Comics UK

Sure was, Peter!



--now, then:



TED ****



official trailer HERE:


http://www.youtube.com/user/ENTV?v=VxKfC77XAp8




I feared the worst from this offering, as the 'coming attractions' ad promised a vertible feast of bad-taste fare, in the shape of a CGI-generated walking, talking, teddy-bear, who delights in spouting four-lettered excursions, and eliciting lewd gestures.



However, this turned out to be eminently watchable, and I lauded and applauded the decidedly non-PC elements, which I always find refreshing.


This starts off with a hyper-zoom from outer space right into a street in Middle America.......a social outcast kid recieves a magical, 'alive ' teddy bear who is all sweetness and innocence. Fast-forward to when the boy and bear are adolescents [well a bit older really, probably 35 I would say] and all innocence is lost, as the pair discuss the best pot to smoke and 'getting laid'.


Some fine fantasy elements throughout, with one of the more appealing , understated CGI creations to date, you learn to love this guy for all his repellent but honest qualities.


There is a story of sorts [though it's basically a collection of sight gags with mild shock-tactics] and near the end it looks like it's the end for poor old Ted......



Not bad at all, refreshingly cynical and brutally honest.

It's worth pointing out that three of the Family Guy voice actors are in Ted. Seth MacFarlane voices Ted and directs, Mila Kunis plays the bloke's girlfriend, and Alex Borstein is his mother. So if you like Family Guy, you'll probably like Ted, if not, you'll probably hate it.

Been to see Ted tonight and I loved it, I should mention that Family Guy is one of my favourite TV Shows. Kinda proves ur point Digi.

the THREE STOOGES***


Official Trailer HERE:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1R4b04mxOs


The original THREE STOOGES were big business indeed in their cinematic heyday, the 190 shorts they produced for Columbia over 23 years being tremendously popular with cinema audiences. I can't really remember the original Stooges being screened regularly on UK TV, but I can attest that their crude but effective brand of visual comedy clearly struck a chord with packed Saturday matinee kid audiences who devoured the antics of Moe [the bowl-cropped leader] Curly and Larry [although the line-up fluctuated over the years, for various reasons.


For the uninitiated, the 3 Stooges specialized in extremely violent, knocking-each-other-on-the-head-with-hammers-and even-worse visual knockabout humour, augmented with elaborate visual trickery that emphasized the cartoon-like violence.

This new updated film using all new actors ['Moe' especially is very like the original Moe Howerd] was derided by some quarters before it even saw the light of day, on the grounds it would descend into 'post-modern', lewd-n-crude bodily-function territory, and thankfully this has been avoided in the main, being an affectionate homage to the old black-and-white shorts, albeit with some schmaltz ladeled on on occassion.


Perhaps sensibly, this offering is split up into three 'shorts' rather than an extended feature, although the three stories are connected: plenty of old-school pratfalls, sound-effects and absurdist violence, this is a watchable and likable 'recreation'.



Here's the original [or best-known] 3 Stooges line-up at large:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jocRd-aajW0




-----and on the other side of the coin:




KEITH LEMON*


official trailer HERE:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2uaz3Qr1W0


This offering is , without doubt, the biggest load of badly-written-and-executed load of tosh I have sat through all year. Basically, it's a string of lewd sight-gags of the 'anatomical detail' variety, pepped up with liberal Anglo-Saxon excursions, all unspooled for our wonder and merriment......now, I don't mind shock tactics in moderation [they can often shake the viewer out of their apathy] but without the back-up of well-drawn characters or gripping situations, they are worthless and pitiful.


This film starts off with the central dude waking up in a feces-strewn bed, and he then proceeds to break wind. The level of comedy never veers from this path, although one guy in the audience guffawed wholeheartedly throughout, so who can account for tastes?


This also features an impressive line-up of ZZ-grade TV celebs, who must have been truly desperate for work in order to agree to appear in this material.



I left one star on in my ratings of this, as I never even recognized that 'Keith Lemon' is the same guy responsible for that equally questionable fare, 'Bo Selecta' , that polluted our TV screens about a decade ago. So, the guy clearly must have a capacity for characterization: however, I can't really reccomend this film for anyone; if you think I'm being a bit too closed-minded on this, please consult other more official reviews on this celluloid mis-fire.

Not seen either yet, although I'm a Three Stooges fan.

I have seen a few others though. The Expendables 2 was fun. Exactly what you'd expect. Exactly. Even down to the death and romance of the characters. But great fun nevertheless. I kept wishing Brigitte Nielsen would pop up at the end as the mastermind behind evil. Would be interesting for both Arnie and Sly.

I have to say, I'm not normally into those kind of movies but this was great fun.

Also saw the Wedding Video. I quite like a few of the actors but it was pretty poor. Something for Americans to think Britain is like. Four Weddings and a Funeral did it very well but this was average at best.

Wedding Video was OK I thought, starscape---I was expecting this to be a USA film for some reason.

The Expendables 2 was spectacular nonsense---some of the one-liners were really bad :Stallone's 'Rest in pieces' quip after somebody is shot to bits----but the bit with the tank was good!

TOTAL RECALL****


Official Trailer HERE:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pV2zz3z0oM

I remember well the Schwarzenegger original film version of this from 1990, which at the time was a major Blockbuster-sci-fi, one of the very last of the pre-CGI era. Seen today, as I did recently, the 1990 version looks badly- dated and comes acrross almost like a black comedy now, and I didn't expect great things from this seemingly pointless remake starring Colin Farrell.

The concept here [dream-like states which confuse the 'dreamer'] also succeeds in confusing the viewer [like much of angst-ridden author Philip K Dicks' hyper-imaginitive, but mind-boggling works] and it's safe to say [like the first film] that I never had a clue what on Earth was going on during most of the running-time.



Nevertheless, there are loads of imaginitive setpieces on display, and a healthy budget is evident onscreen: this includes a grubby future 'Federation of Britain' with faded Phantom of the Opera posters from our time, a high-rise urban Hellworld that eclipses even BLADE RUNNER in the sheer scope of it's densely-packed detail, and we also see a very ingenious 'future phone' system, where the user presses his hand against glass to project a live video-link: impressive, imaginitive stuff [for once, in a Hollywood outing].


Ariel scenarios of futuristic city-life are very well-handled indeed, with towering 'scrapers and gliding craft: there is a very good extended action sequence featuring a thrilling airborne chase between hover-cars above a cityscape that is surely the most accomplished SPFX setpiece thus far filmed of this kind.


Other attractions include Kate Beckinsale as the hero's wife, who inexplicably becomes a lethal hyper-spy of deadly abilities; Ms Beckinsale looks suitably cool, sassy and sultry in her highly-charged role, and does much to enhance the narrative.


There's also a supporting cast of endless androids that tip more than a nod to the Stormtroopers of STAR WARS. This remake has a few elements from the 1990 film, but basically heads off in it's own tangent, and is far from a carboncopy rehash .


Overall, explosive action, [if admittedly bewildering within the basically unfilmable framework] with seldom a wasted minute slowing down the proceedings: I'll be going back to see this one.

I laughed at the review of Cockneys versus Zombies in the Daily Mail where it said "one of the funniest ideas is having Millwall and West Ham zombies still fighting among themselves." Honor Blackman toting a machine gun must be worth watching. And Richard Briers as an action hero.

DREDD****


Official Trailer here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PifvRiHVSCY


Judge Dredd is more than likely the most successful character engendered in UK comics this past 35 years: and this is only his second big-screen outing in over a third of a Century: meagre, really, considering the richly-detailed, very cinematic ingredients offered by JD and the outlandish world[s] he inhabits, courtesy of 2000 AD comic........the 1995 Stallone-Dredd misfire was forgettable indeed, with only one standout scene throughout, the whole was marred by poor matte work [those supposedly flying hoverbikes] and the fact that Dredd was de-helmeted for much of the running time:


Clearly, any new DREDD movie adaptation needed a back-to basics approach, by someone who clearly appreciates the material: establishing shots of this Mega City One are a bit disappointing [some of the locales look like dressed actual locations] and overall the tone is a good bit short of the overall magnificance offered up by the comic strips. Nevertheless, to do justice to the comic visuals in live-action terms would have pushed the budget into hundreds of millions, at that just ain't gonna happen with a film based on a character with less-than-universal appeal, 'specially considering it's an 18-cert to boot.


The good news is: the character of Dredd himself looks great, especially the helmet, ---which is happily kept on at all times!------which looks steel-lined, battle-scarred and very much like the early comics version. Dredd's uniform is fine, if it is sans the moulded shoulder-eagle, and looks a bit bullet-proofed in comparison. His famous lawgiver multi-option gun is utilized to grand effective, resulting in some very lethal dispenations of summary justice.



Perhaps wisely, the film-makers have opted to keep the bulk of the action contained within a single cityblock, [for budgetory reasons?]: the story sees Dredd take out rookie Anderson on a make-or-break actual conditions test, where they encounter a block over-run by dubious perps, who are basically terrorists. The leader, 'Mama'
seals the block in with steel shutters, and Dredd and Anderson battle against the appalling odds......the body-count is naturally high, and meatily portrayed, and this film earns it 18-cert status, there is no question.

Some good POV shots of the results of lethal drug 'slo-mo' which I found amusing.



Overall not bad at all, much better than the 1995 mis-hap, and contains some great in-jokes for Dredd fans [the 'Chopper' graffitti can be seen if you look out!]





[4/5]

THE SWEENEY ****


official trailer HERE:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtoM5O0eXvE


I'm old enough to remember the 1970s Thames TV version of this, which was very gritty, shot-on-16mm-, grainy fare of slightly dubious ingredients; I just watched it casually and have no real desire to revisit the original,----it was commendable, however, in that on occassion, the baddies got away scot-free, a refreshing 'going against the grain' of much TV fare.

This new cinematic fare [coming in at a modest 2M, compared to some sources, although the result looks costlier than that] has had a bit of a slating in the press, but I honestly thought it was OK, I love an idiosychronatic British flick now and again to appease the worst excesses of Hollywood, which often grates.......


Yes, this is pretty violent stuff with much bad language [we get the 'c-word' in a 15 cert used twice, which reflects the state of 'acceptable movie fare these days'.] The macho-posturing and tetesterone pumping breaches the realms of phantassie on one occassion, where machine-gunning, elaborately-masked desperadoes unleash machine-gun fire more associated with WW2 than an armed robbery in Central London.


Some qustionable violence against women, including repeated cctv shots of an execution. Ray Winstone plays---well Ray Winstone , really, playing John Thaw playing Jack Regan, who beds a babe in one scene, his flabbular frame eliciting titters from the audience I saw this with------Winstone is great in the role though, it has to be said, even if that hackneyed line:

Gitcho trah-zahs on, sunshine---yo' NICKED!!


is trotted out to cliched effect. Much swooping helicopter shots of swinging London at night, offset by the sleazy world inhabited by Regan and his cohorts. A slightly dodgy, dicey film, that lives dangerously, with hardly any boredom.




[4 out of 5].

FRANKENWEENIE *****


official trailer HERE:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58w1keRNYFE





This was one of Tim Burton's earliest Disney test-films, of course, re-worked with a large studio budget courtesy of his former employers, Disney. Shot in glorious black-and-white for great period effect [it seems to be set in the 50s] and populated by some of the strangest, yet somehow intruiging, puppet-like characters [though I suspect it's really 'disguised' CGI] that reflect the typically skewed Burtonesque strong production design.


A simple tale of love for a pet dog with ghoulish trimmings ladeled on like ghoulash, this is a rare case of a CGI puppet-film standing out from all the other dross thanks to the bizarrely enchanting character-design, and charming setpieces: ie the central kid constucts his own lofthouse Frankenstein-like laboratory using domestic items]. The titular character is a less than beautifil mutt, but such is the taste and skill in the execution, that you feel and root for the little guy from the outset [he appears in a well-done fake Super 8 home movie in the opening sequence].



Some morbidly fascinating elements, but decency and morals lie at the heart of this concept, and it's an exhilerating piece, if basically a pastiche of early period Horror movies with a very authentic-looking Frankenstein 1931 climax


Reccomended! [5/5]


Not only does the central dog character resemble SNIP and SNAP, but his name is aptly SPARKY, and even his doghouse name resembles the old comics-logo [see above].

COMPLIANCE****

official trailer here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kimp1QqAPec


More than likely the most queasily disturbing film I will see this year, in spite of it's low-key setting.

The creepiest thing of this movie is the fact that the events actually happened in 2004 in a mid-West fast-food 'joint'. Initially I was sceptical as to if this actually happened, but the events were recorded by a camera inside a cramped office, and it's all undoubtedly genuine.

A prankster 'phones this fast-food joint and dupes one of the managers into believing he is a cop, and that one of the girl employees has stolen cash from a customer........the innocent employee is summoned and subjected to a humiliating strip-search , conducted by the 'cop' over the phone [who claims his station is to busy to warrant a personal visit by the cops].

The humiliations for the girl victim get increasingly worse as her ordeal sees her debased and exploited in front of a middle-aged male 'guardian' and some of the debasements are too explicit for me to relate here---but it's all handled skilfully with the worst aspects of the victims' misfortunes left to the imagination of the viewer.

A very chilling scenario, that will make the viewer challenge authority in the future, and a searing indictment as to why rational-behaving people will bow to authority, to the point of uber-humiliation.

Stirring stuff, and not enjoyable to watch---extremely effective for all that, though....


the real-life story can be read here:

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?i ... VcHbaKeNua




[4/5]

IRON MAN 3**

official trailer here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv9JrvUIDfI


I tried to see this on Saturday afternoon, but it was chockablock and heaving and I couldn't handle such discomfort---so I returned this morning.

This film falls into the SPIDERMAN 3 trap, of failing to deliver a cohesive script, and the problems are compounded further with unlovable characters we can't latch onto......Starks' laboratory/luxury penthouse is obliterated by Warlike helicopters with Missiles in this one, and much of the Ironman suit scenes are shot with just isolated limbs rather than the whole suit.

The CGI carnage is of the usual high standards [it should be, there seems to be about 1000 technicians working on the FX] but the other more Earthbound shots of the actors suffer the same deficiencies as they usually always do in this type of film: flesh-and-blood actors simply can't compete with the dynamic graphics provided by a gifted comics artist, and are unimpressive in comparison [moreso as I've been reading lots of comics of this type recently: comics graphics are much more impressive than any actors' performances in setting such a fantasy scenario].


Overall this has a darker ambience than usual and its fairly downbeat in bits, but there's not really a great deal to reccomend this outing, I'm afraid------the AVENGERS film of last summer was a far more satisfactory cinematic experience---this new Iron Man film is a 'watch-once' wonder at best.



On the plus side, there's a very good fantasy action sequence as Iron Man endeavours to save 13 innocents who are sucked and plucked from an aeroplane.


Don't bother sitting through the credits for the 'add-on' scene at the very end: it's not worth watching.


[2/5]

From what I hear, that post credits scene is just a cameo from Bruce Banner (aka the Hulk). No idea what the relevance of that is when there's no plans yet revealed for a new Hulk film.

I agree with everything Rab says about Iron Man 3 - it's mildly entertaining but nothing special. Except for *Sir* Ben Kingsley's performance as the Mandarin: that's almost worth the entrance fee by itself in my opinion! (unless you happen to come from Croydon ).

- Phil R.