Review: Kick-Ass 2

One of the unexpected hits of 2010 was the off-beat not-so-superhero flick Kick-Ass, which brought the world a fresh and original take on the unstoppable superhero genre that dominates the modern multiplex cinema culture. Speed forward 3 years and with a new writer and director on board, as well as a whole host of new actors joining the cast ensemble, the adventures of amateur superhero Kick-Ass (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) and the expletive-screaming, limb-removing 11 turned 15 year old Hit-Girl (Chloë Grace Moretz) go bigger and more ambitious with Kick-Ass 2, as the dynamic duo have to fight off their biggest threat yet: sequel-itus...

There is a lot to enjoy in the follow-up to Kick-Ass, with the same wit and style returning along with the original's key characters, in a story that goes on to progress their stories naturally from the events of the first: Dave Lizewski/Kick-Ass faces the responsibilities of what he has inspired - an army of similarly masked vigilantes, Mindy Macready/Hit-Girl must adjust to living a normal life under the societal conventions of a normal teenage girl (against the conflicting philosophies of her late father in mind), and for Chris D'Amico (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) the call to avenge his father's death sees him becoming the world's first super-villain - The Motherf%&*^r. The film's structure is built around the journeys of these three returning characters, and as a result sees itself dividing into three separate plot-lines shortly after the film starts.

The world's first Superhero faces-off against the world's first supervillain, in Kick-Ass 2.

Through Dave's story and the introduction of the 'Justice Forever' team - headed by prosthetics laden Jim Carrey's Colonel Stars and Stripes - the film takes an interesting path that evokes the strange inventiveness of the film's predecessor. As too does the storyline of Chris D'Amico, who similarly introduces his own team of masked creations. However it is the tale of Hit-Girl this time - the shining star of the first film - that unfortunately lets down the anticipated sequel. There's no denying Moretz's talents as she returns to the role that made her name, but for a majority of the film we see her famous Hit-Girl character take off the mask to focus on a developing a normal life. Though natural progression, this is a big problem as the foul mouthed, 11 year old killing machine that made the film such a well enjoyed and memorable success is not present for a large portion of the film, whilst she gets tangled up into a bizarre high school teen-girl storyline instead. It was a while into this segment that I came to the unfortunate realisation that I was no longer watching Kick-Ass 2, but Mean Girls instead. If I wanted to see Mean Girls again I would have, but I paid to see another Kick-Ass film instead, and this demotion of Hit-Girl is partially what makes it something of a disappointment.

It is this segment as well that hosts perhaps the most horrifying piece of product placement that I have ever seen in a film. During a scene at a teen girl slumber party, the queen bee of the group informs Moretz's Mindy Macready that she is not a real girl without having Twilight, Channing Tatum and Union J in her life, before playing the music video to Union J's single; 'Carry You.' You'd be forgiven for not knowing who Union J actually are (a One Direction inspired boy band from a recent series of The X Factor), and it's clearly apparent that the US market is unaware too, which makes the randomness of this scene stink of cynicism all the more - as it is ridiculous to suggest that Union J are as influential as Twilight and Channing Tatum on this generation. As the song plays, the camera slowly tracks into it the music video until the film literally becomes an advert to allow the band to exploit the One Direction demographic and encourage audiences to make them just as profitable. All the while, we hear the bodily sounds and an ever increasing heartbeat as the 15 year old girls become audibly aroused at the pretty-boy group, with one exclaiming "I'm soaked!" by the end - totally sexualising a group of underaged 15 year old girls. If handled more tastefully, a scene like this could have worked in the film well as a ironic take on the pettiness of certain teen girls, but with the over-exaggerated audio effects playing over the screen engulfing music video (which well outstays its welcome), it become all the more apparent as to what the scene is actually trying to achieve is higher CD sales and mp3 downloads - in a way that is as morally questionable as it is totally out of place in a graphic 15 rated film that will miss the majority of its target market anyway. It may only be a small moment in the grand scale of things, but it took a franchise that I very much admired to a very disappointing low.

Hit-Girl - not your average teenage girl, in Kick-Ass 2.

Kick-Ass 2 certainly aims to go bigger than the original, and through its extended cast and storyline it certainly does. Yet it is widely known that bigger isn't always better, and unfortunately in this case the film struggles to pace itself under the huge weight of the expanded plot and ensemble. With so many new characters (and their alter-egos) being introduced into the franchise, certain characters never get the exposure or development that they need, and particular relationships never get the screen-time necessary to make them feel natural or believable. In the worst case scenario of this, Dave's girlfriend Katie (Lyndsy Fonseca) from the first film - whom is portrayed as the girl of Dave's dreams, and for the attention of whom he strives to gain at any cost - is limited to two brief moments in the film before disappearing entirely after a short spat which we are left to assume causes the end of their relationship. Not that it seems to matter to the emotionless Dave at all, who after pining for her so long seems to forget her in an instant. With so many plot-lines and characters emerging from Kick-Ass 2, the film struggles to gage the right balance in its transition from comic-book to film, which results in the film losing the heart that the original had and benefited from greatly.

It's good to finally see a return to the big screen for Kick-Ass, Hit-Girl, and the franchise's unique and quirky style, but with an overcomplicated plot and too many characters being introduced all at the same time, Kick-Ass 2 struggles to find its feet and reclaim the former glory of the very original first instalment. Through its three intertwining plotlines - including a very unusual Mean Girls inspired segment - Kick-Ass 2 certainly isn't without some enjoyment, especially as it comes to its grand climax, but throughout it is plagued with its own struggle to pace itself as it attempts and fails to best the original. In a rather unmemorable summer of cinema, it's a shame that this follow-up is not able to reclaim or better the enjoyment of the original, as something as original as the first Kick-Ass film feels greatly needed right now. "Try and have a little fun" says Col. Stars and Stripes, "otherwise, what's the point?" - well Jim, I tried, but for a lot of the film I simply was not amused. Oh, and can we all just try to forget that Union J disaster ever happened, please?...

Verdict: ★★★☆☆

Kick-Ass 2 (certificate 15) is now showing in cinemas across the UK.

Have you seen Kick-Ass 2? Leave your thoughts and opinions in the comments section below!

Review: The Bourne Legacy

How far could this possibly go? Just how many Legacy's can we get? "Next Summer experience 'The Bourne Legacy Legacy'!?..."*

As the events surrounding Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) transpire chaotically around him (in the original three films), the US government sectors running other projects operating alongside Operation Treadstone must take action to cover their own backs in case Bourne's actions and the government's secrets hit the media and blow up in a big way. Retired Col. Eric Byer, USAF (Edward Norton) - the man in charge of Operation Outcome - is forced by Bourne's actions into closing down their own superhuman programme by killing off all of their agents. However one agent by the name of Aaron Cross (Jeremy Renner) manages to avoid death, and is now on the run from the forces out to kill him whilst trying to obtain the drugs that he needs to maintain his superhuman abilities...

Imagine going into your local Marks & Spencer shop and buying a sandwich from their food section (stay with me, there is a point!). You pick up one of their sandwiches in that fancy looking packaging that promises a better quality meal. You purchase it, open it up and take a bite. But what's this, the sandwich that was packaged with that high quality M&S brand in fact just tastes like a low quality Tesco value sandwich instead!? It's not necessarily a bad sandwich, and if you were expecting it you might have even enjoyed it, it's just that you were anticipating that well made M&S sandwich instead! I know, I know; not the most imaginative metaphor in the world, and probably one that you could see coming from a mile off, but this sandwich was The Bourne Legacy: a film packaged in the brand of a high quality blockbuster film franchise, but ultimately delivers a fairly average spy action thriller instead of what you were hoping for, albeit one that might have been more enjoyable if you were expecting just that... (No sandwiches were harmed in the making of this metaphor. They just cringed a little when reading this. Just like you and everyone else.)

Hands up, who wants to play the next Jason Bourne?

Going into The Bourne Legacy there is one thing that is absolutely vital that you need to take in with you and to be aware of: despite its title, this is not a Bourne film. Whilst the title is technically accurate as the events of this film are the legacy of Jason Bourne's actions in the original three films, Bourne himself does not appear in the film other than in the occasional photograph or in the countless references. Apart from this and the occasional familiar face, there is nothing substantial enough to make this a Bourne film. It'd be the equivalent of a Harry Potter film with no Harry in it, or an Indiana Jones film with Shia Labeouf instead of Harrison Ford (it's best to not even think about that one!), but to still have their character names in the titles. It is essentially misleading, and ultimately what lets the film down.

The real problem - aside from it not being an actual Bourne film - is that even if you accept it as the spin-off that it actually is, the film is rather ironically unable to actually live up to The Bourne Legacy! When the first three Bourne's were released, they were instantly heralded for being game-changers for the spy genre, with their ultra-realistic approach, shaky camera shots and intelligent plots based around US government corruption and a man of incredible abilities; so much so that they actually caused the iconic Bond series to reboot into a grittier form with Casino Royale. By including 'Bourne' in the title we are merely reminded of just how good these films were, and by how this film is clearly not as good. In fact the film feels very much like a film trying to be a Bourne film as opposed to actually being one! With a slow start that results in the film taking around an hour to fully get going, and a lot of dialogue heavy exposition, The Bourne Legacy lacks the slickness and the appeal that made the other films so good. As an average spy thriller this could actually have been pretty good film, however that's the problem; watching a film with the Bourne name in the title you naturally expect a lot more.

Action man Jeremy Renner in the role he was 'Bourne' to play...

Having said all of that the film is still not all that bad. Despite the slow start and heavy dialogue, the film does boast some impressive action set pieces when it really gets into the swing of things. These scenes provide much excitement and are not far from those of the originals; and with Edward Norton providing the great screen presence that he always has, Jeremy Renner doing a good enough job as the Bourne figure (albeit not quite one that fully fills Damon's shoes), and Rachel Weisz playing the female accomplice Dr. Marta Shearing, the well cast foray of acting talent is also just as equally enjoyable to watch. I do also like how the film does tie into the previous Bourne films, with the events of Legacy happening alongside those of The Bourne Ultimatum, providing an interesting and clever storyline that deals with the idea of exploring the consequences of Ultimatum's events. It's just unfortunate that the film as a whole narrowly falls short of the mark.

When all was done and the film came to a close, Moby's fantastic song 'Extreme Ways' that iconically closes all of the Bourne films started to play through the cinema. Yet the feeling of having seen a Bourne film didn't resonate with it, instead it just acted as unfortunate reminder of just how good the others were, and by comparison how much The Bourne Legacy lives within the franchise's overpowering shadow. With its new cast and director, this Bourne-free Bourne film misses what made the other films so special. That's not to say it's a completely bad film; as an average spy action thriller it's a pretty good one, but when you go to see a film with 'Bourne' in the title you expect a great film rather than an okay one. I don't know exactly what this film's Legacy will be; it's clear that this will lead to more sequels with this film almost acting as a bridge between two franchises, but it's difficult to understand just how many more Bourne-less Bourne films can be made...

(* Although 'The Bourne Legacy Legacy' was actually the very long pee that I had after the very long film!)

Verdict: 3/5

The Bourne Legacy (certificate 12A) is now showing in cinemas across the UK.

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

Review: Ted

I'd like to say that Ted left me in more stitches than Ted himself is made of, but not unlike the above poster; that'd be taking the pee...

"Now if there's one thing you can be sure of, it's that nothing is more powerful than a young boy's wish" opens the narrator (Patrick Stewart), before continuing; "...except an Apache helicopter. An Apache helicopter has machine guns AND missiles. It is an unbelievably impressive complement of weaponry, an absolute death machine." Setting the tone for the film, the young boy he refers to is John Bennett (Bretton Manley) who makes a Christmas wish that his best friend Teddy the teddy bear could be alive. And sure enough in that traditional clichéd Christmas miracle style he does. Years pass and both John (Mark Wahlberg) and Ted (Seth MacFarlane) grow up, but the toils of Ted's celebrity status have taken their toll on him and they now live their drink and drug lifestyles as grown adults. However problems arise when John's girlfriend Lori (Mila Kunis) has enough of John letting her down as a result of Ted's wild antics, testing their relationship to the limits...

Now I know I'm going to be going against the majority of my peers and demographic here and seriously putting all of my street-cred on the line when I say this, so here goes: I didn't think Ted was that good. There I said it! I know I risk getting a lot of stick for this, and believe me I already have, but hear me out and I'll explain to you why for me at least Family Guy's Seth MacFarlane put the 'Ted' into 'Disappointed,' 'Tedious' and 'Wanted & Expected More'...

Ted and John misbehave in the park (no not like that, but the film isn't beyond that sort of humour of course!)

Seth MacFarlane is best known for making the hit animated TV series Family Guy. You'd think that this unique style of humour would be the saving grace for this film, and something that would hopefully set it apart from most other generic Hollywood comedies today, but in fact that's the reason the film doesn't work. With an episode of Family Guy, each lasting around about 20 minutes long, the show is mostly just a format for jokes and random pop-culture tangents (if you search for clips on YouTube most of them are only 5 to 10 seconds long as the episodes are essentially focused on being a string of jokes), with a minor plot merely being the backbone upon which the jokes can be placed upon - and that works because it's only 20 minute long. This same formula has been transferred to the big screen for Ted, except Ted isn't 20 minutes long, it's just short of 2 hours. By stretching out the running time and transferring it to a live action film the jokes cannot be as random, nor can they be as often either as the film would look more like 2 hours of random clips making an almost You've Been Framed style montage of gags with no sign of any direction. Unfortunately for Ted this exposes the very weak plot of the film, which is essentially a poor, overly clichéd and done to death rom-com formula which is completely predictable from the very start.

But surely that's alright though isn't it, because as we know from the likes of Family Guy the plot is just the backbone for the jokes to be placed on top of!? Unfortunately not, the plot of the story is key unfortunately folks - it's film 101. Looking past the weak plot though, are the jokes even all up to that anyway? Well I'll admit a handful of them were actually very funny, and I did have a good laugh at some of the gags throughout the film. What I do like is MacFarlane's style (particularly the use of Family Guy like music), the clear love for cinema that he himself has (with a number of brilliant references to cult film classics such as Star Wars, Indiana Jones, E.T, and the biggest of all Flash Gordon which has a particularly large influence), and a couple of surprise cameos that pop up along the way too. Mark Wahlberg also does a good job in the lead role, but I did ultimately feel that he was limited by the film and can perform a lot better.

Ted, John and Lori decide to eat out (the bear would make a dirty joke about that caption, I'll refrain from doing so...)

Yet whilst Ted has its moments and good laughs, most of the jokes aren't anything particularly special. Between each of the bigger gags there almost seems to be a bit of a lull where smaller gags bubble up before bursting into a bigger moment (it is no coincidence that it is often here where the weakness of the plot is revealed, and the audience gets a lot quieter as the hysterics drop). A lot of these are okay and do their job of filling the gaps as the smaller jokes of the film, but a lot more of them end up being below average and do become quite tedious. It's at its lowest points were the film opts for 'jokes' that rely upon using swear words, insults, and extremities in order to give the appearance of them being funny. This is the laziest form of writing for comedy and happens far too much in films today; it's the ideology that if a normal sentence isn't funny, then placing a swear word into that sentence instantly makes it funny. There is nothing particularly exceptional or overly memorable about this and it ultimately leads to a lot of the film being entirely forgettable.

Even a lot of the jokes that do work aren't as stand out or as original as you'd expect from the film or MacFarlane either. One of the film's better series of gags comes from the narrator's voice over, which whilst being witty is essentially the same as that of the voice over in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, a film that was released nearly 10 years ago (the quote that I used at the start is the perfect example of this). The premise of the film, and the main gag itself which is of course the adult and inappropriate teddy bear is also an idea that has been done before, albeit not on the big screen, but in the video game Naughty Bear (in which you play as a serial killing teddy bear). Speaking of which, this main premise - the 2 hour joke of Ted the swear bear (as I like to call him - there's a joke opportunity missed MacFarlane!) - is one that you can ultimately see from the trailer alone, and not unlike a segment that you'd find in an episode of Family Guy incidentally (which as I established earlier would only last for about 5 to 10 seconds). Unfortunately alongside this some of the film's best jokes are also used in the trailer, and are therefore unsurprising and unfunny when seen in the film; one in particular in fact caused the guy sitting next to me to turn to his mate and say "oh this bit's good", only for the majority of the fully booked screen to then remain silent without as much as a chuckle for the whole segment (spoiler alert: this scene does feature in the trailer below...)

There were three in the bed and the little one said - well, I won't say what the little one said, I do try to keep this blog clean ya know...

I know I'll be fighting against the majority here, and I'm sure that most people who go to see Ted will say that they enjoyed it. This is a Family Guy film made and marketed for the Family Guy fans, with creator of both Seth MacFarlane re-using the same style, structure, brand of humour and most of the cast from the popular animated TV show. Unfortunately the same structure doesn't work when stretched out for the big screen, and the handful of good gags aren't enough to make up for the disappointment that comes from the poor plot and the majority of sub-standard jokes. The majority of the film is ultimately forgettable, and for anyone who's already seen the film, stop and think; just how many of the jokes are actually memorable enough to recall now? Ted is a fairly interesting premise, but one that fails to outlive anything much more than the trailer.

(Please be aware that the trailer below is not safe for work and is inappropriate for anyone under the age of 15...)

Verdict: 2/5

Ted is now showing in cinemas across the UK.

Have you met Ted!? Agree or Disagree with my review? Leave your comments below!

Review: Dr. Seuss' The Lorax

Rhyming my sentences, I'll try to avoid, or before too long, you'll all get annoyed.
The temptation is there, but I'll give it a miss, I want my review to get cheers, not a boo or a hiss.
Although it'd be quite cool, to write this in rhyme, to be quite frank, I just don't have the time.
But that's beside the main point, I have something to do, so here it is folks, here's my Lorax review!

There, now that I've got that out of my system let's get on to actually reviewing Universal's upcoming animated film adaptation of Dr. Seuss' The Lorax! The town of Thneedville is like no-other: it's a town where everything is plastic, even the plants and the trees - and in a town with no natural trees, even the air is manufactured and sold! But when a young boy named Ted (Zac Efron) sets out to find a tree in order to impress Audrey (Taylor Swift), the girl of his dreams, the tale of what actually happened to the trees - the tale of The Lorax (Danny DeVito), protector of the forest and voice for the trees - is told to him by the mysterious Once-ler (Ed Helms); inspiring Ted to take action in order to make a change for the better...

One thing that struck me as particularly interesting about Dr. Seuss' The Lorax is the way that the classic literary tale has been adapted for the big screen, in particular the narrative structure that they've opted to present it in. Essentially the film is made up of two stories - the current predicament of Ted and the O'hare corporation who are selling air to the inhabitants of Thneedville, and the old tale of The Once-ler and The Lorax and what happened to all of the trees in the first place - both of which are presented simultaneously through the film, connected together with The Once-ler telling his story to Ted. Whilst this is not a particularly new way of presenting a film, and a non-linear narrative structure being something that other filmmaker have experimented with much more in other films, as a family film it is interesting to see something more than a standard linear narrative being used; something that works to this film's strength.

The Once-ler (Ed Helms), The Lorax (Danny DeVito) and their cuddly woodland friends take in the vibrant and colourful world of Dr. Seuss' The Lorax

With its two stories - Ted's being mostly unique to the film whilst The Lorax/The Once-ler's originating from and remaining faithful to Seuss' original book - we are presented with a pleasant enough story, with a touching and thought provoking environmental message which is shown heavily throughout - giving The Lorax the biggest 'save the planet' massage in cinema since Avatar and Wall-E! The message is more than clear enough, but serves its purpose well by informing the very young rather than being too in your face as to put you off. The Lorax also boasts a very good soundtrack with its unique original songs that reinforce its messages whilst helping the film to move along, and being damn catchy at the same time too; the higlight song being The Once-ler's 'How bad can I be?' which is sung by Ed Helms (from Jeff, Who Lives at Home), making it especially hard to resist for anyone who's seen The Hangover ("Dug, Dug, Duggy-Dug-Dug..."). Evoking a sense of irresistible Seussical-ness, the memorable and humorous songs are a great asset to the film.

However, whilst the songs bring a Seuss like vibe to the proceedings, in many respects the film simply doesn't feel as Seussical as you'd want it to be. The iconic quirky style of the Seuss worlds, characters and creatures in many respects aren't really all that prominent in this film bar a few exceptions, instead we get a slightly more real-world set of characters and creatures in order to reinforce the metaphor for the prallels within our own world that form the film's environmental message. Alongside this, with its cutesy woodland characters such as the cuddly bears et al. The Lorax appeals to very young children more than it does to the entire family as you'd expect from an animated film heavily marketed as coming from the makers of the hugely popular Despicable Me. There are some gags there for the whole family, but the majority feels as though it's being aimed at the younger members of the audience as it tries to educate them with its environmental warning. This is a shame as it's limited market truly let's the film down. Placed next to any film made by Pixar Animation Studios, and suddenly The Lorax feels somewhat unremarkable in comparison.

A pleasant enough film with an enjoyable enough story, catchy enough songs and a environmental message that is actually quite heartwarming, Dr. Seuss' The Lorax limits itself by being a film that ends up being more appealing to the very young rather than something for the whole family. Not quite as Seussical as you'd want it to be either, the film is good enough to watch and enjoy, but not good enough to last in your memories or to become anything particularly timeless. It'll always be a difficult challenge for an animation studio to beat the films of Pixar, and with Brave being released in just a few weeks, the overwhelming legacy of this studio unfortunately hinders The Lorax (Wall-E 1-0 Lorax); but with an adaptation of The Cat in the Hat coming soon from the same studio, it's better luck next time Seuss!

All this Seussical whimsicalness, I'll leave to the pro, because right now, it's about time I go.
So long all my friends, hope you enjoyed my review, I have seen The Lorax, the question is: will you?

Verdict: 2/5

Dr. Seuss' The Lorax is released in cinemas across the UK on July 27th 2012 (Advanced Previews on the 21st and 22nd July).

Will you be visiting The Lorax? If you've seen it what did you think? Leave your comments below!