Newsflash- Star Wars 7!

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/disney-buy-lucasfilm-405-billion-384448

After George Lucas destroyed his creative legacy with star wars episodes 1,2 and 3, the cinematic universe breathed a sigh of relief, finally the pain was over, no more Jar Jar, bye bye clones, piss off ponytail. Until now... Disney is to buy Lucas-films for a staggering $4.05 Billion, and has already planned a star wars 7 due for an ambitious release date in 2015. Wah..wh.but..no..why..please..wait...is this bad?

Star wars episodes 1, 2 and 3 were so diabolically poor, Disney can only do better....right? Lucas clearly had a lucky break throughout his creative period whilst making 4,5 and 6 then hit... well no one really knows, it's up for deliberation,  a midlife crisis? an overdose of stupidity? or an obsession with bright lights, no one will EVER find out. However the point is Lucas was simply so poor surely the cinematic Juggernaut Disney can do something to repair the franchise?

Get rid of the clones! Get rid of the stupidity! Lose the' gungans' in a childish game of hide and seek! Just please PLEASE don't make this as disappointing as it's predecessors.  Totally unsure of where they could possibly go with the story, Disney are going to have to do something pretty special to draw in the thrice disappointed fans. This better not be a 3-D re re-release, a digital re-enhancement of the classics, or Toy story 4 fiendishly disguised under the star wars name, because the star wars franchise needs rekindling for the sake of the millions of fans.

Calum Russell

The perks of being a wallflower

Alike many films of a similar genre, the eccentrically named 'The perks of being a wallflower' is based on a popular novel, surrounding the teen life of a troubled boy. Presenting itself much like 'another high school movie', from the exterior this film looks like a cliched mess of formulaic 'tween' bait. However the reality is quite the opposite, providing a frequently relatable and charming tale of a normal boy searching for happiness.

The story follows Charlie a thoughtful yet seemingly lost child on his path to adolescence, on his route he must overcome his irrational fear of high school as he begins his first day. He is soon accepted into a group of introverted 'seniors' led by Sam (the 'Americanised' Emma Watson) and her step-brother Patrick ( Ezra Miller), where he finally discovers friendship.

 Thoughtful in the process of character creation Stephen Chbosky performs miracles in transcribing the tentative persona's of the novel onto the big screen, in addition to this he provides the characters with a realistic depiction of the teenage voice through the largely fantastic screenplay. Usually exiting from the bizarre tongue of Emma Watson the script did become whimsically pretentious and unrealistic at times however it mostly holds its own providing a significant realistic driving force to the otherwise dull first half. This drive is aided by the undeniably compelling personality of Patrick performed by the fantastic Ezra Miller, providing the necessary outlandish flare that prevents the film from becoming borderline depressing.

Rarely do successful 'coming of age' films dawn on our screens with such passionate effect, making this a truly poignant film of its genre. Due to a crucially heartfelt narrative characters are depicted with perfection, as we follow Charlie our prominently lovable protagonist sharing his happiness as he experiences the emotions of the complexity and excitement of young life. The story proves to expand towards the end producing a darker climactic tone that is essential in tying lose ends whilst further enforcing the connection we feel to each character.  Although this may prove to be too whimsical for some, for the majority The perks of being a wallflower delivers from the sentimental start to the beautifully artistic climax, a true diamond in the rough.

85%- An affectionate view on teenage life which accurately portrays thoughts and feelings whilst preventing to fall into the cliche trap.

Calum Russell

Taken 2 Review

After the almost inevitable success of the utterly ridiculous release of Taken in 2010, a manufactured sequel was assured to be to 'on the cards', especially after Liam Neeson's much loved caricature. Alas here we are in 2012, dawned with the latest in the line of Hollywood sequels ready to suck up our savings.

Continuing from the dark climax of the first film, Taken 2 follows the revenge plot of those solemn and bereaved families of the criminals that Neeson viciously slaughtered, with a lack of consequences. A concept that is left largely unexplored throughout most action films of a similar genre...for wise reasons. After what seems like hours of initial family debates and pointless conversation the film finally begins as Mr Mills (Neeson)  travels to Istanbul on a business trip. He is then  later surprised by his daughter, visiting him from America buzzing with excitement with an obscure willingness to venture into Europe despite the sheer horror she experienced years prior. With her, tags Mill's ambivalent  ex wife acting as mundane baggage as she drags herself behind each scene. Add a gang of ill tempered, poorly trained elderly men and 'Voila' we have the worst film of the year.

 From the little you could have salvaged from the entertaining disaster of the previous installment  has been demolished by the pathetic efforts of it's predecessor. Almost unimaginably this film hits none of the 'right buttons' missing the mark in perhaps every aspect of film. The narrative although relatively clever follows a linear route, abiding by all the cliches, whilst producing some utterly mindless scenes of stupidity. Rarely reminding the audience of Neesons 'particular set of skills' this film instead reminds us of his occasional sparks of idiocy, instructing his daughter to carelessly chuck grenades from her location in order for him to calculate his location.

 The lavish action that made the first film so memorable is replaced by pathetic scenes of hand slapping, that is made totally indecipherable due to the poor cinematography. This isn't aided by it's '12A' certificate lowering the age rating by 6 years, so that Fox Studios can line their pockets with undeserved cash. The comical thrills of the first film are left to rot, as nothing similar is repeated in the 2nd film, no intimidating phone calls expressing the protagonists desires, no gritty action sequences of pain, just pathetic scenes of frivolous events, avoiding action where possible. The supposed 'poignant' moment of action ignores the lead anti-hero and instead supplies an unknown gang member as him and Mills tussle on a circular table, in a familiar lack-luster tone. Theirs no area in which we can relate to any characters, each one is as bland as the next supplying no motivation or explanation for their actions, resulting in a finale of disinterest.

The threat which was evidently present in the 1st installment through the grizzly form of prostitution, follows in a contradictory form being replaced with a band of erratic fools unsure of their intentions. This results in some totally incoherent scenes of embarrassment as the gang decide what to do next, despite their 'months of planning'.  The main antagonist leading this party, does little to organize them, or in fact do anything at all, as for most of the film he's slouching in an archaic arm chair looking as bored as the audience. This is until his 'big moment' finally comes, the final fight, the supposed thrilling climax to this terrible story, can't even produce a satisfying ending.  Previous plot points hit a dead end, the audience howls with insulting laughter and the film finishes with a nonsensical splat.

 Little can be salvaged from the wreckage, apart from an enjoyable performance from the ever impressive Liam Neeson, and the frankly hilarious climactic epilogue , where we are relieved of our anxiety as the daughters driving test results are finally revealed... This film fails on a triumphant scale, producing nothing memorable whatsoever, destroying all enjoyment of the previous film ,so please Mr Mills be careful, don't get taken again!

20%- Taken 2 far.

Calum Russell

Sinister Review

 Over the past few years the horror sub-genre of found footage has developed a generic name for itself, with every new release recycling the cliched conventions in order to create yet another boring tale; and what with 'Halloween' just around the corner prepare for a sudden influx. Hence Sinister, the newest film in the popular genre hoping to differentiate itself from the crowd with an alternate view on found footage, replacing 'HD pov', with archaic celluloid.

 With a formulaic story at hand, alongside 'another demonic being', it was hard to predict whether this film would be 'more of the same' or in fact something much more sinister! What results is a coagulation of both,with the first half producing a truly engrossing suspense building horror, only to slip into the familiar stereotypical tale, we've all grown to know and love in the second half. This doesn't detract from the fact however that Sinister is an extremely scary film, producing some truly terrifying sequences of home-video violence that certainly sets it apart from the ever growing family of found-footage.

  Whether it was the ageing appearance of the clunky film projector, or the seedy image which it produced, there is something about celluloid which creates a more threatening tone than the overused sight of the modern day 'camcorder'. Out of this machine comes a series of videos which prove to be much darker than previously expected, displaying graphic, uncomfortable contrasting videos of a family, first socialized then being maliciously slaughtered .Not only is the picture of terrifying quality but also the obscure choice of music present in each video, aids considerably in raising the tension in order to terrify the audience. This tension building is aided by the terrific performance of the anchoring protagonist Ethan Hawke, who provides a totally convincing and relate able character for the audience to cling onto. Although the remaining family may not be anywhere near as convincing as the lead performance they do a relatively good job in supporting him through their bearable yet undeniably monotonous personalities.

These shockingly beautiful scenes of found-footage build up to an unbearable level whereby the story begins to further unravel itself and subsequently fall apart.

 Once the clever found-footage has been left behind, we enter into the supposedly terrifying world of 'bagul', a sweaty six foot tall demon that does little to express his purpose. True he is the centerpiece of the film, supplying horror through his demonic appearance, however little is explained to why he's actually in the film, and why he's committing these diabolical murders. This soon proves to be one of the many plot devices that go left totally untied, leaving you scared while somewhat confused. Totally spontaneous random events begin to occur opening up a land of continuity errors and issues detracting your from the horror as you scan your brain for possible reasoning.

 The most common of techniques however used widely throughout this film is the use of the consistently successful yet cheap jump-scare. Being always predictable and generic, the jump scare is simply an instinctive way of making people scared, its not intelligent or fresh it's just boring, once you've seen one you've seen them all. As the film progresses another classic technique presents itself, the use of children. However these famished children are in no way effective, supplying only a source of  abnormal humour, as they play a puerile game of hide and seek with our protagonist. Displaying the most pathetic prosthetics of (easily treatable) dry skin and greasy hair, these children made a mockery of this film supplying a light dusting of comedy that is vital to avoid.

 In an industry where Horror films are beginning to look more like comedies it is overwhelmingly refreshing to see one that works on a number of levels. This is how found footage should be used, not because they can but because it works, it's intelligent, scary and above all sinister! They just seemed to forget that the most dominating of effects is what you don't see...

70%- Burdened by plot devices of stupidity, but saved by it's sheer magnitude of horror.

Calum Russell

Looper Review

It was arguably the 1999 release of the undeniably awesome 'The Matrix' that initially transformed the dynamics of a simple action. Many attempted to replicate its success in the years following but many failed, ignoring the classic formula that The Matrix devised. It wasn't until 2010's Inception that such a cinematic revolution was replicated. Instead of spectacular action, Inception provided a more sophisticated attitude, treating the audience like civilized intelligent people by displaying a puzzling narrative of a variety of platforms. Two years later, Looper a time travel mind-bender is hoping to make it's mark on the constant evolution of the genre of Sci-fi.

 Set in a steam punk dystopian future where time-travel is relevant yet very much illegal, Looper follows Joe (Joseph Gordon -Levitt) a hit man with complications, eradicating criminals from the future as their sent back from the past. Following a strict set of rules Joe must deliver an immediate blow to the futuristic perpetrator, it's not until his future self is blasted back that he procrastinates and produces our film. This concept initially proved simple through a helpful briefing from the protagonist himself, highlighting key points of interest to prevent unnecessary confusion. However as the film progressed the story began to develop further it began scattering plot devices to create for a more intelligent, more enticing narrative than expected.

 Considering that this film juggles a handful of tricky plot devices, it does a good job in retaining control ,making sense of each one. Never did the story over complicate itself with sci-fi jargon, instead it remained relatively simple, helping the audience to understand, rather than bogging them down with convoluted nonsense. Although the future world remains forever present throughout,  the film never lingers too long in fear of confusing the audience with yet another vision of the future. A medical revelation has also been uncovered, which unfortunately follows in the same traits as the remainder of the future technologies, left to be accepted rather than be explained. Although this device was used to brilliant effect, a brief explanation of how it came to realization would've been appreciated in order to create a larger sense of realism. This device which soon turns out to be an extremely important sub-plot, is somewhat awkward to the hugely believable world which has been accurately portrayed, frustratingly detracting the audience from the hugely thrilling action of the loopers. As said however this device is executed brilliantly even if it doesn't really fit into the tone set by the film, and produces the plot which makes the film considerably more unique than it's competitors.

Linking the juxtaposing story lines were the two protagonists and the unlikely poorly trained anti-hero who supplies nothing but comedy value. Consistently failing to impress his boss he remains determined to take down Joe, hunting him down only for him to carelessly slip through his fingers in utterly ridiculous fashion. He's simply used as a utility character, if scenes are dragging, it will usually cut to him failing at his job, to then provide a mindless action scene where he'll yet again attempt to take down his enemy only to be left embarrassed on the floor. Rarely do the characters refer to him or even acknowledge that he's there, he's a totally unnecessary character that only blocks the fantastic view that the film provides.

 While Looper may not posses the skills to be quite as good as it's sci-fi counterparts it certainly creates a prominent stamp on the genre. Through the excellent performances from the prosthetic face of the increasingly surprising Joseph Gordon- Levitt and his rough-cut future self, Bruce Willis, a truly magnificent story can be taken, following the worryingly accurate vision of time travel.

85%- Dark, gritty and never afraid to break stereotypical conventions.

Calum Russell