Reviews

I LIKE my films just the way I like my women — with a personality just as sexy as the way she looks. 300: Rise of an Empire is a girl I would date, but wouldn't take home to my parents as the film doesn't quite live up its predecessor, Zack Snyder's 300. Back in 2006, the testosterone-injected 300 was a massive early summer triumph, winning the hearts of the audience and box office and spawning a mild case of cult following. Based on the graphic novel of the same name by Frank Miller, 300 was shot entirely on a green screen and gave new height to visual effects in Hollywood. 300: Rise of an Empire acts as both a prequel and sequel to its bigger brother as the events in the second film take place before, during and after the events of King Leonidas's fight against the Persians during the battle of Thermopylae with just "300" Spartan warriors. The plot revolves around Greek general Themistocles (played by Aussie actor Sullivan Stapleton) who leads an Athenian army against the gigantic invading Persian navy with the backing of their God King Xerxes. The Persian force is led by Artemisia — played by the bewitching French beauty Eva Green — who acts the chief villain throughout the film, making Xerxes take back seat as the central protagonist. Green delivers an over-the-top performance and at first I thought her character was written by a 30-year-old living in his parents' outside room, but when her back story is revealed we see her motivation for being such a damaged anti-hero. Green isn't the world's best actress and she isn't going to be nominated for any awards, but she does a reasonable job of playing a female lead in a big budget action film, and she still remains my best Bond girl ever. Gerard Butler's sandals were big shoes to fill and Stapleton — with his Aussie accent showing up now and again — also surprised me with bold acting ability in his first lead role in a major production. Lena Headey, chiefly known for her role as the character you love to hate in Game of Thrones, Cersei Lannister, plays Queen Gorgo and provides the narration for the film. Unfortunately, she has little screen time which is a shame as Headey is not only an excellent actress but is possibly one of the most striking beauties in Hollywood. 300: Rise of an Empire isn't profound, nor is it going to gather the same cult following the first 300 captured. It is there for just pure entertainment. It is incredible in its visual aspects with a strong emphasis on the extreme slow motion fight scenes, but lacks any depth in the dialogue. All of the fight scenes take place on the rough and unforgiving ocean, and just like that, the film comes in waves from exciting to average. There are some really powerful scenes with warriors slicing and dicing their enemies into next Sunday, but then the film often degrades with a really lazy method of storytelling. 300: Rise of an Empire isn't a period piece and has little or no historic accuracy, but the film is a good two-hour escape from the seriousness of Blade Runner dominating the TV.

IN 1987, the Bangles dominated the airways with their hit single Walk Like an Egyptian, the Simpsons are seen for the first time on TV, my parents were blessed by the birth of me and audiences were treated to a film experience that they hadn't quite seen before in the form of Paul Verhoeven's RoboCop. Now the studio executives in Hollywood — fixated on the "rebooting" franchises — have taken it upon themselves to target RoboCop to a wider audience, dropping the age restriction from an R18 to a 10-12 certificate. The film is set in the year 2028 in Detroit, and America is the only country in the world not allowed to use robotic cops on the street. OmniCorp — the company which manufactures the mechanised police officers — are desperately trying to overturn a state bill that prohibits the use of these new-age law enforcers. When honest and dedicated-to-the-job policeman Alex Murphy (Joel Kinnaman) is nearly killed by a car explosion, the massive tech corporation uses this as an opportunity for them to humanise the robotic cops by fusing Murphy — well what's left of him — with a machine. And the result is RoboCop, but it's not that simple. OmniCorp uses one of their chief doctors, Dennett Norton (Gary Oldman), to aid Murphy in his transition to half-man, half-robot and with pressure from OmniCorp owner Raymond Sellars (Michael Keaton), the good doctor resorts to some questionable work ethics. The relationship between Oldman's and Keaton's characters really enhances the story and carries the plot along at a captivating pace. I asked myself why a "big budget" action film with such a cult following was not released in the summer. And the answer was revealed after watching it. The film just doesn't have the calibre to be deserving of a summer release date. There are a good few action scenes, but they are plain down average, with sequences that we have been accustomed to in standard action films. However, there is one scene — where Robo­Cop takes out giant dog-like mechs — which stands out from the rest, but even when it's over, you are not going to remember it when driving home from the theatre. The film's only saving grace is the drama segments, which revolve around the moral dilemma that Oldman's character is put into and the psychological challenge that Murphy endures during his transformation into Robo­Cop. The acting — with particularly Oldman and Keaton stealing every scene that they are in — is top-notch all round, but it is not enough to put RoboCop in the same light as the original. The film is like eating a three-course meal and still feeling hungry.

AN international spy thriller with a character-driven narrative and a plot relevant to our modern day are the crucial elements to give this well-balanced blockbuster the backbone for some decent viewing. In Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit, the genesis of Tom Clancy's much adored creation makes its way to the big screen with Chris Pine taking control of yet another one of Hollywood's big characters. Kenneth Branagh — director of Thor and known for his performances in and direction of Shakespeare plays on both screen and stage — directs a stellar cast in the first screenplay not to be based on a Clancy novel. Jack Ryan is an undercover CIA agent working on Wall Street and it is his job to monitor irregularities in international money trading that could eventually lead to terrorist funding. When he notices an anomaly happening with a Russia-based company, he is sent on a mission to Moscow to uncover a potential threat against the United States economy. In the past, the character of Jack Ryan has been depicted by Hollywood old-timer Harrison Ford and Alec Baldwin and an attempt to "reboot" the character in the 2002 Sum of all Fears with Ben Affleck, was neither a hit nor a miss. Hopefully, Mr Affleck can put in a star performance in 2016 when he dons the cape and cowl. After giving a commanding rendition as Captain Kirk in Star Trek into Darkness last year, Pine once again puts in a solid performance of carrying a well-educated Jack Ryan throughout the film. His character is damaged, untrusting, and fragile and puts his country before anything. One scene that really leaves audiences with discomfort is when Jack Ryan makes his first kill. It is brutal, effective and realistic — reminding me of the cold opener in Casino Royale. Kevin Costner gets a large chunk of screen time acting as Jack Ryan's mentor, while the beautiful Keira Knightley shines as the girlfriend — but is sometimes annoying with her fake American accent. And then we have Branagh, who plays the good, old-fashioned Russian tough guy antagonist. Putting it quite simply: Branagh is brilliant. This is not an action film. It is an espionage spy thriller with a few action scenes. So if you are expecting a film with more explosions than dialogue, you might be disappointed — it is directed by Kenneth Branagh after all. Just like Skyfall, the action scenes aren't anything new or breathtaking, but the tension and intensity built up on screen will keep audiences content. If the Dishfire reports are getting too real for you, head down to your local theatre and watch Jack Ryan take on the international villains instead.

Hollywood has spewed out a good few super­hero films, some of which have achieved cult status while others have had the superpowers of making audiences cringe and cause irritable bowel movements. Directors and screenwriters have stuck very closely to the source material, or have adapted their interpretation to the big screen. Either way they usually played it safe, causing audiences to love or hate the superhero genre in the motion picture format. However, in 2010, English director Matthew Vaughn (known for X-Men: First Class and Layer Cake ) broke most "rules" and presented one of the most pleasantly shocking "superhero" films, Kick-Ass. With grotesque violence, dark humour and offensive and vulgar language — which you hope that your mother never hears — Kick-Ass was the well- deserved break from the traditional superhero film. In Kick-Ass 2, a very average David Lizewski (aka Kick-Ass — played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson) is joined by other misfits — dressed in the most ridiculous costumes and even more bizarre names — in the quest to rid the city of crime. Hit Girl (Chloe Grace Moretz), on the other hand, has left the life of crime fighting, and now attends school like a normal child. Meanwhile, Red Mist (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) takes on another persona and plots his revenge against Kick-Ass. One of the most talked-about characters in this sequel is that of Jim Carrey's Colonel Stars and Stripes. The hype is well deserved, as his character is one of the most outstanding roles in the film, delivering a great performance with some classic one-liners. If you are expecting a lot of the same material from the first film, you might be disappointed. This, however, is not a negative, as the film concentrates on the human aspect and the action takes a back seat. The fight and action set pieces aren't as strong as in the previous installment, but are certainly enough to keep audiences entertained. The film has laugh out loud, hilarious moments, but in the end it is carried along smoothly with the dramatic narrative as its backbone. Talk around the town was that Kick-Ass 2 was overboard violent, but to be totally honest, I felt that it was toned down from the carnage that was seen in the first film. The story slips from the absurd to the real, dealing with the themes of actions have consequences, being removed from your comfort zone and being true to yourself. The film does have some really powerful scenes, touching on the darker subject matter relating to the superhero genre. It is an entertaining watch with some interesting and brave ideas from the director and the source material, but ultimately a popcorn film with substance. If you haven't watched the first film, it is highly recommended that you do before seeing Kick-Ass 2, not only to get a background, but because it is a gem.

WHEN a South African makes it big in Hollywood, I'm often extremely proud of their achievement. From Arnold Vosloo playing the "badie" in almost everything that he stars in, to a farm girl from Benoni winning an Oscar, and more recently Sharlto Copley and Neil Blomkamp being a part of one the best science fictions to date — South Africans have made their mark in Tinsel Town. However, when Johannesburg-born director Gavin Hood took the helm of X- Men Origins: Wolverine in 2009, it was less impressive, and that is an understatement. Fan boys were eager to see something better than Brett Ratner's piece of rubbish X-Men: The Last Stand in 2006, but Hood didn't deliver the goods. But thankfully in 2011 Matthew Vaughn brought back the series standards when X-Men: First Class stunned audiences around the globe. Now James Mangold — the director who brought us Walk the Line and 3:10 to Yuma (2007) — gets into the driver's seat to try to keep up the pace Vaughn brought to the X-Men series. The story take place after the events of The Last Stand, with a flashback to the atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War 2, and, not giving anything away, this scene really gets your attention with a mix of emotion, good acting and a pinch of digital computer wizardry. Fast-forward to present day and we see Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) living in the wilderness and being comforted by the ghost of his last love. He then finds himself on his way to Japan where the dying owner of the country's biggest technology company wants to repay the favour — by giving Wolverine an "honourable death". Wolverine gets caught up in a family dispute, and ultimately has to protect the tech-giant's granddaughter — and all the while he has to deal with not having the healing powers that he has been using his whole life. In a "summer film" aimed at teenagers and young adults, the action scenes are very important. This is where the director gets the job done, as the first major action scene is pretty far into the movie. The build- up with regards development is far more important, especially with a character-driven film like The Wolverine. Stand-out scenes include a fight on top of a bullet train, and a ninja assault on the family's home. However, in the third act this film becomes very predictable and then turns into the standard-issue formula of any superhero film. It is a nice change to have a film set in Japan, where the modern city- scape as well as the beautiful countryside with its traditional and cultural aspects, are showcased. There are a few jokes not suitable for children but it's nice that the film caters for older viewers, with Wolverine slicing and dicing his enemies with his adamantium claws.

AN original science-fiction film these days is a gamble, it's either going to be a hit or a miss. Luckily for Elysium, the man behind one of the hardest hitting sci-fi films for the last few years isn't Michael Bay. It has been about four years since South African-born Neill Blomkamp totally shocked international and local audiences when he released District 9 in 2009. This time he is back in the director's seat and is well equipped with Hollywood A-listers Matt Damon and Jodie Foster. In the year 2154, Earth is over populated and basically turned into a massive slum. The rich leave to a man-made space station known as Elysium where everybody lives in perfect harmony with lovely gardens and suburban homes, and the health care is beyond excellent. Foster plays the Secretary of Defence on Elysium who is challenged by her superiors on her actions trying to protect the well­being of the utopian society. Damon plays Max, a criminal with a rocky past, who now leads a mundane life as a worker in a robot manufacturing plant on Earth. When he is exposed to a deadly quantity of radiation, he has no choice but to try and find a way to Elysium, but it's not that easy for our leading man. He seeks the help of one his acquaintances from the criminal underworld to help him get to Elysium, and it is at this point the film really kicks up a gear. From the onset, it is clear that the film is far more than just an average popcorn sci-fi watch. It is obvious – but I'm going to say it anyway – this film is a social narrative on issues relating to the rich and the poor, class differences and the health system. And these issues are common to all societies, whether you live in Paris or Parys. As far as science fiction goes, the film delivers, with a worthy plot, believable character development, outstanding visuals and a decent amount of action. Blomkamp comes from a visual effects background and it is evident that he didn't hold with the elegant use of CGI, far better than the "summer" blockbuster we saw a few months ago. Although the film is primarily driven through dialogue and storytelling, there are a few well executed action sequences with some entertaining gun battles and futuristic weaponry that will put a smile on your face. There are, however, a few downs to Elysium. It suffers from some of the classic Hollywood pitfalls — aspects of the story are just too convenient for our lead character and for the progression of the story. (It won't be too hard for audiences to predict how the film unfolds). Foster's character plays an important role in the film, but it doesn't seem like she put a whole lot of effort into it. Without a shadow of a doubt, the absolute highlight of Elysium is Sharlto Copley. Just when we thought we saw one of the best villains earlier this year in JJ Abrams's version of Khan, Copley gives Benedict Cumberbatch a run for his money playing a menacing South African mercenary hired as a sleeper agent by the higher-ups of Elysium.

Video game adaptions to the big screen have failed terribly in the recent past, and Silent Hill: Revelation 3D is no different. The film is the sequel to the 2006 movie Silent Hill, which most people haven't even heard of. Both movies are based on the survival-horror video game franchise made popular on the PlayStation platform in the late 1990s. The story, or the lack thereof, takes place about six years after the original movie when our protagonist, Heather Mason, played by the unknown Adelaide Clemens, is plagued by some disturbing visions instructing her to come to Silent Hill. Heather believes that she and her father (Sean Bean) are on the run from the authorities because her father killed somebody in self-defence and that her mother died in a car accident. But all is not what it seems, as her father was actually protecting her from Silent Hill's nightmarish world. Her father is kidnapped by the Order, a crazy cult from Silent Hill, and it's up to Heather and a newfound friend, Vincent Cooper (Kit Harington), to rescue him. The dynamic between these two young characters is awful — too cheesy and just plain annoying. The dialogue throughout the movie is weak, the story line is average, and the acting is bland. It is such a pity that Harington delivers such a feeble performance after completely dominating his role as Jon Snow in Game of Thrones. Bean looks like he was forced to be there, while Clemens does a poor job of being the leading lady. The pace of the film is bad and it feels like the director and special effects team had a few good ideas and just needed a platform to put it all together. The scenes are repetitive and all follow the same formula: starting off really slow and ending with a "jump scare". There are, however, some things that will give horror fans some satisfaction. There are a good few "jump scares", but placed where audiences expect them. The creatures and monsters are done well, especially a spider-like abomination made up from mannequin pieces. If you like blood and gore, there is plenty of it. Fans of the videogames might be disappointed with this sequel after the fairly respectable first Silent Hill movie. Horror lovers will get their kicks out of the creepy and disturbing visuals, but in the end the film is shallow, offering audiences a quick fix of 3D entertainment. I don't recommend this as a date movie, your partner might think there is something wrong with you.

WITH five Golden Globe nominations and two wins (supporting actor and screenplay), Quentin Tarantino's latest offering really packs a punch. Set in 1858, Django Unchained tells the story of a former dentist turned bounty hunter, Dr King Schultz (Golden Globe winner Christoph Waltz), helping newly freed slave Django Freeman (Jamie Foxx) to save his slave wife from one of the biggest plantation owners in the deep south of America. With the exception of 3:10 to Yuma (2007), I would rather watch paint dry than watch a Western, but Django Unchained is just plain exciting from start to finish. When I'm dragged to the movies to watch the latest Jennifer Aniston rom-com, I would expect to be bored senseless, but when it comes to Tarantino, audiences will want florid language, good storytelling, outstanding acting and a whole bunch of gore, and my oh my, does it deliver. The film has all the normal Tarantino personality, with long one-to-one scenes and well crafted dialogue, interesting characters and bad-ass monologues. Each actor plays his role to perfection — Foxx as the newly freed slave, Waltz as the quirky yet malicious bounty hunter, the beautiful Kerry Washington as the lost lover, Leonardo DiCaprio as a powerful young plantation owner, and Samuel L. Jackson as the trusty house slave. The film is a departure from Tarantino's usual form of disjointed storytelling — most notably Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction — and smooth flowing with a clear beginning, middle and ending. The last 20 minutes of the film tended to drag, but that's just Tarantino. Fans will appreciate the typical Tarantino shlock, but for newer audiences, it also a story that everybody can appreciate. It is a serious movie with a good take on slavery in the 1800s and some heart-wrenching scenes, but Tarantino also offers a lot of comic relief, both in the witty dialogue and situational comedy. Django Unchained is not up to the standard of his 1990s best, but if you want a solid narrative with good action, this one is for you.

IT has been a while since we've seen a time travel movie, and even longer since we've seen a good one. In the year 2074, when the Mob wants to "take care" of somebody, the target is sent 30 years back in the past, where a stylish hired gun, known as a "looper", waits to pull the trigger. Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), a looper making his way through the ropes, is one day hit with a huge surprise when his future self, older Joe (Bruce Willis), is sent back to catch a bullet in the chest. Older Joe escapes and it is now up to Joe to track him down, kill him and make it right with the Mob. You know this much from watching the trailer, and to be honest, this is about a quarter of the plot. The time travel aspect of the movie is also handled really well, where it is explained but kept vague, and actually gets the audience thinking throughout the movie. The future in the year 2044 is portrayed well in the movie. Cars don't fly, but there are bikes that hover along the ground, people ingest drugs through eye drops, they are paid in silver and gold bars: just subtle differences without your average expectations of the future. It starts off sleek and smart with a strong pace, but kind of fades in the middle. However, this really isn't such a bad thing. It gives time for characters to mature, for their backstories to unfold and their relationships to build. If you were looking for big action shoot-outs and trucks exploding, you might be disappointed. The action scenes are good, with a few shoot-outs and a chase here and there, but ultimately, it is the plot, dialogue and stand-out acting (particularly by Gordon-Levitt) that really drives Looper. There is also a strong female character in Sara, played by Emily Blunt, who isn't too hard on the eyes. Without spoiling anything, Looper goes in directions audiences wouldn't expect. It is a futurist movie, and if you want to enjoy it to the fullest, you have to let yourself be taken over by the science fiction aspect. This could have been a simple premise where "good guy" has to track down and kill "bad guy", but the plot has layers. It has themes of cause and effect and dives deeper than your average popcorn-munching CGI fest.

WITH one of the most anticipated films of year finally upon us, one question is asked: does it live up to the high expectations of fans and the public? And the answer is simply, hell yes. Director and writer Christopher Nolan delivers a powerful conclusion to his Batman trilogy in The Dark Knight Rises. The story takes place eight years after the events of The Dark Knight. In that time Batman hasn't been seen and Bruce Wayne himself (Christian Bale) has turned into something of a hermit, seen only behind closed doors in Wayne Manor. Batman is forced out of retirement to don the cape and cowl, however, when a new terror — in the person of mercenary Bane (Tom Hardy) — threatens the security of Gotham City. Wayne also decides to make himself seen in public when his attention is caught by sexy cat burglar Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway). Nothing seems to be going right for Wayne: his company is almost bankrupt, he has become a cripple and his relationship with Alfred (Michael Caine) is pushed to its limits. Like the first film from Nolan Batman Begins, Wayne and Batman have to overcome a certain hurdle in their journey, and this case, pain. Bane, with his army of ruthless thugs, overwhelms all of Gotham's police offices, and it's now up to Batman, Commissioner Gordon and officer John Blake to restore the peace. The fringe characters are also given a lot of scene time, most notably a young, hot-headed officer John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman). A new love interest for Wayne is introduced in the shapely form of Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard), but the romantic partition of film falls to the bottom of the pile. The film could be considered a standalone in Nolan's series, but there are a lot of connections and references to the previous two films. I loved the fact that Harvey Dent's "legacy" is a theme that runs throughout the whole film. It would be advisable to watch the previous two films if you want to get maximum enjoyment out of the final of the trilogy. Nolan sticks to the gritty and dark undertones of the previous films, and with the score, these elements give the film an intense and captivating atmosphere. Although it is classified an "action" movie, Nolan's brilliant understanding of the source material — influenced by largely by Frank Miller's graphic novels — makes the action in the film secondary to the drama. Don't get me wrong, the action sequences are brilliant: there is enough fighting, exchanges of gunfire and explosions to keep action junkies more than satisfied. At just under three hours, Nolan managed to captivate my attention from the opening scene to the end credit. Bale is at his best, both as Batman and Wayne, giving his finest performance in the series. Hardy as Bane is absolutely terrifying, Hathaway at times manages to steal centre stage with her quick-witted lines and her skin-tight leather cat suit, and Caine adds both to the humorous and the emotional narrative. This is by far the best comic book adaptation series, and arguably the best film in its genre.