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.

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

Based on the Maurice Sendak’s children’s book of the same name, Spike Jonze directs a fascinating, captivating and touching; yet also a depressing and unstructured film. Max (Max Records) is a child with a vivid imagination – his imagination often being utilised to escape his childhood issues, such as his parent’s divorce, his sister’s neglect and the pain of alienation. One night, his mother, Connie (Catherine Keener) brings her boyfriend (Mark Ruffalo in a brief appearance) over the house for dinner. Max wears a a wolf costume and his imagination runs wild, demanding his mother to feed him meat and eventually biting her shoulder. After a verbal lashing from his mother, Max runs away from home to where the wild things are.

The movie starts off well enough and introduces Max and his many juvenile issues, growing emotional pains and being old enough to feel complex emotions, but too young to express them healthily. From here on in, Max is on his journey of self discovery with several of these ‘wild things’; monstrous, gravity defying and emotional beasts. Each one of them almost represents different aspects of Max’s personality; credit due to Jonze for expanding on the plot. Max Records first lead role was promising, had presence and a certain charm when on screen. With this charisma, more lead roles are sure to come. I have to say though, that this is definitely not a film for children; but a film about childhood. It has it’s light-hearted scenes but as the movie goes on, it feels darker and more depressing when certain emotionally unhealthy ‘wild things’ run rampant. The desolate look on the ‘wild things’ don’t help. What really impressed me though was the use of animatronics and CGI on the monsters. From the intricate details of their faces, capturing every tear and smile; or the wide scaled physically demanding pile-up scenes, Where The Wild Things Are is a possible candidate for one of the technical Academy Awards.

I got a glimpse of this trailer a while back and was eagerly anticipating the release. The soundtrack sounded promising and the use of frames caused me to believe that there were going to be transitions between Max’s fantasy world and the real world, in a similar brand to that of Guillermo Del Toro’s Pan’s Labyrinth. My unfulfilled expectations on this may have caused me to under-appreciate this. So if you are going to see this, don’t go in with any expectations and just digest every beautiful scene as it comes. An adorable story, great indie soundtrack and visually exquisite CGI makes this more than worth watching.

3 and a half stars.

Why it’s the best and worst thing you will ever let into your life.

You’ve heard about it, you’ve seen it on your mate’s computer. A little button at the top of their screen that simply says ‘Stumble!’. The StumbleUpon toolbar is a mysterious and powerful tool, whose mystery is only exceeded by its power.

Be aware, for you have been warned. If you have the StumbleUpon toolbar on your computer, two things are likely to happen. One, you will discover total radical and awesome sites that will blow you away. Two, you will never sleep again. I’m telling you, it’s addictive.

“Just one more Stumble,” you say to yourself over and over and over, as the clock hands drift. Then you look and it’s three in the morning, and you haven’t moved in six or seven hours. “Oh no! I’ve got school/work tomorrow!” you think, “I’ll just have one more…”

So it goes, on and on. Yet, I have no regrets about Stumble. Since I signed up for a (free) account, I have seen areas of the internet that I would never have found. I have learned random and useless facts. I have seen amazing photos of events I would never have known about. The concept is so easy! All you do is go to www.stumbleupon.com, and sign up for an account. You tick a heap of boxes so Stumble (in all its mystery and power) knows which sites to drop you at, and then you put your like it, or  you don’t. After that it’s even easier. You can write a review of the site, you can friend and connect to people who like the same stuff you do, or you can sit for hours in front of your computer like a mindless drone… Or if you’re looking for a more positive spin, a sponge eager for information. So in a nutshell, Stumble is like channel surfing on the internet.

I know you want to know more, so go and check it out. And remember, Stumbling is less awkward on the internet.

“Open up your mind”

Imagination can be defined as ‘The formation of a mental image of something that is neither perceived as real nor present to the senses.’

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus is a sporadic drama about good and evil. The enchanting scenes open up our mind to possibilities.

The film is rather bizarre but this is no surprise considering it is directed by Terry Gilliam who has produced such films as Monty Python and the Holy Grail and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.

Dr Parnassus (Christopher Plummer) the God-like protagonist makes a deal with the devil (Tom Waits) which guarantees him mortality and later eternal life in exchange for his adolescent offspring. He thoughtlessly agrees but regrets this later when his daughter Valentina (Lily Cole) is born. He realises that Valentina will soon be taken by the devil, Parnassus pleads for him to reconsider so the devil agrees on a new gamble. Whoever collects 5 souls first keeps Valentina. Parnassus and the entourage guide people to positive, uplifting thoughts whilst the devil tempts his victims into selling their souls for evil. Tony (Heath Ledger) tries strenuously to help Parnassus by attracting people into a mirror which leads to a world of imagination, every time he leads them through the world his face changes, Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Colin Farrell convey this superbly. Each face represents an aspect of Tony’s imagination. Heath Ledger, who plays Tony, died half way through the shooting of the film forcing Terry Gilliam to improvise this alternate ending. The film is unique, there is a contrast between contemporary culture and olden day circus themes, this is portrayed throughout the movie by presenting small, plain black and white settings and colourful panorama. The best part of this film was the concept which in essence described that we all have a choice to do wrong or right, good or evil and that our actions have consequences. I went into the cinema expecting a structured, heart warming movie; instead I came out feeling violated by the erratic story line. However shortly after I felt enlightened by the spontaneous flash backs of mysterious locations and imaginative costumes. On the whole the movie was different; the highlight for me was watching the strong performance of Heath Ledger and Tom Waits.

Rated PG