2012's Cinema Nightmares!

2012 has come and gone, and as we welcome in 2013 and build up to my imminent Top 12 of '12 list, as well as the First Annual Beyond Infinity Film Awards later in the month, here's something a little bit different. There's no denying the 2012 was a great year for film, but there were a number of releases that were a little less satisfying; in short, that sucked! So here it is, my 10 least favourite films of 2012 out of the all of the films that I had the displeasure of watching - brace yourself folks, here we go...

Daniel Radcliffe's first big screen project since the end of the gargantuan Harry Potter franchise set the actor his biggest challenge yet; shaking off the weight of the franchise that made his name and to break away from it before becoming stereotyped into the part. So did he do it? No, of course not. I know this may sound like I'm just bullying Radcliffe by badmouthing his career, yet it is this performance that drags down what could have been a special horror film that opted for a more traditional style instead of the tiring Paranormal Activity and Saw films that have plagued the cinema in recent years. Not only did I never believe that the young actor was a widowed father and a successful lawyer, the big problem was that I never saw a character at all, just a performance - or rather an attempt at one. Failing to get behind the lead character meant that the film failed to get an emotional response from me, making The Woman in Black lose all sense of peril and credibility as a result. Click here to read the full review.

I've actually been a strong defender of John Carter, making it known that I believe that the film is no-where near as bad as all of the negative press surrounding it made it out to be - there are far worse films out there that deserve such bad publicity a lot more. In fact John Carter was actually a rather interesting film in context, just as long as you consider the fact that it is adapted from a book published in 1917, then you can see how it was such a strong source of inspiration for most science fiction pieces since, including the likes of Star Wars and Avatar. Yet the film certainly isn't perfect - the performances and storytelling aren't groundbreaking, and I often find the heavy use of CGI somewhat off-putting - but it certainly isn't the worst film released this year... Click here to read the full review.

Despite Meryl Streep's much deserved award winning performance, The Iron Lady was a film that didn't quite get it all right. Whilst the scenes set in the past were engaging and well done, the constant jumps back to the present day Thatcher became a nuisance to me, destroying the flow and the entertainment of the whole film in order to attempt an emotional punch, which I hardly felt as a result. Had the film opted for a simpler narrative looking at Thatcher's incredible historic story - rather than focussing so much on the rather controversial and uncomfortable themes of the dementia of a woman who is still alive and suffering today - the film would have been a much better product as a result. Click here to read the full review.

This one might turn a few heads as Seth MacFarlane's Ted was one of the most popular films of the Summer for a lot of people, but I really didn't think it was all that it is cracked up to be. A new film by the creator of hit TV show Family Guy promised a fresh new inventive comedy, but failed to deliver - there was nothing new or interesting about the film at all. That's not the problem though, the problem is that bar a few moments of great humour, the film wasn't even that funny, which was not helped either by the completely predictable and unengaging plot, and the two-dimensional characters that I just didn't care about at all. The gag is that the teddy bear is alive, and is grown up so swears, does drugs and drinks, etc; the problem is that the joke lasts for 105 minutes longer than it needs to (and yes, the running time was 106 minutes long).  In all honesty Ted bored me more than it entertained me, which is a real shame because someone like MacFarlane has got the talent to create something a lot better than this. Click here to read the full review.

What could have been a wonderful family film adaptation of a book from the genius of Dr. Suess in fact turned out to miss the demographic by a long shot, featuring a ton of entertainment for anyone under five, and very little for anyone else. It is commendable for trying to push its environmental message to the young audience; I just wish that it did it a little more subtly rather than clubbing me around the head with it for the duration of the running time. The songs were pretty fun though. Click here to read the full review.

Just as many people loved Ted, a lot of critics seemed to go wild for the Charlize Theron starring film Young Adult. Yet there is a lot that is fundamentally wrong with the film. Theron's character, an adult still acting as if she's in her teens, is entirely unlikable and although it is arguable that she is not meant to be, the point still stands that I just cannot sympathise with her; especially when the film goes no-where by the end of it! There is no character development, nor any conclusion to her story, by the film's climax she simply fails in her warped plan, sleeps with someone for pity and then uses those who she continues to look down upon for an ego-boost, before going back to what she was doing at the start. Completely anti-climatic and not nearly as funny or clever as it thinks it is, Young Adult is not as good as some critics make it out to be.

While the original was fun, The Expendable 2 is mostly anything but. Tedious, loud, and void of any plot or characters, the explosive sequel goes bigger, but by no means better. Whilst it is redeemed slightly by the big finale which manages to hit the nail on the head and provide the tongue in cheek action fun promised by the packed cast, it is not worth watching the previous hour and a half of the film that takes itself far too seriously to get there. Click here to read the full review.

If John Carter and The Expendables 2 had a baby, it might look like Wrath of the Titans. Soulless and even more two dimensional than the film's 3D effects, watching Wrath of the Titans is about as much fun as smashing your own face in with a large rock. A lot of the expensive CGI-heavy budget is put towards creating not a lot of action at all, as nothing really actually happens in the film. Even the great Liam Neeson spends his time in the film standing there and doing nothing, literally! To think that the film features two of the leading actors from Schindler's List and completely wastes them says an awful lot about this awful film. Whilst Clash of the Titans infamously featured no Titans clashing, this sequel does feature a Titan, but nothing in the way of any wrath, nor enjoyment, excitement or entertainment. Click here to read the full review.

Tom Hardy is a very talented actor, and has starred in two fantastic films this year in two fantastic, menacing, brilliant roles. These films are The Dark Knight Rises and Lawless, because unfortunately even someone as great as Hardy couldn't save the abysmal This Means War. I don't even know where to begin, the film is just stupid. Two spies using their tech and skill to spy on a girl that they are both seeing, and to sabotage each other's dates with her, whilst at the same time the evil villain that they are meant to be stopping is completely forgotten about just like that - ya know, 'cause this is way more important! It's a film that tells people that it's alright to cheat on others and go behind their backs. Formulaic, unfunny, bland, tedious, irritating and terribly cynical, the feeling that you get when watching this film is not unlike the vile after-taste of vomit at the back of your throat. Tom Hardy can do better films than this, and judging by the expression void of any enthusiasm that he shows throughout the film, he knows it too.

I love film. I think that's pretty clear to everyone who knows me or reads this blog. I can't get enough of film, so much so that I'm currently dedicating my life to it. But on a very rare occasion I do have wonder why, especially if I see a film so repugnant and horrible as The Watch. I can't remember ever walking out of a film that was genuinely so bad that it actually gave me a headache! It's ridiculous, stupid, vulgar and not even slightly funny or enjoyable at all. I sat in a screening full of teenagers (who the film is targeting) and I don't remember the film getting a single laugh from anyone. The cast are irritating beyond belief; Ben Stiller is void of humour as the straight man, Vince Vaughn is one of the most unbearable screen presences in film, the recently Oscar nominated Jonah Hill plays an imitation of Zach Galifianakis in The Hangover (and seemingly every other one of his films), and the talents of Richard Ayoade are completely wasted as he gets pushed to the back. This film is a soulless, money grabbing machine designed only to take the money out of your pocket rather than to entertain even slightly - I guarantee that no-one making The Watch thought that it was a good idea, and no-one involved will be proud of it. A film so horrifyingly bad that, The Watch made me so angry that I almost lost faith in film - avoid it like the plague, even if you have to catch the plague to avoid it! Click here to read the full review. 

So there it is, my 10 least favourite films of the 2012, but what were yours? Perhaps some of your favourites are even in my list? Leave your thoughts and lists in the comments section below, as always I'd love to hear what you think. Oh, and Happy New Year everyone - let's hope that 2013 doesn't have many films as bad as these!

Review: Looper

I wonder if the DVD will have a bLooper reel...

"Time travel has not yet been invented. But thirty years from now, it will have been" narrates young Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), "I work as a specialized assassin, in an outfit called the Loopers. When my organization from the future wants someone to die, they zap them back to me and I eliminate the target from the future. The only rule is: never let your target escape... even if your target is you." Of course I'm sure you can gage the general plot for Director Rian Johnson's Looper from this quote alone: when his future self is sent back from the year 2072 to be executed, young Joe is suddenly confronted by the image of himself 30 years older (Bruce Willis). But after his target escapes, young Joe must stop his older self at any cost before he can do anything drastic enough to paradoxically alter time-lines, as well as to save his own life from the very organisation that he works for.

Imagine picking up your A Level exam results; you open up that brown paper envelope and pull out your results, and look at that: you got an A! How fantastic, that's absolutely brilliant. But then you realise you were just 1 mark off of an A* grade. A brilliant mark nonetheless, but one that is so painfully close to being perfect. This is how I felt after I had finished watching the new sci-fi thriller Looper: a brilliant piece of filmmaking but one that is flawed in a few minor places, frustratingly preventing it from being something really, really remarkable.

Willis and Gordon-Levitt's next project: 'Dude, Where's my Hair?'

Let's back track a little bit first off though and take a look at why the film is brilliant in the first place before I start abusing it! Boasting a well written script, Looper is an original, entertaining and intelligent modern sci-fi that follows nicely in the footsteps of Christopher Nolan's 2010 blockbuster Inception and Duncan Jones' 2011 time travel film Source Code. With a budget that sits somewhere in-between the gargantuan Inception and relatively small-budget of Source Code, Looper results in being a very stylish and very slickly executed piece, with any and all uses of CGI elements being used tastefully and not at all overbearing as they can often result in being in some films today (something that I find can often make a film less timeless as a result of dated looking CGI effects). In particular, this is perfectly seen in Joseph Gordon-Levitt's face, which is very impressively made to resemble Bruce Willis' through a perfect combination of make-up and CGI enhancements.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who spent his summer battling Bane's army as Blake in The Dark Knight Rises, shines as the film's tough and gritty leading man role that his career has been leading up to (well, technically only half the lead role I guess...) - it is great to see such a fantastically talented screen-presence finally getting the top billing that he deserves. Supporting him is Emily Blunt who provides a really refreshing and a much needed strong female presence in the male dominated world of the film. Bruce Willis as the other half of the leading man is also a brilliant screen presence, displaying a bit of actual acting which provides a much needed contrast to his OTT gun slinging role in this summer's The Expendables 2. Of course that's not to say that Willis doesn't get any action at all in the film; Looper actually features a number of very engaging and exciting action set pieces throughout, including one particular scene with Willis' character mid-film which despite feeling like a pleasant piece of nostalgia hearkening back to 80s sci-fi action films like The Terminator (a clear inspiration for the film), does brings us nicely onto some of the problems that I had with the film...

Time's up for JGL's next victim in Looper

Despite everything I loved about the film, there were a few minor niggles that put me off somewhat. The Bruce Willis scene that I just mentioned - without spoiling anything for those who haven't seen the film yet - whilst brief does get a bit silly and feels like a scene from something like The Expendables 2. This is perfectly fine in one sense (c'mon, it's Bruce Willis!), but it did feel like a bit of a shame considering how much I'd appreciated Willis' more toned down performance throughout. This particular scene also ends a one of the important narrative strands of the film in a very sudden manor, which unfortunately made it feel somewhat rushed and underdeveloped as a result; especially when the outcome of this means that we get to spend less time with Jeff Daniels' (seen recently in Aaron Sorkin's excellent TV series The Newsroom) character Abe who is a fantastic presence in a role not unlike a slightly toned down version of his brilliant Will McAvoy character from The Newsroom... with a beard! This scene comes during the middle of a very long period of time set on Sara's (Emily Blunt) farm which slows things down a lot and in contrast actually felt too long (although arguably necessary and important to the plot) - I couldn't help but think that time could have been spread a little better during these parts to get the pacing balance just right.

My biggest problem with the film however is the telekinesis sub-plot (referred to as 'TK' in the film) which was somewhat unexpected to say the least. I'll once again avoid spoilers here but for me the whole sub-plot, especially towards the end, felt very random and out of place in the story and perhaps one leap of faith too far that I just couldn't fully buy into. A much more subdued alternative could have been put into place here which would still have allowed the film to come to the conclusion that it needed to. As it stands it did feel like a bit of a shame that within a film grounded so well into a believable sense of future reality to see an element of human evolution that leads to certain individuals being able to levitate objects; I just couldn't buy it. As a result this whole premise feels like it's been put into place by the filmmakers in order to feature some cool Inception-esque slow-motion floating effects into the proceedings (although if you don't think about it too much, it is stylistically very cool).

TK, or not TK: is it one plot too far?

In terms of the time travel storyline, as with all time travel films there are going to be plot holes aplenty. This is simply because time travel is impossible, and so there are numerous theories about how it could work but no definitive proof to support any of them. Therefore the best way to execute a time travel plot in film is to stick to one theory rather than to mix and match theories where and when it feels convenient; in any case though, in terms of time travel the best thing to do is to just not think about or criticise it too much, as there'll always be a problem with it somewhere. In terms of Looper, I did get the sense that it was picking and choosing theories when and where it was convenient, however the premise of the film is one so interesting and original that it doesn't come across as an issue at all - just try to enjoy and to not think about it too much, because if you do it will completely fall apart!...

Not unlike Drive last year, Looper is 2012's end of year gem of a film that you probably weren't expecting to find. With an entertaining, engaging and original sci-fi premise (that sits nicely alongside Inception and Source Code as modern sci-fi greats), fantastic action set-pieces, a wonderful cast and impressive visual effects (featuring enough lens-flares to entertain your average J.J. Abrams), Looper is an intelligent yet simple, stylish and entertaining piece that just so happens to be the big film of the moment - and if you're lucky it might just become one of your favourites of 2012! The more I think about Looper, the more I like it (although the time travel stuff  does fall to pieces if you think about it for too long); it's just a bit of a shame that there are a few problems with the film which ultimately prevent it from becoming something really special. But if you can look past these few minor niggles you'll get a very, very good piece of modern filmmaking that is a real treat.

Verdict: 4/5

Looper (certificate 15) is now showing in cinemas across the UK.

Have you seen Looper? Agree or disagree with my review? Leave your thoughts and opinions in the comments section below!

Review: The Expendables 2

When I returned from seeing this film my sister asked me "what is The Expendables 2 actually about? The trailer just has their names in it" - my response: "hmm, what is it about? Well The Expendables 2 is about an hour and forty minutes..."

All joking aside that's actually an interesting question though, because let's face it this isn't a film that is going to be focussing entirely on the plot side of things; this gives me a bit of a problem however as this is the part of the review where I usually explain the film's plot! Ah, so what can I do? I don't know actually, so I'll let you choose instead, here are your three quote-unquote 'plot' options:

1. The Expendables 2. Stallone. Statham. Li. Lundgren. Norris. Crews. Couture. Hemsworth. Van Damme. Willis. Schwarzenegger. (As the adverts show, this is the marketing department's idea of a plot).
2. BANG. BOOM. Arnold Schwarzenegger Cameo. EXPLOSION. SHOOTING. Attempt at emotional moment. STABBING. MORE EXPLODING. Bruce Willis cameo. MORE BOOMS. MORE BANGS. Chuck Norris cameo. MORE SHOOTING. MORE STABBING... (Repeat for 103 minutes).
3. To quote the film; Jason Statham: "What's the plan?" Sylvester Stallone: "Track 'em, find 'em, kill 'em."

So there are your options, I quite like the third but I'll let you take your pick. It really doesn't matter which one you choose though, they all do the job and at the end of the day the film's not really memorable enough for whichever plot you choose to last in your memory outside of the film's duration anyway...

The Expendables have assembled a team of all abilities - except screenwriting apparently...

It's a shame that I didn't enjoy The Expendables 2 that much as I really wanted to after actually somewhat enjoying the original. Sure it wasn't perfect, and it was a pretty poor film on all technical levels, but it had its tongue placed firmly in its cheek which made it a perfectly fun one-off piece of fluff that ended up being slightly more than the exciting cast list that we all anticipated - an homage of sorts to the classic 80's action films and their macho-men stars, not unlike what The Cabin in the Woods does for the horror genre. It was fun and had a lot of laughs with its banterous dialogue, and with the collection of actors that it brought together it made for a special one-off treat. However by returning for a sequel, the one-off special quality has worn off, with a film that doesn't seem to be able to get it right again. The Expendables 2 feels lumbered for the majority of its running time; it takes itself too seriously, and when it doesn't it feels forced either by going too far over the top, or by just not being funny enough - thanks to the poor script and the feeling that it's trying too hard. Perhaps worst of all, the action isn't really as amazing as you'd want it to be either, and it's all because of that one threat that no Expendables style group will ever be able to defeat: the evil duo of characters and plot!

I've already established that there really is not much of a plot. At all. The extent of it is that the bad guys are after some weapons grade plutonium (unfortunately not in order to power their modified DeLorean Back to the Future, or perhaps even back to their 80's glory days...), and that's about it. But everyone knows that going into the film, and if you're going to see this film you'll have accepted that fact before you've bought your ticket. You may argue that this is part of the point by staying true to a lot of the mindless action films that inspired it, but this time with no plot the film ends up falling apart, relying upon its characters and action to hold it together. The problem is we don't really care for the characters who are never really established or developed and become poorly written two-dimensional character stereotypes of their own acting persona's (the film even goes as far as to name Jean-Claude Van Damme's villain character 'Vilain' - that just says it all!). Alongside this the film tries to fit in too many of these characters for you to keep track of most of them, and as a result a lot of the characters just briefly appear and then disappear for large chunks of or all of the film, reappearing when the moment is right (a.k.a. when the rest of the cast are stuck in an impossible situation and the writers need the convenience of a quick exit). This prevents the film from actually feeling like a film; instead it feels like a cast of action stars having a reunion party (Stallone's character even says to cameoing Norris "well thanks for showing up" at one point, evoking a feeling of a film made by numbers), which in result hinders the impact of any laughs and the peril of any action scenes and the whole film just collapses into a big mess of misdirected moments that you just don't care about and can't get involved in. This all meant that for the majority of the film I just felt bored and uninterested, thinking about some of the other great films that the cast had made in the past. The first film was so bad that it was actually good; this sequel is so bad that it's just plain bad.

A handful of cameos turn up to save the day... and the film!

However to the film's credit it does manage to pick itself up for the final twenty minutes or so when the large finale action set-piece takes place. During the closing scenes of The Expendables 2 it all somehow seems to come together to form the exploitation throwback film that you wanted to see in the first place, just like the first one did. I obviously won't say what happens but the final events of the film provide some lasting moments which successfully balance the action and comedy just right, making up for the rest of the film in a small way by giving the overall film a big moment of redemption right at the end. It is worth seeing the last twenty minutes or so for this, and in fact you actually could just watch the last twenty minutes alone without the rest of the film and have a good time with full understanding (as if there is anything to understand!); the problem occurs when you have to endure the rest of the film first. To the sequel's strength as well it does make a better use of its cameos this time around with Schwarzenegger and Willis actually getting involved in some of the action rather than just turning up to say hi like in the original, and Norris' moments providing some laughs too, with these three characters being a highlight in a rather dull film. It's just a shame that at the same time the film sacrifices Mickey Rourke's character who formed the heart and soul of the first film, but fails to return for the sequel.

As good ol' Arny Schwarz says with one of his overly clichéd yet enjoyably cheesy lines "I'm back," The Expendables explode back onto the screen following on from its successfully fun and tongue in cheek original, however it's unfortunate that aside for the last twenty minutes or so I kinda wish they weren't "back!" Whilst the original had a sort of charm in its throwback to the 80's exploitation action romps that made most of the ageing cast stars, this sequel loses the enjoyment factor by trying a little too hard to be a bit more serious and at times too humorous. With its poorly written script (whether intentional or not), underdeveloped characters and plot-less series of action The Expendables 2 ends up feeling forced, lumbered, tedious and boring for the majority of its run time. Some might argue that that's all kinda the point, but at the end of the day by taking its tongue out of its cheek The Expendables 2 ends up being a very dull affair for the most part. "My shoe is bigger than this car" is one of the better lines from one of the better scenes, it's just a shame that the film overall has incidentally gotten a bit too big for its boot...

(By the way, the fun 80's throwback trailer embedded below is worth a watch as it is better than most of the film itself and what you'd have wanted it to actually be. Plus it's free!)

Verdict: 2/5

The Expendables 2 (certificate 15) is now showing in cinemas across the UK.

Have you seen The Expendables 2? Agree or disagree with my review? Leave your thoughts and opinions in the comments section below!

Trailer Park: The Expendables 2

The Yorkie Bar of film returns - are you ready for another dose of 80's-tastic action?

This is the bit where I usually describe the story, plot and premise of the film, but let's face it The Expendables 2 isn't about that at all - it's just about the names, so here goes: Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham, Jet Li, Jean-Claude Van Damme, Dolph Lundgren, Terry Crews, Randy Couture, Chuck Norris, Bruce Willis, Arnold Schwarzenegger. Did I miss anyone out?

The first film may not have been a masterpiece by any standards, but for pure adrenaline, action, fun and its awesome cast it very quickly became a bit of a guilty pleasure of mine. Going even bigger for the sequel (who knew that was even possible!?) The Expendables 2 could be just as fun as the original, and this new trailer gives us hope of that too; with show stealing moments from Schwarzenegger who delivers some of the trailer's best, if not a little cheesy, lines which actually made me laugh out loud ("I'm Back!") - and with a cast like this, this film could do for 80's action heroes what Avengers Assemble did for modern superheroes!...

The Expendables 2 is released in cinemas across the UK on August 17th 2012.

Do you have to be Man or Mad to see this sequel? Do you think it will be a blockbuster or lacklustre? Leave your comments below!