Reviews

As with most remakes I expected to be disappointed (except for the truly amazing Dawn Of The Dead remake which is very close to being even better than the also amazing original DOTD), then again I expect to be disappointed by most Hollywood output whether this is a remake or the rare "original". I'm a fan of the original Arnie action caper which is why I didn't hold out much hope for this, but the more I watched the more I grew into it and accepted it for its own merits. The first thing that captured me is that it's visually stunning, you get a real sense of this futuristic world without spotting where hand-built sets meet CGI, long gone are the days of annoying cartoon rabbits jumping around in cartoon worlds with equally annoying cartoon robots (roger, roger). The amount of detail is immense where everything is dense and has substance like it belongs there.

Colin Farrell makes a better Arnie (no one-liners!) and Kate Beckinsale is a tougher and more relentless Sharon Stone (given a choice it would have to be Kate - sorry Shaz).

I get the impression the script was written by someone who liked the original film. For fans of the 1990 version there are a few nods to some of the more memorable parts. In addition to the source material there is enough to keep sci-fi fanboys happy as some scenes and references are lifted directly from Blade Runner, Star Wars and Minority Report. This is in no way a bad thing. I've always felt the Total Recall and Blade Runner stories could be part of the same universe, especially with themes of over-population and off-world colonies.

The action is gritty and believable enough (ala Bourne) without being too OTT (ala Transformers). The basic story is pretty much the same as the original so some of the twists don't have the same impact as before, but makes good use of similar plot devices. This is a Hollywood film so plot holes are mandatory, but these don't detract *too much* from the films enjoyment. The one thing that let me down was the last ten minutes. It ended the same way all action films have been ending since I've been watching action films and even before that. It was box ticking at best, since the film impressed me I expected a little more considering how the original ended. So apart from the end a worthy watch without anything too taxing.

*** spoilers *** rant *** spoilers *** rant *** What happened to Mars? Surely this was a major part of the original. I was waiting the entire film for Mars and it never happened. Instead of Mars we had a big drill (The Fall) which represented oppression. To me this is like SW:TPM and their tax disputes.

How long does this thing take to go through the centre of the Earth? It must be pretty quick (I guess someone somewhere has done the maths). OK, this is the future so I can accept that this is possible. However, can our heroes really crawl outside without being sucked into oblivion. This was certainly a 'what the?!' moment.

We had the 'let's tell everyone the plot' trope which gets old, there must be a better way to do this - writers, please! Unless they made a point of doing it because of what it was.

We didn't get a sense that the populous was in danger as we never met anyone other than the main characters. The original made you care about the mutants on Mars, "they turned off the air". We actually felt sorry for the freaky mutant girl with the forlorn look and melting face. It's what Arnie was fighting for.

The ending! No Mars, no mutants, no aliens, no ice core. The original ending was very grand, if you're not making the original ending, then make it better! Blowing up a drill is a bit lackluster in comparison to, melting an ice core, almost turning Arnie and Shaz into mutants and terraforming an entire planet.

*** Contains spoilers *** Contains spoilers *** Contains spoilers *** I liked the themes involved in the film: rich vs poor, terrorism, hope, loss, symbols, heroes, getting old, usefulness and fwends (yep even Batman needs them because he won't shoot anyone - oh apart from that bit at the end, but I guess rockets don't count as shooting, but by that stage the film is ending and anything goes). Some of these themes were well executed, others, um, not.

There was a great deal of scene setting at the start. We established the mood of the city, what had happened in the previous years and what Bats has been doing in that time (not a lot). Although this was drawn out, it was necessary to set the tempo for a slow steady climax.

There were large sections at the beginning and in the middle where there was no Batman. I understand in order to rise (hence the title) he has to fall, but when watching a Batman film I actually want to see Batman. The film seemed to be about both Batman and Bruce Wayne, in essence these are two different entities which are handled well. However, the Bruce bits did drag and slow the film down, and in all honesty I wanted to crack on with some Batman screen time (that's what I paid for).

Bane was a good character but became predictable and annoying. Oh look Bane is on screen with some red shirt, wonder what's going to happen, again. Christian Bale is rapidly becoming the next Keanu Reeves - stand him in the corner and cover him with leaves. I appreciate that Batman is a singularly focuses character, most superheros are (and expected to be - just kick some ass and spare the children). But Christian trying to get all emotional about things didn't 'do it' for me (move on). Luckily we had Catwoman who introduced some life and vibrancy. You never know whose side she's on and which way she'll turn (although you do really).

I appreciate the plot in these superhero movies can be convoluted, but purlease! All the people in Gotham are free, but still controlled by Bane's thugs? Um, am I missing something? How easy is it to turn a reactor into a nuke? Two minutes? Who designed this thing? Where is this pit meant to be? How long did it take Bruce to get back to Gotham? He's Batman, not Superman. Bat armour that is bullet proof but not knife proof? How did Fox analyse the flying bat thing after it had been blown up by a Nuke? Oh, there was more than one, so why didn't Bane's crew fly one around? It was hidden in another secret place - oh, how convenient. Let's all stare at the mushroom cloud and not shelter from the radiation All this aside one of the biggest things was no gadgets, where are the gadgets? Batman is all about the cool gadgets - unforgivable.

Skyfall blurs the distinction between Bond and Bourne (and in fact any other gritty action film within recent years). Craig is not the cool, calm and sophisticated Bond we're used to he's more of a thug in a tux. This Bond isn't always in control and doesn't make everything look effortless, he is prone to mistakes and doesn't always make the best decision. Bond has been humanised, I'm still trying to decide if this is good, or not. This doesn't make Skyfall a bad film it just means it becomes more of the same, especially if future Bond films follow this same format.

Depending on your expectations Skyfall is fairly enjoyable. There are some good set pieces and a few nice nods for all seasoned Bond fans. The story had some good ideas, making the British Secret Service the target, meaning things are more personal.

Creating characters within an action film is a fine balance as it can slow the pace, most characters were dull, although Q came across very well for his few minutes of screen time. So did our bad guy, in fact he played a different enough bad guy from No Country For Old Men (great film) not to get typecast. Would have liked to see more of Bardem, but we did feel his pain, suffering, betrayal and reasons for his motivation.

The different Bond character does take some getting used to. That aside the film never gave us anything truly groundbreaking. The rooftop motorcycle chase is the next step on from the rooftop foot-chase we've seen before (Taken, Bourne, The International). The 'stand-off' we've also seen before. This is not the most memorable Bond film, although putting the lack of originality aside it had a nice even pace and was on the whole enjoyable.

*** Spoilers *** Rants *** Spoilers *** Rants *** Spoilers *** Rants *** No gadgets, Bond is all about gadgets. In fact the film made the point of saying there were no gadgets. The same thing happened in Dark Knight Rises, it was inexcusable in Batman and even more so in Bond. Yes we do want an exploding pen! Again this is another step away from Bond towards the standard action flick.

So at the start pre-Moneypenny shoots Bond. Once she had the clear shot why didn't she then shoot the bad guy? At least complete her mission. Sure she was in shock, but aren't they trained for this? I'm sat there thinking 'shoot him', then trying to find a reason why she didn't. Did I miss something? When investigating the bad guys computer don't plug it into the main MI6 network which has complete access to EVERYTHING. Yes this is one for the geeks, but surely common sense would prevail? Why is it that the characters in these high-powered highly-sensitive jobs are written to be so stupid? Or even when they are meant to be really clever, even taking a pill to make them awesomely intelligent (like Limitless - so, so bad) they turn out to make dumb decisions. Please give me a script where the intelligent guys are actually intelligent (Sherlock - BBC series). Anyway I digress...

So what happened to the drive? The whole point at the start was the retrieve the drive, so where is it? I was waiting for it to turn up at any second, again did I miss this? If travelling up to a derelict house in the middle of the Highlands to do battle, take some guns, explosives and general weaponry with you - even if you don't need it. The car does have a boot. Why wouldn't you? Why didn't Bond save the guy that got assassinated? Also, if the guy was sat in a room full of people wanting him dead why didn't they just kill him? Why send a guy into the building opposite to cut a hole in the glass to sniper him? It seemed to be a very elaborate plot point for Bond to find a casino chip which lead to Bond finding the bad guys hideout where the bad guy wanted to be captured. I guess the overly convoluted plot actually makes this a real Bond film after all!

Since I wasn't a fan of Taken (the first one) I didn't hold out much hope for this installment, although I'm willing to entertain it as it *may* surprise me (haha).

To recap, Liam's daughter was kidnapped in the first one meaning Liam had to do some bad things to get her back. In this one some folk were annoyed with what Liam did and therefore wanted to return the favour. Yes, it's a straight-up revenge flick. We've seen revenge films many times before, but hey, they might find a different way to tell this story, some different angle or story device, alas no.

One of the main problems with the first one is that the Maggie Grace character is very annoying, meaning I had no interest in her being rescued which negates the whole point of the film. In this one, she is just as annoying, oh well. She was equally annoying in Lost, thankfully she had a fairly early exit from that.

Liam and his wife get taken (I see what they did there) and Maggie actually *helps* to rescue them. The second half is then Liam rescuing the wife who spends all that time being unconscious and groaning.

As action films go it was very by-the-numbers, there was no tension, at no point did we think Liam was in trouble. For me Liam doesn't work as an action hero, he looks like your kind old uncle rather than someone like Mr Willis. I understand that could be the point, but I wasn't convinced. He suits the calm and controlled Jedi character, but he never had a platform in which to shine (thanks George!).

The acting was generally wooden. There was no chemistry between any of the characters especially Liam and Maggie; I was more convinced by the bad guys. The story and way it was told has been done many, many times before. I can't think of a single original idea in here, it felt like a cut-and-paste job, a mish-mash of all the action films from the last ten years, but not even using the good bits. Oh and the ending was boringly predictable - yawn.

There was a line that made me properly laugh out loud: "Is there a safe place you can throw a grenade?".

I did read something positive about this film on IMDb: "According to the film's writer Luc Besson, this will be the only sequel." What? Please no... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2446042/ *** Rants *** Spoilers *** Rants *** Spoilers *** Rants *** Spoilers *** Oh dear, oh dear, this film is so full of plot holes and things that make no sense it almost seems they were written in on purpose. I'll rant about them anyway as this is more therapeutic (and cheaper) than counselling: - If you have some prisoners you've spent a great deal of time and money on capturing - watch them! Either someone sit in the room or setup a web cam so you can see what they're up to. Don't leave it to the sleepy guard taking a nap outside the door. This is such an old trope now it's become very irritating.

• Why were they taken (!) to a holding room? They have their guy, they want him dead - just shoot him.

• If wanting to handcuff someone please use metal handcuff, not threads of cotton.

• We know from the last film Liam killed lots of people, meaning he's probably pretty handy. If you capture your guy - search him for weapons or any communication devices he may have stashed about his person.

• So Liam manages to phone Maggie and have a good old chit-chat for several minutes. Can no one hear him? I guess our sleepy guard is really asleep - bless, must be hard work being a thug and general cannon fodder.

• We hear from the bad guy boss that Liam is to be captured alive. So why in the next scene are the bad guys shooting straight at him? If he's in a car shoot out his tyres or aim for the engine. Unless it's one of those magical exploding cars - then don't.

• When captured and taken (!) to the baddies place he builds a mental map, some of which are sounds. When Liam retraces this mental map some time later we still have the same guy playing the same musical instrument on the same step. The same dogs are barking at the same place. The same guys are welding in the same area. The same guy is singing at the same mosque. What? Really? Come on! - Why did they crash into the US Embassy? What was the point? They could have stopped outside.

• After they crashed would they have let this guy loose again? Would he not have been arrested or at least held for the damage caused, not to mention all the people he'd shot.

• Let's say they were happy with him crashing into the embassy and shooting people so released him to rescue the wife. Would none of the troops have gone with him to maybe help this guy out. Either do one thing or the other, purlease...

In a world where no one can be illegally killed and time travel exists the mob is sending back targets to be disposed of by Loopers. This is until the Loopers have to dispose of their future selves.

Enjoyed this one, we had all-out gun battles that Bruce does very well, we had slow ploddy bits giving time for character development, story and plot and an interesting story to boot - a nice mix of everything.

The whole story is based around time travel, but it didn't linger on this too long. In fact we are given so little in terms of how the time travel works that the film avoids backing itself into corners. This is a good thing at it triggers much Frankie and Bennys Sticky Pasta and pepperoni pizza debating.

We see enough of the future world to hint at how things have developed, but also how some things are identical. The gap between rich and poor has widened and how the cost-of-life has decreased.

All the characters held their own, even the kid put in a good performance. Child actors can either go one of two ways, from Sixth Sense to Wesley Crusher.

There are plenty of nods to other films such as Terminator, 12 Monkeys, Source Code and Primer. In fact at one point it started to get very Terminator-ish and I expected a scared Sarah Connor to make an appearance.

A worthy watch. It's certainly has promoted a great deal of discussion, so in that sense it's serves its purpose very well as a great bit of cinema.

*** Rants *** Spoilers *** Questions *** Rants *** Spoilers *** Questions *** There is little point questioning the time travel mechanics. Since we have nothing to compare against in the real world, script writers are free to make their own rules and abuse them as they see fit. However, there are some bits that don't make much sense...

Why bother with the Loopers? Why not zap someone back into the furnace or a volcano? Job done, no messy shooting yourself or anyone else? Yes, without this we wouldn't have a story to tell, but still...

Why does the kid believe his mum is not his mum, assuming the story we hear from his mum is true? I'm assuming we are dealing with multiple timelines here instead of one big timeloop, as that seems to fit the best. In the original timeline what makes the kid into the Rainmaker? We assume in that timeline Bruce didn't kill mom, because he did this later.

What happens in the timeline where Bruce DOES kill mom? So the kid becomes the Rainmaker but we still have Bruce and young Bruce existing at the same time. Does young Bruce then meet his wife and become old Bruce? Does old Bruce become older Bruce? If so, does older Bruce not track down the kid before he becomes the Rainmaker? Why do the Loopers need to be sent back and killed? There was some explanation on this, but can't remember the reason. Can't they pay them off and they just live out their days? Did Abe create the events to NOT turn the kid into the Rainmaker? So... young Bruce was learning French and wanted to go to France. Abe suggested he go to China instead, which he clearly did. In China Bruce met his wife who then gets killed. Thus giving Bruce the motivation to zap himself back to hunt down the young Rainmaker. Then young Bruce makes sure the mom doesn't get shot by the whole self-sacrifice thing. No dead mom, therefore no Rainmaker.

The film starts with the end of the fourth movie being played backwards in slow-motion, then forward at normal speed. This kills about five minutes of viewing time and is a very lazy way to do a recap. Was it necessary? No, not really, maybe Paul W. S. Anderson spent so much on that scene last time he thought he'd get his money's worth by using it again. After this we see snippets from each of the other four films in a Minority Report (iPad) style narration by Milla, so ten minutes in and the film hadn't actually started.

If you've seen any of the other films then you'll know what to expect, If not, you're not really missing out on anything. That's not to say they are not enjoyable, if you want a safe, solid, completely OTT sci-fi action flick with big explosions, big guns, big monsters, rugged heroes, slinky girls, evil baddies, mean stares, furrowed brows, muscles and grunting, this is it.

In each film they try and explain some pointless plot, this is laughable as the plot is not the reason to watch these films (see the points above). If there was less plot there would be less holes and less reasons to fail each time. If I wanted plot I'd watch something with 'actors' and 'dialogue' (meow!).

This is one of the better ones in the series, when the film does start we have an almost identical shot-by-shot re-enactment of the Dawn Of The Dead remake (which I liked, since I liked the DOTD remake). We have Milla playing Ripley from Aliens, giving her some kind of emotional connection and purpose. Also, this is a 3D film where I actually noticed the 3D in some places, second only to Avatar (OK and maybe some bits of Tron, but I'm trying to erase Tron from my memory).

If you're looking to lose yourself for a couple of hours and come out unscarred, this could be it.

*** Rant *** Spoilers *** Rant *** Spoilers *** Rant *** Spoilers *** I tried to ignore the 'plot' but they made a point of it... So, the Umbrella Corporation have a massive undersea facility where they can replicate major city centres from around the world. They replicate Times Square and show the outbreak to sell their virus to the Russians, they replicate an outbreak in Moscow and sell the virus to the Americans. They fill these city centres with human clones and give them some memories to make them care about stuff. If the Umbrella Corporation has the ability to create a Holodeck type environment on a large scale AND have the ability to create fully functioning human clones wouldn't they have a market to sell this technology to the world instead of some virus to kill everyone? We learn in the third one (which is essentially Mad Max followed by Day Of The Dead) that most of the worlds population has been wiped out by the virus outbreak in the first film. So who are they actually selling the virus to? I guess we have some evil corporation being evil for the sake of it.

Also, no undead mutant dogs - disappointed!