It takes some balls to go from being a doctor to a revolutionary, but in the 50s and 60s one man took it upon himself to be the liberator of the Latin American world. At first it was all fun and games, and he was the self-styled hero of the Latino world, and then, the tables turned and his life was cut short, propelling him to a stardom rarely seen in revolutionary figures. That man was Ernesto 'Che' Guevara, and recently Steven Soderbergh took it upon himself to adapt Che's life into a feature-length film.

We've already seen The Motorcycle Diaries where Mexican heartthrob Gael Garcia Bernal took on the role of 'Che' during his travels across Latin America taking in the poor conditions in which the people lived and still live. That film opened my mind up to the Latin American identity, and, as a student of Spanish, it's something I should really have looked into sooner. Without going on too much of a tangent, one can say that this is perhaps the best place to start with 'Che'-related materials (whether it's reading the actual Motorcycle Diaries, or watching this adaptation).

Only four years passed between the release of that film, and this new Biopic which takes on the heavy task of portraying a part of the life of 'El Che' in which he became the 'romanticised' hero of the Latin American people and a cult figure amongst the rebellious youth. In a way, this is a hard task, because people already have their preconceived ideas of him, as the man who freed Cuba from oppression; as the person who was unjustly martyred for his cause.

What Soderbergh manages to cram into the space of these two films really sums up the life of Ernesto Guevara in a way which doesn't add to the myth of 'El Che'. It takes away the myth, and creates the man. Benicio del Toro's performance as the asthmatic, cautious Che who suddenly becomes embroiled in more than he probably should be, taking on too much of a Communist bent, and ultimately dying for his cause, is stellar. I actually felt as though I could have been watching the man himself.

What I don't marvel at however is the fact that in the first instalment, El Che is passionate about his cause but not to the point of insanity, whilst in the second one, he is almost on the verge of having a screw loose in the way he handles himself. I haven't really looked into his life, so I can't say whether this is artistic licensing on the part of the American Soderbergh, or whether Che genuinely took his cause far too seriously.

In all, it's worth watching. However, the film is, of course, in Spanish so there are a lot of subtitles to read. If you're into the whole Cult of El Che, then get watching it to fill out the gaps in your knowledge. If you're just after a film to sit down for the night to watch, skip it - while the first instalment is entertainment, the second one is far too deep and political for my liking.

Overall: 7/10 - It's no Motorcycle Diaries, but, I suppose you can't say "His life should have been less political and more entertaining for the big screen". A worthy contribution to the demystification of El Che.

Disney-Pixar are always releasing films that seem like good ideas. They always end up being overhyped, and overdressed, and really lack anything meaningful or awe-inspiring. They're just cash cows, hoovering up the metaphorical cud from the pockets of many a soccer-mom. The latest release to go through the whole phase of being Pixar'd is titled, quite simply, Up.

Up opens with the usual Pixar short. This time, it's titled Partly Cloudy. It's a silent short, much like the little old man short that appeared before Toy Story; it even had the same feel to it. The basis of it was just purely silly, to warm you up for the big feature. It was good, though. It deserves pride of place in the list of Pixar shorts, particularly for the animation of the baby Ram, which was so cute even I went "N'awwww!" Frankly, if this were a film, I'd have paid to see it.

Now onto the main feature! What can I say about it? It's the usual Pixar film. It opened in a way that actually hooked me. I wanted to know more about Carl Fredricksen; I wanted to know more about his desires, his losses; what made him tick. But, it suffered from far too many a Pixar cliché:

Love at first sight

Deranged villain with no real motives

Comedy sidekick who's only funny because he's tubby and possibly a bit retarded.

Too many little things to pick up on.

I think they're self-explanatory clichés. The first one is an industry standard, so I'll let it fly. The second one...well...the villian is this film's Stinky Pete; a curmudgeonly geezer with no real reason for anything. It doesn't ruin the film...it's just been done before. Where's the character depth (like the evil HAL-esque autopilot in Wall-E!). The third...well...Russell is Ham the Pig meets Rex. In fact, I think Up could have been told by using Ham, Rex and Slinky...and it would still have worked.

As for the little things. They're things that annoy me, but, when I catch them, they please me. There is a small picture in the 'Adventure Book' of Carl's deceased wife, as a child, with the words "I found a pigeon. He's called Herbert" (or something like that). You don't necessarily spot it unless you're looking for things. I suppose I'm being picky.

The storyline could have been a little bit more (or perhaps less) developed. In short: Old man promises his wife he'll take the house to Paradise Valley; Old man takes house to Paradise Valley; Old man has adventure versus a villainous poacher. Honestly, I would have been happier if the story had ended when he got to Paradise Valley, but, if the adventure to get there had been more 'James and the Giant Peach' and less 'Honey, I Shrunk the Kids'.

In all honesty: there was a lot of hype around this film. There have been people who have loved it; others who have slated it. What you have to remember when going into this film is: "It's for kids". Sure, Disney make films for all audiences, and there are no doubt references that adults will chuckle at more than the children will, but, on the whole, it's a kids' film, and for that, it comes out top so far.


Overall: 7/10 - Yes, it's cliché; yes, the storyline is a bit garbled; but I honestly think this classes up there with the likes of Wall-E, Ratatouille, A Bug's Life and Toy Story in the "Top 5 Pixar Films".

Quentin Tarantino is well known in the movie world for his b-movie style, pulp novella, bloodfests on the big screen. If there isn't a head coming off, or a gun being fired a ridiculous amount of times, it's not worth his time writing it. This summer saw the release of his historically questionable gore-fest titled Inglorious Basterds [sic].

The film opens in a not-so-traditional fashion, with the acting credits given at the start. It's actually brilliant in the way it 'fits the era' as it were. Some of the casting also gives you pause for thought - Mike Myers? In a Tarantino film? What? - I'll get to that later though. In all, this 2 hour romp through the Third Reich is split into five chapters - one setting the scene for the antagonist, Hans Landa, and lesser protagonist, Shoshanna Dreyfuss; two on the Basterds; and two on Shoshanna Dreyfuss.

While it's a good film, it's disjointed. It's true it flows chronologically, but, it jumps during the chapters and can sometimes feel like there are totally different, non-intertwined stories going on, especially in the jump from Chapter 1 to Chapter 2. That's merely my point of view, but, for others, it might have worked. Admittedly, it is better in its cuts and jumps than Kill Bill.

Gore-wise, Tarantino held back a lot in the first hour or so. Sure, Nazis were bludgeoned to death, and scalped, and Jews were killed...but nothing huge happened until Chapter 4, Operation Kino, and even then, there was half an hour of a game of "Who am I?" played out by Nazi officers before there was any hint of there being a gun in the room. The ensuing bravado and folly was actually laughably good - it was true Tarantino - 'If someone pulls a gun, everyone pulls a gun; if someone pulls a trigger, the entire room goes up!'

Historically, it was never going to be a true story. Tarantino basically rewrote the war. And then tore it up, and rewrote it again. Sure, the Allies won; then he killed off Hitler himself; then he just tore up the rules and said "Screw it. Let's have the Jews do it." And that's how everything went off. The American involvement was a complete success - the Pearl Harbour of Tarantino's career (i.e. a rewrite); the British involvement was laughable, so much so, they put Mike Myers as our highest general in the land. Comedy gold? Sort of. All I could think was "My God, Austin Powers really let himself go before the 60s..."

The real star of the show though has to have been Christoph Waltz. He not only spoke fluent French, Italian and German; he acted the part down to a tee. I could have actually believed that he was an SS officer; I could have believed he loved what he did. There wasn't a flaw in his acting; same for Eli Roth and Melanie Laurent. Brad Pitt though? Hm. Bit much, I think. Especially that horrible Yankee-doodle-dandy drawl he had going. Maybe not my cup of tea in this sort of film.

But, when it comes down to it. It was a decent film. I went for blood, gore, and Nazi-bashing; and that's what I got. Admittedly there was very little of it, considering it's a Tarantino flick, but, I suppose he couldn't destroy all of Nazi-occupied France in a single movie, could he?


Overall: 6/10 - On reflection, it's a good film. But, it really drags in places. A whole chapter in German, on a game of "Who am I?" and who has the worst German accent...I actually considered walking out until a gun was pulled. Still - it's alright, maybe even worth the DVD extras.

He is every young man's dream, and every pleasure-seeker's nightmare; he is what old men seek out, and what loveless women cling to; the reflection of a bible in a blood-stained knife; the pawprint of a fox by a chicken-coop. He is Oscar Wilde's finest creation, a man ahead of his time - living in the 21st century, while stuck in the 19th.

The Picture of Dorian Gray was first published in 1890, and revised in 1891, by Oscar Wilde, who had already written a few plays and short stories by this time. It's subject matter was controversial, espousing a philosophy of 'new hedonism' - everyone must fulfil their desires, as the only things in life worth a damn are passion and fulfilment - but, it also kills off the lead by driving him insane with the way he literally sees the changes of his soul within the painting.

The film, based loosely on the novel, is a cinematic romp that doesn't necessarily have to be watched by those who have read Wilde's original. While it sticks to the framework, and some key areas are explored, it's been updated for the bloody and sex-hungry modern audience. Basil Hallward still dies, as in the book; but Alan Campbell is now working for Broadmoor Hospital, not as a chemist who disposes of the body. Sybil Vane still commits suicide, but doesn't overdose; she dies like Ophelia, whom she is seen playing early on in the theatre. Dorian's portrait still ages and withers, but it acts less as a portrait of his soul, and more of a healing factor, taking away his wounds, when he should already be dead...

On the acting side of things, I had few problems: Colin Firth played a largely bastardised version of Henry Wotton, who, far from being the little influence on Dorian in the novel, is now a fullblown hellraiser in London; but he played him believably. Ben Chaplin managed to get into Basil Hallward's mindset, of the man who is involved but never wants to be; of the conscience; and he brought the character to life. Credit where credit is due must also go to Rebecca Hall for Emily Wotton, a character not seen in the original novel, but brought in to make even more twists for the audience; at least she could act.

Which is not what could be said for Rachel Hurd-Wood, playing Sibyl Vane. Her expressions and mannerisms were so wooden, I may as well have watched a mannequin, or a ventriloquist's dummy, for the short space of time she was on screen. If there was any passion in the part of Sibyl, it was really left on the page. Even Johnny Harris' James Vane wasn't that good; he was acting on film as though it were for TV. He didn't seem deranged; he seemed like he was hoping for the cut to the next scene whenever he welled-up with tears...

But the real star of the show had to be Ben Barnes. His mood swings; his timing; his impeccable 'good looks'. He fit the role of the impetuous young Dorian perfectly. If I hadn't sat there with my reviewer's head on, thinking "This is a film. It is an alright film", I think I could possibly believe that I was looking at Dorian Gray himself in Ben Barnes. There were no flaws I could pick up on; he had it all.

Whoever wrote the script, though, needs a pat on the back and a slap 'round the head. It was a stroke of genius to send Dorian off for 25 years, long enough for Lord Henry to have a daughter; a love interest with a twist; and 25 years is long enough for the others to visibly age dramatically, and for times to change politically and socially; and Dorian ends up standing out like a sore thumb.
However, writing in a sex scene on every page makes it less 1891, and more 1991. We're not watching "Ron Jeremy's Finest Orgies" here, we're watching Dorian Gray. But, that's only minor. What did tickle me in the plot is James Vane's untimely demise - without giving away too much, let's just say "Think Final Destination, and then set it around 1915..." - sadly, I was amongst only 5 people in a packed cinema to chuckle at that scene.

Overall, what we're looking at isn't an adaptation of Dorian Gray that is to the letter; we're looking at an adaptation of the backbone of Dorian Gray; of the basics. If Oscar Wilde was alive, who knows how he'd take it. I'd like to think part of him would enjoy it, watching his character debauch himself in sex, drugs, and boxing; but, I also thought that with all the additions made to it, perhaps old Oscar is pirouetting in his grave...


Overall: 8/10 - It's a film, for a modern audience, and it ticks all the boxes. It was never going to be a straight adaptation; so, we have to live with what is 'entertaining' these days.

So today, I went to see the new Star Trek film. I figured it was worth seeing - to see whether it was the deathknell for the franchise, (like I always felt Enterprise was), or whether it would be a new lease of life for it.

I must say, without saying too much, that I was impressed with what I saw. While it didn't exactly open up the universe for them to boldly go into; to rework; to remould; to start again and do over with a better set of effects - it did manage to be faithful, and that's all I wanted from it. Faithfulness.

Zachary Quinto...I was in awe. He was Leonard Nimoy. He channelled Nimoy - all he needed to do was to go "Bilbo, Bilbo Baggins...!" and I would have been happy. And speaking of chanelling, Karl Urban was definitely DeForrest Kelley. "I am a doctor, not a physicist!" directly echoes the classic line of "Damnit, Jim - I'm a doctor, not a bricklayer!", which has always tickled my funnybone.

On the other hand, Zoe Saldana and Chris Pine were trying too hard, and came across as actors, not as characters. Chris Pine wasn't the cocky Kirk he was meant to be; and Zoe Saldana was nowhere near as sexy and alluring as Nichelle Nichols was in the role as Uhura. A bit harsh? No. I think not. They were both spouting out line after line, and it had nothing of the character in it - Scotty came across as the brash but loveable engineer; Spock was the Vulcan with the conflict of interests; and Bones was the doctor whose life had gone down the tubes, so he didn't give a damn (unless it was his job or his friends - the things he had left - on the line).

So, what about Eric Bana? Bah. He was a villian, and he was a villian of the old school. He needed nothing major (I know Romulans aren't exactly make-up heavy, but still), just himself and a good bit of acting. He didn't need to be scary, he just needed to be evil - and while he wasn't ''evil'', he was more on the deranged with a purpose side of things. I can't explain it, but, he was a decent foe. Nothing special though...

Overall?

Overall, I'd give Star Trek a 7/10 - it's given the franchise a new lease of life - but, I do so hope they don't play along with the same horrid plot twist as this one in order to make other movies. Please, if you make anymore - just keep the faith!