It's Quiet... Too Quiet...

I'm given to rather negatively assume that you're all browsing this blog o' mine to read me positively losing my shit over the latest releases. Then you'll go to the multiplex to chortle a little at the minutiae that bothered me so much and have a thoroughly good night. And good for you if that's the fact, but I find myself in the enjoyable position recently of being able to recommend films. Inglourious Basterds and The Time Traveler's Wife are both still playing in cinemas and are both rather marvellous, and it's a pleasure to recommend two rather different films. The trend continues with this week's post, and I'm enjoying it while it lasts.

By avoiding the route of seeing Dance Flick and Aliens in the Attic just to give hopping mad deconstructions of them on here, I've found my cinema-going experiences to be much more pleasant of late, probably because the summer season is drawing to a close, and the more stupid of the money-scoffing tyrannosauruses in the cinematic arena have all gone to shit in the wake of the flaming astral fireball that is er... September. Analogies have not always been my strong suit, but I'd sooner be happy than right any day. So here are a couple more reviews in which, as ever, mild spoilers may occur in the course of discussion but not so far as to ruin major plot developments.



Funny People is the latest comedy from Judd Apatow, a director who's slightly less prolific than advertising would have you believe. Yeah, he's the guy who brought you Knocked Up, but that and The 40 Year Old Virgin are the only films he'd directed before this more personal and dramatic effort. Adam Sandler reprises the "serious-mode" acting we've seen done well in Punch-Drunk Love and less well in Spanglish, to play George Simmons, a stand-up comedian turned sell-out movie star who's diagnosed with an inoperable type of leukaemia. Realising that his days could well be numbered, he reassesses his decadent lifestyle with the help of a young fan called Ira (played by Seth Rogen), who he effectively hires as an emotional punchbag.

Apatow's primarily telling us that Adam Sandler is very lonely. While I doubt Sandler has the personal issues that George does in real life, his career path is remarkably similar. I'm not pretending that Sandler's comedies have ever been high art, but I certainly think Happy Gilmore was a more credible film than the likes of Bedtime Stories. Similarly, George's efforts include Merman (a children's film about... well, a merman), Redo (in which Simmons has to be turned into a baby by a wizard to learn what it is to be a man) and My Best Friend Is A Robot (an Owen Wilson comedy that's never really elaborated upon). It's in this type of self-consciousness that Sandler gives such a good performance, amply reinforced by Apatow's traditional supporting cast.

Seth Rogen and Leslie Mann are as sympathetic and funny as usual, but it was a real joy to see Jonah Hill being funny again. Ever since Superbad, he's been touted as the Next Big Thing, but he's only really made forgettable cameos in the likes of Night at the Museum 2 since then. Here, he's given a sizable role with some great one-liners. Eric Bana is another standout cast-member who really doesn't seem to be on-screen long enough as he reprises his native accent to play an Australian alpha-male, but that's a problem that only exists because he makes such an impression. The amount of time he's there is relative to his importance to the story, and that's where Funny People really succeeds- a film the same length as your average Harry Potter film will invariably either bore the audience or use the time well and flesh out story and characters. You'll find yourself caring about what happens to these characters without it becoming mawkish or melodramatic.

The trademark quickfire dialogue and one-liners remain, but this is much more of a marriage of comedy and drama than Apatow's previous films. Like Knocked Up did for unexpected pregnancy and The 40 Year Old Virgin did for sexual immaturity, this film does take on a subject that isn't funny- terminal illness- and centres a comedy around it. However, unlike those films, Apatow is prepared to put a straight face on things for most of the film. The characters are stand-up comedians, so there'll obviously be jokes, but Funny People is a film about how damaged they can be once they're off-stage. Two and a half hours more or less flies by, with the exception of how frequently dick-jokes occur. By the time you hear how thick Seth Rogen's penis apparently is for the twelfth time, you might cast a look at your watch. Nevertheless, the fact remains that this is sometimes funny, sometimes sad but always very human, and it's Apatow's best film to date. That doesn't mean it's his funniest, but it is very good indeed.



It's likely many of you will go see Funny People, so I'll tip the scale and talk about a film I know was mostly overlooked at the cinema because it came out on the same day as The Time Traveler's Wife and the same weekend that Inglourious Basterds started previewing. It's called A Perfect Getaway and it stars Steve Zahn and Milla Jovovich as Cliff and Cydney, a pair of newlyweds off on an idyllic Hawaiian honeymoon. The getaway is marred slightly by news of a savage murderer roaming the islands, and it's only after they meet another holidaying couple that they hear about how police believe a man and a woman were the perpetrators. It's directed by David Twohy, who hasn't really done anything in the past few years except talk about how he's going to make a third Riddick film. That project now looks to be finally going forward, and fair play to him, because his interim project is well worth a watch.

Twohy's writing and directing maintains the tension throughout, and by the time you get to the end, you'll want to watch it again right away so you can get your head around it. It would be unfair to reveal any of the plot developments that make the film so watchable, or to divulge the game-changer that occurs midway through. So it only really remains for me to praise Twohy's direction and recommend A Perfect Getaway to anyone who likes a good thriller. It's got great performances- this is the only film where I'd ever call Steve Zahn endearing, and there's a memorable turn by Timothy Olyphant too- and the requisite scenery is of course beautifully shot. The real shame with this film is how it's been advertised. I'm lucky to have seen this at all, because every other day of the week I would've passed this by as another run-of-the-mill cautionary tale about how going abroad is Bad, no matter how sunny it is. As it is, I felt like a trip to the cinema and saw this on a whim, so I'm very glad I did. Make sure you all catch it on DVD, because it's a film that deserves to be more successful than it has been.

Next time, I'll probably be back to ranting when it comes to Final Destination 4 (I refuse to use the title they're giving it) but hopefully retaining this newfound sunny disposition when it comes to either The Hurt Locker, District 9 or (500) Days of Summer.

Until then, I'm Mark, mad prophet of the airwaves, and make sure you don't watch anything I wouldn't watch.

Top Chef Season 6 Sin City: The One About Sibling Rivalry

Episode 2 came and went yesterday and the producers thought it might be fun to put an emphasis on one of the contestants' rant on the inequality found in the institution of marriage pertaining to the gay community. All this because the contestants were asked to--horrors!--cater food for a poolside bachelor and bachelorette party. Come on! Gay contestants on Top Chef are certainly not a new phenomenon but Ashley's passionate but slightly overplayed rant grated on my nerves a little. All I was interested in was to see what kinds of unique dishes the chefs on the show came up with and not listen to some holier-than-thou socio-political statement from someone who already knew a wedding challenge was in the cards coming into the show. I believe in equality and all that but this is a show about chefs and cooking. Let's try to keep politics to a minimum, shall we, Mr. Producer?

OK, that's the end of my own rant! And I do apologize. Let's just move on to what I love about the show--the preparation of food and the interesting personalities.

It might still be early but this episode unfortunately shone the spotlight on how weak the female contestants are compared to their male counterparts. I came to this conclusion not because the guys won the elimination challenge but the overall ideas, creativity and execution of most of the guys' dishes were much superior. The women stuck to tiresome tried and true appetizer ideas while the guys managed to push the envelope just a little further. About the only woman with any sort of talent is Jennifer.

But I digress. Let me backpedal a little and talk about the Quickfire Challenge. Each contestant was asked to roll two dice at a craps table and the total sum of both dice would represent the number of ingredients that each of them would have to use for their dishes. In this case, it would be better to roll a smaller number due to the complexity of marrying the flavors of too many ingredients. And to jack up the stakes even further, the winner walks away with $15K. This being Sin City, I'm sure we'll be seeing more and more gambling props used in future challenges.

The Quickfire was won by Mike V., one half of the Voltaggio brothers, essentially one-upping his older and more successful brother, Bryan. However, the tables were turned later on when Bryan notched up a win of his own in the Elimination challenge. Hector, sans a deep-fried steak, redeemed himself with a unique take on tofu, although his tofu ceviche dish didn't really made any sense to me. Kevin made another good impression but not enough to land him in the top 4. Ashley created a nice watermelon appetizer that the judges liked but made the mistake of adding an extra, unneeded panna cotta dessert that fell flat, dropping her into the bottom 4. And for the second week in a row, both Jesse and Eve went up for elimination again. Jesse escaped elimination last week because she knew what she did wrong with her chicken and admitted it. This time, she also knew that she made a mistake but can admitting her faults save her yet again? Well, just by the skin of her heavily tattooed arm, Jesse gets to stay for another week and Eve and her knives were sent packing.

Top Chef Season 6 Las Vegas: Let the Games Begin!

Welcome to Sin City and the new Top Chef kitchen is already heating up fast! Season 6 of the popular Bravo TV series, "Top Chef" is finally here and the first episode premiered last night. This season promises to be very interesting as the collection of chef contestants include James Beard Award nominees like Michael Voltaggio (Best New Restaurant, also winner of a Michelin Star), Kevin "I turned down a scholarship from MIT" Gillespie (Rising Star Chef of the Year semi-finalist), Hector Santiago (Best Chef, Southeast nominee) and plenty of restaurant executive chefs.

Of course, the title Executive Chef is pretty subjective when it comes to experience and knowledge. Take for instance, Preeti Mistry, an executive chef working at Google's HQ in San Francisco. At the first Quickfire Challenge, the always exciting mise en place relay race, Ms. Mistry chose to open 15 clams when she didn't even know the difference between an oyster and a clam! Can you believe that? She even tried to open the clams like it was an oyster! Hello! You work in San Francisco where there is seafood aplenty! Why don't you know this?

Then there is Jesse Sandlin, a self-proclaimed, self-taught (read: not a culinary school student) executive chef of Abacrombie Fine Foods in Baltimore, MD, who in the challenge to win $10K, proudly declared that she hasn't cooked shrimp in decades! What the??!! So, what DOES Ms. Executive Chef cook then? And what's up with judge Colicchio choosing Eric Ripert's protégé Jennifer Carroll's extremely simple dish of clam ceviche to win $10K in that same challenge? She didn't even have to turn on the stove for that! Were her other 3 competitors (including Ms. Sandlin) that bad?

This season, there appears to be several changes to the challenges including the just-revealed prize money for particular challenges. Usually, you try to win challenges to get an edge over your opponents but there is an extra incentive this season. After winning the mise en place challenge, the 4-person Blue team got to compete among themselves to come up with a winning dish using the ingredient that they just mise en placed for $10K.

For the elimination challenge, and in keeping with the Sin City theme, the contestants were asked to create a dish based on their own personal vices. As usual, some were more successful than others. This first challenge was won by the Amish-looking Kevin with his arctic char dish, which I thought was not that impressive to begin with. Colicchio did mention that arctic char was his favorite fish so that might have tipped the scale (no pun intended) for Kevin. The loser and unfortunately the title of the being the first person eliminated from the show was hot tamale Jennifer Zavala, who tried to stand out from the rest by using--horrors!--seitan, the wheat gluten meat alternative to stuff her chilies rellenos. Yuck! Jennifer wanted the dish to represent her hot temper but unfortunately the seitan put a hose to that idea.

Note to self: Don't break out the seitan in the opening challenge of Top Chef!

Although the seitan rellenos was nasty, my pick for elimination was Eve with her badly cooked scallops and her unfocused interpretation of the personal vice theme. And what's with Puerto Rican Hector's interpretation of a smoked steak that he deep-fried....for Wolfgang Puck of all people! This coming from a James Beard nominee? Every season has a villain and this year's is Mike Isabella who is so obnoxious and cocky, he'll probably stay for the duration of the show so that the producers can create some drama (remember Stefan?). Another interesting side story to watch out for is the ultra-competitive intensity of the Voltaggio brothers, Mike and Bryan. Another one that might be interesting to watch is French poodle Mattin Noblia, who seems so out of place with his red scarf/neckerchief. I bet Mike makes him cry in an upcoming episode! As for frontrunners, it has to be Jennifer (Ripert's chef) and Kevin and I hope a Carla-like (season 5) underdog emerges from one of these other chefs.

There are some hits and misses so far this season but it is still early and let's hope that there is no repeat of a Hosea-like winner this year. Talk about a letdown.

Garlic Chives in a Stir-Fry

A stir-fry is an essential Chinese dish and the use of garlic chives in the dish only helps to strengthen that notion. Known in my native tongue as ku chai, garlic chives are used in a Malaysian fried flat noodle dish called char koay teow. Essentially, the green stem, albeit much thicker than regular chives, gives it the chive appearance but the addition of a flowering bud at the top tells you that this is a different species. As the name suggests, garlic chives exudes a more garlicky flavor than regular chives, which taste more like a less intense onion.

Here, I am pairing the garlic chives with cauliflower, shiitake mushroom, shallots, shrimp and grape tomatoes. Be sure to blanch the cauliflower first before stir frying because it takes a much longer time to cook than the rest of the vegetables.

Love and War

How lucky y'all are- the third post in the space of a week. I've been to the cinema a lot more often recently after the general drought of new releases that followed Half-Blood Prince, and thusly I'm bringing you two films that couldn't be much further away from each other in terms of tone and content. One is a tribute to the "men-on-a-mission" exploitation war movie and the other is a sci-fi romance, but I like to keep all kinds of readers happy. As ever, mild spoilers may crop up here and there but not so far as to reveal any major plot developments.
------------------------------------------------

INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS


Who's in it? Brad Pitt and Diane Kruger are being touted as the leads in the advertising, but the real de facto leads are Mélanie Laurent and Christoph Waltz.

What's it all about? In Nazi-occupied France, young Jewish woman (Laurent) escapes a colonel known as the Jew Hunter (Waltz) as the rest of her family are slaughtered. Years later, she has an opportunity to get revenge on the German high command as Joseph Goebbels organises a film premiere at her cinema. Little does she realise that the American Lt. Aldo Raine (Pitt) and his "Basterds" are dishing out some vengeance of their own.

Any good? I don't quite put Quentin Tarantino on the same pedestal that most film buffs do. Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs and Jackie Brown are all excellent, but it's what he's done since then that's been off-putting to me. I didn't like Kill Bill that much, and I haven't bothered to see Death Proof yet. That is a track record that should overwhelmingly suggest that I enjoy his work, but I'm still yet to be convinced that he's the greatest director of our time. Inglourious Basterds is a continuation of the kind of slightly juvenile and gleeful homage to exploitation cinema that characterised Kill Bill, but on some level, I enjoyed this much more. Maybe it's the Nazi factor- two of my top five favourite films ever feature Nazis as the bad guys, so maybe they just make terrific villains.

On the other hand, I suspect it's more to do with the sheer scope of the film. Like Pulp Fiction, the film is made up of interweaving stories with different sets of characters on screen in each of the film's five chapters. This made me feel almost as if I were watching a stage play- the lengthy running time and the extended scenes filled with dialogue only heightened this, and that made me feel like there was something distinctly uncinematic about it. Which is odd really, as the film is a massive tribute to cinema. It's obviously not an angle explored in trailers, but a lot is made of Joseph Goebbels' propaganda films and efforts in the German film industry. And without spoiling too much, the general message is that cinema can save the world. The film is practically a love letter to the institution Tarantino adores so much. But that doesn't mean it's not a lot of fun to watch. The humour is broad and as dark as the subject matter demands- this isn't The Great Dictator, but the jokes definitely come thicker and faster as the film progresses. Tarantino's trademark dialogue is also one of the best parts, and he gives his sterling cast something to chew on.

Brad Pitt does make an impression as Aldo Raine whenever he appears, but the standout performances come from Mélanie Laurent and Christoph Waltz. Waltz in particular is marvellous as the Jew Hunter- he hams it up slightly, but you never feel there's any denigration to the menace he presents. Like all the best villains, he's a thoroughly sick human being, but the best of those long scenes I mentioned feature him playing with his food via interrogation and terror. Diane Kruger's tribute to the German cinema divas of the era and the assorted Basterds are also memorable, but neither Eli Roth or Til Schweiger are given enough screentime in the interweaving and diverse narrative. One of the more non-sequitous sub-plots brings to the forefront the always excellent Michael Fassbender as an English captain and, bizarrely, Mike Myers in Austin Powers mode as his superior. It's one of the standout scenes for its humour and gentle mocking of the British, but it feels slightly indulgent in a film that already runs for quite a long time. Tarantino is not a director who does restraint or subtlety much, but that works in the favour of this film.

Inglourious Basterds is a very confident film overall- Tarantino has enough confidence in his audience to sit through a long film, of which about 50% is in German or French with English subtitles. More than that, he resists what most other directors would do by tightening up those scenes with the Jew Hunter for the sake of building tension in the short-term, and creates a much more memorable film for this. Not flawless, but highly entertaining exploitation cinema.


------------------------------------------------

THE TIME TRAVELER'S WIFE


Who's in it? Rachel McAdams is the eponymous wife, with Eric Bana as the "chrono-impaired" love of her life. Ron Livingston and Stephen Tobolowsky admirably support them by looking confused at how time travel is possible.

What's it all about? Henry (Bana) has a freak genetic disorder that causes him to involuntarily travel through time. This causes complications with the love of his life Clare (McAdams), whom he meets for the first time when he's 28 and she's 20, even though she's known him since she was 6 and he was 34.

Any good? Audrey Niffenegger's book is the type of bestseller that sweeps the charts every so often when Richard and Judy, or some other influential personality, decrees it to be a good read. Loath though I am to discovering books in this way, The Time Traveler's Wife was an interesting story, and although by no means perfect, it was one of the better "Book Club" type recommendations. This film adaptation is thankfully not too reverent to the source material, and isn't afraid to give proper focus to both Henry and Clare by cutting some of the more unwieldy subplots and characters to place the focus on their relationship. There's been an overriding tendency in films recently to show too much backstory- when G.I. Joe has flashbacks, you know the problem has gone way too far. Director Robert Schwentke understands that we don't need to know every single detail of our protagonists' lives just to care about them- if anyone needs that, the book will enrich your knowledge- and instead moves forward with the slightly boggled narrative.

Time travel is a tricky proposition in films from time to time, as it either has to make complete sense with causality or lull the audience into suspending their disbelief by breaking the fourth wall and telling them not to worry about it. This film achieves a neat balance between the two by performing a sleight of hand. The romance is the operative part, and only the most detached people will be wondering why the universe isn't melting around Henry's ears as he cheats on the lottery and takes his wife's virginity before she's ever even met him. And for this purpose, Eric Bana and Rachel McAdams are pitch perfect casting. Bana needs more good work like this full stop, and McAdams is as endearing as she usually is in such roles. And because they're so good, you allow yourself to be taken in by it all. There were a couple of slightly mawkish scenes and one totally out of place bit of dialogue that jarred me for a moment or two, but the film drew me back in soon enough.

It's for reasons like this that I could imagine The Time Traveler's Wife being a rather excellent date movie, but please be aware that it depends on how sensitive your companion is- the ending had a lot of people crying in the screening I attended, and that might not be how you want to end a date. However, wading through the throngs of bereaved viewers on my way out of the cinema, I was very much possessed of the feeling that this is a film that deserves to do well. If you read the book, go and see the film.



------------------------------------------------
Very much up to date now, so couldn't tell you what my next post on here will cover. Aliens in the Attic, if I can subject myself to such an exercise of endurance? I'm wanting to see A Perfect Getaway at some point too. If all else fails, I'll be back in a couple of weeks for Funny People and The Final Destination. Please don't forget to comment letting me know if you've seen Inglourious Basterds or The Time Traveler's Wife- it's always good to get feedback.

I'm Mark, the Mad Prophet of the Airwaves, and until next time, don't watch anything I wouldn't watch.

Flawed G Nius

As most of you will probably know, I'm in possession of a much-used Cineworld Unlimited card. That I retain my youthful looks in spite of some of the dross I see in the name of entertaining you lot with my reactions makes me suspect that somewhere down the line, a portrait has been painted of me that now sits in an attic, going bald and looking increasingly angry with film that splatters on the big screen. I open this post not to be negative, but to very much hammer home the point that I wouldn't see half of these films if it weren't costing me a mere £13.50 a month (equivalent to just two tickets) to see around six to eight films.

I saw two films in particular this week that I wouldn't ever see in cinemas if I were forking out £6.80 a visit, and they are G-Force and G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra. As it is, rants aren't really in order for either of these films, and I'll be reviewing them today. As ever, mild spoilers may crop up here and there but not so far as to reveal any major plot developments.

G-FORCE


Who's in it? A fairly sterling voice cast includes Nicolas Cage, Sam Rockwell and Penelope Cruz, with the live action cast comprising Bill Nighy and Zach Galifianakis.

What's it all about? Highly trained guinea pigs are deployed by an eccentric FBI developer (Galifianakis) to prevent electronics mogul Leonard Saber (Nighy) from, you guessed it, taking over the world.

Any good? "I see dead people."
"Here's lookin' at you, kid."
"You had me at hello."
"These go up to eleven."
"There is no spoon."

What do all of the above phrases have in common? They're quotes that would go over the heads of children if they heard them in the latest Disney family fare, and would similarly fail to make most adults laugh. So why G-Force is so chockful of such lines, pandering to an audience who would (and in my case, should) probably know better than to see it, is beyond my comprehension as a film goer. John McTiernan can hardly have directed Die Hard with the aim of turning Bruce Willis' "Yippi-kay-ay, motherfucker" into a line so iconic that it was referenced in a PG Disney film with talking guinea pigs as secret agents. Although the quoting immediately struck me as an issue to open this review on, I can't avoid mentioning that this is one of those high-concept Disney family films that we occasionally see (like Bedtime Stories or The Pacifier) that singularly fails to entertain most people over the age of 12. And yet it's pandering to a much older audience, a catch-all technique also employed by Transformers, my favourite film ever. Additionally, the main threat to the world here is comprised of transforming electrical appliances, leading some to say that the film is "Alvin and the Chipmunks, if it were directed by Michael Bay".

While that succinct review did make me chuckle, I can't fairly attach such a label to G-Force, because it's not a Michael Bay film, and it is slightly elevated by its cast. The trailer for this was so terrible that I audibly cried out when I recognised Bill Nighy. "What have they done to you, Bill?", I wondered, loudly and desperately, as my younger companions shushed me. So I had to get down from the cinema seat I hadn't realised I was standing on and stop throwing things at this seemingly innocuous family adventure that was being advertised. As it is, Bill Nighy is criminally underused for an actor of his calibre, but he makes the best of the cardboard antagonist he's given. Likewise, Zach Galifianakis, he of The Hangover, is endearing enough as the mad bastard who's pitching the G-Force programme to the FBI. I can't really fault the voice work either, as everyone makes the best of the hideous stereotypes they're given- Tracy Morgan is African-American comic-relief guinea pig, Penelope Cruz is Latina-with-feminine-wiles guinea pig, and it's all slightly tired.

The ultimate measure of all films like this is whether or not kids will enjoy it- they are the target audience, after all. And with my youngest brother's verdict of "it was alright", I must conclude that G-Force is nothing special. It's not awful enough to make me shout and scream, but it's burrowed comfortably into whatever is lining the floor of the summer movie season without standing proudly in its own droppings. I suspect few will want to take it home and keep it, but you might go "Aww" when you see it.



G.I. JOE: THE RISE OF COBRA



Who's in it? Channing Tatum and Marlon Wayans apply their not-considerable acting wiles to the lead roles, while Christopher Eccleston, Dennis Quaid and Sienna Miller cover the slack.

What's it all about? Arms manufacturer James McCullen (Eccleston) and his organisation, COBRA, are about to make his mark on the world with the use of a revolutionary new warhead, but first they must eliminate the elite government unit that protects against such threats- G.I. JOE. With the help of new recruits Duke (Tatum) and Ripcord (Wayans), it falls to the Joes to save the world from COBRA.

Any good? I honestly do try not to invoke Michael Bay in every review, but in the midst of the summer blockbuster season, in a year when he's had a godawful film out, I'm merely covering the back of every other film by saying it's not as bad as his. Here of course, I have cause to mention this cinematic Lord Voldemort, with G.I. Joe being the second film of the summer to come from the slightly dubious production company Hasbro, who are of course better known for the toys. So with expectations that the film would be another ludicrously expensive and painful toy advert, I must declare myself surprised by what Stephen Sommers has offered up. I'm a fan of his Mummy films, and he's invested the same fun adventurous spirit in this effort, right down to casting Brendan Fraser and Arnold Vosloo against one another, although the formula is sadly underused. What this makes for is a rather enjoyable family action film. It's not perfect, but that should really go without saying.

Look at that premise again for a moment. Does anyone remember Team America World Police? I thought you might, and the similarities go beyond that when you're watching the film itself. The Global Integrated Joint Operating Entity (what the acronym stands for) pretty much polices the world in the way Team America did, and oh look, the Eiffel Tower falls down as they go about in their Earth-protecting duties. Somewhere Parker and Stone are laughing. That's only if you've seen their film though- the more ostensible problem is the lack of simplicity. I stand by the fact that it's self-aware as a kid's world, with "toyetic" weapons and vehicles, but the labours put into back story are remarkable for a film like this. Sommers should really have kept things simple, as the number of flashbacks is what boosts the film up to its two hour running-time, when a couple of lines referencing the characters' pasts would've done much better. The most ludicrous of these is when the teams' two opposing Stig-like samurai come face to face and the line "Hello, brother" smash cuts away to a shot of two children play-fighting. Just in case some people in the audience don't know what brothers are.

That said, Sommers never patronises his audience, and if he had, I doubt he would've attracted the likes of Dennis Quaid or Christopher Eccleston. Quaid is sadly underused, but Eccleston sinks his teeth into his villain role without totally hamming it up, even if that Scottish accent is a little off. The mild titillation from Rachel Nicholls and Sienna Miller never reaches Megan Fox-like levels, mostly because both of these women are capable actresses. Of course this isn't the best thing any of the cast have been in, but they all acquit themselves well. Even Marlon Wayans, or Jar-Jar Binks in human form as I am more partial to calling him, manages to be less annoying than in anything else I've seen him in, and Channing Tatum's blandness is fairly inoffensive. On the other hand, Jonathan Pryce is underused too, and seems to have been cast as the President entirely with the sequel in mind. This is talismanic of the whole film, actually- a whole sub-plot is dedicated to the ending sequel hook, and I hope the already-announced sequel doesn't discard the entertainment factor of its predecessor when it shows up in cinemas.

Whether the sequel manages to be better or not, The Rise of Cobra is a cheesy but fun action film that doesn't exist solely to sell toys, but might have been better served by cuts to ensure a PG certificate. It's not as bad as Transformers, Kids will be enthralled and parents won't fall asleep or want to self-destruct halfway through, and I was entertained too. It proves the need for some films to be preceded by an Orange advert that tells you to switch your brain off so you don't ruin the film.



------------------------------------------------
Tonight, I'm going to see a little film called Inglourious Basterds, so that's probably next for the Mad Prophet treatment. I did also see The Time Traveler's Wife last night, so you can expect that too. Quick thing as well- if you're reading can you leave a comment? It's always good to hear feedback, and I only ever know you're here if you text me or see me drunk in town. Thanks muchly.

I'm Mark, the Mad Prophet of the Airwaves, and until next time, don't watch anything I wouldn't watch.

The Mad Prophet #1- Two Moons

Yeah, this is about the size of that promised rebrand. Let me fill you in on why I've gone off in a different direction from the "Filmgoat" name I was planning and alluding to. Having gotten catastrophically drunk last week, I wandered outside the club I was in and met an old friend from secondary school. Well, I say a friend... point being he's apparently being reading these reviews and told me they were very funny. This, for me, is a score.

More than anything else, I've hoped I'm not brow-beating people with my opinions. If anything, I'm happier to be Howard Beale, the mad prophet of the airwaves from the film Network. His show in that film is set up by the TV network executives to open with him delivering elaborate and disillusioning rants that he's channeling to the world from some unknown celestial force. At the end of each rant, he'll collapse into a faint in the spotlight, whereupon the studio audience applauds raucously. They're entertained, but they haven't took on a word he's been saying. And when someone reminds me of that in their response to these reviews, I know I'm doing something right. No one likes a critic, so I'm on the backfoot if I'm not entertaining you.

Moving on then- I've seen four new films this week and this post shall cover two of them. One quite literally involves the Moon, and the other is a remake that drops trou and flashes its arse at the superior original. As ever, mild spoilers may crop up here and there but not so far as to reveal any major plot developments.

MOON


Who's in it? Sam Rockwell and Kevin Spacey are at the forefront in what's largely a two-hander, I was surprised to see homegrown Channel 4 stars like Matt Berry and Kaya Scodelario (of The IT Crowd and Skins fame, respectively) popping up in the background.

What's it all about? Sam Bell (Rockwell) is an astronaut nearing the end of his three-year contract working on the Moon to extract and export an energy resource that has made the Earth clean and efficient. With only a computer (voiced by Spacey) for company, Sam has a quintessentially personal encounter right before he's due to go back to Earth.

Any good? Sci-fi is bandied around like a dirty word sometimes, unless it's followed by the word "blockbuster". Nine times out of ten, such films have more money than ideas, and so the genre in its undiluted form rarely sees wide release. Even the Sci-Fi Channel have rebranded themselves as the mind-killingly banal "Syfy". So a film like Moon is a breath of fresh air if you like intelligent films with ideas. And I'm eager to point out from the off that not all science fiction features Klingons or Daleks, so don't fall into that slightly populist trap of avoiding Moon cos you're expecting something boring and nerdy.

Director Duncan Jones lovingly harkens back to the age when sci-fi films had ideas- films like Silent Running in particular- but it's as a result of that that it's not particularly original. I couldn't pretend that Moon has new ideas, as I even spotted one major part of the plot that's been done in an Arnold Schwarzenegger film, but the execution of these ideas is what makes it a good film- it wasn't half as good with Schwarzenegger. This film is directed and performed with more subtlety than Michael Bay could muster if he spent ten years in the dark trying to make a silent film, and it's just beautiful. As mentioned, it's more or less a two-hander, providing a claustrophobic atmosphere in the moonbase, which Sam Rockwell amplfies brilliantly with his diverse and great performance. I can't sing Rockwell's praises enough in general, but here is one of those performances that should get nominated for an Oscar, and probably would if the nominations and voting procedure weren't so skewed against genre fare. When February rolls around, I doubt the recipient of the Best Actor award will have been half as good as Rockwell is here, in whatever beige "prestige" film he (or she, you never know these days) has starred in.

There's not much of a supporting cast to speak of, but Kevin Spacey lends the film some tension as well as Sam's helper robot, GERTY. As he trundles around with a "Kick Me" post-it stuck to his back, he does his best to keep Sam sane and happy, but his ulterior motives are brought to the fore by the fact that Spacey can't even ask if you'd like something to eat without sounding menacing. But then I'm not planning to eat round Kevin Spacey's house anytime soon, so that's just fine with me. So besides these two, the other stand-out aspect of the film is the effects work. Far from relying on CGI, some beautiful model shots are employed of the vehicles, the base and the surface of the Moon itself. Another aspect of the homage to Silent Running and its low-budget ilk? Perhaps, but Jones was absolutely right to look elsewhere instead of succumbing to CGI shots. I'm talking about anything other than the story because I'm avoiding talking about the crux of the plot in advance- I knew nothing about this aspect of the story when I saw it, and I think I enjoyed it more because of that. So while I'm lavishing more praise than usual on effects (the score is good too, by the way), be assured that the film has more than enough story to keep you thinking and guessing throughout.

Intelligent and thought-provoking, Moon is the best sci-fi film in ages. Possibly since The Matrix. It's not entirely original, but it takes the time to execute the ideas that support the plot with new techniques rather than patronsing the audience by lazily chucking CGI at us. As with most low-budget films, it's sadly not in wide release, but I strongly recommend you catch it when it's released on DVD/Blu-ray.



THE TAKING OF PELHAM 123 (2009)


Who's in it? John Travolta and Denzel Washington sit in for Robert Shaw and Walter Matthau, with James Gandolfini and John Turturro lending ample support.

What's it all about? Walter Garber (Washington) is a New York subway train dispatcher whose life is changed when Ryder (Travolta) hijacks a subway car and demands $10 million in return for the 19 hostages he has on board. The two men form an uneasy relationship over the radio system as the clock ticks towards Ryder's deadline- for every minute he doesn't have the money thereafter, he'll kill a hostage...

Any good? Let me tell you about the 1974 film, The Taking of Pelham One Two Three. I saw it recently and found it to be one of the better films I've seen since... well, ever. Well-paced, great action sequences and beautifully acted by Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw. Shaw, he of Jaws fame, is ice-cold and completely dedicated to getting what he wants, while Matthau is an endearing everyman who could easily have gone into his own spin-off series. Hell, I'd have watched another film with Matthau's Garber. Most importantly, the film leads up to one of the best endings ever- played just right and ending in media res. As the credits roll, you'll be smiling. 35 years on, Tony Scott has also adapted the book from which the 1974 film was based, so this isn't a remake in the strictest sense. But that won't stop me tearing it a new one, folks.

First problem, I say, as I pop open the hood of the film to take a look at it, is that Scott has clearly cast the lead roles the wrong way round. Denzel Washington can clearly play baddies well, as his Oscar for Training Day will attest, so while he's as endearing as he is in other films where he's the good guy, he's just too cool to be in the role of Garber. Cool, that's what Robert Shaw was. John Travolta, not so much. He needs to stop playing baddies altogether. Just... stop. People have talked endlessly about his easy charm, the kind of thing that came through in Grease and Pulp Fiction. In this, he's easily the worst possible drop-trou to the 1974 version as he overacts his way through yet another villain role, seemingly only there to demonstrate every possible vocal iteration of the word "motherfucker". Oh, and in an unintentionally hilarious moment, the word "bumhole". On the positive side of things, James Gandolfini captures the ineptitude of the Mayor of New York perfectly, even in spite of the script making him more competent than his predecessor towards the end of the film, and he has some of the best lines in the film.

Second problem, I say, poking at the mechanics of the film with a spanner, is the "updating" of the film. I feel that Pelham One Two Three was a film very much of its time. In the mid-70s, you can have a subway car full of New Yorkers react with derisive laughter when a gunman tells them he's hijacking the train. They have a cynicism and hard edge that only evaporates once they start shooting. Of course, something quite big happened in New York within the last ten years that now has "terrorist" being said almost as often as Travolta spouts "motherfucker". Post-9/11 subtext was one of the many things the film didn't need, and because it's an unfortunate necessity of setting a film like this in New York, it raises the question of whether it was necessary to remake the film in the first place. Additionally, you know you're in trouble when your film has a social networking sub-plot and vague allusions to the financial corruption that's landed us in the current credit crunch.

But the major problem, I yell, as I start smacking the film with a pipe-wrench, is Tony Scott's direction. He sits somewhere just above McG in the pantheon of awful directors, and he's far too content to bring in shaky-cam, aerial shots and rock music wherever he possibly can. He is not one of those directors who does subtlety. One scene in the original has a police car crash into a fire hydrant- understated because the significance of the crash to the plot is more important than the spectacle of it. The equivalent scene in this update has the car fly spectacularly off a bridge and roll several times, causing various other explosions around it as it goes. Don't even get me started on the jump-cuts and the horrible raping of that brilliant 1974 ending I mentioned. But replacing the hood for a moment, I have to grudgingly admit that most people will be entertained by this. It's got a lot going for it with Washington and Gandolfini at the centre, even if the former is miscast, and Scott didn't change enough of the story to make this a bad film.

The Taking of Pelham 123 is due a drubbing from anyone who's seen the 1974 version, and I strongly advise you to see that film instead of this one. Newer isn't better, but I admit that you could do a lot worse in an evening at the cinema than see this. On the other hand, the DVD costs but £2.99 online at its cheapest, and £5 in HMV. The 2009 version is a good film done poorly.



------------------------------------------------

The next films to be reviewed will be G-Force and G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra, and I obviously kept those back because I need help with witty subtitles and they have the G thing in common. Um, but also because they're both family films, obviously.

I'm the Mad Prophet of the Airwaves, and until next time, don't watch anything I wouldn't watch.
Mark.

Vietnamese Spring/Summer Roll

Here is a refreshing idea for a quick appetizer. Known as gỏi cuốn in Vietnamese, this vegetarian version of a spring roll (or summer roll depending on the time of the year that it is served and its ingredients) takes very little time to prepare and best of all, you can add most anything you want to it. In short, you can come up with your very own version of a spring roll and wow your friends.

Generally, a Vietnamese spring roll contains cooked shrimp (or pork), rice vermicelli, lettuce, Thai basil and cilantro all wrapped up in an almost-transparent rice paper and served cold with a Hoisin-based dipping sauce. As you know, one is not limited to those ingredients alone. The rice paper wrapper is quite unique. In its initial condition, it looks like a round plastic disc and almost translucent. Quickly dip it in water (2 seconds will do) on both sides and you'll see the hard plastic-like disc transform in front of your eyes into an almost transparent, pliable wrapper.

Now, to construct the roll, lay the now soft wrapper onto a plate or another flat surface. Scoop all your ingredients (vegetables, shrimp, Thai basil, cilantro) onto the lower third of the wrapper. Be careful not to overload the wrapper. Experiment until you get the right amount to put on. I usually go vegetables on the bottom, followed by the shrimp and topped with Thai basil, cilantro and crushed roasted peanuts. From the bottom, roll the lower edge over the ingredients and then fold the two sides over and continue rolling until you get to the other end. Make sure you keep the roll tight around the ingredients.

As for the dipping sauce, I use Hoisin (a Chinese dipping sauce) as the base and thin it out slightly with some rice wine vinegar and to add a little heat, I also add a touch of chili and garlic (or sambal) sauce. Note that Hoisin is pretty salty all by itself and you don't really need that much of it to start. To remedy the saltiness, add some sugar. And there you have it, a Vietnamese Spring (or Summer) Roll with dipping sauce.

Breakfast Fruit Parfait

Breakfast may be the most important meal of the day but a typical continental breakfast made up of eggs, ham, sausage, bacon and toast might not be the ideal meal for someone looking to get healthier or lose weight. A good alternative is a breakfast of fresh fruits. However, the meal doesn't have to be a monotonous motion of just picking through a bowl of boring old fruits. You can jazz up your fruit-based breakfast with some ingredients that will add welcome sweetness and creaminess that mesh very well with the tartness of citrusy fruits.

What we have here is a yogurt-based fruit parfait. The typical parfait is often served as a dessert to cleanse one's palate after a meal. It can be made with custard, ice-cream or flavored gelatin. Increasingly, we are now seeing a healthier alternative where the parfait is served with yogurt, granola, nuts and of course, fruits. And the best thing is, it is easy to put together as long as you have all the ingredients on hand.

First, choose the fruits that you would like in your parfait. I usually go for Mandarin oranges, peaches, strawberries, cantaloupe, pineapple, honeydew melon and blackberries, a good mix of sweet and sour elements. Cut them all into small cubes. Then it is time to concoct the yogurt parfait and it's very easy. Simply mix together yogurt, mascarpone cheese, fine sugar and vanilla essence. Yes, that's it! Or to reduce it further, buy vanilla flavored yogurt and just add mascarpone cheese. Mascarpone is the main ingredient in the Italian dessert, tiramisu and is very milky and creamy. It mixes easily with the yogurt and adds a creamy finish to the parfait.

To put it all together, scoop a little of the yogurt parfait onto the bottom of a serving glass. Add the fruits, scoop more of the parfait on top of the fruits and sprinkle granola over the layers. For decoration, you can garnish with a sprig of mint.

New England Lobster Roll with Lemon & Dill Aioli

Nothing screams summer in New England like a lobster roll, a regional specialty and a big favorite among the locals and tourists alike. Not only is it delicious, it is also very easy to prepare. The main task is to cook the lobsters, the other parts are as easy as gathering the ingredients and mixing them all together.

For my version, here are the ingredients that you'll need (makes 4 rolls): 3 lobsters, 1 stalk of celery (small dice), a few sprigs of fresh dill (chopped fine), juice from 1 lemon, 4 TBP of Hellman's mayonnaise, 2 red radishes (small dice), 1 stalk of scallion (julienned), roasted garlic powder and 4 hot dog rolls. The celery and red radish proves a nice crunch while the classic combination of dill and lemon juice adds some freshness and tang to the dish. Lobsters are in season now and the prices are coming down fast. I got mine for $3.99/lb with 3 lobsters costing me less than $15. These are the soft-shell variety, not as good as the hard-shells but just as delicious. Start off by boiling the crustaceans for 10 minutes or so. Make sure that the shells have turned bright red before retrieving the lobsters from the pot. These soft-shells cook faster than the hard-shells. Shuck the lobsters and chop the meat up into bite-sized pieces.

Now, to make the aioli, just add all the ingredients I listed above and stir thoroughly. Season with a little salt and pepper. If you prefer a little heat on your lobster roll, add a pinch of cayenne pepper. You can now add the lobster meat to the aioli. Next, spread some butter onto the hot dog rolls and toast them, giving them some crunch. As for condiments, I usually add some chopped lettuce on the bottom of the roll before scooping the yummy lobster aioli mix onto the roll. Finally, garnish with scallions and voila! your very own New England lobster roll.

Filet Mignon with Tomato Puree Beurre Blanc

In this post, I would like to talk a little bit about the sauce that accompanies the filet mignon rather than the main protein itself. Briefly, the filet is prepared by grinding a good amount of fresh black pepper onto both the surfaces of the meat as well as sprinkling it with some salt. On a well-oiled hot pan, sear both sides of the meat well until they turn lightly brown (you don't want to burn the filet). Now, remove the meat and set it aside. You can fire it again in the oven when your sauce is finished.

For the tomato puree buerre blanc, which is a butter sauce, you will need 4 fresh tomatoes, a stick of butter, 1/2 cup of beef stock (or chicken stock), white wine and a of tablespoon of cream. First, cut up and then puree the tomatoes in a blender. To get a smooth and velvety texture, strain the pureed tomatoes, leaving behind the pulp and seeds. Now, using the same pan that was used to sear your filet mignon, pour away the oil, leaving behind the bits and pieces of the meat that are stuck to the pan. Turn on the heat and deglaze the pan with some white wine, scraping the bitty pieces of meat off the pan in the process. Add the strained tomato puree together with the stock. Start cooking the puree and stock mixture by first bringing it to a boil and then simmer for 30 minutes. Next, add the cream a little at a time and stir, making sure that it doesn't turn the sauce into a cream sauce. Again, let the sauce simmer for 10-15 minutes. Taste and season with salt and pepper. The final step is the butter. Cut the stick of butter into small chunks and add them into the sauce one at a time. Make sure that the sauce does not come to a boil as it will break the butter down into its milk solids, clarified butter and whey components. The purpose of the butter is to add depth and flavor to the sauce and also as a thickening agent. Again, taste and season the final sauce.

To put it all together, re-heat the filet mignon that was set aside earlier. The sauce can either be served over the meat or as a base on the plate.