Right. Holy crap this is going to be a Skykid movie half hour, I've got so much to catch up on. If any of you dudes actually bother reading the stuff I write about movies, better grab a coffee.
The Avengers
One of the best superhero films I've seen, most certainly in the top five. Doesn't have the homely charm of a good Spiderman movie, but in terms of being an effective ensemble piece it's surprisingly successful.
I think before going on, special note should be made of this an another example of how important directorial quality is, even in blockbuster spectaculars. For this movie Joss Whedon directed and wrote the screenplay - a screenplay which must have the most superb storyboarding, because you can see how meticulously it's handled in the special effects shots. There's a ton of CG effects sequences, but the actual direction of these is really creative, using clever angles and nice composition/camera utilisation. I was really aware of Whedon having put as much attention into working with the storyboard artist as the rest of the screenplay.
It's not the best thing ever, mind, but certainly entertaining. I liked the superhero balancing, everyone has a fair cut, and although the plot is a bit basic it didn't really matter. It was impressive that Thor and Loki, two characters from such an absolute pile of shit as the original Thor - one of the poorest superhero flicks ever - could conjure entirely renewed charisma under a competent director that understands the nature of comic book material. Loki surprised me particularly for actually making the dialogue work rather well.
To summarise, it's got it's fair share of duff lines and silliness, but also some well-written aspects and good humour. Character cohesion is nicely fleshed out. But this isn't a Roman Polanski movie, and as superhero fare goes, it's a solidly balanced and effectively rounded action piece that has plenty of pace, some dazzling effects sequences, and some half decent performances.
And dat Galaga reference.
Maleficent
Normally I run a mile from anything Disney that isnt associated with Pixar, but since a nice girl insisted she wanted to see this and everything else was in Chinese, I reluctantly accepted her offer.
And actually, I was a little surprised. It's still Disney, but a lot of that annoying hackneyed crap they always do when it comes to films with these themes turned out to purposely be flipped on its head. This is the story of Sleeping Beauty, but twisted into something else entirely, drawing on several other fairy tale elements and balling them together into an original tale.
When it first started I thought the little girl playing the main character was going to be in it for the entire movie. I almost walked out. There might be bad acting and child acting, but then there's intolerable child acting and I can't deal with the latter. Thankfully she grows up into Angelina Jolie very soon indeed and things became more bearable.
The movie isn't without weaknesses. Jolie is much more accomplished as the dark version of herself than she is as the light, where she comes off a bit hammy and ucomfortable, and there are a couple of unnecessary slo-mo effects shots that are out of place and feel like they belong in a different movie. But everything else is actually well-handled and cleverly composed, both visually and in terms of an original screenplay. I liked the spin on the fairy tale classics and the little twist at the end, despite being easy to guess. It's got its fair share of darkness, which reminded me of the Jim Henson days, in part, and it was nice to see Disney purposely stomping on its own rulebook of boring cliche fantasy.
It's not a must-see, but you'll likely enjoy it if you do. And as far as chick flicks go - those ones you're dragged to - this is more interesting material.
Under The Skin
This is a weird fucking movie. And I don't mean weird because art-house: I like art house movies and I liked this one - but everything about it is so strange.
Of course that's the point. Sexy Beast director Jonathan Glazer's misgivings over the shittiness of England - or in this case, Edinburgh, Scotland - continues. I don't want to spoil anything because the movie has a very simple plot-line, so I'll just say it's got Scarlett Johannsen driving around and body-harvesting chavs in the shitholesville corners of Edinburgh, and it's weird. It's weird enough that superstar Scarlett is in this area and among these people - the director's intention that she's meant to feel out of place to the audience - but weirder still that a lot of the film feels like it was done with a hidden camera. There are parts near the beginning where I swear she's just chatting to random people through her car window. This isn't even Mike Leigh realism, it feels like actual realism.
But everything jarring is what the movie is all about. It's an extremely dark, cold, sinister piece that has a shock ending with imagery that really burns into your brain. Johanssen's slow reflective curiousity about the environment and the people in it is intriguing, and there's plenty for the audience to contemplate along with her character.
This is dark stuff. It was great to finally see Johannsen full naked - but also a bit underwhelming. I don't know what I was expecting, but she gets a 7 on my nude-hot-movie-star barometer. You may find all the lanky scottish chavs with erections of more concern, but don't let that put you off - it's a very interesting, unusual movie, and I liked it. It's technically sci-fi, in-case you're wondering, and I got shades of Beyond the Black Rainbow from it, in places - but unlike that movie, this one is actually worth watching.
The Expendables 2
When this came out I remember it being oddly polarizing. Some people were saying it's much better than the first, others that it's much worse.
Of course it's much better than the first, Jesus Christ. How this can even be a debate makes me weep for humanity. Am I really the only one who realised how fucking awful the first movie was? There's bad, and then shit, and The Expendables was shit.
The Expendables 2 is also shit, but slightly better shit. The acting is atrocious, the script and improvisation utterly dire, and the plot nonsensical as they come - the latter not being much of an issue in a throwback 80's action movie.
Two things: The actor who played the sniper kid was very good and showed up all the old men in the cast, so it was with much regret that they off him in the first twenty minutes - I thought he brought something to the movie it could have used on a permanent basis. And, much to my surprise, the best performance thereafter was from Jean-Claude Van Damme.
Yeah, surprised me too, but he was the only one who tried to do something with the clunky dialogue and felt genuinely involved as an actor - everyone else was just there for the lulz.
So it's hardly a good film, but it's certainly much better than the first. Stallone's tache is a bit off-putting, but the big guy is still likeable. Statham is hopeless as usual, but has one of the film's better quips. The problem is that the dialogue is poor and the one-liners haven't had enough takes. Often they'll say something like "rest in pieces" but the tone of delivery is wrong, making it clang rather than flow. They needed to get a bunch of takes and pick the best, but it feels like they did everything once.
But this is a fan-service movie, and in terms of pace, action and ensemble hilarity it's much more entertaining than the godawful original. Chuck Norris was hilarious - I mean he was always a useless actor, and nothing's changed - but having him cameo is kind of funny. Schwarzenegger and Willis have much more screen time and as a trio with Sly are much more comfortable this time around. The whole thing just about hangs together as a tribute to the action era muscleman movies of my childhood, which is what the first wanted to do and failed at considerably.
You'll wince at how bad the script is, eyeball roll at some of the mistimed delivery of dialogue, and facepalm at the Chinese woman - by god, no matter how poor everyone else is, she takes the biscuit. For perspective, she makes Norris look like Lawrence Olivier, and that's a genuine scaleable appraisal. I hope she never graces my screen again.
Anyway, you could do worse. Some funny stuff in there, some awful stuff in there, and not as good as Rambo by a long shot - but not without entertainment value. I was surprised, put it that way.
BE THE BETTER MEN BROS 
)
Mind you when he gets naked, it's usually to fight people.
), but after he saw it... Steven Spielberg approached Hardy and said, "how the hell did you pull off that performance?", Christopher Nolan is quoted as calling Hardy "one of the greatest" and Philip Seymour Hoffman (his mentor and one of the actors I had utmost respect for in the industry - rip) even admitted that Hardy chooses roles that not even he (PSH) was able to do. 
Nonetheless, I find Hardy's performance compelling, *especially* when you consider (or partially because of) the very limited set he has to work with.
