Reviews

Forget everything you might know about the original Robin Hood. There are no men prancing merrily around in a forest sporting tights to match the trees or stealing gold from the rich and giving it to the poor. Robin Hood no longer looks like a grown-up Peter Pan and Marion is about as far away from a damsel in distress as you can get. No, Ridley Scott's newest epic is dark, gritty and a whole new take on the old tale.

Russell Crowe plays Robin Longstride, an archer in Richard the Lionheart's army who, upon the King's death, sees an opportunity to escape fighting for a cause he does not believe in. By chance, he comes across Sir Robert Loxley, a dying knight who makes him promise to take his sword back to his father, Sir Walter Loxley of Nottingham. On his arrival, Robin becomes involved in Nottingham's over-taxation issues and pillaging attacks by England's new tyrannical King and is forced to take a stand against him and, in the process, become the legendary Robin Hood.

Like Batman Begins, 'Robin Hood' it is an origin movie, focused on providing a back story to the fabled ranger. The title is thus quite misleading, as it isn't as much about Robin Hood as it is about how Robin Longstride becomes Robin Hood. The film is, therefore, quite dialogue-heavy and relies on only a few action scenes to keep the story flowing. This works for the most part, providing a solid and entertaining introduction to the legendary hero.

What doesn't work is the film's uneven direction. Seemingly, in an attempt to get through as much of the story as possible, certain scenes weren't given enough screen-time. This culminated in characters who, not given the time to generate any real depth, would be left under-developed and shallow. Alternatively, other scenes were drawn out into lengthy discussions that, to be frank, got boring.

Put simply, Scott's Robin Hood is a dark and twisted look at the heroic ranger. Despite some issues with direction and moments in the film that are outright boring, the film is fun and entertaining for its lengthy duration. Expect a sequel.

It is a cursed Hollywood trend that video-game-to-movie adaptations simply don't work. Hit-man, Farcry and Max Payne are evidence of this. Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time is the newest adaptation to hit the big screen and although it doesn't reverse this pattern, it's a small step in the right direction.

The film focuses on an adventurous and extremely acrobatic Prince (Jake Gyllenhaal) who, after being framed for a crime he did not commit, is forced to join alliances with a beautiful rival princess (Gemma Arterton). Armed with a dagger that allows him to momentarily reverse the flow of time, The Prince sets out to stop the traitor from releasing a catastrophic sandstorm upon the world.

Excluding the greatly altered storyline, Prince of Persia is a faithful adaptation of the game. The elements that made the game so great – the leaping from rooftops to rooftops, the fast fighting style and even the flirtatious bickering between the Prince and the Princess – are all present. The action scenes are particularly thrilling to watch as the Prince effortlessly scales walls ten times his size. Unfortunately, the constant banter between the Prince and the Princess doesn't translate well into the film and ends up coming across as very clichéd and sometimes cringe-worthy.

If you've never played the games, Prince of Persia's entertainment value will depend on your love of the adventure/action genre and how much sappy dialogue you can tolerate. If you're a fan of the game, you'll either love it for what it manages to capture about the games, or hate it for what it does not. Either way, it's the best video game adaptation to date – but, then again, that's not saying much.

If "The Hangover" and "Back to the Future" had sex, this would probably be the result. Unfortunately, he'd be the weird kid in the family who shares a fleeting resemblance to his parents but is nowhere near as cool. Neither as witty as "The Hangover" nor as clever as "Back to the Future", "Hot Tub Time Machine" is your average comedy flick – fun, but forgettable.

The film focuses on four friends who, bored with their everyday adult lives, take a road trip to Kodiak Valley - their home away from home where they would get drunk, smoke weed and party back in the good old 80s. Checking into their old hotel room they decide to get bare-ass in a hot tub together (laughing yet?) that also just happens to be a, um, time machine. Mayhem ensues as they find themselves back in 1986, and in their respective teenage bodies, given a chance to replay their youth.

Now, don't get me wrong, this film ain't that bad. If you can get past the ridiculous plot and don't mind some extremely dodgy scenes, you'll probably have a good time. It's chockfull of sex jokes, slapstick and low-brow humour that's actually pretty funny. However, where the film falls short is in its execution. The film was clearly focused on squeezing every last laugh possible out of the audience that it lost focus on actually telling an engaging story. Sure, this works fine for the most part, but once u hit the 80 minute mark it all starts to get a bit stale and even the jokes start feeling a little forced.

However, in the end, this movie is all about walking in with the right expectations. If you can realise that the film is not supposed to be taken seriously and can tolerate some crude, yet strangely funny, humour then you just may enjoy "Hot Tub Time Machine".

In an age where 3D technology is becoming the primary appendage to "hook" audiences in, it's refreshing to watch a film that uses it more as an accessory than the main attraction (*cough* Avatar *cough*). Directed by Dean Deblois and Chris Sanders (Lilo & Stitch) the film is set around a Viking village on the island of Berk that is periodically raided by dragons that steal from their flock of sheep. The film follows the adventures of Hiccup, a scrawny, awkward and socially outcast Viking boy who aspires to follow the tradition of his tribe in becoming a dragon-slayer, only to discover that he does not share his fellow Vikings' brutish nature.

The film itself is visually stunning with beautifully drawn landscapes and characters. The dragons are especially well crafted, ranging from a fire-breathing monster to a comical flying blowfish. Although I was sceptical at first, the 3D elements were also a nice touch. It made the island of Berk a little more immersive, without overshadowing the film completely. However, where the film really shines is in its musical score, which is brilliantly composed and enhances the emotion of every scene it is used in.

Like any film, however, How to train your Dragon has its flaws. It heavily relies on slapstick humour which, although funny at first, quickly got stale. The first 20 minutes were particularly weak, to the point where after the characters were introduced the humour became extremely lacklustre and the entire plot seemed to stall for a good 5 minutes or so. Also, without giving too much away, the central message of the film is basically thrown out the window during the climax which made the film seem like a slightly shallow experience as I left the cinema.

Despite the critique, How to train your Dragon was a fun film. No, it's no Pixar's Up, but it makes for a fun, heart-warming and light-hearted hour and 20 minutes. Check it out.

"The Girl Who Played With Fire" is a Swedish crime thriller and sequel to the highly acclaimed "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo".

The film picks up where the original left off, with Lisbeth Salandar living luxuriously in an apartment, haunted by visions of her dark past. For those who haven't seen the first one, Lisbeth is a ruthless, enigmatic yet genius computer hacker who, despite her cold Gothic exterior, is eerily attractive. Framed for three murders she did not commit, Lisbeth is forced to go on the run and call upon her journalist friend, Mikael Blomkvist, to help clear her name.

Now "The Girl Who Played With Fire" is by no means a bad film, especially if you're into crime thrillers. The final 30 minutes are particularly suspenseful and exciting –even more so if you're already familiar with the characters. However, the elements that made "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo" a step above are sadly lacking here. Where as its predecessor played out almost like a dark Agatha Christie novel, "The Girl Who Played With Fire" is a lot more action-oriented – almost to the point where it feels like a "Bourne Identity" rip-off. This isn't really a good thing, as the subtle creepiness that gave the first film its originality is almost completely lacking.

Although "The Girl Who Played With Fire" is a decent suspense film and worth a rental, it is unable to measure up to the quality of its predecessor and is a disappointingly average thriller.

As a reviewer, proclaiming that a film is the "best film you have ever seen" is a bold statement. After all, you risk losing all credibility with your reader, especially if you say some stupid sh*t like Twilight. Despite this, I'm gonna say it: Inception is the best film I have ever seen (with the exception of 2001: A Space Odyssey).

The film opens with Cobb (Leonardo Dicaprio) explaining the viral nature of an "idea" and how once formed, it spreads and grows within the human mind like wildfire. You see, Cobb is essentially a thief, an extractor- for-hire who enters a subject's subconscious through their dreams and steals their ideas for his employer. His most recent job, however, is not to steal an idea but instead implant one within the subject's mind – a supposedly impossible task known as inception.

At first glance, Inception may seem like your typical action film that borrows sci-fi elements to try and seem clever. The difference is, Inception actually is clever. Nolan takes a simple idea (dreams) and builds it into a narrative with more substance, depth and complexity than 99% of Hollywood films today. This, coupled with fleshed-out characters, breathtaking special effects and an outstanding score by Hans Zimmer, leaves you with a film that is not only extremely entertaining but also thought-provoking in its genuine intelligence.

However, where the film rises above all others is in its emotion. Films like Inception are usually so focused on the story that the characters are pushed into the background, leaving you with an engaging but ultimately heartless narrative. The emotional aspect of Inception, however, is not only its focus, but also the driving force that weaves the entire film together.

Following from his success with The Dark Knight, Nolan has once again outdone himself. Inception is a masterpiece on all levels – mesmerizing in its intellect, enthralling in its action and heartfelt in its emotion. This is about as perfect as any film can get.