Which is why Batman: Beyond, with its more teen based marketing campaign, came out at a time that made it far more relevant to me than any other show on. From this original sin, came a more sophisticated appreciation for the old animated series, and then came the movies, The Dark Knight etc. But more importantly soon came the first comic book I ever read. A little known piece of literature called “Batman: Year One”. For many this is the seminal Batman work, the comic book that defined Batman, written of course by none other than the great Frank Miller, who reinvented the character and comic books in general, with his more adult focused tone. Soon this lead to reading more Batman, and more, and more , until of course that leads us to now. Years after that first contact, that first comic book, that first look into the sick and twisted mind of The Caped Crusader himself… And It’s time to take a second glance at that same comic book, but this time, why not watch it? Why? The question these days doesn’t seemed to be, “Why adapt something that was perfectly made for one medium to another?” and more “Why not adapt something that was perfectly made for one medium to another?” So here we are, the DC Animated Feature, Batman: Year One.

The first thing I notice while watching is an annoying CGI Plane. Why does it need to be CGI? It’s a traditionally animated film from what I can see; there is no need to make the plane CGI. Am I supposed to think it’s real? I don’t know, I guess it doesn’t matter, anyway I hear the voice of Benjamin McKenzie, he’s okay I guess, the Batman voice he does is better than most I supposed, better than Christian Bale… As if that’s really saying much of anything. Although it a pretty good voice, it holds absolutely nothing on Kevin Conroy, which is unfair I guess, because Kevin Conroy is the be all end all of Batman and his voice, mastered it so perfectly… Oh I seem to be going off track… Anyway the next voice I hear makes me feel all soft inside. It is the voice of the always wonderful Bryan Cranston. He saves the entire film in my opinion, he is the only really great part about it, all of the other actors are pretty meh. Especially Eliza Dushku, who delivers a bland as all hell rendition of Selina Kyle, who becomes Catwoman, although I’m not sure why she’s even in the movie because she has no real plot, and instead is just strategically placed throughout the film as if to give off the impression that she’ll be important. Look, I know that that’s how it was written in the comic book and whatever that’s Frank Millers prerogative to do so. But you’re creating an adaptation of a comic book you are allowed to take some liberties, especially considering the 64 Minute runtime, I feel like there was more than enough time to flesh out the character.

This film, is certainly the best page for page adaptation of a comic book I have ever seen in my life, but that is also its biggest flaw, when you adapt something from one medium to another, you can’t just do it word for word, that is so lazy, now I get it with movies like Watchman and Sin City, that makes the films seem artistic and cool and all that, but when you’re doing it with an animated movie, it just comes off as bland and lazy, there are practically no colours, all of the framing is the same, I mean there’s even no music as if to make it feel more like reading a comic book. I mean why even animate it? Why not just drop all pretence and scan pages of the comic onto the computer and have Bryan Cranston read out all of the dialogue and narration? It just annoys me when stupid movie makers feel the need to succumb so easily to fan peer pressure, I mean do you really think fans were going to complain if you added an extra half an hour of story to the film? Maybe more actions sequences, I mean it’s not like you gave us any new ones, the one action sequence from the book that you did animate had already been copied frame for frame by another Batman film, I’m not sure, you may have heard of it… it’s called Batman Begins. I mean.. whatever, I don’t really have any more to say about this film. Except that it’s disappointing because I was looking forward to it and all I got was a 64 Minute motion comic with a tacked on voice acting cast (Except Bryan Cranston – I Love You Bryan Cranston! )

Bryan Cranston brings the movie to life with his portrayal of James Gordon

Owen Wilson, delivers a surprisingly good performance in this film, although as I’ve already expressed, he pretty much just plays Owen Wilson throughout the whole movie, that sort of earnest interest in the things people have to say, and an intense positivity radiating out of every sentence he gives, even within mostly depressing scenes. But whatever, when it works it works and here it very well seems to work. The supporting cast is where the movie really shines, Rachel McAdams plays Wilsons fiancé, and she for the most part plays the role fairly well. Her parents provide comic relief throughout the film and also in a way are sort of antagonists as well, but only in a minor way. There really are no antagonists in the film; it’s mostly just about Owen Wilson on a journey of self-discovery whilst wondering the streets of Paris at night.

The movie is filmed as if it were an ad to move to Paris, although the interesting thing about it is, although it captures the obvious beauty of the city of love, it also captures the modern day dirtiness that you never really tend to see with these postcard films, which is something that I admire. Woody Allen has always been a director who knew how the capture the essence of a city, and although he falls short of that here, I feel like it’s one of the best foreign interpretations of the city I’ve seen in my life. The music is also very nice, and very fitting for the plot; although there’s definitely a lot of that hijinks music playing throughout, it’s mostly kept to the background. If you don’t know what music I’m, talking about, watch any romantic comedy movie from the past ten years, skip to any scene where some sort of hijinks is ensuing and return…

You’re back? Good. Just in time for a summary. The film is not ground-breaking, in fact it is far from it, and it’s not even trying to be. The movie states its self at the resolution that the lesson learned is only a minor one, but a lesson none the less. The movie is one that is rife with fairly obvious symbolism, but I feel like that’s fine for a movie as original as this, it’s a message to all of the people who have been criticising Woody Allen for his recent work, the days of ‘Annie Hall’ are long and dead, it’s time to stop living in the past and find something you enjoy about the present, because before too long it’ll be gone.

Rating: Go Watch It

Midnight In Paris is rated PG for mild sexual references

What exactly does it take to make a sequel that is just as successful as the original? In the case of Hangover, apparently the answer is in defiant repetition. With a series like Harry Potter it is easy to create a successful movie sequel, because there’s already source material to draw from, already a successful sequel has been written in book form so it’s easy to copy that. I won’t go into how I would have done the Harry Potter movies different just to mess with people, because this is neither the time nor the place. It’s easy to make a successful sequel with a series like Terminator, which for some reason is the first to come to mind. Terminator 2: Judgement Day was easy to make because basically it was like “Hey we made Arnold the bad guy in the last one, let’s make him the good guy in this one” and the story came from that.

It is much harder to make a successful comedy sequel because everyone just wants the same thing; they get angry if it’s different. But on the other hand everyone’s expecting it to be unrecognisably different, and get angry if it’s the same. It’s an annoying paradox, so people get annoyed when Ghostbusters 2 basically repeats the plot from the first movie. People get annoyed when Evan Almighty takes it into an entirely different direction. So what’s the answer? How do we please everyone? The answer is simple, the same… but different. It has to be different… but familiar. This seems oxymoronic but really it makes a lot of sense. Now in the past, I’ve only ever seen two movies that are able to pull this off successfully. The first one is Harold & Kumar: Escape From Guantanamo Bay and the second one is Wayne’s World 2. Now I know what’re thinking; these movies weren’t exactly received so well critically, but for some reason I don’t think Margret & David or Roger Ebert are the best people we should go to for reviews on stoner comedies.

I’m only going to talk about one of these, and that one being Harold & Kumar: Escape From Guantanamo Bay. Harold & Kumar 1 had a simple plot; two stoners attempt to make their way across New Jersey in order to eat some burgers from White Castle. Along the way they ran into various obstacles, but eventually through the power of friendship they made it and ate some burgers. Now Harold & Kumar 2 manages to take that same formula but turn it on its side. Because this time, they aren’t trying to go somewhere in particular they’re trying to stay out of prison. Now again along the way they run into various obstacles and they learn some lessons. Now do you see what I mean the same but different? It’s the same formula but in a different way.

Now the real question here is; if Hangover: Part II managed to make it the same as the first movie, but different at the same time. Well certainly it’s got all the makings of being the same. Our protagonists Stu, Phil and Alan wake up in a hotel with no recollection of the night before and missing someone. They spend the majority of the movie trying to find this person, running into various obstacles. The movie is so similar in fact that it even has many of the same comedic beats. Similarities like something funny and permanent happening to Stu’s face, an exotic animal in the bathroom, Chow jumping out and attacking the protagonists, as well as many other similarities.

So it’s obvious what has been done exactly the same here. The question now becomes what the sequel does differently to the original, to achieve that same effect Harold & Kumar pulled off so well. So what are the differences? Well let’s look at the most obvious ones first. Instead of Las Vegas, they are in Bangkok, that much is obvious. It isn’t Doug getting married; this time the one to tie the knot is Stu who unfortunately isn’t marrying the prostitute from the original, but an entirely new character played by Jaime Chung. They haven’t lost Doug in this one either, no this time they’ve lost Stu’s soon to be brother-in-law Teddy. Now those are the most obvious differences, now those are just cosmetic differences, but the real genius of the film lies within where it’s completely different.

One thing you’ll notice is that the characters are more developed this time around. Alan played by Zach Galifianakis is a much more sympathetic character, with an actual arch. He has never been able to get over the trip from the previous movie and get out of this fantasy of “walking the night looking for hookers and cocaine” with his Wolf Pack. He is jealous of Teddy because he’s getting attention. It’s not like he’s even getting more attention than Alan, it’s just that he’s even getting some at all that annoys him. Eventually Alan learns to accept Teddy, he learns his lessons and his arch comes full circle with his wedding present for Stu.

Phil, played by Bradley Cooper, was the main character of the previous film, the level-headed protagonist created to act as a contrast between the craziness of the other two characters. In this film however, although he is that grounded character, he is no longer the main character, he takes a back seat to Stu played by Ed Helms. This is one of the reasons I think the film is so good. Because it manages to make the switcheroo in such a believable and natural way, the sequel manages to humanise the characters a bit more than the previous. Stu has an arch just like Alan, wherein he must learn how to embrace his inner demons instead of shying away from them. Once he accepts within himself that yes he likes to do crazy things and yes he “likes hookers, okay” everything becomes just that little bit easier for Stu.

The first movie looked amazing, it managed to capture the beauty of Las Vegas and the Mojave Desert in such a way that had never been done before. Hangover: Part II kicks it up a notch by showing just how beautiful Thailand is, the movie could serve as a travel advertisement for Thailand it’s done so well. It says, yes this place is beautiful and yes you can party like crazy here, satisfying everyone’s holiday needs. One of the best things about Hangover: Part II is the soundtrack, it is easily one of the best soundtracks for a comedy film ever to be put on screen.

So sure, Hangover: Part II does switch it up a fair amount, while keeping the core of it exactly the same. But does it do it successfully? When I walked out of the theatre after watching this film the first thing that came to my head was, “Wow I haven’t laughed this much in a theatre since… Well since Hangover: Part I”. So as a film that wanted to recreate the hilarity of the original in a way that is just as fulfilling, I would say yes, it is very successful.

Direction: 4/5

Writing: 4.5/5

Acting: 4.5/5

Presentation: 5/5

Overall: 4.5/5

The Hangover Part II is rated MA15+ in Australia, for Strong sexual references, nudity, coarse language and drug use.

I have loved Norse mythology since I was a young kid. So discovering that it is not mythology but rather TRUE SPACE MAGIC made this movie pretty epic for me.

Basically, for those of you who don’t know or haven’t seen the trailer, Thor is an alien once worshiped by ancient Vikings as a god. He starts a fuss on his home planet and accidently starts a war, so his dad Odin (the king) is all banishing him to modern day Earth and such. He lands here and meets Natalie Portman (swoon!) and has problems with the local authorities who want to know all about his powers and magic hammer. Then everything is chilled for a while, plenty of smoldering bedroom eyes between the two leads, etc – but then WOAH-OH Loki (Thor’s brother) gets up to some mischief. People on Earth in danger! Thor steps up. SHOWDOWN.

Then this keeps up for a while with some sort of conclusion until the credits – which are really good by the way! Really excellent CGI shots of nebula and nice theme type music. Best part of the movie though goes to Tom Hiddlestone as Loki (in a very low-key performance), when Thor calls him crazy and he is all like “Am I? Am I?! AM I?!!” … yes. Yes you are.

Oh and also, Natalie Portman was good in her limited, but (sigh) such nice eyes…  She’s single again right? Hey, I can dream can’t I! Well played role.

Go see Thor, OK?

Thor out of five

 ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz stars, Simon Pegg and Nick Frost reunite for the comedy ‘Paul’. At first I wasn’t too excited about seeing this- I mean a duo of nerds on a sci-fi trip? Uh-uh. But my boyfriend insisted that it would be a laugh. I almost wasn’t going to see it either but his sister had already bought the tickets (good thing too cause the line was looooong and the cinema packed!).

So the story starts with two sci-fi geeks from England, Graeme Willy (Pegg) and Clive Gollings (Frost), fulfilling their childhood dreams of coming to America to see the UFO hotspots- starting with none other than Comic Con. During their road trip from west to east America they accidentally run into an alien who changes their lives forever. Paul (Seth Rogen) has been hanging out in top secret military bases for the past 60 years deciding on what medical discovery or pop culture icon to reveal next. He then discovers that he’s out lived his usefulness of knowledge and escapes his prison to tag along with the first jeans-wetting people he can find.

Travelling across the country in a rented out RV, the unlikely trio are chased by men in black, accidentally commit a felony and have the time of their lives. Although slightly rude and somewhat filled with religious banter this movie provided the best laughing session I’ve had in awhile.
Rating: 4 out of 5 Toasters.

Paul is in cinemas now, and is rated MA15+ for strong coarse language and violence.

For example – here is a good introduction to TED, and the radical thoughts and ideas discussed:

Another initiative by the guys at TED talks is TEDx, which is a program that holds similar styled conferences in other parts of the world. TEDx is run locally in the region.

Introducing… TED x Darwin!!!

TEDxDarwin is the Darwin run TED talks conference, set to be held on the 6^th of August 2011. They’ve just introduced their ‘Youth Challenge’ – an opportunity to talk at the event, specifically for people under the age of 26. From the website:

Do you have a big idea?  Do you want a way to share it with the world?

TEDxDarwin is looking to showcase one or more young Territorians at its inaugural event on 6 August 2011.

This is your opportunity to nominate yourself as a speaker and be chosen to showcase your work, ideas, inspirations and viewpoints on this year’s theme:

“Blood, Sweat & Ideas”

Instead of having to create a 20 minute speech, this ‘Youth Challenge” is for a 5 minute video. It can be on any issue that you are passionate about or involved in.

TEDxDarwin offers 4 pieces of advice: Be Creative, Be Innovative, Be Inspirational and Be Yourself. They also advice that you read the rules , and choose a topic that you are truly passionate about.

Some examples of TED talks by young people:

Looking for something new to do this school hols? Why not check out Corrugated Iron’s new Documentary Filmmaking Workshop For Teens?

Life in a heavy metal band, the art of clowning, Facebook addictions… All topics are open for young people to explore this school holidays in Corrugated Iron’s new documentary filmmaking workshop, Reel Stories. The workshop is a two week long course running from January 10 to 21 every afternoon at Nightcliff Community Centre. It offers participants hands-on experience producing their own short documentary films, learning everything from planning their story, mastering the camera, the perfect interview and cutting edge video editing.

“Apart from learning practical skills, the aim of Reel Stories is to have young people producing clever films that challenge stereotypes and encourages audiences to see things from a teenager’s perspective,” says Workshop Facilitator, Peta Khan.

Films from Reel Stories will be shown at a number of community events in 2011. For more information or to book in for this workshop call Corrugated Iron’s office on 8948 3200 or email info@corrugatediron.org.au. Spaces are limited – so get in now!

If you are anything like me, then you will have eagerly awaited the live action version of Avatar: The Last Airbender. The cartoon series was amazing, and surprisingly mature for an American cartoon film targeted towards children. But, does Avatar live up to its cartoon series predecessor,  or does it fall into the trap of simply cashing into a successful series?

For those unfamiliar with the cartoon series, the world of Avatar is inhabited by people who can manipulate (bend) the four elements (as well as those who can not), fire, water, earth and air. The Avatar is the one who maintains balance and is the only person who can bend all the elements. He disappeared a century before the story took place, frozen in an iceberg. The fire benders in the meantime have begun overtaking the other elements, and without the avatar the world is falling apart. Two people from the water tribe find the avatar, and the trio try to save the world.

The epic story has already taken place in the cartoon series, and is well crafted cult classic. The same cannot be said of the film. It is very pretty, with bending looking awesome, and the locations looking suitably epic. But problems begin with casting, many of the characters only look a little like their cartoon counterpart, and the fire benders fail to instill any sense of destruction. The script is also poorly written, with plenty of awkward dialogue, turning a heartwarming romance in the cartoon into a boring drab teen awkward relationship.

The film really is only worth watching for fans of the series who wouldn’t mind seeing the world of avatar looking slightly different. But even then, the film has the feeling of a cash in, and 3D fails to add anything, so watch it in 2D and save your dosh if you must see it. So it gets two stars for pretty visuals and wonderful portrayal of airbenders, but fails to gain anymore for its boring script, weak fire benders and horrible pacing.

“We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold.”

These are the first lines in Terry Gilliam’s adaptation of Hunter S. Thompson’s gonzo piece, ‘Fear and Loathing In Las Vegas’, and you pretty much get the idea from the get go. The plot revolves around Raoul Duke (Johnny Depp), his attorney Dr. Gonzo (Benicio Del Toro) and their trip to Las Vegas in a red convertible to cover the Mint 400 whilst in a drug induced haze.

When it was first released it was considered a box office flop after grossing only $10,600,000 with a budget of $18,500,000. Despite this, it has gone on to achieve a cult following.

The movie contains the surrealistic details of Terry Gilliam’s work which is what made the movie work. He was not the first choice as director however, but after creative differences between Alex Cox (the original director) and Thompson, Cox was fired and replaced by Gilliam. Thompson admitted that nobody could project his thoughts onto the screen as well as Gilliam could.

The acting was brilliant from both Depp and Toro. Both hardly recognizable with a bald Depp and a large Toro who gained 40 pounds for the role. He was seen 3 years earlier in the role of the tall and skinny Fenster in ‘The Usual Suspects’. Depp was great as always and his narration really held the the movie together well, but it was Toro who stole the show as the frightening 220 pound Samoan equipped with a hunting knife and under the influence of raw ether, mescaline and countless other drugs. Just like the director, Depp and Toro were not the first choice. The first choice duo were Jack Nicholson as Duke and Marlon Brando as Dr. Gonzo. How’s that for a compliment?

Fans of Hunter S. Thompson must have already seen this, and probably enjoyed it as much as the next fan. From the minute the book hit the shelves it was called unfilmable, but Gilliam has done a terrific job, has stayed true to the book and is extremely accurate from chapter to chapter.

**** 1/ 2

RATED: R

In a post-apocalyptic America (Zombieland) over-run with zombies, four survivors team up to help each other survive. The unlikely foursome include the timid white virgin, Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg; the main cast members are named after towns which relate to them); the gun-totting cowboy on his personal quest for the final Twinkies, Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson); and ‘matchstick sisters’ Wichita (Emma Stone) and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin) who con their way to survive.

An ongoing joke throughout the movie are Columbus’ simple set of rules to survive the zombie quagmire. These rules, and fear, have kept an unlikely hero like Columbus alive. He presents it in a quirky narrative form, followed by a hilarious example. Some of these rules include ‘cardio’, ‘checking the backseat’ and ‘limbering up’.

The main purpose of Zombieland is to display creative ways of killing zombies; dropping a piano on an unsuspecting undead is just one of a few. Zombieland is the funnest time I’ve had watching a movie all year. I was somewhat disappointed though, that it was too funny. There simply wasn’t enough scares for it to fall strictly under a horror comedy. I fear (ironically) that this factor will disqualify it as legendary horror/comedy like American Werewolf in London and the Evil Dead trilogy.

The opening credits ranks as one of the best of 2009 along with Watchmen. The slow-mo depictions of the world being transformed to zombieland; one of my favourite slow-mo scenes was a father-son three legged competitor being chased down by the other zombie father-son combos.

This was one of my most anticipated movies of 2009 and my expectations were fulfilled. Everything needed for a fun film was there; witty humour, streets of blood, realistic makeup and a brilliant cherry-on-top cameo from Bill Murray. Like I said, this is simply not a pure horror/comedy and don’t expect anything like formula as Drag me to Hell (the best horror movie of 2009). If you’re up for some fun and a visual rollercoaster, this has to be on top of your must-watch list.

I give it 3 and a half toasters.

Rated MA