Thorin Oakenshield and Lori Grimes face a deadly threat, in Steven Quale's entertaining, yet problematic, "Into The Storm".

"Into The Storm" (12A)
Directed by: Steven Quale.
Starring: Richard Armitage, Sarah Wayne Callies, Matt Walsh, Arlen Escarpeta.
Rated: 12A for containing sustained, moderate threat.
Running time: 89 minutes.
Out in UK cinemas from the 20th of August. 

Do we really need another disaster movie? We've had "Twister", "The Day After Tomorrow" and "Sharknado". Surely storms have been covered? Well, it seems as though they haven't as Steven Quale ("Final Destination 5") directs "Into the Storm", a film which follows Gary Fuller (Armitage) and his son Trey (Nathan Kress), as they fight for survival when their town of Silverton is targeted by an unparralled group of cyclones and twisters. In a bid to save his other son (Donnie, played by Max Deacon) who has been trapped under tonnes of wreckage, Gary teams up with a group of meteorologists/storm chasers, led by the over-zealous Pete (Walsh), and including Allison Stone (Wayne-Callies), as they move ever closer into the eye of the storm.

Blockbuster season is nearly over. In less than two weeks, September will rear its head and Oscar/Academy Award hopefuls will be spewing onto our screens. However, there’s still time to catch mindless nonsense, as “Into the Storm” is exactly what I expected; blockbuster fun without the brains. But, when you set out to watch a disaster film, the audience aren’t there for its well written script, they’re watching it for its visuals and that is all. Make no mistake, the special effects are dazzling and that is the film’s strong point, but what else does it have to offer? 

Well, it has nothing else to offer. The film’s script is unbelievably ponderous, filled with ridiculously weak characters and even crazier logic, which appeals to those of the found-footage generation. When it attempts to become intelligent the film literally falls apart, with many characters spewing seemingly intelligent lines of dialogue, in the hope of retaining some integrity. Yet, it doesn’t work. There’s even a sequence in which Callie’s character realises that the storms will continue to spread, giving examples of major American cities and somehow including London amongst the list. The film begins as a B-Movie and commendably attempts to better itself throughout the screenplay, but it fails to reach its high ambitions.

The film’s cast are undoubtedly talented, yet it’s the script which holds them back. Armitage’s character is unbelievably clichéd; still the actor tries his hardest to provide a decent performance and succeeds. Callies’ part is also under-written, but she makes the best of her situation and works well alongside Armitage. However, it’s Walsh who manages to entertain the most, as the comedian acts in an often hilarious role, but manages to contribute a sufficient performance.

Despite being filmed as a normal film would, a large portion of the film is also shot using hand-held cameras in order to create a real feeling of suspense, which in turn, works considerably well. This is especially evident in many of the sequences containing the most OTT of effects shots, but I’m not complaining. This is in fact an interesting addition in the long line of disaster films.  Apart from CG being the film’s high point, Brian Tyler’s score is also something which is worthy of mention; Tyler has produced a taught and tense soundtrack which fits well amongst the explosions and dramatic sequences. 

Verdict

Despite its inadequate script and uninteresting characters, Quale’s thriller is saved by exquisite special effects and stunts, leaving destruction-hungry fans satisfied, yet critics ravenous for a blockbuster of a superior quality.

5.5 Stars out of 10

Written by Scott Gentry.

Film Rating Key

1-2 stars out of ten = Awful.

3-4 stars out of ten = Average.

5-6 stars out of ten = Good.

7-8 stars out of ten = Excellent.

9-10 stars out of ten = Amazing.

Inbetweeners 2 doesn't go down under: Second installment does not fail to entertain!

Written by Jon Petre

Off the success of their last movie, it seemed only natural, if somewhat...tawdry for the boys to return to the screens with The Inbetweeners 2. When I first heard about this second installment, I, along with many others, was quite concerned that they wouldn't be able to replicate the same success as they did back in 2011. It's a bit crass, but I like the show, and I'd be sad to see it go to pot just because they wanted to make more money. As is often the case with this sort of thing, I was happily wrong.

Will's face says it better than I ever could.

Inbetweeners 2 is set a year or two later from the first installment, and the boys have lost contact with each other after going off to different universities (or, in the case of Jay and Neil, simply falling out of contact). Will's met up with Simon and Neil, and they decide to go down under to Australia, where Jay's on a "mental gap year". However, Jay may have been a bit generous on the truth, as usual, and their journey might have more to do with a certain unrequited love than a blowie a day.

Inbetweeners 2 did not disappoint me. One of the things I really liked about the first Inbetweeners movie was that all four of the characters had their own sub-stories--quite common in TV and film, I know, but here it seems that they're really unrelated, like they're actually four different stories rather than one big one. By the end of the film, all of the loose ends are tied up, with hilarious results. It seems that the writers really haven't lost their touch, and they really did have more to do with their characters, rather than they were flogging a dead horse. No, there was a lot more fresh material to be done with the Inbetweeners, and while I don't think it will stretch to a third film, it was bundled nicely into this sequel.

This...looks like it's from a dream sequence.

The acting was solid, as was the whole "bit" about the backpacking community. Your four heroes will do battle with hipsters, girls who kiss everyone on the lips (or do they??), a rape alarm in a hostel and a misadventure involving greedy little dolphins and a poo. There could've been more actually Australian stuff, but as someone who has neither lived in or been to Australia, I could be more accurate than I think. Either way, I enjoyed it, and there was enough of the whole backpacking dickhead culture to cancel that out. It wasn't lacking for plot, setting or exposition, which we find all to often these days. It's a nice round-off for fans of the series, with, I'll admit, room for a sequel, though to actually make it would probably be a big mistake. Still, very funny and enjoyable, easy watching--nothing that'll inspire a cult following, nor will it be the film of the year, but extremely funny and very watchable. And when Will takes on the backpackers. (As well as the meaning of the word "spiritual") it was wickedly funny. I almost wanted to clap, but Romford on a Tuesday night, when school's out for the summer...best not for people like us to draw attention to ourselves.

As I say, nothing high-brow or award winning, but that doesn't mean it's awful. Crass, easy viewing--just like the TV show, really. At times surprisingly emotional, as well, which is all the more credit to both the actors and the writers, Damon Beesly and Iain Morris.

4/5

Occasionally enjoyable, but overly unimpressive; Stallone and the team's third outing shows promise, but fails to deliver. Scott Gentry reviews "The Expendables 3".

"The Expendables 3" (12A)
Directed by: Patrick Hughes.
Starring: Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham, Antonio Banderas, Jet Li, Wesley Snipes, Dolph Lundgren and Mel Gibson.  
Rated: 12A for containing frequent moderate action violence and infrequent strong language.
Running time: 126 minutes.
Released in UK cinemas from the 14^th of August, 2014.

Many will remember infamous 80’s classics such as "Predator" and "Rambo: First Blood" (these were childhood favourites of mine!) and will reminisce over their ability to entertain through exciting action, despite intolerable acting. Through thick and thin, we've always had a soft spot for our 80’s film icons, but here in the third installment of a dying franchise, this capable cast are condemned in a lacklustre sequel that isn't as entertaining, bloody or chaotic as it should be.

This cretinous chapter follows Barney (Stallone, he must have a speech impediment, surely?) and his team (Lundgren, Crews, Couture, they're all here!) as they begin to realise that this band of merry men may be a little old for their career as mercenaries, which is quickly becoming a young man's game. Upon embarking on a mission given to them by the mysterious CIA agent, Max Drummer (Ford), the operation turns deadly as the team are ambushed by an old adversary, named Conrad Stonebanks (Gibson). The assignment leaves one man seriously injured and the group facing a dangerous threat. Soon the team are disbanded, with Barney vowing to return with a younger, stronger and computer-literate team, in order to hunt down his foe at all costs.
 

It all sounds rather good in retrospect, but the truth of the matter is that the companies involved should never have let Stallone write the film's story, and co-write its script. When Stallone doesn't attempt to help out a film by lending his ‘talents’, they’re surprisingly entertaining; remember "Cop Land"? It was his defining moment in cinema, simply because he didn't touch the script. But Hughes has made a mistake, and like the original two films, Stallone's mark is all over this catastrophe of a film.

“The Expendables 3” would be passable in the long line of Friday night tripe, that may be found on Channel Five in a couple of years, but the film’s script fails miserably due to its inability to juggle drama and humour. There are bouts of tension and suspense between the original team, which is promising, but at the next possible moment, comedy ensues. Stallone and his screenwriters Creighton Rothenberger and Katrin Benedikt have improved slightly on the sequel’s shocking script, yet the unbearable dialogue remains. Saying that, the writers have toned down the jokes to a more tolerable level with the occasional quip that is surprisingly funny, especially when Snipe’s character is asked the reason for his imprisonment, to which he replies “tax evasion”.

The characters are particularly weak and this is due to the script, as it seems as though character development isn't the screenwriter’s forte, leaving many characters feeling like fillers, especially Jet Li, as he turns up for the last twenty minutes (or less) of the film. However, Bandera's character occasionally shines, as he provides a comical performance with the odd moment of sincerity. In regards to the new recruits, Stallone should have let them be. Kellan Lutz, Ronda Rousey and Victor Ortiz aren't used properly, and are given characters that are particularly thin. The trio can’t act well at all and they only contribute to making the film worse, through a worthless rivalry between the old team and the new. Perhaps in the future Mr Stallone, it’s not such a good idea to use certain UFC fighters as actors?

When the film couldn’t get any worse, it surprises its audience again with shocking CGI that should only be found in straight to DVD releases. The shots of helicopters, planes and falling buildings are atrocious and continue up until the last fight sequence. To make matters worse, the film has been toned down for a ‘12A’ rating, dropping the gore and bad language for a more family friendly approach. Quite honestly, it doesn't feel like this third chapter has captured the spirit of the originals, instead it seems to be more of an exercise in making large amounts of money.
 

Verdict

There are moments in which “The Expendables 3” works considerably well, but it isn't enough to entertain previous audiences or the new wave of fans they are hoping to gain. A fourth installment? No thanks.

4 Stars out of 10

Written by Scott Gentry.

Film Rating Key

1-2 stars out of ten = Awful.

3-4 stars out of ten = Average.

5-6 stars out of ten = Good.

7-8 stars out of ten = Excellent.

9-10 stars out of ten = Amazing.



First look: Johnny Depp stars in the new trailer for David Koepp's "Mortdecai.

 

Recently, Johnny Depp's charm has been running a little thin. The man who was once renowned for bringing a strange, yet hilarious charisma to many of his roles (just watch "Pirates Of The Caribbean" 1-4, you'll understand!) hasn't exactly been on form in the last year. Films such as "The Lone Ranger" (although it had it's high points) and "Transcendence" were major disappointments. Fortunately, it seems as though Depp may been on acting form once again, in the new trailer for David Koepp's "Mortdecai", co-starring Gwyneth Paltrow, Ewan McGregor and Jeff Goldblum.

Depp stars as the fiendish art-dealer and part time rogue, Charlie Mortdecai, who must travel the globe armed only with his good looks and special charm, in a bid to recover a stolen painting which is rumoured to contain the code of a lost bank account, filled with Nazi gold.

- Written by Scott Gentry.

Courtesy of Lionsgate, the new trailer is currently exclusive on Apple.com and can be found here, at this address: 
 

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/lions_gate/mortdecai/

 

 "Mortdecai" is released in UK cinemas from January the 30th, 2015.

 

 



 

 

 

 

More sexually choreographed than a Michael Bay film, "Step Up 5: All In" is a generic piece, which lacks heart. Written by Scott Gentry.

"Step Up 5: All In" (PG)
Directed by: Trish Sie.
Starring: Alyson Stoner, Briana Evigan, Ryan Guzman, Izabella Miko, Adam G. Sevani and Misha Gabriel Hamilton. 
Rated: PG for containing mild bad language, rude gestures and sex references.
Running time: 112 minutes. 
Out in UK cinemas from the 1st of August, 2014. 

To all the cineaste's out there, name a film which involves a story surrounding dance. The likelihood is that many of you will probably be thinking about "Billy Elliot" or “Saturday Night Fever”. In that case, good for you! But, most young teenagers of today's society would unfortunately mention films such as "Street Dance" (the Brit’s own tiresome contribution), and perhaps the critically condemned “Battle Of The Year”. Whatever happened to films like "Footloose"? It seems as though the drama and charisma has since been lost in contemporary dance films, having been replaced with street-wise scripts and intolerable characters, leaving most films with empty shells. 

The same goes for "Step Up 5: AI" (has there really been that many? Good grief!) as the seemingly greedy film companies behind this boring affair have decided to pick out one of their oldest franchises ("Step Up" films have been going strong, financially, since 2006) and wring the last few dollars from its worthless body, by upping the drama (OOH!), the suspense (OOH!) and... the sexual tension? 

You harlot. That dress is far too short and you know it! Briana Evigan and Ryan Guzman star in a still from "Step Up 5: All In". 

Well, whatever they've attempted to improve on, it's been wasted here. The script is as boring as you'd expect but there is a story here, yet it's extremely vague. Following the disbanding of Sean’s (Guzman) dance crew known as “The Mob”, he decides to stay in Los Angeles, as his friends return home to Miami. After learning of a dance competition in Las Vegas (wherein the winning group obtain a three year contract), Sean decides to create a new team with his fellow dancer and friend, Moose (G.Sevani). After training for some time, the group (now known as Lmmental) travel to Las Vegas in the hope of becoming international stars. 

As you'd expect, there's just constant squabbling from the lead actors, continuous sexual references and overly racist characters. It's just not entertaining. 

The film's not all bad, surely? Well dear readers, you may be right, as it seems it's saving grace can be found in the cast's dance skills. Flying about the screen (literally), this group of individuals have performed well in their routines, but it's a shame their acting talents aren't as refined.

Verdict

Overly sexual and irregularly entertaining, this fifth instalment only confirms that with their underwritten characters and cringe-worthy humour, the “Step Up” films are only becoming worse. After all, there’s been five “Step Up” films, yet still no sequel to “Dredd”. What is the world coming to?  

3 Stars out of 10

Written by Scott Gentry.

Film Rating Key

1-2 stars out of ten = Awful.

3-4 stars out of ten = Average.

5-6 stars out of ten = Good.

7-8 stars out of ten = Excellent.

9-10 stars out of ten = Amazing.

Ain't no franchise high enough: Guardians of the Galaxy surpasses expectations

by Jon Petre

Guardians of the Galaxy is sort of the Wes Anderson of the Marvel universe; that quirky yet fun little sideliner

Even the poster screams A New Hope!

that we all enjoy, but nobody expects much from. When Marvel decided to produce the film, I'll admit that I didn't really know what to think. Judging by their track record, this could've been anything--just look at the difference between Avengers Assemble and Thor: The Dark World for example. But I'm pleased to say that Guardians came out firmly on top this evening. The Guardians themselves rival the Avengers in terms of entertainment value, and they hands down beat them when it comes to all around awesomeness.

We start off on a somber note, with our main character Peter Quill (Chris Pratt) or Starlord at his mother's deathbed, after which he is abducted out of the blue...by blue aliens. That was in 1988, and if his Walkman is and mixtape are anything to go by he's been stuck in quite a laid-back, fun-loving past, which is the way Pratt portrays Quill throughout the film-- which, I have to say, is really pulled off well. Quill is thrown in with a group of alien misfits (yes, including a living tree played by Vin Diesel and a raccoon with the voice of Bradley Cooper) in a race to track down a mysterious orb, that is said to be the most powerful weapon in the galaxy.

What I loved about this film is that Gunn (our director) managed to make me fall in love with five characters straight away, without the need for a background movie for each of them. Unlike the Avengers, and some of those still sucked, not to mention their god awful sequels. No, there's a real bond with the characters, and it's all the more testament to Gunn that he managed that with just one film. Kudos. The best example is Groot, the tree man-- literally all that he says is "I am Groot" and I still think he's great. The characters are very easy to like and I feel that this would be a very easy watch. Quill is a better group leader than the Cap, by the way.

Guardians was 122 minutes of interesting dialouge and better action. I know I keep on comparing this to the Avengers, but that's the closest example I can think of. Whereas Avengers Assemble is a good hour of placid cinema and then an hour of the Greatest Action Sequences Money Can Buy,  Guardians manages to keep the action spread out over the whole film, I think by creating a more laid back atmosphere. It's easier to spread it out when there's less of an expectation, less of a quota of "unless we do x the world will be y'ed", more of a "let's do this...with 80's music".

Watch out, Avengers. We's a comin'.

In the same way, the world itself seemed cool. One of the biggest successes of, say, Star Wars, was that there was lots of background outside of the Jedi/Sith conflict--Mos Eisley Cantina, for example. Guardians had that, and in some ways the characters were just little people caught up in a big conflict. I like that, it's closer to real life.

My only qualm would be that Ronan, the baddie, was a bit faceless. But isn't that the way with these movies? I mean, look at Christopher Eccleston from Thor: The Dark World. What was his name again? Exactly. Ronan was a cut above that but the point still stands. However, if you notice, While Ronan wasn't so original, his presence still added to the Guardians themselves and developed their characters more fully. Think of him as like a catalyst for exposition and justification.

All in all, this is a solid five out of five. A good classic, that's well on its way to taking on the bigger boys and challenging the popularity contest. Oh, and stick around till the end. The after-credits scene will either make you laugh or cry. I cried.

5/5