MOVIEGOON

The film that ended the Cold War single-handedly. Everyone has seen it, everyone loves it (I think), and it's a damn shame that it didn't clean up at the Oscar's.

Rocky IV is the fourth in the hit-after-hit boxing series from America's sweetheart Stallone. After twice squaring up to Apollo Creed (Carl Weathers) and once to Clubber Lang (Mr T), Rocky now must face Soviet cyborg Ivan Drago (Dolph Lundgren); the most evil sportsman in the history of cinema.

Sitting pretty at the top of the heavyweight game after defeating Clubber Lang, Rocky is in the corner for Creed as he fights Drago in an 'East Vs. West' exhibition fight that has it all; James Brown partying to 'Living In America', a raucous American crowd baying for Soviet blood and Star-Spangled Banner's galore. Drago goes on to mercilessly beat Creed to death in the ring, uttering one of cinema's all-time most beautifully delivered lines - 'If he dies...he dies'.

It becomes obvious from here that the acting quality in this film is straight from the top drawer. Lungren displays his wondrous vocal talents with a stream of perfectly delivered one-liners that become the lifeblood of this film.

Rocky Balboa then agrees to fight Drago in Moscow - 'It's in Russia' - on Christmas Day. What follows is a series of entirely believable events, including

Rocky's black cornerman, Duke (Tony Burton), defeating a Russian at chess.

Multiple, non-homo-erotic montages involving running up mountains, lifting logs, helping the locals of the Soviet Union get their horse and cart out of deep snow and lifting trailers filled with several humans.

Rocky turning up for the big fight after training for weeks in the tundra with an absolute beast of a tan.

All of this is accompanied by the finest cinematic soundtrack in history, with hits from Robert Tepper, Survivor and John Cafferty. I challenge any of you not to sing along to every line of Survivor's Cold War anthem "Burning Heart' as Rocky and his entourage arrive in Russia and connect with the Real American Hero deep inside you.

Rocky enters the ring in Moscow to a cacophony of noise (mostly boos) and reveals his sexy, tanned body complete with Stars and Stripes shorts. The robotic Russian, Drago proceeds to dominate Rocky for the opening rounds, much to the delight of the partisan crowd, until from nowhere, Rocky connects with a hook and splits Drago's eye open - 'HE'S CUT!!!! THE RUSSIAN'S CUT!!!!' - Rocky finally proves Drago is a human: a point which is helpfully reinforced by Duke, 'He's not a machine, he's a man.'

As the fight goes on, the momentum to's and fro's between Drago and Balboa, whilst the crowd start to get behind the Italian Stallion - much to the disbelief of the Soviet leaders in the VIP section. In the final round, Rocky lands approximately 47 consecutive hooks to the Russian and finally knocks him out to an inevitable chorus of cheers from those watching at home. Rocky then delivers the finest monologue ever, doing what hundreds of politicians have tried, and failed, to do and brought an end to the hatred between the world's two superpowers - 'If I can change, and you can change, THEN EVERYBODY CAN CHANGE!!!!!'. It's enough to bring a tear to a glass eye and is a fitting end to the Rocky series until the recent rebirth of the series, 2006's Rocky Balboa (I'm pretty sure there wasn't any Rocky films between IV and Rocky Balboa...yep, 100% certain.)

After all the battling, Rocky celebrates with wife Adrian (Talia Shire) and Duke in-ring, and with everyone watching at home on DVD or ITV4 for the thousandth time. It warms the heart more than a lovely Sunday roast dinner or a Bonnie Tyler power ballad.

----

9/10

----

Back like the Terminator. Only not back for Sarah Connor, but to write some film reviews. No, you're not going to be getting a review on one of the several great films out there at the moment, that'd be too normal; instead you're getting a six-year-old classic from Pixar.

I'm not afraid to say it, I LOVE Pixar films. Yeah, I'm pushing on a bit, I have some grey hairs and I can't go out drinking for more than two days in a row anymore, but I'm still basically a child so I'm a massive fan of their work. They - both critically and commercially - have the best strike-rate of any film studio in cinematic history, so I am definitely not alone. Ratatouille, until today, was the only Pixar film I hadn't seen before. I was just never interested in seeing what a rat who likes cooking looks like on the big screen. Shame on me.

Ratatouille tells the tale of Remy (Patton Oswalt), a French, countryside-dwelling rat with a passion for cooking. Unwilling to feast on leftovers and rubbish like his rat-family and rat-buddies, he often ventures into a farmhouse to sample various culinary treats and watch cooking programmes featuring his favourite chef, the recently deceased Auguste Gusteau (Brad Garrett). After a visually stunning set-piece featuring Remy's discovery by the owner of the house, the rats are forced to flee, with Remy becoming separated from his family. Soon though, he winds up in the pretentious food capital of the world, Paris. I have one word to say about Paris from my experiences - meh. Regardless of this, Pixar have created a Paris cityscape that looks incredible. No sign of the scores of homeless people or thieving gypsies everyone else has no doubt encountered in this 'great' city, only stunning skylines and a clichéd, romanticised atmosphere.

Once in Paris, we're introduced to Alfredo Linguini (Lou Romano), a shy, clumsy young man who just happens to be Gusteau's son and has recently got himself a job at his, widely discredited, restaurant. With an almighty act of puppeteering, Remy and Linguini come together in a sweet, but never sickly, double act, to bring Gusteau's restaurant back to popularity with a variety of cutting edge dishes, impressing customers and critics alike. Much to the disgust of head chef Skinner (Ian Holm), who knows something is amiss with the situation.

The film is made up of several exciting chase scenes, with Remy trying to avoid being caught - both in the kitchen and throughout the beautifully rendered streets of Paris.  These scenes are interspersed with several scenes of farce; mainly revolving around Linguini's clumsiness in the kitchen, so there is something for both the younger and older viewers to enjoy. This all leads up to a showdown between the team of Remy and Linguini, and Paris' most notorious food critic, Anton Ego (Peter O'Toole), the man who recently had shot the restaurant down as irrelevant following a bad review.

The concluding scenes include a clear message to the role of the critic, possibly in retaliation to the less than favourable reviews for Pixar's previous effort, Cars. Who knows, but if anything, it's an opportunity for Peter O'Toole to give an engaging monologue, displaying his terrific voice acting. In fact, his is the only real powerhouse vocal performance from the cast; the film's only real downside.

Another hit then for Pixar. Fantastic visuals and another great double-act to add to the list alongside Buzz and Woody, and Mike and Sully. The real triumph for Remy and Linguini though is that their bond is created without any ability to communicate other than facial expressions. Add in a few well written bad-guys and you have my new fourth favourite Pixar film (1- Toy Story, 2- Toy Story 3, 3- Up).

----

8/10

----

Random one here. Only actually went to see it because I wanted to go to the cinema but couldn't be bothered waiting another hour to see Now You See Me. Going into the film with barely even a vague knowledge of it or the 'true story' source material, left me not knowing at all what to expect; all too rare with movies these days.

Based on the true story of a group of high-schoolers robbing celebrities in Los Angeles, Bling Ring is a heavily stylised, damning condemnation on the American celebrity culture. After doing some research on these burglaries, the character names are changed, but not much else is. The burglary victims are however, kept the same; Paris Hilton, Audrina Patridge et al.

The story focuses on a small group of - all too typical these days - brattish, privileged teenagers rebelling against their parents through a mix of sheer boredom and.....well, just because. This group is led by Rebecca (Katie Chang) and Marc - pretty cool name that - (Israel Broussard), and also includes Emma Watson, trying so hard to shake off the Harry Potter stereotypes by playing roles so far removed from it, it almost reeks of desperation. After finding out, via Google, where these celebrities live and when they are out of town, these houses are visited, entered mostly through unlocked doors, and their most desirable contents (clothes, jewellery and shoes) are taken. Due to the sheer volume of stuff these celebrities have, and the fact there is no evidence of any forced entry; the majority of these burglaries go unnoticed - Paris Hilton's house in particular visited on several occasion.

That's pretty much what happens. These burglaries - interspersed with gratuitous drug-taking scenes and the 'ring' enjoying their new found wealth. The whole affair feels very shallow and stylised to within an inch of its life. It never feels as tense as it should in some of the break-in scenes, but does deliver a warning about America's culture of celebrity and excess. The acting isn't great and the film just kind of passes you by. Worrying stuff for Michael Corleone's daughter.

----

4/10

----

I've never been much of a Colin Farrell fan, mainly due to his regular appearances in films that sound good on the face of things, but don't quite live up to the expectations (think The Recruit and Phonebooth). So when Seven Psychopaths came on the scene, I didn't pay any attention to it. However, upon it being requested I thought, I may as well give it a chance, and I'm glad I did.

Seven Psychopaths isn't your standard film. Delving into both the crime and comedy genres, it also blurs fantasy with reality. The story involves a screenwriter, Marty Faranan (Farrell) and his struggles to complete his script (also called Seven Psychopaths). The film almost feels at times it is mirroring writer and director Martin McDonagh's own struggles to write his film, coming almost four years after his debut feature In Bruges. Marty calls upon the assistance of his friends, Billy Bickle (Sam Rockwell) and Hans Kieslowski (Christopher Walken) to help come up with the idea for seven differing psycho's, picking between real-life crazies and fictional ones. These seven nutters are introduced one by one, and slowly but surely they begin to intersect with each other in what are at times, hectic and confusing set-pieces, but at the same time, good fun to watch.

The plot of the story is paper-thin, Hans and Billy steal dogs and return them to the owners to pick up the cash rewards, until they steal the wrong dog; a Shih Tzu belonging to mentalist gangster Charlie Costello (Woody Harrelson). But, this film isn't really so much about the plot as the inventive eponymous psychopaths and the interplay between the actors. Farrell as the only non-psychopathic character does well to hold the other characters together in what otherwise could have become a messy affair, but always retains a sense of control. Rockwell and Walken both give powerful perfomances as two of the said psycho's: Rockwell giving us his trademark wild-eyed, loose-cannon display, whilst Walken puts in a showing that is every bit as assured as his roles in The Deerhunter and more recently Catch Me If You Can. Woody Harrelson also shines as the deranged gangster owner of the Shih Tzu that he may be in love with more than just a little bit. 

The narrative of the film is slick, with the dialogue between characters always snappy and engaging. Several scenes manage to stand out, including a fantastical shoot-out including all of the film's characters, all thought up in the mind of Billy Bickle as he tries to help Marty write his screenplay, and a short, but sweet, face-off with Charlie Costello and Hans in a hospital waiting room.

The only question that remains in my mind though: is this more evidence of McDonagh's original and stylish abilities, or the work of a director who didn't quite know how to follow up his debut hit, so stylishly danced around a lack of plot? Either way, it's an excellent watch and a very enjoyable showcase of some, often under-appreciated, actors working very close to their best.

----

7/10

----

Really? Hanks and Ryan again? For a third time? Yep, these are all the questions that were on my lips when I first saw You’ve Got Mail several years ago. After teaming up for Joe Vs. The Volcano and Sleepless In Seattle, they firmly move their lives into the 1990’s. E-mail and internet and big businesses crushing small, family-run shops. All of this is in attendance for what would be another run-of-the-mill rom-com if not for the three big guns; Hanks, Ryan and director, Nora Ephron.

What we’re dealing with here is almost a continuation of Hanks and Ryan’s long-distance relationship from Sleepless In Seattle, but this time there is a twist. In the cyber-world of AOL chatrooms, Joe Fox or ‘NY152’ (Hanks) and Kathleen Kelly or ‘Shopgirl’ (Ryan) flirt endlessly. Their cheeky, humorous to-and-fro messages edging them ever so close to love, whilst in the real world, they are enemies. Joe’s huge-scale corporate bookshop is on the verge of running Kathleen’s intimate, family-run bookshop into the ground. Completely unaware of the others true identities, this formula continues for almost the whole film, which at times, can really start to drag. The whole watching an actor typing instant messages really isn’t as thrilling as we all thought it would be. Plus, they aren’t even using MSN Messenger. Just some dodgy ‘over-30’s’ chatroom. Weird.

When the film is at it’s best is when Hanks and Ryan are given the chance to share the screen. This is when they prove themselves as the premier rom-com practitioners in the game. Hanks also nails down his position as the most versatile actor in Hollywood with another ‘everyman’ performance, as Ryan really is in her element with another soppy, love-y role to get her teeth into. However, and I think they will by now have realised, three films together really is stretching the limit.

The film’s supporting cast is also effective. They really need to be, as Hanks and Ryan don’t have enough screen time together to keep things going themselves. Greg Kinnear as Kathleen’s partner, newspaper writer Frank Navasky is much more As Good As It Gets than Stuck On You (aka, good, rather than awful), whilst Steve Zahn, playing one of Kathleen’s colleagues at the store gives us an early glimpse of his talent as one of the better character actors out there. It’s not all good however, with the bizarre casting of Dave Chapelle as the store manager of Joe’s new Manhattan branch of his Borders-esque chain. It’s hard to take someone such as Chapelle semi-seriously, with his goofy, albeit hilarious persona.

You’ve Got Mail then is a definite hit. Ephron follows on from When Harry Met Sally… and Sleepless In Seattle with another rom-com classic. Although, being a rom-com there is a glass ceiling for scores on the ‘out of ten’ scoring system, and that is 7/10. This gets close, but no proverbial cigar.

——

6.5/10

——

The vast majority of films I've reviewed have been made with budgets totalling many millions. Not this one. Third Contact, the debut feature film by Simon Horrocks was shot with a budget totalling the grand sum of £4000. I've watched a fair few low budget films and they have looked and felt awful, and by low budget I'm meaning several hundred thousand to the low millions. So knowing this film cost even a fraction of even that, I was expecting the worst.

Revolving around a psychotherapist's struggles with his own life and the loss of two of his patients to suicide, Third Contact is not one for the faint-hearted. The premise of the story is extremely bleak and this is reinforced by the presentation of the film in black and white, save for a few flashbacks shown in vivid colouring. Said psychotherapist, Dr. David Wright (Tim Scott-Walker) combines his own personal problems and an investigation into the apparent suicides of his patients to undergo a journey that takes him through the deepest recesses of his psyche. Dealing with many intriguing topics such as depression and even quantum suicide, this film really enters the realm of 'head-fuck' . At times I found myself with similar feelings to watching a David Lynch film, being creeped out by the slightest odd-moment of silence or even a small facial expression by one of the characters. This is, I believe a testament to the director, and Horrocks looks like he could go on to be an influential presence in British cinema if given the chance.

I'll get this out of the way now; the film makes a mockery of it's micro-budget. I'm not trying to say it looks like Life Of Pi, but in no way should a film recorded on a hand-held camera with a total budget of £4000 look this slick. The filming style visually narrates the story, and documents Dr. Wright's personal plight without much need for the actor to do so.

The acting is the only real sore point of this film for me. Obviously the small scale of the film makes it impossible to recruit seasoned talent so it can be forgiven, but bad acting can really compromise a production whether it be an indie art-house flick or a major Hollywood blockbuster (Dwayne Johnson and Channing Tatum comes to mind here). The cast aren't completely terrible, but clearly struggle to convey the obvious emotional turmoil that is needed for a story this dark.

Quite obviously, this film is not going to be for everybody. In the already niche category of independent cinema, it has an even more niche 'quasi-fantasy' genre, which tends to alienate viewers who aren't willing to give 'different' a chance. However, I would urge you to take a gamble on this, as not only does it show what can be done on a preverbial 'shoe-string budget', but it also shows a potentially great director making his way in the business.

----

5/10

----

Excellent story idea backed up with good direction and cinematography. Only really let down by some underwhelming acting and a few moments where the low budget is impossible to hide. An increased budget and a little more refinement and this film could be great.

As requests go, this is up there with boldest. What can be said about Hercules In New York? If you've never seen it, you are probably unaware as to just how bad cinema can be. I first saw Hercules In New York when I was a lot younger, and even then the unbelievably poor quality struck me. This may be starting to sound like a film you should avoid like the preverbial plague - but this film is very much worth watching. It is the definition of, "so bad, it's good".

Hercules In New York is notable for being the cinematic debut of Arnold Schwarzenegger, who plays Hercules (billed as 'Arnold Strong 'Mr Universe' - presumably the spelling of Schwarzenegger more than baffled the filmmakers). After centuries of being stuck in Olympus, Hercules demands his father, Zeus, allows him to journey to Earth as he is 'bored'. After some terrifically acted to-ing and fro-ing, Hercules is sent to Earth and ends up in New York City. Once there, he struggles to deal with modern life, getting into some of the worst scripted and executed fight scenes in existence and displaying his demi-god powers in some of the most irrelevant showings of strength imaginable; on one occasion, flipping over a taxi for no apparent reason.

Whilst in New York City, Hercules is befriended by a pretzel salesman, called Pretzie (Arnold Stang), who may in fact be the most gifted facial expressionist that has ever lived. To be fair to Mr. Stang, some of these expressions may just be in reaction to how awful this film is. Some of the events that follow their pairing together are just so insane, they must be seen to be believed. This includes a long jump competition, a weightlifting contest and Hercules wrestling an escaped bear (man in an absolutely dreadful bear costume) in Central Park.

If you do watch this film, the original un-dubbed version is a must see. Due to Schwarzenegger's poor English at this point, the theatrical version of the movie had a voiceover. The audio track with Schwarzenegger's thick Austrian accent is comedy gold. 90% of his lines cannot be deciphered, but once they are after many rewinds and repeats, you are left with some of the finest one-liners Arnie has ever produced. None more so than in the scene where he grabs a forklift truck and utters the immortal line, "Fine chariot.....but where are your horses" (took me 3 replays to work that one out).

The only thing I can really say of this film is that it has absolutely no artistic merit whatsoever. However, this is still very much must-see. Intentionally or un-intentionally, this is without doubt the funniest film there is. It is very difficult to bring yourself to watch, but once you do, your life will be one step closer to completion. If you've already seen this, please spread the word. This is a film everyone should see at least once.

----

0/10

----

Ok, back to the reviews after a short break. I’ve had a few requests, but decided to take on Up as I have yet to review an animated film. As everyone already knows, it is impossible for Pixar to make a bad film. Each film they have released is a work of art and makes the job of a humble reviewer such as myself irrelevant. However, I believe this film is Pixar’s masterpiece (other than Toy Story, I’m not that mental).

Up is the story of Carl Fredricksen (Edward Asner), a 78 year-old coming to terms with life without his best friend and wife, Ellie, and his trip to a beauty spot in South America named Paradise Falls. A place Carl and Ellie had always planned on going to, but were cruelly robbed of the chance. He’s a grumpy, sour-faced old fogey with a perfectly square head - but within 10 minutes of the film beginning, he will have stolen your heart. This is done in what is possibly the best montage in film history, never mind just animation. It is a wordless, heart-wrenching 5 or so minutes following Carl and Ellie’s first meeting, all the way through to her tragic passing. Quite how Pixar has achieved making such an emotional scene with no dialogue is a mystery. It is simply a masterpiece of cinema and will melt even the coldest hearts.

Upon watching you may think that this opening scene sets the film’s stall out as a teary, upsetting tale, but far from it. Up is in equal measures heartwarming and funny, with a variety of supporting characters. Carl’s main companion for the story is a young Wilderness Explorer called Russell (Jordan Nagai). This ultimate odd-couple come together through Russell’s determination to gain his ‘Assisting the Elderly’ badge and then his becoming trapped on Carl’s porch when his house takes flight through balloon power in what is one of the most visually stunning scenes Pixar has ever delivered.

Most of the film’s comedy is delivered by a pack of talking dogs in the jungles of Paradise Falls and a huge flightless bird which takes a liking to Carl and Russell. The comedy is welcome at this point as the second half of the film at times drops below usual entertainment expectations for Pixar, but this may be due to the fact it has to compete with the sublime first half of the film. Whatever the reason, the second half sometimes feels forced, until the thoroughly entertaining final act with chases and mid-air battles galore.

The visuals of Up are extraordinary, making Pixar’s previous human-centric feature, The Incredibles, look bland in comparison. The standout scenes being the aforementioned house taking off under the power of thousands of balloons and the climactic mid-air battle on board a huge zeppelin. Usually I find with films that are this aesthetically pleasing, the substance of the story suffers, but Pete Docter and the rest of the Pixar lads storytelling is masterful and the film impresses on both fronts. Add to that some excellent voice acting from the cast, including an excellent turn from Christopher Plummer as the main antagonist and you have an unbeatable formula.

——

8/10

——