Fans of Robert Englund's Freddy Krueger will get the opportunity to embrace the original Nightmare on elm street this Halloween. Coming to UK cinemas (no word regarding us Irish), A Nightmare on Elm street (1984) will re-emerge to celebrate both the creepiest night of the year, as well as the movie being regarded as one of the best horror movies to date.
Fans of the horror genre were left bitterly disappointed in what was quiet an obvious, yet bluntly dissatisfying remake that saw Jackie Earl Ray play the scarred child slasher in the remake of 2010. While I for one saw it as nothing other than entertaining, the majority of fans will want to quickly forget the attempted re-creation directed by Samuel Bayer.
For one night only, on October 31, Wes Craven's A Nightmare on Elm Street will darken cinemas with ultimate frightfulness in order to give audience a satisfying scare, something that is very rare in modern horror.
A new HD trailer is available to support the release, in which you can see over on Empire. In the meantime, check out one of the many iconic scenes involved with this horror classic.
This is a follow up to the article covered by fellow entertainment writer Paul Saunders of The Journalist.ie.
Okay, let's start by saying that if this was Spiderman, Superman or any other "superhero" of that kind, we would have been so bored by now! You can't browse the internet without bumping into a nerds perspective of why Ben Affleck's appointment is a terrible idea, or, if you click the right button you just might be convinced by someone else on how the vision of Affleck in the bat suit is not a total disaster.
Warner Bros. have accomplished a divide in Batman fans with immediate effect. Believe in me when I tell you, your opinion will not change their decision, and John Roden's opposed petition will do no such damage either.
Before I give my own opinion of why Ben Affleck as Batman could work, let's look at what John Roden is saying to us on Change.org ;"His acting skill is not even close to being believable as Bruce Wayne and he won't do the role justice. He's not intimidating enough for the role of Batman. Batman is someone that strikes fear in the hearts of men. His portrayal of Daredevil was atrocious and he's not remotely close to an action star or a superhero. Please find someone else and deliver to the fans what they want".
There is only a certain amount of times the average Batman fan can use Affleck's performance in Daredevil (2003) as an excuse to rid him of future comic book movie opportunities. While Daredevil was mediocre, it was not all Ben Afflecks fault, after all the guy is an actor. He gets paid to do what he is told. Those who remember the movie will give it credit for its fighting choreography at least, no? Bare in mind if there was a flaw in Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy it was the awful fighting choreography. Batman moved like a stiff gargoyle. Hardly a movie comparison but it wasn't all strawberries and cream when it came down to analysing Nolan's take and the Dark Knight Rises also has enough "croaks" to fill a nerd's blog.
Going back to Daredevil, where Ben Affleck played a kick ass blind super hero with a demented past. And while it may not have been the movie fans wanted, Ben Affleck was the best thing about it. Looking at movies such as Changing Lanes (2002), The Town (2010) and Argo (2012), can he act? Come on, of course he can. Didn't he strike "fear into the hearts of men" in The Town? He delivered two great performances in Changing Lanes and Argo also. If fans are shedding any doubt over his acting credentials, watch the above films.
Adapting to the "dark knight" if you like, may prove challenging, but he isn't inheriting Christian Bale's Gothic voice (thank god). As we know, he will play an older Batman in order to reference the apparent "epic" collision between himself and Superman. However that vision could change.
Would he have been my first choice? No. But even now I can't tell you who would have been. But what I can say is it would not have been Christian Bale. Talks of Bale being offered 50 Million to return appeared extremely false over time. Christian Bale is a man who knows what's right for this franchise and by him not returning is a great stance from the Welshman. Warner Bros. are clearly aiming for something a bit more "light" but with a touch of grit also. If fans of Nolan's trilogy really think Warner Bros are out to destroy the pattern left by Bale they would be extremely gullible. You would like to think that Nolan and co have had a strong input in granting Affleck the opportunity. That is what I believe, and that is what will keep my mind at rest.
Ben Affleck has the build and the inter changeable personality to pull off both Bruce Wayne and Batman. Forget Jersey Girl (2004), the man starred in Hollywoodland (2006), State of Play (2009), both serious enough and quite believable roles that have gone on to place him as the next Batman. It's a new era for both Superman and Batman movies and one might have to get used to the possibility of Ben Affleck playing Batman beyond the Man of Steel sequel. Out with the old and in with the new. As a huge Batman fan (I even like Batman Forever), it would only slightly damage my love for the character if Affleck was to have a "stinker", but then again, I just have to remind myself that it could have been George Clooney...oh wait!
Genre: Action/Comedy Director: Baltasar Kormakur Starring: Denzel Washington, Mark Wahlberg, Paula Patton & Bill Paxton. Running: 109 Mins Buddy cop movies signified 1980/90 action flicks with Eddie Murphy and Nick Nolte's 48hrs, Tango and Cash and Beverly Hills Cop to name a few. While modern Hollywood tends to be more ambitious with dramatic tales featuring pretentious dialogue, a movie such as 2 Guns could be potentially overlooked by so-called movie connoisseurs as Ryan Gosling parades the fans with his good looks and facial expressions in Only God Forgives, and Johnny Depp and Tim Burton try to squeeze endless money from the passive. If you look hard enough, Denzel Washington and Mark Whalberg can be seen in the background advertising a simple movie that is well shot, ambitious and truthfully funny; it goes down as one of the most surprisingly entertaining flicks of the summer.
2 Guns is an explosive tale of two ambitious individuals who believe they are working for the right cause only to discover loose ends that could spell the end of their careers. It was important to pair the right actors to create the necessary chemistry and that is well advertised in the opening scene as Robert "Bobby" (Denzel Washington) and Michael "Stig" (Mark Wahlberg) are in a restaurant which conveniently sits next to a bank. The story flashes back to show us the initial plan, played out by Stig. What they both know is their friendship is fake as both Bobby and Stig are working to rob the bank for different associates; Bobby is an undercover DEA agent and Stig is a Naval intelligence officer. It's the vanity in both characters that gets them into trouble following the robbery as Bobby's alliance as well as Stigs', betray the supposed plan leaving both men blackmailed and head hunted by Earl (Bill Paxton) who is determined to retrieve his money in the bloodiest and funniest ways possible.
The result of the bank robbery sees Stig sitting on 43 million with nobody to turn to. Bobby is also left out in the dirt as he is destined to investigate the motive behind his agencies portrayal; all while dodging bullets from the Mexican Cartel, the Navy and of course, Earl and his cohorts.
If 2 Guns sounds messy, it is, but all in good fashion as it supplies an endless amount of funny characters and die hard murderers. The movie focuses on two concepts; a survival premise as 2 Guns is blended with numerous "bad guys". On the other hand, its a fantastic reference to 80s and 90s "Buddy" action flicks, as Bobby and Stig come to realise the daunting task of having to work together in order to survive this mess and that's where director Baltasar Kormakur introduces a comedic ingredient that advertises great chemistry and wit about each of our protagonists.
2 Guns is the first movie to showcase Denzel Washington's humorous side. Okay, he has a certain amount of "swag" in almost all of his movies that can make him funny anyway, but he is full on this time around and bounces off Mark Walhberg's character so smoothly, you would think these two were raised in the same home!
This movie isn't trying to be perfect, with the introduction of Bill Paxton transforming it into a right cheese-fest at times, but that premise is recognisable from the off. Bill Paxton's Earl is a vicious character, playing a villainous Governor of California (Terminator free) to the extreme. While 2 Guns is explosive and funny, a movie like this can't fulfil it's buddy cop premise without an exotic female intervention that uses the clichéd fall out of two apparent friends and Paula Patton as Deb does just that.
Overall, director Baltasar Kormakur did a great job in constructing some great action scenes with dialogue of serious and humorous. While we know of Mark Walhberg's comedic side from Seth McFarlen's "Ted", nobody could have predicted the chemistry between Mark and Denzel would work so well.
It is almost impossible to start off this review without
mentioning two things; Nicholas Winding Refn’s cinematic impact, captivating
audience global with “Drive” (2009), and of course the continuity of Ryan
Gosling’s on-screen success. So of course fans were looking forward to what the
two can come up with next in Only God Forgives; a game of who blinks first, who
can create the most tension using strictly facial expressions, in fact Refn’s
latest vision is so overly pretentious, you just wonder if his ambition to
match that of Drive led to sleepless nights, resulting in a very average movie.
Based
in the slums of Bangkok, prostitutes and drugs are extremely rife and Julian’s
Thai boxing club is at the centre of it all. The club is a smokescreen to hide
a family run drug operation in which Julian (Ryan Gosling) runs alongside his
brother Billy (Tom Burke). We are not forced to indulge in Billy’s psychotic
persona for too long as he is hacked to pieces in a brothel. The savage murder
sees the involvement of Julian’s mother Crystal (Kristin Scott Thomas) whose
deranged character has clearly rubbed off Julian, resulting in a Norman Bates
style relationship
The
Bangkok area is patrolled, tortured and extremely feared by the corrupt Chan
(Vithaya Pansringarm); a sergeant of the police who murders his victims in a
ferocious way.
On
one hand we have Crystal who seeks revenge for her son’s death, and then we
have Julian who continues to mourn in the creepiest ways possible as he slowly
patrols the darkly red corridors of a brothel, aimlessly looking at the walls.
Julian spends his nights fantasising about sexual affection, and drifting in
and out of the possibility of a showdown with the murderous Chang.
As
expected, Refn hits us with a retro themed sound bite that was so significant
in Drive. However, while the stage is set in the gritty visuals of Bangkok,
Only God forgives fails to provide an efficient story to back up the design.
While the plot is supposed to focus on vengeance, the lack of dialogue from the
apparent protagonist (Gosling) is surprising as the director goes on to
exaggerate his “knack” of creating tension with facial expressions in every
scene. And while Julian and Chang do this very well when they match up, the
Dracula style piano tune and the consistent thump of a loud drum really creates
the atmospheric tempo as its consistent noise becomes a substitute for any
potential dialogue.
The
movie survives on small talk, strange looks, slow-motion and unnecessary
violence. While Refn expressed his grotesque side in Drive previously, he also
had characters to back it up. Sure, we can look at Gosling’s on-screen presence
all day but the man lacked any soul this time around. Same goes for the small
cast involved who spent most of the time advertising stand-stills.
The Concept of the movie is recognisable coming from Refn's point of view. It is visually satisfying with the sound similar to that of Drive. The "artsy fartsy" clan may claim to acknowledge a sense of enjoyment from Refn's latest but what seemed obvious to me was that Only God Forgives sounds great, it looks pretty slick and while some sequences may be entertainingly weird, it is very far from wonderful.
Genre: Action/Adventure Director: James Mangold Starring: Hugh Jackman, Tao Okamoto, Rila Fukushima, Running: 129 Mins
If there is one thing we can all agree on in terms of X Men's prolific Wolverine character, is that Hugh Jackman enjoys the hell out playing him. And while X Men: The last stand (2006), along with Wolverine (2009) have been pretty much steam rolled and crapped on by not only comic book fans but movie buffs as a whole. Hugh is undoubtedly adamant in providing cinema-goers with a longer lasting taste in their mouth this time around, and that taste doesn't necessarily have to be a bitter one. The Wolverine is a more in depth focus on Logan's struggle to overcome the fact that he has and will more than likely continue to struggle with his mutant ability. Following the events of The last stand, Logan is located out in the cold (literally) as his wolverine skills are put to good use as his choice of a nomadic lifestyle results in a homeless rugged wolverine. His dark days are spent suffering with regrettable nightmares relating to Jean Grey (Famke Janssen). Logan is hunted down as the great "Wolverine" by Yukio (Rila Fukushima) and invited to Japan where he will be tested of his true desire with Yashida (Hal Yamanouchi) offering him the chance of immortality. It is the event of that meeting that leads Wolverine into a physical battle of emotion and choices as Logan is caught up in an internal war, as Yashida's niece (Tao Okamoto) is targeted by the sleazy Viper (Svetlana Khodchenkova) and her cohorts.
Logan is attacked from all angles as he begins to realise that the Viper is after much more than Yashida's niece, leading him into the fight of his life even if it means losing a lot of blood. Wolverine embarks on an exciting warpath, one that involves less exaggeration (Helicopter battles free) and some straight up gut wrenching!
Directed by James Mangold (Walk the Line), The Wolverine is an explosive adventure when it needs to be, adding a touch of drama when it mattered. Hugh Jackman's Wolverine is far more engaging this time around, as you follow him from the events in Japan, to the cold woods right through to his battle with immortality, you pity the Wolverine at times, particularly in his struggle to let go of his true love that was Jean Grey (X.Men).
The staging premise in Japan is a wonderful set, giving off quite a comic book feel with a dark twist. While the overall cast is not much to brag about, the chemistry between Jackman and Rila Fukushima is very surprising as you will find yourself rooting for Rila's kick ass character just as much as Wolverine.
The Wolverine stages some satisfying action scenes such as the scrap on the bullet train, and while it is probably the most far-fetched scene in the entire movie, you understand the concept and quickly adapt to the vision of Mangold which ultimately leads to a showdown of many battles. Numerous villains such as The Viper, Shingen, Noburo (excluding the abundance of cohorts) is one flaw of the movie as it appears messy at times and quite direction-less as there is no official focus on a particular villain which can lead to you completely forgetting who you should fear until they get screen time. The Viper is probably the worst villain played in any Marvel movie so far. Maybe it was the actor or the writer's job, but she was plain and simply crap, dull, characterless and just down right careless. She reminded me of Uma Thurman's poison Ivy performance; poor and downright irrelevant. The Viper is noticeably filled in to add a touch of dangerous femininity which turns out to be boring!
We could talk of the bullshit romance that unexpectedly develops for Logan, but let's not be too harsh; with great cinema comes great stupidity, and the wolverine, make no mistake, throws in some stupidity but nowhere near the car crash that was X.Men Origins.
The Wolverine is really enjoyable, with Hugh Jackman's admiration for the character shining brighter than ever. Whether this will lead to another X.Men flick time will tell, but if it was a choice between another "tired" Patrick Stewart X.Men, or an official Wolverine sequel, a Wolverine sequel would probably come off better.
Overall: A great action flick under a well designed premise, and while the villains could have had more character, it is still highly entertaining.
Genre: Comedy Director: Evan Goldberg & Seth Rogen Starring: James Franco, Seth Rogan, Craig Robinson, Jay Baruchel & Jonah Hill Running: 107 Mins
A gathering of "stoners" and every Seth Rogen cohort you can think of, turn up for James Franco's house warming. Sounds like a lot of fun, especially if you are actually friends with these guys. But unfortunately, a seat in a dark room with a big ass screen is as close as we are going to get to witnessing the adventure of six of the funniest guys in Hollywood (at the moment); Jonah Hill, Seth Rogen, James Franco, Craig Robinson, Danny McBride and Jay Baruchel.
Seth Rogen plans a weekend of consistent weed smoking and 3D television with Jay Baruchel. Much to Jay's disappointment, a the change of plan results in the attendance of James Franco's house warming party featuring a bunch of Hollywood comedic personalities; an atmosphere that Jay would have liked to avoid. However Jay isn't forced to endure the vanity of Jonah Hill for too long as an apparent Earth Quake ruptures the centre of Hollywood, opening up the ground and swallowing many victims (most of the party actually). A group of six are barricaded in Franco's house with very little food and not much patience, resulting in the hilarious circumstance that showcases the witty humour and the chemistry involved with each actor. This is the end depends on the bond that each personality share with each other in the real world, carrying that over, resulting in an effortless movie that comes across extremely well rounded, even if it does become stupidly far-fetched toward the end.
If you enjoyed "Superbad" (2008) and "Knocked up" (2007), you will love this. If you don't enjoy crude humour and you are not one for recognising a bunch of movie references when you hear them, well then you will struggle to engage and I for one, pity you. This is the end survives on crude dialogue and a lot of references relating to the career of each actor and movies in general. As seen in Superbad and Knocked up, the cast are serious movie fans, with a premise that sets out to both mock and praise Hollywood movies. This is the end is very similar; but original due to the casts official identity, slagging their own personal experiences in Hollywood, regretting some of their own flicks which makes for great comedy.
If you include cameo's such as Michael Cera, Emma Watson and many more, the overall cast is huge and gives you so much more than the trailer shows us (which is rare might I add). However, the star of the show is James Franco who, following on from his role in Pineapple Express continues to show his comedic side. James Franco is simply hilarious, and partly out shines the "true" comedians if you like.
This is the end is by no means consistently funny, with the last 20 minutes appearing extremely nuts and a bit silly. But we forget these guys are constantly "high", once again going with a "dizzy stoner" premise that worked so well in Pineapple Express and Knocked Up. You will find scenes being noticeably set up for the next. And while Jay Baruchul and Craig Robinson get themselves into some funny situations, it is the back to back bickering from each individual that really makes this movie memorable.
This is the end is no "Superbad" which is not too unfortunate as it succeeds in trying so desperately to move on, however fans of Seth Rogen and co will have such a good time with this one.
Overall: Great cast - Far-fetched - Not consistently funny - but, when it's funny...it's hilarious
7.5/10
See it if you liked: Superbad, Knocked up and Pineapple Express.
Starring: Henry Cavill, Michael Shannon, Amy Adams & Russell Crow
Running: 140 Mins
Reviews have already trembled the average die hard superman fan with claims that Zack Snyder, David S.Goyer and Chris Nolan have ran with a dark and gritty direction based on the cloaked superhero; much to the pleasure of those who worshiped the reconstruction of Batman over the years of 2005-2012. But not to worry, while there is certainly a much needed revamp in Man of Steel, and with much discolor to what fans are used to seeing, Zack Snyder has created an acceptable origin of Superman, mixed with drama and fantastic CGI - however the lack of character development is a major flaw.
Abandoned at birth, Clark (Henry Cavill) begins a journey into the abyss to discover the truth behind his extraordinary powers; one that grants him freakish strength, sensitive hearing and distant vision. Clark is constantly reminded of the importance of his existence by his adopted father Jonathan (Kevin Costner), who urges Clark to discover his origin; one that reveals a historic past of both his biological father (Russell Crow) and his nemesis - Zod (Micheal Shannon).
Graced with extraterrestrial superpowers, Clark discovers the reason that has led him Earth-bound in the first place; to symbolise hope and to protect mankind from potential danger. In this case, Zod is en-route to capture Clark who holds the key to rebuilding the dead planet of Krypton - a treacherous plan that Clark is destined to fight against. Journalist Lois Lane (Amy Adams) is adamant to get involved, with the possibility of life on another planet being too difficult to ignore. Her obsession with the man of steel leads her into a dangerous game involving heavy forces from both Earth and Krypton.
The opening twenty minutes of Man of Steel is truly fantastic as you are given a great insight into the planet of Krypton; which also includes a tasteful, and somewhat tearful introduction to Russell Crow's Jor-El. Immediately action packed from the off as you sense the involvement from both Zack Snyder and Nolan straight away, giving the extraordinary CGI and the dramatic exchange of dialogue from Clark's biological parents. The same can not be said for the rest of the movie, as Clark's story is transformed to his place on Earth, offering a different movie entirely with the teenage Clark consuming more dialogue than Henry Cavill himself. The wonderful sounds of planet Krypton is immediately back dropped to the quiet city of Kansas, revealing quite a dull premise, that is until Clark advertises his skills in scenes that are well shot, but seem forced and extremely rushed at times.
Henry Cavill's "Superman" is strangely quiet and while this may be part of the humble persona we see in the originals, the man hardly has a word to say. This may go unnoticed, with scenes of him shooting through the sky, the frenetic fight scenes leading to the occasional passionate roar of determination pushing you to the edge of your seat - man of steel is visually stunning. The famous battle scenes between Zod and "Superman" will be the reason you will remember this revamp.
The overall cast is noticeably tasteful but its lack of character development is disappointing, including the man himself. Unnecessary scenes involving Laurence Fishburne and co result in you failing to engage with the on-screen presence of Clark and Lois. It should have been lustful but it wasn't. We know the history of these two and what is to come, but a sudden love for one another is highly unbelievable, yet Man of Steel tries to force that upon you - resulting in an unsympathetic relationship. Kevin Costner is involved in one of two dramatic scenes in the entire movie; the rest is consistently action packed which may surprise some due to the nervousness surrounding both Nolan and Goyer's adoration for darkness. Man of Steel is more along the lines of "The Avengers" than "The Dark Knight", yet a lot more watchable than the "Ironman" series and is successful in terms of it being a DC movie that isn't too comic book, but the inclusion of general Zod adds a "cartoonish" tone that some fans may look out for.
While Superman fans may be quick to distinguish the pros and cons of the modern approach alongside Richard Donner's Superman (1978), we must recognize that complaining about its dull modern approach is not good enough. Man of Steel tries to introduce a dramatic tale of a character that has ultimately failed to make an impact since the original release in 1978. In order for a Justice League movie to work we need to let Henry Cavill flourish as Superman, and to do that he needs to keep in line with modern anti comic book approach that Batman has had so much success with. This ain't Marvel, we have Captain America and Ironman to laugh at, and while those movies are hilariously entertaining, most of them are not worth remembering.
The fans have called for a Superman revamp and got one in Man of Steel. The inclusion of Nolan and co appears exaggerated, creating an unnecessary worry among DC maniacs, however those in their bedroom will look forward to nit-picking at minor problems. The story is what you know, and the cast is pretty basic. Man of Steel is not brilliant. The stunning visuals are often supported and some what distracted by the loudness of the over the top battles between Superman and Zod. The last 20 minutes of this movie is so uncanny and relentlessly dragged out, the divide in fans opinion is obvious. Nevertheless, while I was hoping to avoid labelling it a pure "popcorn movie", it is nothing less. Henry Cavill fit the suit, but the lack of characterisation made me think that almost anyone could have played the role of Clark (Kal-El).
Overall: While it should still satisfy the average cinema-goer, Superman fans will expect a better outcome in terms of character development if a sequel should come about.
