'Don't Be Afraid of the Dark' (2010)

A young girl sent to live with her father and his new girlfriend discovers creatures in her new home who want to claim her as one of their own.  (via IMDb)

We've come to expect good things from Guillermo del Toro (who co-wrote the film), but I was a little bit apprehensive going into Don't Be Afraid of the Dark, wondering how the little creatures I'd seen in the trailer could actually be scary. But they are, which is usually a good thing in a horror film. I don't think I'm alone in working out exactly what they are in the first few minutes, but I figure you're supposed to and it doesn't detract from the movie in any way - if anything it adds to it.

The plot is fairly basic House Horror, with a child being attacked and the adults not believing a word she says, attributing everything to bad behaviour. So on that level you could say it's fairly one-dimensional. But as I said about The Grey, sometimes a basic plot can allow for a complex story.

We instantly relate to 8-year-old Sally (Bailee Madison), whose Mom "gives" (her words) her to Dad (Guy Pearce). So she doesn't want to go home. But then Dad cares more about his job than his daughter, so she doesn't want to stay put. Throw in the New Girlfriend/Replacement Mother character (Katie Holmes) and poor little Sally is stuck between a very large rock and a very hard place.

A very compelling and emotional performance from Madison is what takes the film to a higher level - she really does a fantastic job at scared, upset, distraught, unwanted, happy, curious, sad, and much more. Guy Peace is predictably fine, giving a solid performance for as much as one is needed (the story isn't really about him). Katie Holmes is on good form as well, really getting to grips with the subtlety of her role and exploring it on various levels.

All in all, it's a good film, with more focus on character and emotion than a lot of modern horrors. There are a fair amount of jumps and only the odd niggle to complain about (I thought Holmes' character was going somewhere it didn't, which is a shame). Del Toro brings a sprinkle of the Fairy Tale magic seen in Pan's Labyrinth and the film is beautifully shot. The ending may divide viewers (but don't all good endings?) and things are left a little ambiguous, but there's lots of fun to be had. Recommended.

Read more of Neil's movie reviews.

'The Grey' (2011)

4.5/5

Once more into the fray. 

Into the last good fight I'll ever know. 

Live and die on this day.
Live and die on this day.

Take a bunch of men and dump them in a really cold place, miles away from civilisation and in wolf territory. That's basically all The Grey is. Which is why it's so good. A totally stripped-back plot allows room for a compelling, emotional, raw story of survival, that works on multiple levels.

A band of plane crash survivors must trek through Alaska, constantly hounded by a pack of killer wolves. So the wolves themselves may not be portrayed in the most accurate light, but The Grey is essentially a horror film for the most part so this doesn't distract from the story. And it does its job on that level - I jumped more than once!

There's just enough development given to secondary characters throughout the story and they quickly drop like flies. Liam Neeson is on perfect form, hammering home a performance that should (but won't!) earn him some awards recognition. He plays John Ottway, a man who seems to want to die but is forced to take charge and keep others alive. This is where the film really shines - in the layers. Balls-out wolf vs. man violence and death-defying jumps tick the fun-factor box and wolves keep the tension coming. But the details of the story - exploration of Ottway's father and wife - allow for discussion on faith (religious and personal) and the nature of survival.

It's hard to say just how good this film is without going into specific details which would ruin it completely. It's near-perfect through and through. Yes, you can kinda see where things are leading from the first 15 minutes, but that doesn't seem to matter. If anything, it makes the inevitable even more compelling.

It's raw, primal storytelling - no lengthy plot developments or character twists, but simple and emotional. Through a simple plot comes a complex story. And even if survival stories aren't really your thing, it's worth seeing for Neeson's performance alone.

I can't urge you to see this film enough - The Grey is definitely a strong contender for Film of the Year in my book. Highly recommended!

NB: there is a post-credits scene you should watch.

Read more of Neil's movie reviews.

'The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn' (2011)

- My memory isn't the way it used to be.
- How was it?
- I can't remember.

If there's one thing Spielberg can do, it's a fun, exciting, action-packed adventure movie. Tintin is essentially Indiana Jones with a sprinkle of film noir, a slice of Pirates of the Caribbean, and a dab of The Golden Compass. The animation is impressively top-notch, and what's great is that it needs to be - this isn't a live action story that just happens to be computerised; the animation lends itself to the story, characters and (most importantly) action out of necessity rather than opportunity.

With action sequences almost lifted straight from Indiana Jones (see the bike/side-car shot above taken from The Last Crusade), you know there's enjoyment to be had, and an abundance of edge-of-your-seat moments. There are also plenty of laughs to be had, mainly in the form of Captain Haddock and dog Snowy, but I feel some of the Thompson and Thompson moments fall a little flat. Yes, they're funny, but they feel old-hat in a film that's refreshingly modern and slick. They're also involved in a rather boring subplot that you expect to lead somewhere bigger, only it doesn't. Remove them completely, and you've got a better film with more time to dedicate to the characters we care about.

The voice acting is, of course, great. Jamie Bell, Daniel Craig, and Andy Serkis all do their jobs well and the film avoids dropping in endless numbers of recognisable voices, which prevents "Who is that? Is it Steve Buscemi? It sounds like Steve Buscemi. But I don't think it is. No wait, it is Steve Buscemi! Yep, definitely Steve. I love him, such a great actor. I wish he was in more films. Wait.....what just happened???"

There's a message to be taken away, of course, this film being mainly for the Little Folk. All about heroism, battling on through obstructions, being who you are and whatnot - it's very sweet. Fortunately, the film doesn't play down to the young audience and instead treats them with respect, even dealing with alcoholism (although it doesn't exactly say it's a bad thing).

All in all, Tintin is fun, and compelling from the off. The animation is excellent, the is acting fine, the story itself is slick and straightforward, and there's something for everyone to enjoy. But this film was criminally only recognised at the Oscars for its John Williams score. Blistering barnacles!

Read more of Neil's movie reviews.

The 3 problems with 'The Avengers' (2012)

So I reviewed The Avengers here and gave it 4.5 out of 5, which obviously means I loved it. But also that I thought it could be better. And here's why......

Problem 1 - Captain America
He's the guy we see things from, our POV character, and he gets the most screentime of all the Avengers. So he's developed well. But Joss Whedon mentioned cutting about 45 minutes from the film, which apparently included various scenes showing Cap's thoughts on modern times. As things stand, it's comical - he doesn't understand the technology and is proud to catch a Wizard of Oz reference. He also struggles to grasp the ideals of today's world (questioning whether a uniform comprising of the American flag is really the way to go).

This is all great. But what the story needs is a more personal outlook - how does Cap feel about the fact that his whole world has gone? When he left, WWII was in full swing. He wakes up 70(ish) years later to find the war over and everyone (and everything) he knew dead and buried. That would fuck with your head (and your heart)! Also, it turns out that his seemingly heroic sacrifice to save the world was not, in fact, that sacrifice-y. But then again, there's something very awesome about being a sacrifice that somehow lives on.

That's what the Cap character needed to explore more. Yes, the intro of him bashing the poop out of several punch bags summed a lot of his feelings up in a smart, visual, non-expositioinal way, but I wanted more.

Problem 2 - The Hulk
It's a tiny issue. When Bruce Banner first hulks-out, he is holding Loki's magical staff. We assume (later) that this is the main reason for said hulk-out, we assume that this is the reason that he was completely unable to control the Hulk, and we assume (afterwards) that Banner always could control the Hulk to a high degree. But there's a lot of assuming going on. I think we needed to be told (later, in a fun way) that Loki's staff was the reason for Banner's complete loss of control.

Problem 3 - Black Widow
Easily the finest character in the movie for me and she has the best scenes (her meeting with Bruce Banner, her "red ledger" exchange with Loki, saving the day in the film's finale et al). One of her shiniest moments comes when Banner hulks-out and she is forced to run for her life. She is swatted against a wall and is next seen "cowering in the corner. The look on her face is that of a woman utterly broken. It takes a few moments before she finally responds to her radio summons." (that quote is taken from here - a highly recommended read, it'll only take a minute. Honest.)

It's a moment that comes out the blue - it's easy to forget that these superheroes are people too. Yes, Black Widow can kill kill kill when she needs to, but she is so taken aback by being completely overpowered and nearly squished (thank Odin for Thor's intervention, eh?) that she freezes. The only thing missing from Black Widow's story is how this huge (albeit brief) scene has effected such a hardened assassin. Like the gentleman from the above article says: "It's too bad, because in a movie fraught with cartoonish destruction, it's the one moment where the audience actually sees some real damage."


So that's it really. I know I'm nitpicking, but I think with those three things tweaked somewhat, The Avengers would undoubtedly be a 5-star movie. What say you?

Read more of Neil's film/TV articles.

Review: 'Hanna' (2011)

I can't really think of much to say about this film - it's not that I don't like it (3/5 is what I'd consider a Good film), it's just that the plot is fairly straightforward and obvious. I don't mean that in a bad way - it's simple in the same way The Avengers was simple - it doesn't need to be that complex. It's very atmospheric and the characters are compelling. Well, the good characters are; the Bad Guys couldn't be more cliche to be honest. But again, with the focus on Saoirse Ronan (who gives a great performance) it's not too much of an issue.

The subject material is clearly about empowerment and fighting for your right to exist. It deals with this very well in the beginning, when the issue isn't directly addressed but rather the focus is on survival in its rawest sense. But once things get going, it seems like style is chosen over substance. There are just a few plot-points that don't ring true for me and secondary characters seem forgotten about near the end.

Unfortunately, for an action film, there's not much action (that was my issue with the first Underworld movie). The action - when it comes - is fairly standard as well. Some great moves in there, but nothing to write home about - there's no real reason for us to care about the faceless grunts Hanna is dispatching.

The ending, while obvious, shows a hint of redemption for the film. However, the movie stops abruptly. If you catch this film on DVD, I recommend checking out the 'Alternate Ending' which actual seems to be a scene which, once tagged onto the film's current ending, makes for a far better, more-rounded conclusion to the story.

It's like I know what Hanna is trying to do, but it doesn't quite do it. A message is clearly there, and the potential for action is plentiful. But all this reminds me of a better film entitled Serenity (Joss Whedon's 2005 movie spinoff from TV show Firefly), which also deals with the idea of a young weapon taking on those who created her. Serenity tackles things head-on, whereas Hanna seems to side-step the issue. I want more emotion, more gritty action, more of the drama that is seen near the film's close in a brilliant scene between father and daughter. But it just ain't there!

I realise it sounds like I hate this film, but I don't. The story really appeals to me and the acting is spot-on (for the most part). The first half is near-flawless and shows real promise for the film as a whole, but the second half dissolves into stylish quirkiness that wants to imitate the chase-and-fight style of The Bourne Identity.

Overall, it's worth checking out, but expect to be peeved at a fair amount of unfulfilled potential.

Read more of Neil's movie reviews

Review: 'The Awakening' (2011)

3.5/5

There's not really much to say about this film that you can't work out for yourself - it's a standard Haunted House Horror set in the 1920s, which sees a sceptic ghost-buster visit a "haunted" boarding school to debunk the supernatural goings-on, only to question her own beliefs. It deals with faith and post-war fears; on the latter note, it's very compelling - various characters have different opinions on the WWI conflict and suffered different traumas. And on the belief side - remember the film is called The Awakening - again, multiple viewpoints are given; there's no cliche "fear God!" characters or blind faith going on.

On the subjects of cliches.....it's full of them. The hand from the river grasping at our heroine's arm, the scary laughing child running about the house, the "there's something moving behind you!" moment. But there are only so many ways of scaring an audience so these moments are forgivable (besides, if you're still a fan of the horror genre you know all the tricks and presumably you don't care). It's worth mentioning a particularly creepy set-piece involving a doll's house that will tingle your spine. But other than that, the scary ain't that scary.

The characters are compelling - performances from Dominic West and Imelda Staunton are predictably note-perfect, but it's Rebecca Hall who shines through. In such a strong cast, it would be easy to see her blind-sided, but Hall is more than compelling as a strong female lead questioning her beliefs.

A lot of horor movies tend to spend so much time on fancy camera tricks and jumpy movements that the actual visual feel suffers. This isn't one of those cases - the entire movie is beautifully shot by Eduard Grau (he's the guy who used every trick in his arsenal to shoot 2010's Buried with Ryan Reynolds - a film everyone should see!)

A confident script from Stephen Volk and Nick Murphy (managed by director Murphy), easily earns the film 2.5. But the extra star comes from the emotionally compelling character-driven moments and a gut-wrenching final 20 minutes. What stops it getting any further is that it's a little longer than it needs to be, it uses just a few too many predictable horror cliches, and a random subplot with a secondary character acts as nothing more than a red herring. The ending, however, is deliciously ambiguous!

Recommended.

Read more of Neil's movie reviews.