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.

It’s the Australian blockbuster that every gamer should play. The world’s number one video game magazine, Game Informer rated it 9.5, PlayStation Magazine- Australia calls it “one of 2011’s biggest blockbusters.” What is it? L.A. Noire.

Developers Team Bondi teamed up with publisher Rockstar for seven years, hired hundreds of programmers and over 300 actors to bring to you a game that breaks the boundaries in video game storytelling. L.A. Noire contains drugs, sex, violence and corruption in a post WWII setting. But unlike many other Rockstar games where you play the outlaw running free to kill anyone in your path, L.A. Noire is different. There’s more to Rockstar than just GTA or Red Dead Redemption. You play Detective Cole Phelps (voiced by Aaron Staton) as he seeks to right the wrongs that he made during the war, and you must act like a cop. Killing and causing public damage is against the law and players will be reprimanded for their actions. But it isn’t the story that makes this video game so breathtakingly fantastic- it’s the graphics and the technology that the developers have used to make it so amazingly defined. You are able to see every crease in an old man’s brow to detecting a liar from their physical expression.

Players will find the characters realistic as the MotionScan shows every twitch of the mouth, downward glance and loss of eye contact that are vital to the game play. MotionScan is a new technology that uses 32 HD cameras to capture true-to-life expressions and then recreates them into a fictional character. You will need to pay attention to the details at the crime scenes and while interviewing suspects as nothing can be ignored. NOTE: If you are the type of person who likes to get up and grab a bite to eat while the cut scenes are on, this is NOT a game for you. You will need to listen to what is said, how it is said and every other little detail to make the correct decisions. If you fail to get the correct evidence you will have to get it from other, much harder sources. As you complete cases you will gain experience points that unlock new outfits and Intuition points. Intuition points have been described by Examiner.com to work like lifelines in Who Wants To Be A Millionaire.

I highly recommend everyone getting down to the stores today to pick one of these amazing Australian feats off of the shelves to play for yourself. The MotionScan takes this game to the next level in video games around the world!

4.5 toasters out of 5

L.A. Noire’s release date is the 20th of May 2011 (some places the 19th). It is rated MA15+ for Strong Themes, Violence, Coarse Language and Nudity.

The audience is included in the play, as the main character Charlie (Ozcan Sevik) confides and talks to them. They are then made to follow Charlie through to different parts of the car park, whilst being hurried by the security guards, to watch scenes with alternative settings. The structure of Dry in the wet was created to let the audience in on how it is for those who live in the long grass, and it works to a great effect. The play leaves the audience re-evaluating how they feel, think, and act towards homeless people, giving the hard truth, and making us question our tendency to judge.

The cast worked well together, communicating to the audience through dialect, song and image, all proving to send a strong message to the audience. The use of projecting images onto screen was used frequently within the second seating change, but not too much that it lost it’s touch, and the same goes for the musical components. The projections used served as a great way to convey the messages, images and issues presented to the audience in a way that was new and interesting. Reggae Dave, Trevor Jenkins and year 12 student Sean Hutton all made musical appearances as the Wise Old Man, Social Commentator and busker, respectively.

The empty car park below the Malak shopping centre was a fantastic place to have the show, with the venue helping to show the issue of homelessness and assist in the inclusion of the audience. After the show Bricks without Straw provided a free meal and soft drinks for everyone to enjoy while discussing the performance, other issues, and to meet the cast. At the venue there was also artwork for sale.

Overall Dry in the Wet was a fantastic performance that truly got you thinking about homelessness.

4 out of 5 toasters.

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.

I walked into the Queensland Performing Arts Centre’s Lyric Theatre with much anticipation. I’d wanted to see Wicked: The Untold Story of the Witches of Oz since I’d heard about it in 2009. As I sat down in my front row balcony seat I gazed down at the stage; before me was the opening curtain and printed on it was the entire map of “The Land of Oz”, including places from all 40 of L. Frank Baum’s books. Illuminated in the middle of the map was a glowing Emerald City and immediately after seeing the map the next thing I noticed was the magnificent mechanical puppet of the Time Dragon Clock above the map and the rest of the stage, which was set up to look like the inside of an old clock.

The Time Dragon Clock opened the beginning of the performance, moving and roaring in a fearsome manner, followed by the singing and dancing of “No One Mourns the Wicked.” I was mesmerised throughout the whole performance. The cast worked extremely well together, with their energy capturing the magical essence of “The Land of Oz.” The chorus was superb and enchanting, adding so much to the Wicked fairy tale.

Lucy Durack, who plays Galinda (later known as Glinda) was a wonderful presence to finally see on stage. From the moment she came down on her mechanical bubble, she was quirky and had plenty of energy. Sometimes this seemed rather full on, but it was a great performance and portrayal of the annoying, ditzy, yet loveable, blonde.

Jemma Rix entered the stage during ‘Dear Old Shiz’ with a sense of nervousness not related to the character, but as soon she spoke her first line all signs of this disappeared. Rix’s singing was strong, clear and powerful throughout her low and mid ranges, but at her high range she lost some of her volume. However, her fantastic performance was more than enough compensation for this.

The supporting roles of Madame Morrible, Boq, Nessarose, and Dr Dillamond played by Maggie Kirkpatrick, James D Smith, Elisa Colla, and Rodney Dobson respectively, were captivating in their performances. All were wonderfully magical and were great down to their last note.

The television icon Bert Newton managed to score the role of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz – I believe he was cast based on his novelty, rather than his ability to sing or dance. I felt this was the only disappointing aspect of the cast.

Mark Myars’ choreography enhanced the magic of Oz and truly helped to entice the audience throughout Wicked. The sets, crafted by Eugene Lee, were phenomenal. His use of machines and puppetry, and his clockwork mechanics added to the magic of Wicked and “The Land of Oz”. The wonderful sound effects enhanced the experience even further, with the creaking wood to the slamming door, the lion cub and the monkeys screams. Kenneth Posner, the lighting designer did a spectacular job “defining the space in each scene”. I especially loved the way in which he always gave Elphaba a green light to accentuate her makeup. I also enjoyed the digital projection used to create the presence of rain in Act I and the pavement for the Emerald City.

The costumes also have to be mentioned. Susan Hilferty created a style which she named “Twisted Edwardian”, based on the apparel of the 1900- 1920’s when L. Frank Baum wrote “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz.” She did a magnificent job capturing the essence of the munchkins, the citizens of Emerald City, the monkeys, the students and all the main characters, and the magic of “The Land of Oz”. All of the costumes were extravagant, enticing and elegant or frightful, but not restrictive for choreography.

All in all, Wicked: The Untold Story of the Witches of Oz was a magical performance with high quality actors and singing. I would definitely go and see it again, and would recommend it to anyone who loved The Wonderful Wizard of Oz as a child and would like to revisit Oz in a time “before Dorothy dropped in.”

The game in question is Civilisation V, and in case you didn’t notice from the title, it is the fifth instalment of the Civilisation franchise.  Civilisation is a well-known game series on the PC, with nearly all PC gamers at least having heard of the game, if not having played it. The Civilisation series spans nearly two decades, and is critically acclaimed for its strategy and gameplay. So does Civilisation V live up to its namesake, or is it just a flop?

Upon loading Civilisation V the first thing that comes to notice, either jumping into the tutorials or straight into a game, is how pretty the game looks. The hexagon grid based world allows complex formations and landmasses, and cities and units are detailed and authentic. The menus and interface are all set out beautifully, and allow easy access to your civilisation’s cities, people and area. A single button guides you through all the motions of a turn in guiding your empire, from units that need orders given to cities that are ready to start making units and buildings for your civilisation. If you have played Civ before, then you will have little difficulty jumping right in. If you haven’t, the game’s simple tutorials let the interface guide you through the finer points and the advisors tell you what you need to know, so by the end you are ready to take on the by no means trivial task of building up your own civilisation.

Like its previous iterations, Civ V is as addictive as ever. Building a massive empire and crushing the AI or steadfastly researching new technologies, or making friends with everyone are all perfectly valid overarching strategies that can all lead to success. The UI makes the game easy to navigate and allows you to either focus on a sweeping strategy, and the diplomacy screen allows you to talk to other civilisations and their leaders, whether it be to open up your borders, trade, or to declare war on them.

So, with a handle on your civilisation, you are tasked to survive and win the game. There are several ways to win. You can research your way to rocketing then build a rocket to win the scientific victory, or a diplomatic victory is open to you if you can gain the vote of everyone else in the game, and the cultural victory is for anyone who can make the ‘Utopia Project’. Or  you could ignore all these and stomp everyone with your huge badass military.

To achieve these ends, you can build military units, build buildings for your military or other purposes, whether it be to please your citizens or increase your output of culture, money or happiness. Added into this mix is food, production, research, and you can quickly become embroiled in the trials of your own Civ as you try to balance the needs of your civilisaton, allies and what you need to beat the Civilisations trying to pull ahead. For those playing for cultural or scientific victories, it is easy to tailor your civilisation’s tech tree or social policies by diving into their respective menues. This leads to a very addictive need to balance everything while aiming for your victory, which can keep you up way past your bedtime.

Another interesting part of Civ V is how modifications to game from other people are incorporated into the game. Typically, people had to wade through semi useless tools to make something like another boat to play with, then to install it involved diving into your program’s folder and moving files into god knows where. However, the game developer, Firaxis, took the time to place a mod browser and installer in Civ V itself, so you don’t even need to leave the game to find a mod that, say, makes every unit look like cheese, and installing and or removing it is now just a few mouse clicks away.

Civilisation V is a very strong game, but that is not to say that it is flawless. The AI (computer players) can be overwhelmed with simple tactics based on units that are overpowered, even in the highest difficulty levels, and the AI simply does not know what to do when it meets water. Diplomacy seems to be hit and miss too for the AI, with them offering help only to later take it back and declare war on you. Also, once past the ‘Prince’ (Normal) difficulty, the AI cheats like crazy, and you can’t help but think, how did China manage to build twenty warrior units in five turns. And though the interface is indeed very good, it still is not quite perfect. Every time an action is finished the camera centres on the next unit or city to be ordered about, even if you wanted to concentrate on your invasion of Russia or tailor your city so it can make money, and can be disorientating as the camera pulls you halfway across the world so you can tell your worker where to build a road.

Still despite these small niggles, Civilisation V is extremely addictive and has that ability to keep you up past midnight as you plan world domination. So clearly, Civ V’s strengths far outweigh its weaknesses. So, I give it four and a half toasters out of five for completely addictive gameplay, beautiful graphics, its elegant UI and mod community incorporation. This would have been a five if not for the bollocks AI.

www.redplumandsnow.bandcamp.com