this Disney classic.

Thumbs Up, 7 out of 10

Title: The Last Airbender

Number: Two Hundred and Nine

Writer & Directer: M Night Shyamalan

Genre: Fantasy Adventure.

Released: 2010.

Seen on: Sky Movies.

Seen Before: Never before.

Starring: Noah Ringer, Dev Patel, Nicola Peltz, Jackson Rathbone, Shaun Toub, 

Running Time: 103 minutes.

Favorite Moment: The opening credits utilize all four major elements (Earth, Wind, Fire, Water) in a clever manner.

Thoughts: This is a film that became infamous for being the supposed death knell of M. Night Shyamalan. It supposed slammed the coffin shut on his career, his gradual deterioration from ‘The Sixth Sense’, through ‘Unbreakable’ and ‘Signs’, down to ‘The Happening’, and ending with the premiere of ‘The Last Airbender’. Well, all I can say, is that it is a mess. I put as my favorite moment, being the opening credits, and to be honest, from then on, it just got worse and worse. By the end of the film, I was losing the will to live.

One of the problems, is that, the film is just boring, dull, achingly boring. It’s supposed to have a lot of action, but even the action was boring. Many of the fight scenes were either slow-motion or one-shots, with the camera turning around several times, and moving in & out of close-ups, to allow multiple actions to happen. That is all very good, but the action is so laboured, and processed, that there is a complete lack of fluidity, and interest. You don’t care about the fight scenes, because there is so little to draw you in inbetween that.

I looked up afterwards, and supposedly, Shyamalan attempted to shoehorn pretty much 13 episodes worth of material into one film. That does not surprise me, because there was probably at least 5 instances, where instead of character development, the voice-over would tell us what had happened. In one instance, the voice-over tells the audience that when two characters met, they instantly became best friends. Next scene, they are talking together, because the plot dictates so, but have no chemistry. Every voice-over was painful and lazy plot contrivance.

The acting was very forgettable, the characters were pawns in a chessboard, being moved into position because the plot desired it. The actors playing them were also given little or no character motivations it seems, struggling with scenes that were cobbled together. I was even shocked at how terrible Dev Patel was, considering his strong performance in films such as ‘Slumdog Millionaire’. Knowing how good he can be, I feel it can only be he was terribly miscast, which was a gutting moment, as even a good villain can sometimes elevate a film a little (i.e. Jeremy Irons in ‘Dungeons and Dragons’). And it certainly didn’t help that in a film which relies upon CGI, that the CGI was often awful and distracting. Every scene, the actors looked like they were standing in front of green screens, and couldn’t be ignored.

The biggest insult I can give this film, is that at no point, did it suggest it was based on a supposedly brilliant animated TV series. In no manner would this tempt me to ever watch the series. It is only the fact I knew before this movie of the series, that I may ever watch it.

Thumbs Down, 2 out of 10

Title: 3 Times A Change

Number: Two Hundred and Eleven

Directer: Letia Miller

Writers: Letia Miller & Michael Matteo

Genre: Comedy.

Released: 2011.

Seen on: Sky Movies Anytime.

Seen Before: Never before.

Starring: Carlo Marks, Lexi Giovagnoli, Noelle Perris, Tansy Alexander

Running Time: 87 minutes.

Favorite Performance: Lexi Giovagnoli as Emma Neuman.

Favorite Moment: The final attempt, Emma teaches Chris using an easier subject he does know.

Thoughts: This is just a TV Movie, which means that all round, it is pretty average. Average storyline, average performances, just…middle of the road. Due to this, the review will be smaller than usual.

The premise is an interesting idea, someone gets given three opportunities to attempt the same day, with varying results. The only problem with this is that it allows the characters to act as far contrasted as possible. In one timeline, everyone is an asshole. The next, everyone is just lovely and perfect. Because of this sort of situation, most of the characters acted horrible or unlikable until the last 20 minutes, including, at times, the main character, which means sometimes it is just frustrating watching any of the characters. In fact, it wasn’t until the final timeline that I finally liked the characters on screen.

At times, I felt like screaming at the TV, as every character just came across as being completely up their own asses. It is impressive that any of the characters survived the film not wanting to be murdered by me. Even the supposed friends of the main character come across as parasites, completely nasty and selfish, letting down their friend all the time.

So it is with overwhelming astonishment that the main two performances are, well, not bad. Carlo Marks is okay, a bit of a pretty boy, but when given some actual emotional moments to get his teeth into, the film suddenly feels less frustrating and much more interesting for the audience. As well, the main character, Emma, as played by Lexi Giovagnoli, carries the film well, her ability to wrench some chemistry out of every character, and even still able to make herself seem likable, is a near miracle. She doesn’t seem to have much of a career, but at least in this film, she showed some potential.

It was an okay TV Movie, nothing special at all though, I’m giving it a Thumbs Down, because it isn’t worth watching, unless you are REALLY bored.

Thumbs Down, 4 out of 10