Reviews

Life Isn't All Ha Ha Hee Hee

Three thirty-something women, friends since childhood, are desperate to find their own happy endings, but wonder if they really are content when they eventually find them. Chila (Ayesha Dharker) couldn't have a better life ahead of her after marrying the Prince Charming of Chigwell, Deepak (Ace Bhatti), but are they really in love with each other, or did they only do what they thought they should do? Sunita (Meera Syal) is a seemingly perfect wife and mother, but her relationship with her husband Akaash (Sanjeev Bhaskar) lost its spark long ago. Tania (Laila Rouass) is a hard-nosed up-and-coming television filmmaker who refuses to be viewed as an Asian, but when she is asked to make a documentary about her friends and family, what she finds ends up uncovering some uncomfortable home truths about everyone concerned. These women may have to learn the hard way that "life isn't all ha ha hee hee".

Multiple threat Meera Syal has had a successful career as a comedienne over the last few years, which makes her foray into drama with 'Life Isn't All Ha Ha Hee Hee' all the more surprising. To be honest, I've grown exhausted with Syal's continual lampooning of Indian stereotypes in her hit show "Goodness Gracious Me", and while it's inoffensive, there's always a feeling that only a fraction of Syal's writing and acting talent is on display. In 2002, with the news that she was adapting her excellent novel 'Anita and Me' for the big screen, there came a promise that Syal would finally reveal to the world what lay beyond her grating Mrs. Kumar persona. Sadly, 'Anita and Me' was a deflated experience, with the balance of cheeriness and seriousness being bungled pretty badly by director Metin Hüseyin. Syal wasn't entirely to blame, as the short running time and family-friendly nature of the film undoubtedly played a part in forcing her to rip out large chunks of her award-winning book. For her latest project, though, Syal has been blessed with the luxury of a three-hour running time, and a skilled director (Andy De Emmony), who injects less style than was present in 'Anita and Me', but accomplishes far more than Hüseyin ever could.

On paper, and sometimes on screen too, 'Ha Ha Hee Hee' almost resembles an intentional follow-up to 'Anita and Me', not just in terms of the acting pedigree of the picture, but the storyline as well. Syal (co-writing with Abi Morgan, 'Sex Traffic') once again delights in displaying the quirks and charms of Indian culture, with the ethnicity of the characters adding a touch of spice to a straightforward dramedy. But at the same time, the focus of Syal's story (which, like 'Anita and Me', is loosely based on her own experiences) reminds us that Asian women are just like anybody else, without ever preaching it from the metaphorical rooftop. In fact, Syal's commentary on the state of "British Asian, Anglo-Indian or whatever they're calling us" relationships seems to be an inadvertent by-product of the dramatic can of worms she has opened. I'm sure many white women could relate to Chila, Tania and Sunita, and their respective plights will remain an interest for everybody else as well. 'Ha Ha Hee Hee' isn't all tears and gloom, however, as there's plenty of opportunity for Syal to implement her comedic writing skills. Despite it all, it's quite an entertaining piece of work, and little of the humour is forced the way it was in her previous adaptation. Both enjoyable and touching at the same time, 'Ha Ha Hee Hee' is watchable from beginning to end. You just couldn't say that about 'Anita and Me'.

There's also a tremendous amount of help from the performances, which are easily commendable. Once you get past the number of returning faces from 'Anita and Me', it becomes difficult to distinguish actor from character. The supporting performers do as they're told, but expectedly, it's the three stars of the production who carry the spirit of 'Ha Ha Hee Hee' along. Actress Laila Rouass (of "Footballers' Wives" fame) is faced with some pretty dastardly deeds that her character ends up doing, but instead of hate for Tania, Rouass manages to summon feelings of pity for her. As the maturest of the group, Sunita has slightly fewer problems going on in her life, but Syal makes the character just as memorable, infusing her with the actress's natural charm. Shockingly, it's not Syal herself who steals the show, but actress Ayesha Dharker. With wide eyes and an even wider smile, Dharker becomes every part the doting but neglected wife (a breakthrough role, I'm sure), and has her share of scene-stealing moments, especially during the third and final part of the series. It's a good thing, too, as Chila is in some ways more crucial to the plot than the other two women.

For all its virtues, 'Ha Ha Hee Hee' concludes a little predictably, and there's a feeling that Syal decided to play it safer than she wanted to. But it's still executed with a bittersweet smile by everybody, and it should prove difficult to not be saddened as farewells are bid to Sunita and the rest. As the optimistic Chila observes about life in general, 'Ha Ha Hee Hee' isn't really about the ending, but a million little surprises all of the way through. It's far from the best drama or comedy around, and is certainly not as noteworthy as the similar (albeit much less realistic) "Desperate Housewives", but it's nice to have relatable characters and situations presented on screen in a light enough way...innit?

~ 8/10 ~

Thank the Lords of Kobol for the new and improved "Battlestar Galactica"! Without a doubt, this miniseries, along with the full series spin-off from 2004, must be among the greatest works of science fiction to come to television screens in the last few years. In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that it's one of the best things on TV at the moment. If you loved the mini, you'll love the series also, but I'll probably always like the mini more, simply because it's the start of the story. In three hours, this accomplished more than the original did in twenty-four hour-long episodes (plus the six of "Galactica 1980", but the less said about that the better). It's just breathtaking. The characterisations are far more convincing than before, the direction is slick (and covers up the low budget extremely well), and most of all, it's involving, which is a word I wouldn't use to describe the original. This isn't a "Star Trek" rip-off like the original borrowed from 'Star Wars' (although Ronald D. Moore has helped out on "Star Trek" on many occasions), it goes very far in developing its own ideas and themes. The acting is excellent, from Edward James Olmos to Tricia Helfer, and everybody in between.

Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith

As the Clone Wars continue, General Grievous (voiced by Matthew Wood) launches a daring attack on the planet of Coruscant, and kidnaps Chancellor Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid). Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor) and his long-time apprentice and friend, Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen), successfully rescue Palpatine, who rewards Anakin by making him his official representative on the Jedi Council. But Anakin soon realises that all is not well with the council members, who instead order him to spy on Palpatine. He is also plagued by disturbing visions of his beloved wife, Padmé (Natalie Portman), and fears for her safety in these uncertain times. As he is torn between what he feels is right and the people he loves, he must decide whether or not he must stand alongside his fellow Jedi, or succumb to the Dark Side of the Force forever.

In my eyes, the original trilogy of 'Star Wars' can hardly be considered classics, but they were enjoyable and lively enough to cause a monumental letdown when the long-awaited first two chapters of George Lucas's seminal space opera were released years later. 1999's 'The Phantom Menace' had all the elements to make another great entry in the franchise, but the film was just lacking in the energy so abundant in the first three instalments. In some ways, 'Attack of the Clones' was even worse, not completely mauling the series, but pissing on its legacy with its bloated cornucopia of cartoon-ish special effects, poor pacing and dull acting. If it took George Lucas two whole films to see through the gravy and realise that the same formula can't work all the time, then 'Revenge of the Sith' almost makes the other two prequels forgivable. Maybe it's the lack of expectation from this film that it actually surprises, or maybe George Lucas really did get around to pulling his pants up, but whatever the reason, 'Revenge of the Sith' ranks right up there with the original trilogy.

It doesn't start out that way, though. I'd be hard-pressed not to feel waves of nostalgia as the John Williams theme booms and the opening scrawl rolls up the screen, but when the film starts, one might fear that Lucas has failed once again in his efforts to wash the spirit of the originals over the audience. The opening sequences are a marvellous spectacle to behold, realised greatly by ILM's team (in their best ever work on the prequels), but hardly involve the feelings like, say, the attack on the Death Star in 'A New Hope'. However, later in the film, once the pieces start moving around the board to get into position in time for the next entry, you will sure to be hooked. 'Revenge of the Sith' is probably the darkest 'Star Wars' film to date, even after 'The Empire Strikes Back'.

And so the saga is now complete.

~ 8/10 ~

I was honestly surprised by 'Attack of the Clones'. It was so disappointing, even after 'The Phantom Menace', that I could hardly believe what I was seeing. There are no characters, just a few caricatures wandering around the galaxy and waiting to do something. The extent of the character development was giving each character a name and an occupation, and that's about it. There was no real plot, and none of the characters seemed to have any motivation. In fact, many action scenes just began on their own, coming from nowhere with a booming, albeit good, John Williams soundtrack. While I was watching this movie I kept asking "Where is this happening? What's going on?" The acting was high school drama quality, with stiff wooden delivery, as though the actors were reading from cue cards without comprehending their lines. Their trouble delivering lines was made even more obvious by the overwhelming special effects. Most of the film looked like it was recorded in front of a green screen. The actors were constantly taking obvious care to hit their marks, looking almost robotic in their movements. So, these listless automatons are whisked through a series of implausible and confusing scenarios, often without even the benefit of transition scenes. They were here, now they're there. This was happening, now that's happening. Random scenes with little rhyme or reason. I had a bit of fun watching it at home. Definitely can't hold a candle to the original trilogy, though.

I have to admit, I enjoyed watching 'The Phantom Menace' when it was on at the cinema. I was swept in by the special effects and thought Jar Jar was hilarious. However, when I sat down to watch it seriously, I was severely let down. George Lucas has obviously lost his film-making touch throughout the years. He doesn't concentrate on the characters enough, and there are too many special effects, some of which are very obvious. Considering the acting talent he had at his disposal, I would have thought that this film would be as good as the original trilogy was, but it wasn't. Liam Neeson, Ewan McGregor and Natalie Portman all just seem to go through the motions, and this is one film I think they should leave off their resumes. And as for Jake Lloyd...well, if Lucas wanted to surprise the audience by showing them what Darth Vader/Anakin was like as a child, then he has succeeded a little too much. Lloyd is extremely irritating in that "child actor" way, and I really did think he was even more annoying than Jar Jar (who is basically a black stereotype made to look like an alien). I liked the John Williams score, but it just isn't enough here.

Monster-in-Law

Charlotte 'Charlie' Cantilini (Jennifer Lopez) has enough jobs to juggle that she doesn't really have the time to pursue a love life, instead spending her spare hours with her friends (Annie Parisse and Adam Scott). However, when she ends up meeting a man called Kevin (Michael Vartan) whom she has encountered several times over the course of a few days, they instantly click, and a relationship soon follows. Before long, Charlie and Kevin have moved in together, with Kevin eventually asking Charlie to meet his mother, Viola (Jane Fonda), a highly-strung daytime talk-show host who recently suffered a breakdown on live television. When Kevin proposes to Charlie in front of Viola, all is well at first when Charlie says "yes", but Viola soon develops a deep loathing for the bride-to-be. In her volatile state, she decides to try and split the happy couple up at all costs, but Charlie may not be as much of a knock-over as she thinks.

Yet another spin on the "parent dislikes child's partner" sub-genre, one just has to admit that 'Monster-in-Law' is far from the most innovative comedy around. In fact, it's hard to get through even the first act of the film without alarm bells ringing: this is essentially a female-geared version of the 2000 blockbuster 'Meet the Parents', and first-time screenwriter Anya Kochoff doesn't even try to conceal her blatant burglary from the earlier film. As a result, it's also a predictable engagement, and from the first few scenes alone you can imagine what the ending will be like. Luckily, Kochoff knows her stuff, and even more so than the writers of 'Parents', it would seem, as 'Monster-in-Law' is an utterly delightful comedy in almost every way, with Kochoff providing enough hearty fun and froth to keep the film's shortcomings at bay. Aided by a talented cast and director, 'Monster-in-Law' is nothing but pure, undiluted merriment, but with just a little more sass than your usual rom-com.

Starting out brightly, 'Monster-in-Law' first seems reminiscent of a pilot episode for a television sitcom that has been mistakenly jazzed up with Hollywood production values. In the opening sequences, we are introduced to Charlie's hectic lifestyle, her oddball friends, her equally strange professions, and (at last) her clumsy interactions with the man of her dreams. While acceptable in a cutesy way, these scenes are more like appetisers for the filling of the picture than actual plot progressions. But when the film eventually steps up a gear, it's more than worth the wait, as the results are truly hilarious. As with other examples of its ilk, 'Monster-in-Law' is at its finest when drawing the rules for the often cruel-hearted tricks and games that Charlie and Viola play on each other, and then just sitting back and observing from a safe distance. In fact, the Viola sections of the film are by far the most wildly pleasurable, helped even more so by director Robert Luketic's sharp eye for the farcical nature of the screenplay. Luketic ('Legally Blonde'), as with his previous productions, aims to create nothing more than a fun film with 'Monster-in-Law', and injects just the right amount of colour and panache into the frame without sagging down the plot. Plus, any filmmaker who can minimise the repulsive reaction towards a dog sex joke gets my approval any day.

The movie just couldn't be complete without two lead actresses with enough feisty enthusiasm to pull their roles off, and actresses Jennifer Lopez and Jane Fonda are more than willing. Fully expecting a repeat of Lopez's disappointing turn in the similar but charmless 2001 film 'The Wedding Planner', I was pleasantly surprised to see the star instead melt so easily into the likable character of Charlie. Whilst not central to the film's success, her chemistry with co-star Michael Vartan (TV's "Alias") is also commendable, and their scenes provide a nice breather from the mayhem going on around both them and the audience. However, the really impressive work here is from Jane Fonda who, in her first acting role following a frightfully long fifteen-year absence from the screen, revels in the chance to roll her sleeves up and transform herself into the mother of all mothers. Romance is good, but I prefer just watching Lopez and Fonda duking it out on screen. Even they have to watch out, though, for when Luketic rolls out his secret weapon in the form of comedienne Wanda Sykes as Viola's no-nonsense assistant, all hell breaks loose. Sykes has more than her fair share of scene-stealing dialogue and one-liners, and in the spirit of Whoopi Goldberg, she too is up to the task. This is one of those rare instances where the "tough-talking black woman" stereotype actually works.

Mimicking one of the slip-ups of 'Meet the Parents', Kochoff adds a pinch too much sugar during the movie's climax, slightly letting down what has come before. Still, it's sure to leave you smiling, and the film returns to its mission to amuse soon enough. 'Monster-in-Law' is certainly nothing new, but what it does it does well, and it's always satisfying to see a comedy where the fervour exhibited by the cast and crew is infectious for once.

~ 8/10 ~

Kingdom of Heaven

When his wife commits suicide following the loss of her unborn baby, humble blacksmith Balian (Orlando Bloom) decides to travel to Jerusalem, the birthplace of Christ, and pray there, to ensure that his wife enters heaven. Along the way, he realises that the city is a relatively peaceful place, but it is an unstable peace.

Even though there have been a lot of historical epics coming out recently ('King Arthur', 'Alexander' etc.) and it seemed that studios were more concerned about cashing in on the 'Gladiator' trend as quickly as possible than actually releasing great films, I still decided to watch this film, mainly because Ridley Scott is director. Well, I must say, despite the generally downbeat reviews from critics, I actually really liked it. Although I didn't think all that much of Orlando Bloom's performance (he's a decent actor, but doesn't have the screen presence to carry a film like this), I was impressed by the rest of the cast, such as Liam Neeson, Edward Norton and Eva Green, even though her role was part of a treacly romantic subplot. Ridley Scott's direction is predictably sublime, and I might even say that his work here is on a par with 'Gladiator'. I don't know much about the Crusades, so I can't say if the film is an accurate portrayal of what really happened all those centuries ago, but I think it is a very well made film anyway.

~ 8/10 ~

Sideways

After all the acclaim and awards and accolades this film was receiving, I decided to give it a try when I was staying in London the weekend before last (I don't have a local art-house/independent cinema), and I must say I was pleasantly surprised. Not that I mean that I expected the film to be bad, just more dramatic than the marketing campaign (and the Golden Globes) were making it out to be. Also, I have tried wine before, but I don't like it very much, and the thought of two guys talking about wine for minutes on end didn't tickle my fancy. But how wrong I was! 'Sideways' is about a lot more than the wine tasting, although the writer and director, Alexander Payne, makes the wine-related scenes very interesting, even for those who like me (and the character played by Thomas Haden Church) who know nothing about wine. Also, it's very interesting how the characters draw parallels between wine and life without even realising it in one scene. And there's a lot of belly laughs to be had, which I wasn't expecting, although the slapstick jokes are far more well executed than in a teen sex comedy (a character pouring a huge bowl of tasted wine over himself in frustration is my favourite bit). I'd actually consider this a comedy with some dramatic moments (instead of the other way around), and I think it's really good too. Great performances all round, from Giamatti, Haden Church, Madsen and Oh.

~ 8/10 ~

Peaches Geldof: Teenage Mind

Sixteen-year old Peaches Geldof is an ordinary teenager who enjoys hanging out with her friends and going shopping. But wait...is she your average teenager? Is there such a thing as "average" when it comes to adolescence? Peaches doesn't quite know yet, but she is eager to find out, and travels around the country to visit all sorts of different groups of teenagers, along with discussing the teenage mind with medical and psychological experts.

With nothing else on television, I decided to flip over to Sky Mix to catch a repeat of the documentary 'Peaches Geldof: Teenage Mind'. I knew nothing about it going in (apart from watching an advert that wrongly made it look like a jaw-dropping, 'Thirteen'-esque expose on teen Britain), and I'm glad I did, because it really is quite fascinating. 'Teenage Mind' taught me things I never knew before about being a teenager, particularly about how the brain develops. Ms. Geldof visits three different "cliques" (if you will) of teens across the nation, and this hour-long documentary can only scratch the surface of the teen experience, but director Barbie McLaurin makes the most of its running time nonetheless. Peaches herself is a very warm screen presence, and really does feel like a real teenager, even if she is the daughter of a rock star (a fact which I don't remember being mentioned in the programme). She is far from the spoilt, pampered princess I had mistakenly thought she might be, and is very open-minded about what she learns and who she meets, especially when she visits a large group of Liverpudlians who have been accused of disturbing their neighbourhood. It's not the best documentary about teens for sure, but it does aim to look at what it reveals from all perspectives, and I applaud Peaches and co. for letting the audience make up their mind as to what they think of the show's content.

~ 8/10 ~

Beaches

After receiving some disturbing news, CC Bloom (Bette Midler) abandons her upcoming music concert and travels across the country. As she drives her car, she recalls when she, then an aspiring starlet, first met a lost girl, Hillary Essex (Barbara Hershey), on a beach thirty years ago. Instantly developing a friendship, the two girls would not see each other in person again for several years, but stayed in contact through letters. Hillary, now a college student, decides to put her law studies on hold and move to New York City to find CC, who is working as a lounge singer and struggling actress, and who instantly takes Hillary under her wing.

Okay, I have to admit that I'm a sucker for these sugary melodramas (as long as they are done well, like 'Steel Magnolias'), but 'Beaches' is more sugar substitute than anything. Every moment of the film is designed for maximum emotional effect, and you can literally feel Garry Marshall stuffing the onions up to your eyes during the final act. It's just so manipulative and trite. 'Beaches' is lost in a sea of marriages, divorces, babies, terminal illnesses, and everything else that you're likely to find in your average television movie of the week. Bette Midler and Barbara Hershey are alright, but they're mismatched, and the child actresses that play their characters at the beginning of the film are a lot better. There's one mildly moving moment, where Midler's song "Wind Beneath My Wings" is used, but that moment was never earned. I really thought I'd like this movie, but it ends up that it may be the second most annoyingly corny movie ever after 'My Girl'.

~ 4/10 ~

Vanilla Sky

David Aames (Tom Cruise) is a young and wealthy womaniser, who has a slightly jealous best friend, Brian (Jason Lee). At David's birthday party, he meets Brian's date, Sofia (Penélope Cruz), and instantly warms to her, and they end up spending the night together, but only enjoying each other's company. When Julie (Cameron Diaz), one of David's latest conquests who has been developing an unhealthy obsession with him, crashes her car with him in the passenger's seat, it leaves David horribly disfigured. Feeling his life is essentially over, David becomes withdrawn and angry, but his relationship with Sofia helps him to see the world in a new light. He cheers up even more when he learns of the possibility that doctors may be able to reconstruct his facial features, but everything changes when a face from the past comes back to haunt him.

It's great that Channel Four broadcast the 1997 Spanish original 'Open Your Eyes' the night before this Hollywood remake, 'Vanilla Sky' (which is also good, but suffers from the same problems), was broadcast. Problems, you say? Well, writer/director Cameron Crowe has made a very interesting, involving film, but like Alejandro Amenábar before him, he can't really balance the romance/drama and mystery/thriller elements too well. 'Sky' feels kind of uneven, even though the plot is fresh and surprising. However, the performances are good, and I can see why Cameron Crowe decided to rehire Penélope Cruz for the remake, as she really is a radiant presence. Just a note, though: this film is more of a romance, while 'Open Your Eyes' is more of a thriller, so I guess your preference depends on which genre you like more, I suppose. I don't have a favourite out of the two, so I think they are both good...just not great.

~ 7/10 ~

Open Your Eyes

César (Eduardo Noriega) is a young and wealthy womaniser, who has a slightly jealous best friend, Pelayo (Fele Martínez). At César's birthday party, he meets Pelayo's date, Sofía (Penélope Cruz), and instantly warms to her, and they end up spending the night together, but only enjoying each other's company. When Nuria (Najwa Nimri), one of César's latest conquests who has been developing an unhealthy obsession with him, crashes her car with him in the passenger's seat, it leaves César horribly disfigured. Feeling his life is essentially over, César becomes withdrawn and angry, but his relationship with Sofía helps him to see the world in a new light. He cheers up even more when he learns of the possibility that doctors may be able to reconstruct his facial features, but everything changes when a face from the past comes back to haunt him.

It's great that Channel Four broadcast the original 'Open Your Eyes' the night before the 2001 Hollywood remake, 'Vanilla Sky' (which is also good, but suffers from the same problems), was broadcast. Problems, you say? Well, writer/director Alejandro Amenábar has made a very interesting, involving film, but he can't really balance the romance/drama and mystery/thriller elements too well. 'Eyes' feels kind of uneven, even though the plot is fresh and surprising. However, the performances are good, and I can see why Cameron Crowe decided to rehire Penélope Cruz for the remake, as she really is a radiant presence. Just a note, though: this film is more of a thriller, while 'Vanilla Sky' is more of a romance, so I guess your preference depends on which genre you like more, I suppose. I don't have a favourite out of the two, so I think they are both good...just not great.

~ 7/10 ~

The Ring Two

Following their horrific encounter with the cursed videotape, Rachel Keller (Naomi Watts) and her son, Aiden (David Dorfman), have put those events behind them and moved to Astoria, Oregon, in the hopes that their lives can return to some semblance of normalcy. Working as an editor for the local newspaper, Rachel and her colleagues (including Simon Baker) hear on the police radio that a teenager has been found dead, with a shocked expression on his face, in front of his television set. Suspicious, Rachel investigates, and discovers to her horror that the teenager had watched a copy of the very videotape that had killed her niece and ex-husband. Rachel destroys the tape instantly, but soon realises that little Samara Morgan has plans for Aiden. To save her son, Rachel must once again explore the background of Samara and the videotape, but the solution isn't nearly as simple this time.

A remake of the 1998 horror 'Ring', 2002's 'The Ring' was an ultimately failed attempt to mimic the original Japanese film's terror. Ironically, the one thing it did translate most successfully was 'Ring''s unexpected box office staying power, which subsequently gave way to the inevitable follow-up.

It's true that 'The Ring Two' feels quite like a Hideo Nakata film, but there's an absence of some of the watermarks that permeated his previous productions. Declaring his presence in the director's chair with an eerie opening shot of the ocean, the film begins on the right foot through a nail-biting sequence with Ryan Merriman and Emily VanCamp. Although I'm sure a viewing of the Jonathan Lieberman-directed short film 'Rings' would help to make more sense of this scene, it is a tribute to Nakata's considerable talent that he manages to make it, and the entire film, so terrifying. I guess this film really proves once and for all that Nakata just can't be beaten at his own game. No offence to Walter Salles, of course, who is directing the remake of 'Dark Water'.

~ 8/10 ~

The Ring

Rachel Keller (a decent Naomi Watts) is a reporter who, while working on an article about an urban legend involving a videotape that kills whomever watches it, starts to investigate the unexplained sudden death of her niece, Katie (Amber Tamblyn). Rachel is understandably reluctant to buy into the rumour, and as soon as she finds the tape down at a holiday cabin where Katie and her friends stayed a week before they all died, she watches it without hesitation. But then the phone rings, and Rachel discovers just how much truth there is behind the talk after all. Now, she has just seven days to live, and with the help of her ex-husband, Noah (Martin Henderson, acting far too cocky), Rachel must delve deep into the mysterious origins of the tape, before it threatens to destroy her.

Considering how many previous incarnations of Kôji Suzuki's 'Ring' universe there are, it's quite surprising that America didn't try to pull off their own adaptation of this story earlier. The very first part of this saga was originally brought to the big screen in 1998's 'Ring'. Directed by then-unknown Japanese filmmaker Hideo Nakata, 'Ring' was a masterpiece of the horror genre, and its runaway box office success helped to set a trend for the dozens of slow-burning thrillers to come out of Asia in the last few years, including its own remake from Korea ('Ring Virus'). So, with the benefit of hindsight, Hollywood producers have also cleverly chosen to translate Nakata's take on 'Ring' for native multiplex audiences. Their choice of director, however, is not as sharp, as they have recruited Gore Verbinski to replicate Nakata's subtle hand. But, as the presence of 'Mousehunt' on his filmography shows, "subtle" is not a word that first comes to mind when thinking about this inexperienced filmmaker.

Verbinski, a former director of music videos and commercials (I'll refrain from using the word "hack"), is by no means a complete lost cause in the world of 'The Ring'. Armed with tens of millions of dollars, Verbinski is free to design the film's visual and sound schemes with impressive precision, even more so than Nakata did with the original. Every frame of this film has something to keep itself moving along, with the omnipresent greyish green tones adding an interesting flare to the opening sequence. But they remain on the screen throughout the whole running time, and only serve to distract the audience from Rachel's Nancy Drew-style investigations in and around dreary Seattle. There's also some unneeded editing tricks (such as brief flashes of "the ring" between scenes) that really do recall Verbinski's music video past, and, disappointingly, a couple of equally cheap "boo" moments, which siphon off much of the tension and pace that 'The Ring' should have been made of, and that the original had in spades. Granted, Nakata could easily be accused of some of these tactics, but at least he used them in all the right places. Verbinski never lets 'The Ring' breathe on its own like Nakata did, which leaves the film floundering in a well of largely wasted potential.

Even worse, some parts of the film are touched up with expensive special effects in place of the grimy, practical realness of the original. It's never a good thing when CGI draws attention to itself, particularly during the film's climax, which was so unrelentingly terrifying in the original, but here feels forcibly rushed and artificial. In fact, everything about 'The Ring' is far too dressed up with Hollywood production values, when simplicity was the key to making the first 'Ring' so unsettling. Call me a purist of the original if you must, but whose idea was it to give 'The Ring' to a man whose only truly inventive moment was when he created the Budweiser frogs?

The script, by Ehren Kruger ('Scream 3'), shows as much promise, but this goes down the drain with the direction. Kruger elects to completely revise the background of Sadako (renamed Samara for this remake), and I welcomed these tweaks, as they would keep the unfolding mystery interesting even for those who already knew how things would turn out. The downside comes when Kruger feels the need to explain everything, from what the film's title means, to why the tape waits seven days to kill. There are even some small lines of "comic" relief present in 'The Ring', which seem entirely out of place considering the mood the film is trying to muster. Kruger is far too concerned with catering to western audiences, and never takes that crucial step away from the genre rules to really make a mark.

I'm tempted to applaud the makers of 'The Ring' for not dumbing down the material too much, and preserving just a little of the original's integrity. But on the other hand, I'm also annoyed that the sheer creepiness and ambiguity of Hideo Nakata's film has been watered down so much for easier consumption. 'The Ring' was an apt opportunity to blend the potency of the original with Western horror traditions, but Verbinski and Kruger just aren't up to the task, and this remake has ended up as what the original never once was: a mess. If producers ever decide to create a sequel (the twist ending has been retained), hiring a director and writer with some genuine prowess in horror film-making would be much desired.

~ 6/10 ~

Ring 2

Mourning the inexplicable death of her teacher and friend, Ryuji (Hiroyuki Sanada), Mai Takano (Miki Nakatani) attempts to track down Ryuji's ex-wife, Reiko Asakawa (Nanako Matsushima), who has disappeared from Tokyo with her son Yoichi (Rikiya Otaka). The police, who are investigating the death of Reiko's father, are also looking for her, while Okazaki (Yûrei Yanagi), a work colleague of Reiko's, is continuing from her research on an urban legend involving a videotape that kills whoever watches it. Mai and Okazaki's searches lead them both to a mental institute where Masami (Hitomi Sato), who was witness to Sadako's appearance in her best friend Tomoko's house, is being treated by a doctor (Fumiyo Kohinata) who favours some unorthodox medical procedures. Mai eventually manages to track the Asakawas down, but Yoichi is beginning to exhibit some strange behaviour. Can they escape the clutches of Sadako once more?

On the exact same day that the insanely successful horror masterwork 'Ring' was released, its sequel, 'The Spiral', seemed to come and go without any fanfare whatsoever. As I haven't viewed a single scene from the original second instalment (written and directed by Jôji Iida), it's impossible for me to say if it was deserving enough of its incredibly poor critical and public reception to be completely erased from the continuity of the series (although some who saw it commented that they would rather have watched Sadako's cursed videotape instead). But, in any case, here we are with the replacement, 'Ring 2', which has caused producer Takashige Ichise to rethink his strategy concerning the next follow-up, and reunited most of the cast and crew from the original 'Ring'. This approach creates mostly pros in 'Ring 2', but also some cons as well.

An adaptation of a Kôji Suzuki novel, 'Ring' had a breakneck pace because of its "race-against-time" plotting, and 'Ring 2' picks up from this by beginning just days after the events of the first film, allowing the audience to observe the aftermath of the terror that Sadako and her tape wreaked on so many people. But 'Ring 2' isn't based on a book like 'The Spiral' was, and screenwriter Hiroshi Takashi has nothing to build on but the first film. Wisely, Takashi chooses to go off in a new direction with the story instead of merely rehashing what has come before. But 'Ring 2', which hit the ground running, soon slows to a jog. Takashi answers a few too many questions lingering from the first 'Ring', and while he counters this by raising almost as many (especially with the "weird science" sections in the final act), one may feel robbed of some of the first film's mystery. However, there's a very interesting subplot involving a schoolgirl named Kanae (played by Kyôko Fukada) who owns a copy of the tape that Okazaki wants to study, and this provides a truly hair-raising sequence, similar to the climax of the first film, where interview footage of a young woman somehow refuses to be erased from the videotape it is on. 'Ring 2' is a nice mix of the best elements of its predecessor and some intriguing new material, but it's also a slightly uneasy one too.

With director Hideo Nakata ('Chaos') back on board, it's to be supposed that 'Ring 2' would end up as unsettling as the first film, and the director almost meets this dizzyingly high expectation, but he doesn't want to indulge himself here as much as he did the first time around. Nakata unnecessarily restrains himself on all fronts, with the sound design here being less potent, the cinematography not as innovative, and composer Kenji Kawai's music cues not as chilling as his work on the first film. That said, alongside a thrilling third act, Nakata does offer the audience a host of truly disturbing images, such as a melted, burnt-to-a-crisp videotape in a bathtub, Sadako's reconstructed facial features, and again, the distorted photos of those unlucky enough to have been "marked" by Sadako. But, dare I say it, Nakata seems to have become a tiny bit unenthusiastic with 'Ring 2', and this mutes some of the terror that he summoned up so effortlessly in the first film.

As in 'The Spiral', pop star Miki Nakatani, who was essentially a cameo in 'Ring' (despite being billed second), is elevated to the lead here. While certainly a competent actress (and has the "surprised/shocked/scared" expression nailed), it's difficult to empathise as much with the character of Mai as it is to with Reiko in the first film. Not only due to the step down from Nanako Matsushima's solid performance, but also as events seem to drop into Mai's lap at random. Maybe Nakatani is not to blame; Mai isn't a particularly strong heroine. But, lest I forget, the film is surprisingly as much about the supporting characters as it is about Mai. Especially the denouement, which promises a whole new cycle of horror by leaving the door wide open for another sequel. I can safely say that 'Ring 2' is a creepy, worthy follow up to the first film. But Nakata and co. might like to try a little harder if they decide to make a third (or fourth?) instalment.

~ 8/10 ~

Cypher

Morgan Sullivan (Jeremy Northam) has a loyal wife, a nice home and a good job prospect, but ultimately feels quite bored in his by-the-numbers existence. When a mysterious man offers him the opportunity to become an operative for his company, Morgan jumps at the chance, if only to spice up his life a little. Morgan travels all over the country to attend various conferences and lectures, secretly taking pictures and recording speeches with a device hidden in his pen, but he begins to suffer from headaches and strange nightmares. On one of these trips, he meets Rita (Lucy Liu), who informs him that his "missions", and his hallucinations, may not be what they seem. As Morgan obeys Rita's instructions, he is slowly drawn into a web of double-crossings and shady dealings. Who can he trust?

Filmed in 2001, 'Cypher' has straggled behind the pack of films that bend the mind to come out in the last few years (including 'eXistenZ', 'The Matrix'). But it works thanks to the deft touch of director Vincenzo Natali. Even though 'Cypher' is set in wide-open spaces unlike his previous film, the intensely claustrophobic thriller 'Cube' was, he still manages to summon up a feeling of being trapped, and all on a shoestring budget. Jeremy Northam is very good in the lead, and although Lucy Liu has a smaller role than I had expected, she is also strong. There are some nail-biting sequences, like one that takes place in an elevator shaft (I won't give it away), and also another where Morgan learns what really happens in the conventions he attends. The ending is more conventional than you might expect, but also satisfying.

~ 8/10 ~

Thirst

A chemical engineer struggles to find a way to kill a deadly parasite that has infiltrated a town's water supply.

Let's face it: 'Thirst' is an extremely silly film, and there's a few too many movements in the plot that would have absolutely no chance of occurring in that thing called the real world (a world which I'm sure seems alien to Hollywood at times). But while 'Thirst' is very nearly mediocre, I already feel like I'm raining on the parade of the film, as it's just too hard not to become marginally interested in the mayhem that ensues. 'Thirst' is a very run-of-the-mill production, even for a television movie, but it gets by thanks to its sheer energy. It's a small guilty pleasure, but there's some downright irritating acting from a sizeable portion of the cast here, and this partially bulldozes the arid thrills of 'Thirst'.

~ 6/10 ~

Ring

Reiko Asakawa (Nanako Matsushima) is a reporter who, while working on an article about an urban legend involving a videotape that kills whomever watches it, starts to investigate the unexplained sudden death of her niece, Tomoko (Yuko Takeuchi). Reiko is understandably reluctant to buy into the rumour, and as soon as she finds the tape down at a holiday cabin where Tomoko and her friends stayed a week before they all died, she watches it without hesitation. But then the phone rings, and Reiko discovers just how much truth there is behind the talk after all. Now, she has just seven days to live, and with the help of her ex-husband, Ryuji (Hiroyuki Sanada), Reiko must delve deep into the mysterious origins of the tape, before it threatens to destroy her.

Originally published in 1991, Kôji Suzuki novel 'Ring' has been adapted once before, in the form of a television movie from 1995 ('Ring: The Complete Edition'). But that film is generally regarded as a rotting turkey of a motion picture, which leaves producer Takashige Ichise to give Suzuki's 'Ring' the proper treatment it deserves. To help him achieve this goal, Ichise has enlisted the help of filmmaker Hideo Nakata, who has just one film under his belt, 'Ghost Actress', which came out two years ago. At first, some may have reservations about a relatively inexperienced horror director helming a screen adaptation of what is actually more of a mystery than a thriller. But by the time those people have reached the final reel, their reservations will be sure to have been replaced by pure, undiluted fear. Because that's essentially what 'Ring', in Nakata's hands, has turned out as: an unrelentingly terrifying film, that will have you on edge around your television set for days to come.

Nakata hasn't much of a budget to work with, but makes the most of everything he has, and constructs each scene with impressive precision. Nakata is certainly a tease, inserting slightly open doorways or shadowy corners into the background of almost every shot. But rather than satisfy the audience with a multitude of "jump" scares, he instead leaves them writhing in agony, using each moment of the film to summon up a palpable sense of impending dread. Nakata also tinkers with the sound design to great effect, but thankfully does not lazily fall back on scratching violins and close-ups on corpses to shock the audience.

And at the same time, 'Ring' is also just as creepy when everything is dead silent, with nothing going on except the main story right in front of you. Nakata is eager to thrill the audience, but never interferes when he doesn't need to, and only releases the tension when the time is absolutely right. It has to be noted, however, that the lighting of certain scenes does seem to be non-existent at times, causing the large dark areas bleeding into the screen to actually irritate the mind rather than chill it, but for the most part, cinematographer Junichirô Hayashi's work here is the stuff of nightmares. As is an exemplary orchestral score by Kenji Kawai, which will send shivers down your spine from the moment the opening credits sequence starts. Nakata has now proved himself as a maestro of horror movies (or at least this one), but I'm tempted to hate him for it; 'Ring' got under my skin so much that I almost wanted the film to just stop.

Nakata hardly relies on star Nanako Matsushima for 'Ring''s quality control, but her performance is nevertheless worthy of note. The actress is the focal point of interest during the calm before the storm, and she handles her role sublimely, reacting well against Hiroyuki Sanada, who is also quite good, but his character is a little too cold and gruff for my liking. It's Matsushima who provides the emotional heart of 'Ring', and you'll be behind her character every step of the way.

While 'Ring' as a whole is considerably frightening, the final few scenes (where the seven days are up) are perhaps the most unnerving of all, with echoes of David Cronenberg's 'Videodrome', and a parting shot borrowed from 'The Terminator'. I don't mean to overly praise it, but 'Ring' is more of an intense experience than an actual film, and the horror becomes amplified by the unexpected twist ending, which paves the way for an immediate follow-up. 'The Spiral' (based on Koji Suzuki's sequel novel), comes out at the same time as 'Ring', and I look forward to seeing it, but am also disappointed that Nakata was not involved in its making. At this point, Nakata seems to be the best, and only, man for any 'Ring'-related job. Why? Well, many reasons, but like I said, you'll be wary of your television set for quite a while.

~ 9/10 ~

House Arrest

Two kids are shocked when their parents announce that they are separating. As a last resort, the siblings decide to lock them in the basement and not let them out until their marital problems are solved. However, the friends of the children soon find out about what they are up to, and force their parents into the basement as well. Will the group of couples be able to sort out their relationships, or is this just one really bad plan gone wrong?

Okay, first of all, it's unlikely that the events in 'House Arrest' would ever happen, but the film is still frothy and fun. Even though some of the acting is highly irritating, the children (apart from the main guy) are very funny, as is Jamie Lee Curtis. While everything about the film is far too predictable and safe (even for a family film), there's an energy about the production that is impossible to resist. A guilty pleasure.

~ 6/10 ~

Where's Bingo Betty?

Following the disappearance of local bingo enthusiast Betty Harrison (Jane Drury), documentary filmmaker Arthur Crudd (Keith Wright) decides to answer the question "Where is Bingo Betty?" In his investigation, he interviews Betty's husband Bill (a perfectly cast Dennis Drury), an ex-postal worker who seems to be a bit unhinged since his wife's unexpected departure. Bill believes that Betty was abducted by aliens whilst they were out walking in the countryside. But what has happened to Betty? Was she really taken away on an alien spaceship? Is she really on planet Mars? Or did she do what others in the neighbourhood have claimed she has done, and ran off to Sheffield with Tommy Scruffleby, the local bingo caller? Whatever the answer, Arthur is determined to find out.

While 'Where's Bingo Betty' was made in 1999 (in about two weeks), perhaps because of its "you either love it or you don't" brand of Northern humour, the film wasn't really seen by anybody until three years later, when it fell into the arms of Channel Four (who, sorry to say, can't be applauded for burying it in the middle of the night). That's a great shame, as even though 'Bingo Betty' is undoubtedly a short of low (and I mean extremely low) budget charms, it's one that is also hilarious, surreal, and sufficiently enjoyable. While it may not leave a lasting mark on the viewer, it's perfect entertainment for its running time (just under ten minutes), which isn't a second too long either.

On first inspection of 'Bingo Betty', it might seem that writer, director, editor and actor Keith Wright may have intended for the film more than his budget was willing to give him. For starters, the corner-cutting Wright has opted to shoot 'Betty' in dull sepia tones, on film that hasn't exactly been through the wars, but seems a little worse for wear. But Wright takes his modest amount of money, and uses it to his advantage, crafting a neat homage to (equally) low budget B-movies of the 50's and 60's. Wright has about £50 to work with, but the main difference between him, and say, Ed Wood, is that he actually knows it. I doubt any other filmmaker in any other mindset could have taken a cheap visual realisation of the alien spacecraft that looks exactly like – well, is - a Yorkshire pudding tin, and made it absolutely side-splittingly funny.

It's a pity that 'Bingo Betty' seems to be over as quickly as it began, but not before it beams down a small killer of a twist that tops off the film perfectly. I must admit, while I respond to Northern humour (and enjoy "Phoenix Nights" immensely) relatively well, I've always felt as if it's one big joke that I don't entirely get. But 'Where's Bingo Betty?' is probably one of the more accessible manifestations of this type of comedy that I've encountered, and a big well done to Keith Wright for making such a joy of a short on a shoestring. If you ever get the chance, go on and join Arthur Crudd on his quest to provide the answer to the titular question. Just don't expect anything demanding, and simply let yourself be taken along for the ride.

~ 8/10 ~

Batman

Gotham City: dark, dangerous, 'protected' only by a mostly corrupt police department. Despite the best efforts of D.A. Harvey Dent and police commissioner Jim Gordon, the city becomes increasingly unsafe...until a Dark Knight arises. We all know criminals are a superstitious, cowardly lot...so his disguise must be able to strike terror into their hearts. He becomes a bat. Enter Vicky Vale, a prize-winning photo journalist who wants to uncover the secret of the mysterious "bat-man". And enter Jack Napier, one-time enforcer for Boss Grissom, horribly disfigured after a firefight in a chemical factory...who, devoid of the last vestiges of sanity, seizes control of Gotham's underworld as the psychotic, unpredictable Clown Prince of Crime...the Joker. Gotham's only hope, it seems, lies in this dark, brooding vigilante. And just how does billionaire playboy Bruce Wayne fit into all of this?

While the film is titled 'Batman', it's quite a shock to see Tim Burton commit a high amount of running time to the villain of the picture, in the form of the Joker. These sections seem to be more of a showcase of Jack Nicholson's comedic talents than anything to do with the story, and a star vehicle is the last think 'Batman' should have been. Thankfully, Nicholson himself is more than worthy of the challenge of tackling the disturbed, almost pantomimic Joker. Rarely descending into ham, Nicholson simply owns the frame. However, Michael Keaton is also good as the Caped Crusader, and convinces as a normal guy...a rarity in superhero movies.

~ 7/10 ~

Constantine

John Constantine (Keanu Reeves) has been seeing terrifying demonic visions all his life, but has mostly kept them to himself. In his adulthood, he uses his "gift" to send "half-breeds" back to where they came from, using whatever means necessary to do so. When Isabel Dodson (Rachel Weisz), a mental patient who has also suffered from similar visions, kills herself, her twin sister Angela (also played by Weisz), a police officer with an uncanny ability to distinguish friend from foe, as well as a devout Catholic, refuses to believe that Isabel was responsible for her actions, and seeks out Constantine for a more supernatural investigation. Constantine is at first reluctant to help, but then realises that there may be more to Isabel's suicide than meets the eye.

While 'Constantine' is a highly successful comic book film, it's interesting how this is very similar to the Wachowski Brothers' 'Matrix' trilogy. For starters, both are produced through a continuing collaboration between Warner Bros. and Village Roadshow in Australia, both tinker with the opening studio logos, both star Keanu Reeves, both have a slightly green tinted colour scheme, both have dazzling special effects, and both are very enjoyable. The film contains a smörgåsbord of characters and ideas, but music video director Francis Lawrence, in his first film, holds it all together, and also makes the film quite chilling at times (take for example a scene where Angela's phones start ringing all around her apartment). Keanu Reeves is his usual stony self here, but he is aided by memorable supporting performances from the likes of Tilda Swinton as the Angel Gabriel, Djimon Hounsou as witch doctor Papa Midnite, and Peter Stormare as none other than…well, I'll let you find out. But it's Rachel Weisz who shines the most, and convinces as the heroine of the picture.

~ 8/10 ~