By Louise Cheer

Being a romantic genre junkie, I always judge whether or not I like a film on whether or not I would see it again and how often. With Like Crazy, which is not short on likeable talent, I am still undecided at this point. The film stars British actress Felicity Jones – known for her role opposite Helen Mirren in the most recent reworking of Shakespeare’s The Tempest – and Russian-born actor Anton Yelchin, who played Pavel Chekov in the latest movie revamp of Star Trek and Bobby Garfield in Anthony Hopkin’s Hearts in Atlantis.

The story is simple. British student and aspiring journalist Anna meets furniture design major Jacob when she is on exchange in Los Angeles. The pair meet, fall in love and before we know it Anna’s visa expiration date is looming. But in an eleventh hour decision, instead of leaving her loved-up bubble, she overstays her time in the US by two and a half months. This comes back and bites her on the arse later on when she tries to re-enter the land of the free. She is then sent packing back to the UK and a ban is placed on her travelling to the United States to see Jacob, who has started up a blossoming furniture business in LA. What follows is how each half of the couple copes with their separation, and the strains and frustrations that come with maintaining a relationship across the expanse of an ocean.

There are many engaging and believable performances in this film, a large chunk coming from Jones – who I am a little biased towards because she starred in a Jane Austen telemovie. I could not help but be drawn to her girlish, radiating charms throughout the film, which stole your attention away from Yelchin in some scenes. What’s particularly convincing is her performance of genuine happiness and enthusiasm when Anna receives a gift from Jacob. It’s as if she was playing herself because she just seemed so comfortable in her role as was Yelchin. He was able to communicate to the audience his silent suffering through his devastating, yet extremely emotive, facial expressions.

What this film lacked the most was its initial draw card to woo the audience to connect with its characters. It was only halfway through the movie that I felt my first connection with the couple and their woeful story, and this happened when the pair were apart. This was because the beginning of the film moves so quickly through the first spark of their relationship, coupled with scenes that only the pair themselves could understand and connect with – leaving me uncomfortable, almost like I was the third wheel.

Like Crazy also served as a reminder that there are consequences to the irrational decisions we makes when consumed by love. The film’s realistic approach gives a snapshot of the ups and downs of every couple’s relationship – especially one that is long-distance, and the struggles two people go through to stay in touch and connected.

In its entirety, Like Crazy does not sugar coat love like its other Hollywood-made counterparts (and does not star one M. McConaughey). The moments where I was most amused featured Anna’s parents. Her parents are well-cast with Alex Kingston, who plays Dr River Song in Doctor Who, as Anna’s mother and British actor Oliver Muirhead – whose credits include a role in Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me – as her father. They added the balancing dash of humour needed to break up the melancholy and bittersweet tone of the movie.

The only parting advice I have to give if you’re going to see this movie is to ensure you’re in the right reflective mood to fully appreciate it. I think if I was in this mood, like the person I saw it with was, I would have appreciated its indie roots and depth of emotion a little bit more.

With cute penguins, catchy music and a big-name cast it was no wonder Happy Feet was a hit but could the formula work again? I admit I was concerned about director George Miller's ability to come up with a quality script considering the nature of the original story.

So I was pleasantly surprised with the latest offering which is both charming and ideologically uplifting.

The sequel centres around Eric and his father - our original hero Mumbles - and what starts out as a journey of self-discovery becomes an exploration of banding together and helping our fellow man... er penguin.

After an implied global warming incident, the emperor penguin population - sans our heroes - is trapped without food and it becomes a touching race for time.

Amongst all this we have a sub-story featuring two krill who escape the swarm to embrace individuality and attempt to move up the food chain. Voiced by Brad Pitt and Matt Damon, this side plot is almost worth the price of admission alone.

But it's the main plot that warms the cockles with a variety of beings each pitching in to help those less fortunate.

In a time of natural disasters and financial hardship, this tale of selfless support for each other - regardless of creed, race or species - is a wonderfully uplifting story for all ages. In fact the story is so strong you barely notice the antics of Robin Williams whose character proves to be stronger and more engaging in small doses.

Elijah Wood is solid, Alecia Moore (Pink) is wonderful as the supportive mother and the tunes will have parents and kids tapping their toes along happily.

Enjoyable, fun and ideologically sound, Happy Feet 2 should be on the to-see list this summer.

p.s. with TWO Queen songs I was alway going to give this movie extra credit. Bias identified. ;)

Not quite horror, not quite comedy, Fright Night is quite simply fun.

It’s probably appropriate it’s a remake of an 80s film – a decade of style over subtance – because there are a few problems with this movie but, to be honest, at the end of it you don’t really care.

Anton Yelchin (Star Trek) is Charley Brewster, a high school student who has a pretty good life. A former geek, he now dates Amy the bombshell (Imogen Peets). His only real problem seems his own apprehension. His stress hits new levels when it appears his new neighbour Jerry (Colin Farrell) is a vampire. And hitting on his mum (Toni Collette).

Director Craig Gillespie – who gave us the wonderful Lars And The Real Girl – dispenses with early suspense by quickly establishing who the bad guy is and cuts straight to dealing with it.

There are some problems with pacing and the emphasis on horror-comedy suddenly changes to comedy-horror seemingly mid-stream with the introduction of David Tennant (Dr Who) who seems to be playing Russell Brand.

This all-star cast genuinely enjoys themselves and it shines through allowing us to gloss over some of the deficiencies. They’re helped by a screenplay penned by Buffy The Vampire Slayer scribe Marti Noxon who has a lot of fun updating Tom Holland’s original script.

Fright Night won’t win any awards, but it is a fun flick you will enjoy. Like Cyndi Lauper sang, sometimes you just want to have fun.

The movie poster asks "Where the smurf are we?" I'm inclined to ask "what the smurf was that?"

Like many people I grew up with the Smurfs and the little blue creatures were a big part of my childhood. So an entire movie dedicated to them can't go wrong can it?

Especially when you throw in entertainment man-of-the-moment Neil Patrick Harris.

Well to be brief: they smurfed it up.

Don't get me wrong - the young kids will love it. My nieces came out mega-excited. My dad and I were left a little flat.

The story is relatively simple - a small group of smurfs (mostly our favourites) fall through a portal while being chased by their enemy Gargamel. Of course they end up in New York City (where else) and set out to find their way home.

Along the way they encounter a marketing VP Patrick Winslow (Harris) and his expectant wife Grace (Jayma Mays). The sub-plots of Winslow having concerns about fatherhood and keeping his job are more distracting than anything.

Director Raja Gosnell has a lot to answer for by not respecting our childhood memories here. Either he failed to have a solid vision or was bullied by the studios. Either way we're left with a movie that seems to spend more time trying to appeal than actually being an engaging story.

Instead of giving us a fun romp we're exposed to a series of obligatory fish-out-of-water scenes that rely more on slapstick than intelligent interaction. And even the "will I make a good dad" subplot talks with Papa Smurf is undermined by the fact that Clumsy Smurf is constantly left behind be the others.

It should be noted that Clumsy and Smurfette are the real stars and the two smurfs that the children relate to, so underplaying Clumsy's involvement for the majority of the film is bewildering.

Don't get me wrong - there are a few cool moments and some genuinely funny references to the original (Gargamel mocking Papa Smurf: "I have 98 sons and one daughter - no, nothing weird there") but adults will leave the cinema feeling a bit cheated.

Even Neil Patrick-Harris delivers a bland performance; a sure sign the script was nowhere near par. In fact only Azaria as the bad guy and Anton Yelchin (Clumsy) come out of this looking good. Though Katy Perry's voicing of Smurfette is a little endearing as well.

Take the kids but take your ipad or a book for yourself or you'll be smurfing disappointed.

Captain America manages to capture both what is good and bad about most comic book movies.

It has some very strong characterisation, a good origin, solid special effects (though there are three glaringly painful moments of poor proportion). In fact halfway through we were all on the edge of our seats and anticipating what was to come.

Sadly that just proved to be a descent into near farce that was old-school siliness. Instead of seeing a tactically gifted and inspirational hero, we got something just above slapstick. You're happy to suspend disbelief for superhero movies but the fight scenes of the second half of the movie were mostly stupid.

Worse still, you lost your connection with the characters. One person I saw the film with admitted they zoned out 3/4s of the way through after loving the first half.

I'd been looking forward to seeing Captain America. He's one of the more interesting characters in comic form and ripe for the big screen. Sadly, his essence failed to be captured and his adaption to modern times virtually ignored.

I'd viewed Thor as a regrettable necessity in the build-up to next year's Avengers movie but it blew me away. Sadly Captain America - the one that should have set up the 2012 movie - left me worrying for it.

Don't believe everything you read - Green Lantern is a good movie. I'm actually at a bit of a loss to understand the mixed reception the latest comic book adaptation has received.

For those who don't know, the movie is the tale of a human chosen to become part of an intergalactic police force called the Green Lanterns. The human's name is Hal Jordan (Ryan Reynolds) who actually has a busy schedule of test pilot, womaniser and generally irresponsible guy.,

But he's picked a bad time to be recruited as an entity named Parrallax - who feeds on fear - is about to destroy the universe. The film features a nice mixture of on- and off-world experiences as our hero comes to grips (no pun intended) with owning a ring that brings his imagination to life.

His obligatory love interest (Blake Lively) does an excellent job as the cliched strong, independent woman who doesn't need Hal but secretly pines for him.

Cue the special effects, interesting fight scenes and destruction. And that's it.

It's fun, interesting, and well-characterised, acted and directed. I'm not sure what else critics wanted or expected.

Sure the initial story might seem a little complicated for a non-geek but it's hardly rocket science and yes, the ending is a bit rushed but the simple fact of the matter is that it's a fun romp of a film. Yes,the pacing is a little all over the shop and they seem to have spent a lot of time dithering about how much to include but it's hardly the disaster many are trumpeting.

From a movie perspective you couldn't ask for too much more. Indeed the people I saw it with were two people who knew nothing about the comic and one who knew the character vaguely but had never read it specifically. All three come out gushing and speaking of possibly buying the comic.

As a comic-reading geek there were a few irksome things - movie Hal has fear, comic Hal simply doesn't - and problems but there were also some cool easter eggs and references. I'm big enough to concede some changes have to made for the general populace.

Any concerns that the FX wouldn't be able to do a good job with ring constructs were quickly allayed and - as much as I hate 3D movies - I actually really enjoyed some of the incredible things done in this film, especially early on. Impressive enough to become only the second film on my list of 'movies worth seeing in 3D (and no, the first was not Avatar).

Director Martin Campbell - who gave us the amazing casino Royale and the vastly underrated Edge Of Darkness - has done a wonderful job of capturing the spirt, if not the full essence, of the Green Lantern Corps.

Go see this movie. Enjoy Mark Strong's cool but arrogant Sinestro and Peter Sarsgaard's whiny Hector Hammond. Take in the wonder of willpower and imagination.

And make up your own mind. This is a great example of why you should be wary of trusting movie critics.

Except me of course.




, can Ryan Reynolds play any other type of guy?

By Kareem Anti

In what’s felt like a year of remakes and unnecessary sequels it’s refreshing to watch an original film that's as excellent as this is. Super 8 captures what a trip to the movies should feel like: a nostalgic,
magical journey in which to sit back and immerse yourself.

Super 8 transports audiences back to the 1970’s were we meet Joe Lamb (Joel Courtney), a teenager
dealing with the recent death of his mother, a disconnected father (Kyle Chandler) and a demanding
shooting schedule for his best friend Charles’ (Riley Griffiths) amateur horror film. While filming a scene
at the local railway station with leading man Martin (Gabriel Basso), hilarious extra Preston (Zach Mills) and the newest addition to the team Alice (Elle Fanning), the children witness a horrifically
destructive train crash. The mysteries that result from this even will change their lives forever

Definitely more Abrams then Spielberg (although his influence doesn't go unnoticed), Super 8 may well be one of the best films of the year.

Abrams beloved "Mystery Box" style of storytelling lends itself to the film nicely. The audience is constantly teased with little bits of information until all is slowly revealed. The action is used only when appropriate, but executed in a visceral, excessive style with which you can’t help but be impressed.

But don't be fooled by the trailer: this is not a kids a movie. Sure the children are the primary focus of Super 8, but the journey they undertake and emotions they feel are very adult in nature.

Usually my biggest gripe with Abrams's style is his underformed characters; their motives tend to be as cryptic his films and television shows, alienating the audience. That's not the case here. In fact, it very much feels as though Speilberg had more of an input than simply producer. The characters' life and heart definitely feels like a Spielberg touch. For close to two hours I felt as though I was Joe: I felt his excitement, fear and sadness. It’s this connection with its character’s that makes Super 8 such a triumph.

The film’s success also rests heavily upon the shoulders of these child actors, and thankfully they make every scene count. There is some real upcoming talent in Super 8’s cast notably Courtney and Fanning, who are surprisingly engaging, believable and all-round great presences. Kyle Chandler is sensational
as Joe’s father and his emotional performance complements the rest of the cast.

But Super 8 is not perfect. Unfortunately, the second half of the film struggles to maintain the level of
excitement set by the first, mostly due to uneven pace. Certain segments drag on when others go by so fast
you don’t have time to process them. But these are small gripes in an otherwise fantastic journey.

The ending, although predicable, is quite moving and after the credits roll (which you should stay for hint
hint) a few home truths about the focus of the film are revealed. Ultimately it’s about death, love, friendship and finding your way home.

So go to the cinema, bring your inner child along and bask in the magical aura that is Super 8.

I’m a bit wary about prequels and history shows they often struggle with established (read rabid) fans. So it was with great trepidation that I approached X-Men First Class – a movie that looks back on the early years of Charles Xavier (Professor X) and Erik Lansher (Magneto).

So it was with great surprise that I initially thought I'd wandered into a mash-up of Bond movies. What do I mean? Bear with me.

Essentially the plot follows Xavier and his adopted sister Raven (who of course goes on to become Mystique) as they make their way in a world that is yet to hear of mutants. Charles is convinced that it is inevitable there are others out there and already dedicated to a dream of peaceful co-existence.

Contrasting this is the vengeful determination of the man-who- becomes-Magneto. He is simply hunting down those responsible for the deaths of his people and family and killing them.

In fact this contrast is one of the facinating things about the first half of this movie. Imagine a playful, flirtatious James Bond (Sean Connery) being interspersed with a gritty and grim Daniel Craig before the two combine to go after the bad guys together.

James McAvoy is fantastic as an intelligent, self-assured Professor and has his eye both on the future and the ladies.

Michael Fassbender is just as impressive as the driven, single-minded Magneto though in the last major scene he seems to forget his nationality completely and slip into his natural Irish brogue. How this escaped everyone's notice and made it into the final cut is beyond me but does hint at a few of the movies problems.

It just feels a little unpolished. Is it fun? Yes. Are the characters likeable? Most definitely. Are there enough nods to diehard comic fans? Probably. But the lack of attention to detail and some very average special effects here and there do detract a bit from a fun romp.

But back to the plot where the three main characters (yes, I include Raven) become friends and - with the help of the CIA - start recruiting mutants into a team.

From a comic reader’s perspective it would seem an impossible task to have another “first” X-Men team and the writers have indeed taken quite a few liberties with the comic canon but they have managed to do so with a lot of love and imagination.

Nicholas Hoult (Skins, About a Boy, Clash of the Titans) is superb as Hank McCoy (Beast) wile Jennifer Lawrence plays the emotionally vulnerable Raven/Mystique wonderfully. Though the real standout is Australia's Rose Byrne who plays a non-mutant in CIA agent Moira MacTaggert who falls in love with Charles.

Almost lost in all this is Kevin Bacon who has a great time playing the villain Sebastian Shaw.

The latest X-Men movie is indeed entertaining though not quite first class. Still a must-see for comic and X-Men fans.

Imagine being served one of the most scrumptious looking meals of your life. Now imagine it's at a funeral.

Sucker Punch isn't a bad movie no matter what some people will tell you. In fact its components are nearly entirely fabulous: a killer soundtrack, amazing effects, great fight scenes combined with whimsical flights of fancy and scantily dressed girls.

But somehow when put together it doesn't quite work.

Without giving anything away Sucker Punch is about a young girl institutionalised by her abusive step-father. She copes by retreating to alternate realities and blurrings of perception ensue.

See? Even a brief synopsis sounds pretty cool.

But the heavy handed undertones overwhelm the senses to the point where not even stunning fights can drag you out of the constant barrage of negativity.

Seriously. We're talking about scenes that mix incredible fx with pop culture inspired hordes (can you say Nazi Zombie?) but what should serve as escapist moments somehow only drag us deeper into the depressing mire.

In fact the movie might even have benefited from a reduction in the length of these scenes, despite them being the most anticipated sequences in a movie most of us have been anxious to see. From a holistic perspective you could even cut the third or fourth one.

Don't get me wrong - Director Zack Snyder delivers an incredible piece here. It's just that it's hard to fully enjoy the meal with a heavy heart.

No matter how tasty it looks with impressive performances from the cast (including Vanessa Hudgens' surprisingly strong turn) and skimpy clothing (seriously, this movie is like gamer porn) it doesn't leave your stomach jumping for joy.

I certainly recommend seeing it. Just don't be surprised if, like me, you end up not going to see it again in the cinemas but instead planning to buy the DVD so you can just re-watch the fight scenes and ignore the rest of the movie.

Ten years ago the thought of associating Clint Eastwood with a film with a supernatural theme would be unthinkable. But society's current love affair with all all-things spooky has seen an unlikely marriage.

And thank god. Hereafter is a revelation. Too many films in this wave of fantasy/supernatural/horror stories are quick and easy. Simplistic and two-dimensional.

Hereafter is quite the opposite. It's a thoughtful exploration that looks at the impact of death from three distinct perspectives. It doesn't follow a simple formula as it follows three characters and their respective emotional journeys.

The trailer emphasises George Lonegan (Matt Damon) - a former genuine psychic who has walked away from the emotionally draining job but in the movie proper it's more about the other protagonists - a famous French journalist and a young english boy.

It's difficult to talk about their parts without giving anything away so I won't. It's not important beyond the fact that it will give you pause for thought regardless of your personal beliefs. Cecilie De France and Frankie and George McLaren turn in strong performances

Quite simply Hereafter is a film to be truly savoured. It looks at psychics, beliefs, con-men (including a blunt look at cold-reading) and attitudes towards the hereafter.

It does so both subtly and bluntly, punctuating the journey with emotionally impactful events from the real world.

Most importantly it doesn't get preachy and avoids the polarising points of religion and definitive answers.

Intelligent and thought-provoking this is one not to miss. This may be Eastwood's masterpiece.

The Internet Movie Database lists two writers for the new Dwayne Johnson movie Faster. If it was accurate it would list every action scribe in existence for this cliche-driven beast or alternatively come up with a new NOT APPLICABLE designation.

This diabolical mishmash of violence, ridiculous car driving and poor sound editing throws nearly every cliche at the unwitting viewer.

In fact if you were playing a drinking game that involved action banality and plagiarism you would be roaring drunk a mere half an hour into Faster.

Which would actually be preferable to watching this stereotypical drivel.

On paper the story is of a con being released from prison and immediately going on a murderous rampage against those who killed his brother.

In reality it's unnecessary slow-motion shots mixed with poor dialogue and peppered with giant potholes and inexplicable actions.

They throw in a slight curve ball with both the police and a likeable assassin chasing The Rock but even the potentially charismatic killer is hampered by a hokum myriad of overused background cliches. I mean he's an internet whiz kid who overcame a childhood disability to become a rich ultimate sport junkie who became a hitman while in love with a beautiful woman who he is contemplating spending the rest of his life with. Oh and he has an accent too. Could you cram much more into the character? Not that they really utilise it anyway.

Despite a strong cast - Billy Bob Thornton, Tom Berenger, Maggie Grace and Carla Gugino - the insipid script ensures this movie will be memorable for all the wrong reasons.

The opening scene - in which the warden delivers a ridiculous exposition speech that is unrealistic in its sympathy, language and plausibility - sets the scene for a film that managed to disappoint even my already low expectations.

Perhaps Faster is part of Sony's anti-piracy strategy. How else could you explain a picture that represents a waste of bandwidth for even those with unlimited plans?

This is not only the early candidate for worst movie of the year, it might even challenge for the title for the past decade.

Even watching the trailer of Faster means the terrorists win.


EDIT: Sadly this system doesn't allow me to give less than a 1 star rating. It certainly wouldn't allow me to give it the 0.2 out of 5 I wanted to.

Remaking a classic is fraught with danger. Picking a classic that features an iconic legend and is from a genre that isn't that popular today increases the risks tenfold.

Yet somehow the Coen brothers have managed to produce a winner with True Grit.

The story is relatively simple. A young girl seeks justice for the murder of her father at the hands of an employee named Tom Chaney. She makes it clear she'll settle for revenge as, thwarted by jurisdiction and apathetic lawmen, she hires Rooster Cogburn - a US Marshall with a reputation for being both ruthless and an alcoholic.

They're joined by a LaBoeuf a Texas ranger (Matt Damon) who is also seeking Chaney for a crime committed in Texas. 

The ever-changing dynamic between the three makes for riveting viewing and it's this strong characterization that allows the film to shine. The fate of Chaney is almost incidental in this tale of revenge and what it costs.

Hailee Standfield delivers a very strong performance as Mattie Ross providing a strong feminine lead unwilling to bend to the law or her alpha male companions. She's aptly supported by Jeff Bridges who, as Cogburn, goes from disliking the girl to becoming protective of her. 

Matt Damon plays the oafish and self-important LaBoeuf well but it's questionable why the Coens decided to portray this character in such a two-dimensional light. The original 1969 film featured him as an overbearing Texas ranger but one with redeeming qualities.

It's difficult to not compare to the '69 version but to be honest the new version is slicker, more efficient and obviously makes use of modern humor and context which means it will be a winner with the crowd. Much of the dialogue is identical with subtle delivery differences but interestingly the most noticeable change is the eye patch of Rooster Cogburn: John Wayne covered his left eye, Bridges his right.

Bridges doesn't compare to John Wayne and you might wish for subtitles during some of his mumbling scenes but he is still a very likable anti-hero.

The strong lead, modern delivery and humour and classic storyline means you don't need to like Westerns to enjoy this slick affair. Only die-hard fans of the original might have cause for complaint.

The penultimate Harry Potter movie is dark, emotive and in your face.

Essentially the film is a belligerent teenager - moody and full of angst but on the verge of becoming something far greater.

Diehard fans (and 99% of the audience) need no synopsis: Voldermort's return is almost complete and the world's best hope lies with Harry, Hermione and Ron as they set forward to find and destroy the horcruxes that will end Voldermort's life. Unfortunately they have no idea of where or how to achieve their goal.

Director David Yates has done a wonderful job of capturing the darkest of times in the world of wizards and muggles. Dark shadows, an absence of colour and a barrage of grimness add to the constant foreboding tone.

And while we all know what to expect there are a few surprises in store for even the most devoted Potterhead. Yates and screenwriter Steve Kloves have a few subtle additions that add to the experience as does a very cool stylistic animation sequence.

The other main addition is an unexpected nudity scene, itself an excellent homage to the movie Excalibur (the timing of which is obviously not a coincidence).

Yates manages to avoid completely sinking into the depression zone by consistently sprinkling small amounts of humour throughout the darkness.

He's helped by some good acting though Daniel Radcliffe's performance seemed a bit wooden at times - surprising given his recent strong showings. But very strong showings from Emma Watson and Rupert Grint provide enough to distract from the small failings.

The cinematography is stunning at times and the effects are both impressive and subtle. Certainly they were seamless enough to be believable.

In fact the believability only emphasises this is NOT a film for children. Moody, scary, dark and depressing, the movie has very few warm fuzzy moments.

Based on such a long novel, it's inevitable that a lot ends up on the chopping floor and fans will endlessly debate what was put in and what was left out. But overall it's hard to be too critical of the majority of the decisions.

Realistically the only real criticism I have of the film is the lack of exposition for people who haven't read the books. There are a few things that aren't explained adequately but could have easily been fitted in with just minor script tweaking: additions wouldn't have even been required.

Overall it's great set-up work for the grand conclusion of a series that has captured the imagination of half the world. It's the necessary darkness before the dawn but delivered with style.

(specific examples and spoilers are limited to the comments below)

One of the trailers for this movie was the upcoming Pirahna 3-D which looks horrendous. Now I think they put that trailer in deliberately to make this cr4p film look better by comparison.

It's hard to know where to start but the plotholes are huge and once the couple actually get together the story ceases to be overly interesting.

Kutcher's performance is actually good, Tom Selleck is fun (but limited by poor writing), Heigl is two-dimensional.

it had a good scene or two but I was left with more frustration than entertainment.

Where Knight and Day was an action movie with a bit of comedy that almost worked, Killers is a comedy with a bit of action that doesn't come close to working.

It might seem odd that the first real Australian-made action movie in years is based on a novel for teens but Tommorrow, When the War Began proves a good story works regardless of target audience.

Based on John Marsden's novel, the film follows a group of teenagers who return from a camping trip to find their country has been invaded and their town is occupied.

But despite being an action film the invasion is almost irrelevant as the real heart of the story revolves around the teens' reactions to the situation.

The decision by first-time director Stuart Beattie to make it more character-driven than action-based proves to be a very good one. Yes you have your obligatory explosions and car chase but what you'll remember is the characters questioning themselves and each other in a series of stressful situations.

Burgeoning romance, sexual tension, fear for loved ones… it's these human touches that will engage audiences and hopefully make it successful enough for it to become a franchise (Marsden wrote a number of books).

It's certainly not perfect; a couple of the performances feel flat. Chris Pang as Lee Takkam was particularly painful and Colin Friels surprisingly over-acted slightly.

But Caitlin Stasey's turn as the main character and narrator Ellie was delightful. Phoebe Tonkin's take on the privileged girl is also quite noteworthy.

Beattie's love for the material shines through and he deserves credit for producing a fairly polished piece. His experience on other movie sets (he wrote Pirates of the Caribbean and Collaterol amongst others) has certainly proved beneficial.

The only criticisms I can offer are that some of the action feels forced/convenient (the car chase for example) and the god-awful bluescreen scene at the very end of the film. It's one of the worst examples in recent times. Beattie admits it was rushed as they changed the ending after test audiences hated the original ending (which was faithful to the book).

But it shouldn't detract from what was a fun film that Australians, and hopefully international audiences, should enjoy.

In the 80s and 90s boys and young men would argue about whether Schwarzenegger could beat Stallone and whether John McLane (Bruce Willis) was better than Dolph Lundgren's Red Scorpion. They never dared dream that one day most of the big action stars would gather for one film.

But that's exactly what The Expendables is. It brings the heroes of the past together with some of today's action heroes for a cast to die for: Stallone, Schwarzenegger, Willis, Jason Statham, Jet Li, Lundgren, Mickey Rourke, Steve Austin.

With so many big name action stars in this film the largest question was whether there would be enough room for the egos and explosions. Thankfully the answer is yes!

The plot is simple: Stallone and Statham play Barney Ross and Lee Christmas who run a team of mercenaries you could politely call experienced. They're hired to head to South America to overthrow a dictator. Actually most of the action happens off the island so a better plot description would be action guys shoot guns, blow things up and hit each other.

And hit they do. The Expendables features some simply fantastic action sequences and great fights though there is a high gore factor. This is not a film for the squeamish.

Despite the hype this is really a Jason Statham movie. He's fantastic as the warm-hearted mercenary who prefers knives to guns. Eric Roberts is good as the bad guy, Jet Li is as loveable as ever and even Stallone is actually intelligible this time around.

Charisma Carpenter shows that begin 40 doesn't mean you're not sexy. In fact the only problem with the casting is the fact WIllis and Schwarzenegger have such small parts.

Overall there are a few plotholes, some average science and the dialogue occasionally degenerates but let's face it - you don't go to an action movie starring these guys for the words.

Yes there are some cliches but there are also some tributes and deliberate homage.

Boom, punch, blood, laughs. This is better than I expected and a fun ride.

Never has there been a more aptly named movie. Knight and day is a movie of contrasts and opposites.

The first two-thirds of it are simply amazing. Featuring an incredibly cool and charismatic lead (Tom Cruise), an intriguing story, some great stunts, greet fight scenes and amazing cinematography, the movie sucks you in and genuinely entertains.

The storyline opens with super spy Roy Miller working to avoid capture by his own organisation. He leaves a trail of mayhem and destruction in his wake and an ordinary citizen - June Havens played by Cameron Diaz - is entangled in his web.

Her bewilderment is contrasted with Cruise's masterful performance. It's easy to criticise him for some of his roles but here he plays a composed agent capable of just about anything. And it's difficult to not like him as he fights to keeps Havens alive while pursuing his own hidden agenda.

Basically it's Bond on speed. But you're not sure if Bond is good or bad.

Some novel angles and narrative devices allow the plot to move at a breakneck pace and keep you laughing and oohing and aahing.

Until… about two-thirds of the way through where the intricate story falls apart in a spectacular decline. Suddenly the hapless female becomes a confidant woman capable of doing anything. It's too sudden a jump that really detracts from the story.

Coupled with some surprisingly dodgy special effects and aspects of the storyline that border on ludicrous, and the final act is a hopeless mess that almost feels as if they had a different director and writer.

The first two acts are four-star gold. The last act is two star rubbish.

If you see it, leave after the got-shot-fell-in-the-river scene and make up your own ending. You'll have had a great time.

If you recognise the phrase "wax on, wax off" then odds are you greeted the news of a Karate Kid remake with either excitement or trepidation.

But I'm happy to report that, despite my concern, this new version is worthy of introducing the story to a new generation.

Gone are Daniel-san, Mr Miyagi and the location is no longer Los Angeles, but there's no mistaking this is the movie that inspired so many of us to do the crane in our backyards.

A young kid (Dre Parker) is moved to a distant location (China) by his widowed mother where he struggles to fit in and is bullied violently by martial-arts wielding students.

He is saved by the seemingly meek Mr Han (the irrepressible Jackie Chan) who is, of course, much more than he appears to be. He takes Parker (Jaden Smith) on as a student but of course the lessons are both seemingly irrelevant and not at all about violence.

There aren't many surprises in the plot but the performance of Chan as a downtrodden and beaten man is charismatic as it is emotional. His lessons are indeed Yoda-like (Kung Fu is not about making war it's about bringing peace) and are the perfect foil for the arrogant and headstrong Parker whose impatience is representative of his youthful quick-fix generation.

Director Harald Zwart (One Night At McCools) is obviously a fan of the original and goes to great lengths to capture the same emotion of alienation, anguish and hard work. In fact some of the scenes - particularly in the tournament late on - are shot-for-shot in obvious homage. Chan even mimics Miyagi's amble-walk in a performance that reminds you he CAN act and he's not just a martial arts comedian.

But it's the tournament that jolts you from nostalgia. Not in terms of plot - which is of course predictable even to newcomers - but for the brutality of the final fight scenes. Especially when you contrast them with the hugely entertaining opening fight where Chan wins a fight without actually directly hitting any of his six opponents.

These final scenes leave you questioning the PG rating (originally it was given an M but reduced on appeal) and I'm sure some parents will be shocked and concerned but the impact seems to be lessened with the inevitable moral that cheaters don't win.

It's a heart-warming movie with a beautiful backdrop but it's not without its flaws.

While Smith actually surprises with a strong performance, he quite simply is too young and small for the role. His youth makes the romantic relationship awkward at best and jars against the rest of the plot.

The only other major failing is a technical but important one: the bratty kid doesn't learn Karate, he learns Kung Fu. Why they insisted on the original title is beyond me especially considering the changes of character, location and learning techniques.

But if you're a fan of the original or a fan of Chan you'll enjoy this version. Even without waxing.

In the 80s, a crack commando unit on TV was sent to prison by a military court for a crime they didn't commit. And if you could find them, maybe you could hire the A-Team.

Fast forward to today and it seems not much has changed. The return of the team to our big screen has been both anticipated and dreaded by long-time fans while the all-star cast will no doubt introduce our intrepid soldiers-of-fortune to a new generation.

For those unfamiliar with the A-Team it consists of four special forces soldiers. Hannibal (Liam Neeson) is the brains. Face (Bradley Cooper from almost everything lately) is resource acquisition (read conman). BA Barachus (Quinton 'Rampage' Jackson) is the wheel man and muscle. And Murdoch (Sharlto Copley who we last saw in District 9) is the mentally questionable pilot.

Specialising in strange and unusual solutions these misfits fight the good fight until they're framed and then fight to clear their name.

What follows might be questionable scientifically but is great fun. And while it focuses on the original crime they didn't commit rather than helping out unfortunate souls, this is simply a riotous romp.

The fugitives are pursued by Charisa Sosa (Jessica Biel) , a former flame of Face, and a shadowy CIA operative in a non-stop action romp.

The majority of the scenarios might push the boundaries of believability but you don't really care as you're caught up in the spirit of fun adventure and some great characterisation.

Cooper in particular is perfect as the favour-swapping playa Face and Neeson nails Hannibal. Copley has a great time with the unstable Murdoch (though his accent changes so much that even his natural South African accent sounds wrong at one point).

The only real failing of the movie is the poor performance of Jackson in the role that made Mr T famous. His acting is wooden even for a former fighter and is even irritating at points. And, although it's not his fault, the lack of a "I pity the fool" quote was disappointing.

Remakes are always scary for fans of the original. Whether it be a TV series or a movie, the risk of your beloved being ruined or tarnished hangs over both head and heart. I'm happy to report here we have one that is true to the spirit of the original that will be enjoyed by both old and new fans alike.

When In Rome

Take the very attractive Kristen Bell, add the handsome and charismatic j17h Duhamel and mix in a magical wishing fountain and it would appear you've hit the formula for a romantic comedy hit.

Sadly When In Rome defies the quality of ingredients to produce a stew that leaves a bitter taste in your mouth.

There's nothing wrong with the premise. In fact the trailer had me excited. A workaholic woman named Beth (Bell) on a trip to Italy for her sister's wedding meets a seemingly nice guy (Duhamel) who appears to not be a nice guy after all. Angry and slightly drunk, our heroine steals some coins out of the Fountain Of Love. But of course it's a magical fountain and the men that had thrown those particular coins in fall instantly in love with this woman they've never met.

Sounds okay in theory. Better than okay actually. But in practice the movie falls flat despite solid performances from its leads.

So what went wrong? Well, the tendency to employ bad slapstick at every opportunity for a start. And not even average slapstick (is there such a thing as good? I remain unconvinced) - it's simply diabolical at some points.

But the over-the-top acting and direction of the would-be paramours just leaves you cringing. Perhaps if we'd had normal men chasing Beth then we could have enjoyed the wooing a bit more. Instead we get caricatures of stereotypes that provide little or no empathy and leave you wanting quick ending rather than a happy one.

Danny DeVito also deserves credit for a good performance and his character of course provides a hint of the jiminy cricket martyr… er… I mean soul.

But unless you're happy to just take in the eye candy of Bell and Duhamel, this movie is to be avoided.

FAME
The original creators of the 80s film FAME will be rolling in their graves at this monstrosity of a remake. If they're dead that is. And if they're not dead they'll soon be wishing they were after viewing this.

We follow the school through various years of study. And not well or in a logical manner.

The storyline is non-existent and the character development is barely hinted at let alone explored.

The dance scenes are tight and actually very impressive. And that's the only nice thing I have to say.

There's so much I rant about but to be frank I don't want to write that much about it as - like the wilful and disobedient child - it simply doesn't deserve the attention.

Unless you're happy to pay good money to watch some good dancing interspersed with rubbish then this is one you can live forever without.

By their nature romantic comedies are a little predictable so the journey is always more important than the destination. This is particularly true for I LOVE YOU TOO, in which we're taken on a delightful trip that is not only amusing and engaging but distinctly Australian.

I LOVE YOU TOO follows the life of Jim (Brendan Cowell) a man who is passionately in love with the single life until, that is, he meets the gorgeous Alice played by the lovely Yvonne Strahovski (Chuck).

They fall into a relationship and everything seems to be going swimmingly. And swimmingly. And still just swimmingly. After more than three years together, Alice starts asks the dreaded question "where is this going?" Jim's failure to ever utter the three magic words "I love you" raises questions about his level of commitment.

Surprisingly, his "career" working at a minature railway doesn't raise any commitment questions at all. Strange.

So, as with every, boy gets girl story, he must lose the girl. The inevitable break-up ensues and the audience follows Jim as he tries to come to terms with his feelings and create the perfect plan to win Alice back.

He's aided by an intelligent and articulate little person Charlie (Peter Dinklage) who nearly steals the shows with his dry observations and witty repartee. In fact Charlie begins as an antagonist but morphs into a reluctant friend and Yoda figure. (This has nothing to do with his stature, he really is just like Yoda. Like him you will.)

Jim is likeable and it's hard not to empathise with him even if you don't initially understand his phobia of The Three Words. Cowell plays to type and is a perfect choice as the flawed lead. As in his past films (Noise and Beneath Hill 60), you find yourself on his side despite his shortcomings.

Penned by Peter Helliar (who plays the inevitably bumbling and semi-sleazy frat best friend), I LOVE YOU TOO is an endearing movie that, while not reaching super highs, will be enjoyed by most who see it. While it lacks any truly great laugh-out-loud moments the subtlety and general warmth is sure to win over majority of cinemagoers.

Cleverly, there are even a few bites to the tail with a few unexpected poignant moments towards the end of the film that, while masquerading as gravitas, still pack a punch.

The only real criticism of the film is the lack of screen time that Strahovski and Megan Gale get. But. then again, that could just be my bias in operation.

I have a soft spot for Australian cinema but it has to be said the past decade has been pretty tough on local films. We seem to have had an inability to achieve quality on all three aspects of writing, acting and production at once. So this movie, while a little predictable, should be enjoyed and celebrated that it finally took the time to put production values and quality together.

Finally we can say "support Australian cinema" proudly without cringing.

Any sequel has risks but a follow-up to a blockbuster is even more fraught with danger.

So Iron Man 2: The Inevitable Sequel was always going to be touch and go. So it was a pleasant surprise that director Jon Favreau and writer Justin Theroux managed a plot that builds upon the original in an entertaining and even logical way.

The action starts a mere six months after we left Tony Stark publicly declaring himself Iron Man and he's enjoying the limelight as self-proclaimed peace-bringer. However problems are on the horizon: from both allies and enemies. And from an opponent that seemingly can't be beaten.

What follows is self-destructive (but entertaining) behaviour interlaced with violence and special effects.

Robert Downey Jr's charisma makes it difficult to not enjoy this movie. His portrayal of Stark is spot on mixing whimsy with an underlying intelligent planning.

Replacing Terrance Howard with Don Cheadle just didn't work but the introduction of Scarlett Johansson, Mickey Rourke and Samuel L Jackson keep you distracted enough that you don't notice too much.

Sure there are some cliches and silly moments but this was simply a fun movie. There will be those who are disappointed and there will be those who are surprised but the truth of the matter of is that it's enjoyable without being superb.

It has its flaws (the action scenes aren't well-paced, it's a bit predictable and it feels like an inordinate amount of time is spent on setting up future movies (ie Avengers)) but the characters and acting alone make it worth the price of admission.


MY GEEK COMMENTS WILL BE ADDED BELOW SHORTLY

B grade movies are extremely formulaic. Take a hero/heroine who is nerdy and/or socially awkward. Give them wise-cracking and often crude friends, introduce them to a pretty significant other, sprinkle in excessive amounts of cringe moments and contrast conflict with romantic resolution.

And yet there's something about them that is quite appealing when they're done well.

She's Out Of My League is actually a polished piece that, while hardly bristling with surprises, entertains and provides a few laughs along the way.

Our protagonist (Jay Baruchel - about to be better known as the voice of Hiccup in the awesome How To Train Your Dragon but you might remember him from Tropic Thunder) is a motivationally challenged airport security guard who has been unlucky in love despite being a genuinely nice guy. He encounters a stunningly beautiful woman and… well much to everyone's surprise sparks appear and are given flight.

Hijinks ensue and while the outcome is predictable the few surprises - such as both sides being guilty of poor behaviour instead of just the guy - keep you interested.

A charismatic performance from Baruchel is an important part of what makes this a better class of B-grade though the fact Molly is intelligent and independent without being bitchy is also a plus.

But the true key is the likability of all the characters that aren't quite two dimensional. The writing of Sean Anders and John Morris (who penned the surprise cult hit Sex Drive) is tidy and polished and doesn't reach beyond its genre. They also have me looking forward to their next film - the upcoming Hot Tub Time Machine.

She's Out Of My League isn't rocket science but is entertaining escapism that gives geeks and average guys out there something to dream about and leaves me wondering if this genre is actually like romance novels for guys.

Reuniting Bourne Ultimatum alumni Matt Damon and director Paul Greengrass was always going to risk expectations and while there are similarities this treatment of the invasion of Iraq is a highly enjoyable affair that deserves to be viewed without prior judgement.

The Green Zone refers to the safe zone established by the invading force politicians, press and to safely rest. The vast majority of the action takes place outside this haven (portrayed as an almost hedonistic playground for the connected) but the underlying themes all lead back there.

Damon plays Chief Warrant Officer Roy Miller, the officer in charge of the unit tasked with locating the Weapons of Mass Destruction that justified the invasion. Their existence is taken as a granted by not only Miller and his men but the press corps and world at large.

Miller runs across a wanted fugitive setting off a clash with US special Forces and leaving him chasing, at first, just a way to do his job and locate WMDs but eventually has him trying to solve much larger problems.

It's entertaining, believable and you find yourself sucked along in a heady mix of action and strong dialogue.

But the true strength of this movie is the layering that leaves you questioning what is the right thing to do in the situation. Without getting in your face it illustrates the complexity of a long-term solution in an environment represented by an array of people and beliefs.

And the fact you're left questioning who the bad guys truly are and you have a plethora of candidates - both obvious and subtle - to choose from.

The overall and thoughtful approach highlighted the two dimensional US strategy for the war in Iraq and the short-term vision that has led to long-term problems in the region.

But while the soapbox preaching is present it isn't overpowering nor does it detract from the plot. In fact it's not a sense of anti-war sentiment the protagonist and movie really espouses but a sense of frustration. At not being able to do his job, at misinformation being the basis of decisions, at people being risked, at people being unwilling to make decisions for the right reasons.

The Green Zone has enough action to be enjoyable just as a war movie and enough sensible construction to be appreciated as more than that.

Truly impressive acting from Damon and Khalid Abdalla, as a local Iraqi 'Freddie', really give the film timbre and believability. The sets, scenes and effects only further add to the reality.

The only criticism I really have is Greengrass's excessive use of of grainy action-motion interspersed with razor sharp definition, often from shot to shot. It was off-putting and detracted from some key points and the story. It worked for him in the Bourne Ultimatum (just) but it's overdone and distracting here, especially in the final chase scene that goes on a bit too long.

But those are minor nitpicks in what is a surprisingly enjoyable action flick.

With a wealth of stars rarely seen outside of an awards ceremony, Valentine's Day is obviously an attempt at a US-version of Love Actually.

And while it is interesting and even fun to be treated to this ensemble, sadly the humour isn't as intelligent and for most of the movie tends more towards cliche.

It's actually a nice, fun romantic comedy featuring an array of relationships but the similarities to the afore-mentioned British masterpiece are so obvious it actually grates a little early on.

But if you stick with it you'll find a few surprises along the way and one or two of the storylines will invoke genuine emotion.

The plot is convoluted and entertaining but suffice to say it's Valentine's Day and we watch how it impacts on a number of people and couples of various ages and backgrounds and how they react to the commercialised and/or romantic day.

Good performances from Emma Roberts, Topher Grace, Anne Hathaway, Hector Elizondo and Shirley MacLaine keep you interested enough long enough to get to the good bits but overall it's a movie lacking in genuine laugh-out-loud moments. Instead we get a giggle here and there and it's more about the characters.

Having said that the twists at the end are a saving grace and a few of the conclusions aren't what you expect. Add to that some Pretty Woman in-jokes - ironic as it shares the director with this one - and it's not a bad movie at all. But really Garry Marshall misses the mark here. With a stronger plot and more determination to flout cliches and political correctness he had the cast to make a memorable film.

Instead we get a fast-food film with a few twists that is entertaining enough for awhile but leaves you hungry an hour later.

The tagline was "A Love story. More or less." Which is how I feel - I liked it. More or less.

Take the classic tale The Frog Prince, mix in New Orleans jazz, talking animals (that also sing and dance of course) and you have the latest Disney movie The Princess And The Frog. And it's actually fun.

In a world of 3D animation where Pixar and more recently Avatar have seemingly changed the way children's movies would be made, Disney have made a welcome return to 2D and it has to be said there's something magical in the brewing.

The story is relatively simple - Tiana is a young african-american girl from a poor background dreams of one day opening a restaurant with her beloved Daddy. Fast forward a few years and she's waiting tables to that end while her childhood friend - the very definition of a modern princess - is waiting to meet and marry a prince. Coincidentally a prince Naveen comes to town but falls prey to a local voodoo practitioner and is transformed into a frog.

We all know a kiss from a princess is supposed to turn him back but a kiss from Tiana only turns her into a frog as well. Cue the inevitable journey of discovery where they will find themselves and each other.

However this movie has a few different and unexpected turns. It has an unexpected death, the 'spoiled' princess is still quite likeable and it has a heroine whose skin is black which was refreshing to say the least.

But the best bit was the introduction of a realistic moral. Despite the wishing on a star - which, let's face it, is synonymous with Disney - there is a message that the star can only take you so far and you need to combine hard work with your wishes to make dreams come true. A message I hope kids get.

The only real criticism is of the music which was quite bland - surprising for something set in New Orleans. No great crescendos or classic hits you expect from a disney musical and certainly nothing memorable.

Overall it's a lovely story that your kids will love. And a few of us big kids will enjoy it too.

Anyone familiar with the literary version of Sherlock Holmes will be left shaking their heads in disbelief at this movie adaptation.

Certainly Robert Downey Jr captures the eccentric genus well and his idiosyncratic behaviour is quite entertaining. But director Guy Ritchie couldn't make a purely cerebral movie so takes liberties with the beloved detective.

Liberties that transform him into a fighting machine. And while the fight scenes are entertaining - particularly the analysis of weaknesses that precede them - it really isn't true to the spirit of Holmes.

Similarly, the 'mystery' isn't really hard-core and that's without the errors of continuity.

Is it a dud? No. It's actually a bit of light-hearted romp that has its endearing qualities. Is it Sherlock Holmes? Not really but fun nonetheless.

In fact Ritchie has pretty much made a 19th century Batman. It's just the packaging that is annoying.

Downey Jr is great, Jude Law does well as the faithful sidekick Watson but McAdams' strong female character is more PC than believable.

Worth a DVD rental sometime but not much more.

In a world of special effects, the typical modern "horror movie" is usually a gore fest of fake blood, complex monsters and cgi limbs and heads flying everywhere.

So when a horror movie without any of those things pops up in cinemas you might be forgiven for thinking it's lacking. And you couldn't be more wrong.

Paranormal Activity is a welcome relief to return to film-making where the suspense is story-driven and mostly off-screen. Where fear is about us identifying with people and the familiar surroundings and the unknown.

Most of the film is set in the bedroom of Katie and Micah where Micah has set up a video camera to try and capture the strange occurrences that seem to be centred around his wife.

While most in their situation would seek an exorcism or perhaps a vampire slayer, Micah gives into his generation's obsession with youtube and/or potential fame. The tension between the two (played by Micah Sloat and Katie Featherston using their real first names) only adds to the terror of late nights.

It's a movie of subtlety with scenes where little happens but what does takes your breath away. Probably the strength of the movie is the fact you can so easily see yourself in that bedroom. And the lack of anything overtly supernatural makes it even more realistic and therefore frightening.

It's a movie that only cost $11,000 but has made over $100 million so a sequel will be disappointing but inevitable.

It's been over a decade since I was scared in a movie and considerably longer since one gave me nightmares. Paranormal Activity had me waking up at 3am wide-eyed and trembling. And judging by the gasps and screams int eh audience during the screening I wouldn't have been the only one.

A haunting and intriguing trailer meant most of us knew our young narrator's tragic fate before we entered the theatre. We get a glimpse of 14-year-old Susie Salmon's life before she is raped and murdered but her story doesn't end there.

The film follows not only the lives of her family post-murder but Susie's experiences in another level of existence.

Mark Wahlberg plays the grief-stricken father desperate to find the killer but this is not a mystery movie - we know from the start it's neighbourhood man George Harvey (Stanley Tucci). So while Mr Salmon and his other daughter (ably played by Rose McIver) look for answers, the audience look for answers as to what Susie is going through. The tragedy is somewhat offset by a show-stealing grandmother (Susan Sarandon).

Alice Sebold's acclaimed novel might seem an odd choice for director Peter Jackson but the surreal fluid realities he creates are simply sublime and not out of character for a man who created Brain Dead and bought LOTR into existence on the screen.

And for the first half of this movie his handling of the two worlds threatens to steal your imagination and interest… and then it comes to an awkward stop. What was shaping up as a fascinating tale of afterlife exploration and the crossover between worlds stutters into a slightly discordant film that left me feeling like I've missed something or things.

Basically I went from wanting to read the book because it seemed very awesome to wanting to read the book to explain some of the plotlines and threads. Admittedly I'm a male fantasy nut who will always cast a more intense eye over films of this genre and the girls I've spoken to really enjoyed the movie, but this movie felt as if it lost its way. I was spellbound initially but left feeling hollow at the end.

The Lovely Bones is a sumptuous visual feast that leaves you a little hungry for more. A tragic multi-dimensional story that somehow comes off in two dimensions on the big screen.

In a world over-run by zombies, the remaining humans would face a life of danger and vastly different routines. And it's this facet the new movie Zombieland focuses on.

Sure you have your undead and obligatory intestine feasting, but delightfully the zombies are merely background in this new comedy (is 'zom com' in common usage yet?).

Director Ruben Fleischer and writers Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick set the tone for the movie early with a laugh-out-loud opening credit montage that features zombie brides, children, firefighters etc.

For this is, first and foremost, a comedy. It's narrated by our nerdy 'hero' - known as Columbus - whose paranoid neuroses turn out to be ideal for surviving post-apocalypse. And his rules of survival entertain us throughout the flick.

He's soon joined by a zombie-killing machine Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson) who has some mental issues to work through and a pair of sisters with dubious ethics (Wichita and Little Rock - Emma Stone and Abigail Breslin respectively).

Their interaction amongst the carnage runs the gamut of emotions and is always entertaining. Throw in some great slow motion scenes and a plethora of movie and pop culture references, and you've got a sure winner for the masses.

While it may not be quite as intelligent as the still-superior Shaun Of The Dead, Zombieland never fails to entertain. With LOL moments, likeable characters and some bad-ass action it simply can't fail.

As a person who has loved zombie movies since long before they were cool, this will become a much-loved cult classic and a welcome addition to my collection when it's released on DVD.

But do yourself a favour and see it on the big screen the first time.

As a child I, like millions of people around the world, read and loved the book Where The Wild Things Are. So for the many years it has taken for this film to be finished I've been awaiting it with both eagerness and trepidation. How can they do an entire movie based on a book of less than 500 words? Will it ravage our childhood dreams or do the beloved publication justice?

I'm pleased and relieved to report the movie captures the imaginative spirit and freedom of Maurice Sendak's picture book. And builds upon it.

Essentially the movie is about a young boy who runs away to another world - possibly of his own creation - and becomes king whilst playing with a group of dysfunctional monsters.

Director Spike Jonze spends the early part of the film exploring young Max's life in the real world and does it well. Max has an over-active imagination mixed with a sense of loneliness and tinged with a touch of youthful hyperactivity.

The emotion of feeling betrayed and alone by those he so obviously loves is the catalyst for this adventure and Jonez deserves a lot of credit for capturing it so very well.

You're left in no doubt as to what Max feels and we see the range of emotions - a recurring and important theme.

For when we meet the monsters you discover they too are slaves to their emotions whether it be fear, anger, envy or love. Their interaction with Max differs depending on the monster and the situation. But the affection seems so genuine.

Despite that this is not really a children's movie. There's no believable violence to detract the younger audience but so much of the time is spent with Max obviously feeling out of his depth and wondering what to do next instead of just delighting in the adventure.

But from an adult's perspective (and one who loved the original book) I found this much more interesting and realistic. It was wonderful to see the imagination take flight and then pause to consider the consequences.

The only real criticism I would offer is the lack of green in the other world. It's very dusty and brown (maybe being filmed in Australia during the drought had something to do with this) and I always thought of trees and rich foliage with the book - we're talking tropical island after all.

At the very least we could have seen more green in sections.

But the overall adventure and individual characters - so very well voiced by James Gandolfini, Catherine O'Hara, Forest Whitaker, Lauren Ambrose, Chris Cooper and Michael Berry Jr) - more than compensate for these minor gripes.

A playful but thoughtful adventure, Where The Wild Things Are has been worth the wait. Let the rumpus begin.

Most true stories are gritty and involved particularly when they involve corporate America and corruption.

So it was surprising to see The Informant! deeply infused with quirky humour.

In a tale about a newcomer to middle management blowing the whistle on corporate price fixing it would have been very easy to go the dramatic route. So it was refreshing to see a film-maker play with the material.

The story is essentially about a company's Vice-president Mark Whitacre (played by Matt Damon) collecting evidence on his employers for the FBI.

It's genuinely entertaining to hear the protagonist's private - and usually unrelated - thoughts during the process. The random nature and humour of these are seemingly completely whimsical but by the end of the movie probably said a lot about the character of Whitacre.

Especially as the movie takes a few unexpected turns as the case against the company ADM focuses on Whitacre's actions and credibility.

Damon's performance is very strong though early on you couldn't help but question whether he was right for the job of a character. By the end you'll love his charismatic portrayal of a drowning man.

Less noticable but just as important is the performance of Scott Bakula whose honest agent leaves you hoping for justice despite the many twists and turns.

Deeply satirical and very entertaining, Steven Soderbergh has a winner on his hands. He deserves credit not only for direction that keeps you interested and chuckling but for his hiring of screenwriter Scott Z Burns (whose other big hit is - rather bizarrely - The Bourne Ultimatum).

Although neither a movie or documentary (though they are trying to dress it up as the latter), This Is It has hit our cinemas with quite the bang.

A cynic might suggest it's because of the advertised limited run or the fact that Michael Jackson hasn't been long buried.

But the real impact of this DVD-for-the-big-screen is the emotion that is bought to the surface by anyone who has ever enjoyed any of Jackson's music.

It's simply rehearsal footage of his highly anticipated concerts that sadly never came to pass, strung together with very brief quotes from various members of the production. The amount of interspersed dialogue is the bare minimum and it's arguable whether it really adds anything to the film. If anything some of it is a little irritating in its obsequiousness.

But sycophantism aside this is a must-see for Jackson lovers. If you like more than two of his songs then this is the perfect moment of reflection of his career as we work through most of his biggest hits.

It's wonderful to see Jackson hard at work and you can see not only what a perfectionist he is but just how talented the man was. 50 years old and the dance moves would put most younger professionals to shame.

Forget the rabid fans and conspiracy theorists who have criticised the release for not having footage of him struggling with health issues. Whether that's true or not is irrelevant.

What's important is that this footage of a concert that will never be is a wonderful celebration of the life of an amazing entertainer. And it's a great way for us to remember him by.

Some of the most horrific acts have nothing to do with the supernatural and are all too human. So making a horror film with a social worker actually does make some sense.

Renée Zellweger plays Emily Jenkins, a dedicated and overworked case worker who genuinely cares about children she encounters. Already juggling 38 active cases the movie picks up with her receiving her 39th (hence the title) which is anything but ordinary.

In fact the audience is treated to a truly barbaric act from the parents that will leave you gasping. What follows is a little predictable with the wounded child Lilith not only being saved but ending up in the custody of Jenkins.

But do we have the full story? Is the girl as innocent as she seemed?

On paper it seems a great idea to team Zellweger with the Hangover's Bradley Cooper. Throw in some Battlestar Galactica representation with Callum Keith Rennie and Deadwood's Ian McShane and we have a strong cast for a movie that explore a number of themes.

Unfortunately I can't go into them without major spoilers. Suffice to say the Jenkins' relationships with pyschologist Doug Ames (Cooper) and Detective Mike Barron (McShane) are interesting but it's the interplay between her and Lilith's abusive father (Rennie) that offers the most depth.

There are actually a few breath-taking moments and even one that will see you jump in your seat as the film takes an unexpected turn.

It's an interesting premise with a great set-up and it's certainly an entertaining movie, but it could have been a very good one had there not been a few poor character development moments.

Nearly everyone in the preview screening groaned as one at one point where one character was very quick to jump to an unusual and totally out-of-character conclusion. Sadly both the detective and social worker do this and the speed in which these two fervent idealists change their tune leaves you a little flat.

A little bit of better writing and/or direction could have polished this movie to an excellent level. As it is, it's enjoyable and okay but not something you'll demand your friends also see.

Science fiction has a rich history of looking to the future and predicting what is possible. Surrogates might seem a bit fanciful at a glance but the idea of spending all our time online and living through artificial bodies we send out into the real world isn't that far-fetched. Especially considering our increasing addictions to the internet, social networking and seeming agoraphobia (not to mention the feeling of safety it would engender).

So Surrogates presents an intriguing possibility full of appeal. Imagine being able to try adventure activities without fear of actually being hurt. At worst you're looking at the cost of a replacement surrogate (artificial body). Leaving aside it might actually rob the activity of some of its excitement, the day-to-day use by normal people (always look young and beautiful) and the military (remote control but expendable soldiers) makes for interesting viewing.

But what happens when a way is discovered to cause feedback to the surrogate's owner in a way that kills them? This future utopia where everyone is safe from everyone else is suddenly threatened. Enter cop Tom Greer (Bruce Willis) who ends up investigating society's first homicide in years.

He ends up having to leave his home and do things in person as he tries to unravel a pseudo-complicated (but actually predictable) web.

It's an interesting look at how our culture could be even more defined by our technology and the movie offers a lot to think about it. It's quite intelligent in that it explores humanity's reaction to the surrogates and predictably some protest against it while most embrace it and the possibilities.

It's entertaining enough but while it's clever and the premise is intriguing, most will leave the theatre a touch unfulfilled.

Sadly it's a bit too scientific for non-geeks and not quite enough for the geek community.

To be honest, Ponyo is a difficult movie to review. If we deconstruct and analyse it technically it's two dimensional and lacking in detail. However its wondrous portrayal of emotion more than compensates for the lightness of story.

It would be simplistic to describe it as a Japanese little mermaid as it enjoys and explores a rich mythology and, delightfully, it isn't heavy handed. While inspired by Hans Christian Anderson's rather macabre fairy tale, Ponyo is far more kid-friendly.

Director Hayao Miyazaki - an anime deity amongst diehard fans - is better known for smash hits Spirited Away and Princess Mononoke. But years before these two films were met with rapturous appreciation - and a great deal of money - Miyazaki was making films for kids that were simultaneously simple and sophisticated. Kiki's Delivery Service (a 13-year-old witch setting up a business in the world) and My Neighbour Totoro (two young girls wander into the twilight world between the real and spirit worlds) were wonderful stories that appealed to all ages but were primarily aimed at the younger.

And Ponyo is a return to a more simplistic story of two children and their friendship but it's certainly not weaker for it. It is unapologetically aimed at the younger audience but will delight anyone older who is young-at-heart.

But while the story might be a bit lighter the imagery is simply stunning. The scene where Ponyo is joyously running on the backs of waves/fish is pure emotion.

It's the tale of an unusual goldfish who runs away and is found and cared for a young boy and although they're soon broken up by an overprotective, well-meaning-but-slightly-creepy father, Ponyo's determination to return to her new friend sets incredible scenes in motion.

Backstory and structures aren't explored in detail in order to answer every question - something more Hollywood movies should emulate. Instead your imagination is left to fill in the blanks and this film is more satisfying for it.

Normally with foreign films I prefer subtitles rather than run the risk of inappropriate voices and nuances but this is a movie that works with both dubs and subs. Apparently Pixar creative boss John Lasseter took time out of his very busy schedule to personally supervise the english-version production.

And it shows. Of course it helps if you have a top notch cast including Liam Neeson, Tina Fey, Noah Cyrus (younger sister of Miley), Matt Damon Cate Blanchett, Betty White, Lily Tomlin and Frankie Jonas.

Ponyo is simply a great kids movie for people of all ages.

For the proper review and summary of this movie see below. My contribution to this review is merely observations and personal comment.

I always find Quentin Tarantino a bit hit and miss. He's got talent but often wastes or ruins a movie with needless dialogue or tangents that, to me personally, are a bit stupid.

So I was a bit wary of Inglorious Basterds especially with the director hyping it as the movie he's always wanted to make. And as such it was a surprise to me how enjoyable it turned out to be.

Sure some of the characters are over the top but there are quite a number of extremely interesting people who you take shine too. Unusually some of the more fascinating ones aren't good guys (one of the despicable german officers is so clever you feel he should almost be the protagonist). Not that there are many good guys - most seem capable of good and bad.

Suffice to say the movie keeps you entertained to the point you don't notice it's 2.5 hours long.

The few nitpicks I have are minor:
The actual group calling themselves the Inglorious Basterds actually don't have that much screen time and it would be easy to argue it isn't about them. But they're entertaining enough.

Some of the subtitles drove me nuts. Not the fact there were so many (that was great and added to the authenticity) but that they sometimes translate. Sometimes a "oui" or "merci" was met with a "oui" or "merci" subtitle instead of "yes" or "thank you". And no it wasn't consistent.

I'm not going to get into historical inaccuracies in detail. Let's just say I don't mind a director taking some liberties but there were a couple here that went a bit far. You'll see what I mean when you see it.

For see it you should. If you don't mind the typical Tarantino penchant for explicit and gruesome violence and black humour that is.

Potterheads around the world have raved about part six of the movie franchise but I can't help but wonder if it's the story they already know from the books that is fuelling their love.

For despite being a fan of the series and characters I have to say I was a bit underwhelmed by the latest offering.

I don't need to focus on the storyline in much depth (see the above reviews) but while sacrifices have to be made to make the movie more concise I found some of the choices strange. And to be frank I was left feeling they tried to have a bit each way and didn't explore what they did leave on properly.

Visually stunning, and still capturing the imagination, The Half Blood Prince turned more into a high school soup of hormones and half-lidded looks.

I'm actually fine with that as it is significant character development but they didn't really do it justice. In other words if you're going to do it then do it properly.

I enjoyed it but I was left feeling flat and a little empty at the end of it.

With an evocative title and classy production values Lesbian Vampire Killers is not quite what you'd expect.

For the record it's Lesbian Vampire Killers as in Killers of Lesbian Vampires not Lesbian Killers of Vampires, but for those looking for cheap thrills with women kissing each other in slow motion with soft sigh soundtracks... well actually you will get some of that.

But what you'll also get is a comedy that in part pays homage to the schlock horror films that some of us love so much.

The story starts of with the almost obligatory voiceover detailing a legend of a lesbian vampire queen, blah blah, being killed, blah, curse, prophecy...

Cut to present day where the descendant of this crusade hero is of course blissfully unaware of his slayer heritage. In fact he's a bit of a wimp and a loser in love. His slacker best friend isn't much better but they end up deciding to holiday in the location of the curse/prophecy.

Throw in some creepy locals and a van full of hot female foreign students and who knows what could happen?

Sound familiar? Well of course it is. Outside of the blatant sexualisation in the title this s hardly groundbreaking material.

However it has to be said the movie succeeds on its own merits. Director Phil Claydon does a wonderful job pulling a mishmash of ideas together into an almost seamless flick.

It's very well produced, well-acted and, most importantly, a heck of a lot of fun.

Jimmy Horne is convincing as the unsure but good-hearted hero while James Corden, as the nerdy and unattractive, wise-cracking slacker inevitably steals the show and best lines.

Throw in the scrumptious MyAnna Buring as a European Buffy wannabe and you have a quality cast that gloss over the few cracks in the story.

Because while the plot is a little formulaic and light, it really doesn't matter: they have some fresh ideas, some lovely aesthetics, the pre-requisite killings and effects and the laughs.

Oh and boobage though that becomes less important as you get sucked into the movie.

Most films start with stories and scripts but this one supposedly started with the title in an attempt to garner publicity and attention. At least they backed it up with a solid movie.

Enjoyable though not good enough to qualify for the sought-after cult status, the movie tries to poke fun at itself with only limited success, but then again it doesn't really need to.

While not as clever as say Shaun of the Dead, this is still a very slick B Grade movie and a good laugh for fans of the undead.

The regular stream of films about the holocaust inevitably draw praise simply because of the emotions they stir up.

I don't know if it's the fear of appearing un-PC should you criticise them or people's emotional inability to handle intense feelings, but too often I leave praised-movies wondering what the fuss is about.

So I walked into The Boy With The Striped Pyjamas with the apprehension of another director and cast subjecting me to another 90 minutes of self-congratulatory "aren't we sensitive and clever".

To be fair though, this movie surprised me. It broached the subject matter of the nazi's intolerance and propaganda of the Jewish people in a matter-of-fact manner by showing us through the eyes of a little boy.

A little German boy who, like most young boys, dreams of being an explorer and plays at being a soldier. Who, when his family relocates because of his father (a commandant in the SS), is left in the countryside without friends and an outlet for his imagination.

That is until he discovers what he thinks is a farm in the back woods. It is of curse a work camp for Jews and he befriends a small, malnourished boy of his own age (hence the title).

The story doesn't explore their friendship so much as glosses over it and thankfully doesn't make it out to be anything too deep considering the limited timeframe. But it does spend time on the misconceptions of what was being done to the Jews and the vitriolic and mindless hate behind it.

Yes, you will feel for some of the characters and perhaps rail at the injustice, but as I said before I tend to think a lot of people mistake emotional impact for high quality.

At its heart this is a very simple movie that operates on a few levels. Not too many, but it's well made and highlights both intolerance and the historical ignorance of the German people.

Worth seeing. Quite good without being spectacular.

if you're male, like me you probably cringed when you heard of yet another Matthew McConaughey B-Grade rom-com. But I am a bit of a sucker for a heart puller (and I saw it had Jennifer Garner in the trailer) so I thought what the heck.

And I was pleasantly surprised. This modern take on A Christmas Carol sees a true 'playa' shown his past, present and future by a series of ghosts.

I'm sure this is not what Charles Dickens had in mind when he wrote his story but the moral is similar.

McConaughey plays the irresistible ladies man who guys will love and girls will hate. He's the ultimate love-'em-and-leave-em man who doesn't believe in either love or relationships. He attends his brother's wedding where, in addition to the ghosts, he meets up with his childhood love Jenny Perotti (the lovely Garner).

The end result may be predictable but the difference in this flick is the route by which it gets there. Instead of just bashing him as a misogynist, the director and writers actually take the time to explore the WHY he became what he is.

They look at the young boy struggling with the perceived loss of his girl turning to his womanising Uncle Wayne - played by Michael Douglas - for advice and thus a legend is born.

Douglas revels in his role (almost a carbon copy of his real life) and his charisma shines through.

The movie is laced with very entertaining pearls of wisdom about how some women react the way they do (and, in the words of Homer Simpson: it's funny cos it's true) and features a couple of subtle hidden depth moments.

It sets up the viewer to at least identify with the playa and shows that both genders play games to a lesser extent but the big message was the casualties of the game.

What happens when a nice girl - a non-player - gets caught in the battlezone?

It's not rocket science but it was quite entertaining especially from a male's perspective. You should see this movie if for no other reason than to be able to say you've seen the one movie where McConaughey does NOT take off his shirt.

...where others have already gone.

Well to be fair this is not a remake. Yes it is a reboot, but not in the modern sense. This version actually doesn't ignore the rich tradition and history and start over. Instead it builds upon it and offers a plausible (enough) reason for an alternative history of the characters we know and love.

Granted they cheat a little using time travel (a point which gets subtly made in the movie - possibly playfully poking fun at themselves) but the story and our love for the characters makes any quibbling on this seem a bit trivial.

The basic premise is how James T Kirk comes to join the academy. Of course we know what he's destined for - and indeed who's destined to be beside him - but that doesn't detract from the experience at all.

In fact J.J. Abramms and his writing crew deserve credit for making it such a fun ride. The movie contained more humour than I expected but it only added to the story.

It has stellar performances from actors with homages to the original characters and classic lines. It has a charismatic Kirk who, despite refusing to play by the rules, is undoubtedly the hero and the young Shatner that we love (including the obligatory love scene with a green-skinned woman).

It has an extremely believable Spock in Zachary Quinto, so much so that at times you may be forgiven for forgetting he's not Leonard Nimoy (who also turns in a lovable performance).

And it has a good bad guy. Eric Bana's Nero was a bit underdeveloped - though really he's a supporting tangent to the main plot of establishing the main characters - but he was one of the better villians of recent times. No Khan of course but Nero is a plot device more than a main feature here.

What we came to watch was the original spirit and recollections. And there are quite a number of references to the early series and characters, most of which come off cleanly. From the almost obligatory - but quite subtle - redshirt reference to the Kobayashi Maru cheating to McCoy's intolerance of Spock's nature and of course the use of some classic lines. It warmed your heart.

With so many in-jokes you might expect it to be solely a geekfest but the non-trekkies with us loved it as much as we did.

In fact all of us - trekkies and non-trekkers alike - sat there at the end bemoaning the fact we had to wait years for the sequel. But we were all ready to watch this version again straight away.



Geek postcript
Three ways they could have improved this movie:
1) Have Kirk use his classic double-fist punch
2) Have William Shatner do the final voice over
3) Have Kirk watch as the bad guy dies and utter the words... "Denny Crane"

Okay maybe just the first two...

NO SPOILERS

The seventeenth season of Survivor sees Jeff and a new batch of Americans head to the African plains of Gabon.

With the previous season widely regarded as one of the best ever of the long-running series, there were questions over whether it could sustain its entertainment value.

Well worry not die-hard fans. While it wasn't as intense as Fans vs Favourites there's enough character to keep you coming back for more.

In fact it's the characters and their personalities that prevent this from becoming a predictable re-run of the established format.

Featuring a 57-year-old Physics teacher who wears his buff as a bow tie, a former Olympic gold medalist and a person who seriously doesn't like people, Gabon could have you changing your support every few episodes.

In fact I realised that one or two of the people I disliked entertained me and I found myself sort of hoping they'd go further, while some of my early favourites changed to very unlikable. I cringed as people I'd felt sorry for transformed into smug and arrogant wretches who I wanted off my screen as soon as possible.

And that's the strength of the show even 17 seasons in: you get to see people at their worst and it's often not very pretty.

So strap yourself in, enjoy the usual infighting, bickering, name-calling and bitching. And stay for the whole ride - the jury confrontation contains one of the bitchiest things ever said on Survivor.


Survivor Gabon will screen on Channel 9... well god knows when. It's been over for months in the US and the network has shown no love for the show or respect for the fans.

Don't worry Kurt - it's not emasculating if it has time-travel and/or body swapping in it. Those are well and truly sci-fi guy things.

I have to say I was pleasantly surprised by this offering. I admittedly have a soft spot for the aforementioned time-travel/body swap flicks, but this one actually displayed a little bit of thought and depth.

Sure it's not Tolstoy but it was far better than the average of this genre. Quite simply it was fun, entertaining, gave us insight into not only differences between the generations but from relationship perspectives without taking sides or getting preachy.

The characters were likable and in fact Ned - the best friend - almost steals the show with uber-geeky references that will resonate with anyone who has ever loved Star Wars, Lord Of The Rings or anything nerdy.

Is it predictable? Yeah. Is it fun? Yes. Will you laugh? You should do.

The only other observation isn't really related to the film but you have to wonder if Zac Efron can make a movie without a basketball in it? Surely he and his manager have to be worried about him being typecast. Yes he has impressive skills both with the ball and his dancing feet but surely he runs the risk of being a one-trick pony if they're not careful.

Okay so it's a little old but it's still playing in NZ cinemas where I saw it last week.

And I wish I'd seen this movie sooner.

When it hit Oz I was a bit underwhelmed by the trailer. Woody Allen can be a bit hit and miss and I don't like Penelope Cruz so not even Scarlett Johansson could entice me along.

However it turned out to be a thoughtful and entertaining piece.

Ostensibly about two female friends going on a summer adventure to Barcelona, the movie explores much deeper themes as we watch as Vicky and Cristina encounter Javier, a charismatic artist.

His very forward - an highly entertaining - "come on" sees them both end up harbouring longings for him.

But is he an experienced lothario spinning a line or is he simply being honest albeit a little bluntly?

In fact the entire movie is about honesty not only with ourselves but with other people. Relationships, sexuality, wants... all thrown onto the honesty canvas with some found wanting and some willing to embrace it. All with different results.

It's a fascinating piece with genuinally interesting and very human characters and while some of the concepts explored will not be everyone's cup of tea, it's a movie that should inspire some thought.

A quality script with human characters and a bit of titillation, this is highly recommended for people who enjoy intelligent films.

The problem facing a movie director when he is presented with a project based on a comic or graphic novel is in deciding whom to keep happy. Does he go for public acclaim (and box office success)? Or does he try to placate the rabid and obsessive horde of geek-boys?

After all, the comic nerds are sure to pore over every choice, scene and line but they are a guaranteed market. They’re already converted and, considering their tendency to become obsessive, will possibly represent a ready-made break-even point.

But does that give you the right to ignore the average movie-goer?

This is the geek review. You can also check out the non-geek review

As one of the aforementioned comic geeks, I’d already read Watchmen which has been called one of the greatest graphic novels of all time. While I don’t think it’s fully deserving of that particular accolade it is a very good read.

It uses flashbacks excessively but weaves a complicated and interesting alternate history of America in its Cold War period.

But would the flashbacks confuse an audience unused to this level of chronological disorder? And what about the non-US market unfamiliar with a few of the important historical and legal changes?

Zack Snyder has the runs on the board with his previous adaptations. Not only did he risk the wrath of geeks by remaking Dawn Of The Dead but he delivered an awesome rendition of Frank Miller’s 300 to the big screen.

So when he was presented with the story of an America paranoid about the Soviet Union and differences having made superheroes illegal, you just knew he was going to make it a visual feast.

And he delivers as we watch a hero be murdered, his death investigated by another hero which involves interaction with other heroes and countless flashbacks to explain their motives and origins.

Stunning fight scenes that capture not only the brutality but also the power of the respective heroes, are interlaced throughout this storyline. And while the medium of graphic novel allows for the depth to tell the full story, the celluloid version struggles on a couple of levels.

The story is too complex so many small things had to be cut, some of which are merciful (screw the missing pirate sequence and the comic reader is interesting but nowhere near necessary) but some of the smaller things would have improved the storyline for the non-geeks in the audience.

It may be nitpicky but a brief scene – or even a line or two – to explain Dr Manhattan’s nudity (it was a gradual thing as he grew apart from humanity and abandoned social conventions) would have added to the story and would have highlighted the true tragedy of Manhattan’s position in the world.

And does the average international citizen understand the implications of Nixon being elected for a third term (a legal impossibility and a heavy social turning point for America in the real world)?

But then maybe the average Joe will get caught up in the amazing characterisations of the heroes. Maybe the fact that even the unlikable characters have strong backgrounds and interesting stories will keep people glued to the screen.

In fact Snyder even managed to improve on a few of the characters from the novel (and not just their much-better costumes).

But despite that it couldn’t quite keep ME glued to the screen. I struggled a bit with the length of the movie and I know and like the story.

The biggest failing is that it has far too many flashbacks and is excessively disjointed chronologically. Keeping true to the source material is important but changing the order slightly would have made this story far more accessible to the general public.

As it is, the failure of Snyder and his team to restructure the story for the big picture’s sake will probably cost him at the box office. The non-geek friends who have seen the movie ALL commented on how hard it was to keep track of what year it was and the relevance of many occurrences.

Something nearly everyone agreed on however is the awesome soundtrack. Very 80s, very cool and, in some cases, very subtle. At one point the world’s smartest man is lecturing the captains of industry and capitalism on business practices while in the background a muzak version of 'Everybody Wants To Rule The World' plays. Nice.

Overall we had excellent acting, fantastic fight scenes (excessive slow motion usage aside), great characters, good effects all in a slightly mish-mashed package.

Average people will struggle with it while the geeks will like it (and bitch about small things nonetheless).