A Most Wanted Man

A Most Wanted Man was a bitter sweet experience for me.  On the one hand it was a terrific film, while on the other it was a reminder that the number of times I will see Phillip Seymour Hoffman in theatre is finite.  To watch the film felt like observing a ghost, leaving traces of its existence caught on camera in a haunting way.  Indeed, it left me mourning the loss of Hoffman.

When a film comes out after the passing of one of its actors, there seems to be some extra allowances given to their performance.  Does anyone really want to rip apart the last remnants of a deceased person’s career (there are exceptions, such as Wagons East)?  In the case of A Most Wanted Man, if you hear talk of the wonderful performance of Phillip Seymour Hoffman, I am hear to assure you that it is not over emphasized in any way.  It is a terrifically nuanced role that indicates exactly why he was considered one of the best, using subtleties to show not only how his character was reacting in the moment, but leaving clues around the inner workings of a man who strained hard to conceal his inner emotions.

The movie is about a small anti-terrorist group working out of Hamburg, which operates in secrecy and is led by Gunther (Hoffman), that uncovers information that a suspected terrorist, Issa Karpov (Grigorily Dobrygin), has arrived at the city.  They scramble to keep eyes on Karpov, working to uncover a greater network of terrorists that is operating internationally.  Director Anton Corbijn (The American) allows time to pass as the depths of the story becomes uncovered.  Suspense is created through the combination of cinematography, the musical score, and keeping a great number of unknowns scattered throughout to keep the audience thinking.

Corbijn keeps from using any superfluous shots, a rigid manner that never allows the film to meander and makes the most of every second of its run time.  The style of filmmaking reminds me of terrific past thrillers that focus on characters, progression, and story over car chases and pumping music.  In this essence, it really does feel like a film of old being retold in modern times, returning to the more cerebral style that Silence of the Lambs and Se7en embraced.

With the focus being centred around Gunther, we see a man who is the definition of being married to his job.  There is little that we know of him outside of the images displayed of him while tirelessly doing everything within his power to uncover and capture his quarry.  I only recall one scene in the film where we observe him at home, getting very little insight into the person who lies behind the business-like demeanour that is shown to all those around him.  This is where Hoffman excels, playing the role with such proficiency that we can study the subtleties of Gunther and gain a mild reckoning of him.

To contrast his character, Martha Sullivan (Robin Wright) enters the story from the US embassy to cooperate with Gunther while seeking her own interests.  She is seen as a character skilled in the art of politicking, something which Gunther appears to have little interest in.  Whenever the two meet, if she picks the location it is a high class, sterile environment, while Gunther chooses local eateries that reflect his down to earth, working from the streets approach to his job.  Through this comparison of characters, the movie makes a subversive criticism of American procedures on the anti-terrorism front, a visual architecture that reveals opposing positions of thought and philosophies.

As the film flows, it becomes apparent as to just how well it is constructed.  It is hard to notice any music (Herbert Gronemeyer) or filming technique, because it all blends and camouflages itself in perfect synchronicity.  This is a high calibre film that shows just what can be created when all cinematic elements are thoughtfully and artfully incorporated together.  As well, it is a piece that does justice to the legacy of Phillip Seymour Hoffman, and displays all of the reasons he was considered one of the best.

Rating - 4 out of 4 stars

Boyhood

One genre of film that has always had a chance to hold a sacred place in my heart and soul is the ‘coming of age’ stories.  Goonies, The Sandlot, and Stand By Me are just a few of the golden oldies from my upbringing.  It is always interesting when a new spin or attempt is tried, and one of the most inventive modern films on this theme has been Attack The Block, which was a combination science fiction, comedy, and horror story about a boy needing to step up into becoming a man.  It is a wonderfully creative look at the format and has an outstanding performance from John Boyega.

Normally the maturation of the protagonist takes place around an event or adventure, something which pushes their capacities and forces upon them the speedy advancement of their development to get through.  It fits well with the cinematic presentation, allowing the story to culminate towards their growth being linked to the climax.  While it is an affectionate portrayal of what youth deal with, it is not honest to the reality that many face.

In the case of Boyhood, director Richard Linklater sets out a most ambitious approach to capture the evolution of life that a person goes through during their upbringing, as situations and influences around them inform their development and sculpt who they will become.  The narrative follows twelve years of Mason’s (Ellar Coltrane) life, from six to eighteen.  While that idea in of itself may not sound too spectacular or ground breaking, the fact that the film was shot with the same cast over eleven years to properly construct Mason’s advancement is ambition unchecked.  It is a courageous attempt that the rational mind would believe as folly.  The creative mind, however, is different, and from this a historical piece of cinematic art is born.

For those readers who really enjoy seeing a movie that encapsulates a story, pushes towards a climax, and offers near complete resolution at the end, this is not that sort of film.  However, before you hear those words and think it is not a film to see, please continue reading as I attempt to win you over to giving this film a chance.  What the movie does is show a true and organic nature to the voyage from childhood to adolescence, as Mason develops into a young man.

Never before have I seen such an authentic movie that shows life for what it is; a series of ups and downs with the emotions and lingering events that create a character.  We are given snap shots of life with Mason, his mother (Patricia Arquette), and his sister Samantha (Lorelei Linklater) as they face existence together.  The dynamics of the family are not typical Hollywood, which seeks accentuate characteristics to fit within movie format, but more so resonate with the experiences of the audience through touching their own trials or the ones that friends had been through.

Mason and Samantha’s biological father (Ethan Hawke) maintains a close relationship with his children, acting as a mentor in scenes that are heartwarming and touching.  The chemistry between Hawke and his children is undeniable, and a true paternal bond oozes from the moments they are together.  Perhaps this is the strength of having to work together over a number of years, which allows for a natural bonding to present itself that is true to the passage of time that the movie depicts.  Patricia Arquette, who is the constant source of care and influence captures the everyday dynamic of a mother seeking her own life while passionately driven for the sake of her children.

The engaging snippets of Mason that we get are enhanced by the natural aging of the characters.  To see Ethan Hawke’s first appearance was the true realization of the strength of the movie.  We are used to seeing actors in their present state or covered with make up to make them look younger, and it took a bit of effort to really comprehend that this was Ethan Hawke in the time period depicted.  The natural life of the film becomes one of the purest forms of art as the days and years pass not only in the story, but in the faces of the actors and the physical environment around them.

 The narrative never feels composed, but an experience of life itself.  Linklater’s use of dialogue and extended shots weave the fabric of sincerity, resembling moments of Before Midnight as it uses scenes of passing time and setting suns.  The smallest of details heightened the true to life essence, such as a scene near the beginning of the film where Patricia Arquette is driving and a fly lands on her arm.  I really sense that most films would do a retake to eliminate the visually distracting bug, but here it is left in, something I interpret as a signal that no facades will be allowed to make entrance.

My words are insufficient to give the needed credit that Boyhood deserves.  Two thousand words could be used for analysis of this work and still not properly communicate all there is that could be said of Boyhood.  How can you properly communicate a profound experience that you have at the feet of a monumental achievement in art?  Is it possible to get a rein on all of your thoughts after being treated to the most magical theatre experience of one’s life?  I don’t think that it is something that I can achieve, but luckily the film exists so that you can witness it for yourself and need not rely on my inability to adequately pass on the passion represented by Boyhood.

Rating - 4 out of 4 stars

The Expendables 3

A number of years ago, at Wrestlemania 17, fans of the performance art of sweaty men pushing and pummelling each other (and indeed I was at the time a great fan) were treated to the ‘Gimmick Battle Royal,’ which was a blast from the past exhibit.  Wrestlers of old, all of whom were bathed in complete, unabashed gimmick.  It was a spectacle, because this was a concept that had become a bit of a laugh and shame inducing aspect when looking back at the history of wrestling.  However, seeing a light-hearted remembrance to it at Wrestlemania 17 brought out the nostalgia and made it ever so joyous to behold.  We had Duke ‘The Dumpster’ Droese (a garbage man), The Repo Man (no explanation required), Doink the Clown (once again, I need not explain), and the pinacle of hopeless gimmicks, The Gobbeldy Gooker (a dancing and unbelievable excited Thanksgiving Turkey).

It was enjoyable for the moment.  The wrestling was awful, but that had nothing to do with the enjoyment which was based on smiling and remembering how silly all of this was.  If they did it a second and third time, the novelty would be long gone and it would need to be actually entertaining for it to work.  Such is the case with The Expendables, which came out in 2010 and is now on its third instalment.  I fondly remember seeing it with a good friend, and getting giddy about all of these names from the past being thrown onto the screen in one action packed adventure.  To be honest, the action, script, and directing were not that great.  It was the un-measurable  power of nostalgia that left me walking away giving it a delightful three stars.

And onward does time march, four years the further and one sequel come and gone.  Novelty and nostalgia have now vanished.  It happened the first time, and it is no longer just fun in of itself to see these names on the screen at the same time.  The film’s shoulders must carry the weight of projecting a passable product.  What amazes me with this movie is that fact that it seems completely unaware that perhaps the ‘if we build it, they will come’ philosophy will not always work.  Just because it is crammed to capacity with well recognizable names does not mean it will be worthy of the masses.

The film itself is built on unsparing dialogue and characters, a barely serviceable script, and action sequences that are patched together with little cohesion, making it hard to really follow the part of the movie that should be the most fun.  As well as packing lots of weaponry, Sylvester Stallone and his crew march their way into battle wielding unforgivably poor blue screen effects, as well as digitally created aircraft and explosions that are just only one level above The Asylum (the studio who brought us Sharknado).  The rumoured budget is $90 million, and one has to believe that the majority went to pay the large cast instead of creating a movie that felt like it was produced by a major Hollywood studio.

In the film, Stallone’s team of elder gents of arms (including Jason Statham - who is really not that old, Dolf Lungren, Randy Couture, Wesley Snipes, and Terry Crews) run into a roadblock in an attempt to accomplish a poorly planned mission.  I did learn from this movie that if you are ever going to break into a heavily guarded area, you just need to proceed in the open with guns drawn at a pace slightly quicker than a meandering skulking.  I was also taught that to avoid being seen by passing vehicles, all one needs to do is stand with their back flat against a wall that faces directly towards the threat.

Not being able to accomplish the mission, which they never really seemed intent on doing if we are basing it off of their actions when the stuff goes down, Stallone sends the members of his team on their way.  His reasoning is that this is a young man’s game, a realization that he obviously did not come to while looking in a mirror.  Armed with a new group of unknown and unseasoned actors (with one of them having an IMDB bio boast of his existence on Dancing With The Stars), they go on to tackle dangers and be heroes.  For not having a lot of recognition, it is the younger group of soldiers who bring a shade of life to the film.  In the case of the UFC woman’s champion Ronda Rousey, she was able to shine at moments of personality and flair.  However, the ball was dropped when she was given a weighty dramatic context that was at this point out of her element.

Maybe that is the biggest problem with the movie… so many people do not feel like they are actually given opportunity for their personalities to be properly brought to light and infuse some energy is this bullet riddled film.  Wesley Snipes and Antonio Banderas grabbed their roles and ran with them, bringing some of the only moments of joy that I had while watching it, wishing that the others had done the same.  If neither your time nor your money is expendable, save yourself the time and just Google the synopsis and you get all you need from that.

Rating - 1 out of 4 stars

Run & Jump

What would happen if you’re life of happiness and family was all of a sudden ripped away from you, but left you knee deep in reminders?  What if a life altering situation happened to the person you loved most that would forever rewrite your future and your present, leaving you haunted and longing for the past?  This is the scenario that is presented in the Irish drama/comedy Run & Jump, although it lies more on the side of drama than on comedy.

The story is about wife and mother Vanetia (Maxine Peake) whose husband, Conor (Edward MacLiam) suffers a stroke which has caused brain damage, turning him into only a ghostly shade of what Vanetia once knew.  An American doctor, Ted (Will Forte) follows Conor home from the hospital and stays with the family, studying Conor to gain a medical understanding of his condition.  While Vanetia and family suffer through the integration stages of existing with a faint and distant husband and father, Ted is an outsider.  His scientific task keeps him emotionally detached to an almost cruel nature as he is in their abode, treating the cause of their emotional upheaval as a specimen to be examined.

The centrepiece of this movie is indeed the character of Vanetia, a woman with a steadfast love and determination, but also a fractured part of herself that seeps out from time to time.  I never like using cliche phrases like ‘tour de force’ when describing a performance, but I would be doing a disservice to Maxine Peake if I described it in any lesser fashion.  She carries with her the full embodiment of Vanetia and is able to pull the audience in full emersion into her life and circumstances.

While she is dedicated to her husband, a friendship develops with the good doctor and presents to her a painful temptation of having a life like she once had, one with joy and optimism.  As her husband becomes more alien to her children and herself, the remaining link that she has to her true humanity is through Ted, and he becomes a comforting escape from the dismal prospects that she is submersed in.

This is where first time feature film director Steph Green shows her greatest talent in the film.  She uses colours and shades to an immaculate level in giving visual representation to the two conflicting lives and men that Vanetia has.  There are muted colours and dreary tones in scenes around her frustrations and challenges with her husband, imprisoning scenes that offer little hope or passion.  Contrasting that is the vivid, bright colours of life that accompany her moments of happiness, hope, and as well as her relationship with Ted.  The colour of her red hair is magnified to brilliance, showing the full intensity of the marvellous character of Vanetia.

The movie flows for the most part with grace and a steady, knowing hand.  There are many different aspects drawn out into the open of this emotionally drained family, who are mercifully allowed times of embracing love.  The only moments when the flow is disrupted is when it ventures into the scenes of breakdown with Conor, with most of it appearing out of the blue and disrupting the film’s pace.

The movie is about life’s contemplations that come when we are conflicted between what we want, what we feel duty-bound to, and what we need.  As Vanetia is able to reconcile the two men in her life who torment her with different futures and possibilities, there is a marvellous scene where everyone is travelling along the Irish country side together.  The hills roll past, the vivid green is amplified and contrasted by almost colourless and blurry tops, a shot which represents the coming to terms Vanetia has arrived at.  If anything, do not see this film for any reason I have written about.  See it purely for the performance of Maxine Peake, who creates a character full of life on the edge of a dismal darkness, a crossroads that many of us have stood upon at one point or another.

Rating - 3 out of 4 stars

The Hundred Foot Journey

As a fan of both viewing and devouring wonderful food, 2014 has provided two attempts to satiate my desires with Jon Favreau’s Chef a few months ago, and now The Hundred Foot Journey.  Wondrous times, these are.  After first glance of the trailer for The Hundred Foot Journey it became a most anticipated film to watch, one which promised the glory of cooking passion as well as interesting character stories.


The tale is about a family from India, close knit and bonded around a heritage of cooking, who lose their restaurant and suffer family loss which prompts them to bring their flavour to Europe.  Settling in a picturesque town in France, they open a new venture directly across the street from a Michelin Star winning restaurant owned by Madame Mallory (Helen Mirren).  Mallory is the definition of staunch refinement, a purest in all that is classic about classical dining, and she sees the new-comers as tacky and the opposite of everything her restaurant stands for.

The film primarily revolves around Hassan (Manish Dayal), who learned the passion of cooking from his deceased mother, and who struggles with his own ambitions for greater recognition.  This is more of an assumption that I am making based off of how the story unfolds, because we do not really get a tactile understanding of this portion of his character throughout the film.  There is an insertion of expository items to inform us, but never the actual experience of feeling it.  It is this issue that is mirrored in many other aspects of the film, as dramatic elements unfold before our eyes, but not completely resonating in the heart.

Throughout this movie, which does excel with charming and heartwarming snippets, both circumstances of tension and drama never quite feel as though they have been allowed to arrive organically.  Because of this, there is a disjointed nature to the rhythm of the film as the tone shifts left and right without the benefit of properly integrated transitions.  This is most likely the reason why I was convinced when the credits rolled that the film had been two and a half hours, only to have IMDB blow my mind, insisting to me that it was a mere two hours.  Oddly enough, I believe that if the film was twenty minutes longer, focusing on allowing the dramatic elements to breath deeper it would have actually felt shorter than it was.

This is not to say that it was any kind of horrific film.  The cast involved holds a level of talent that elevated a great number of the scenes and was able to nail the charm when needed.  The father of the family (Om Puri) showed a pleasant relationship with Madame Mallory, one that seemed due to the talent of both Puri and Mirren.  As well, Dayal worked well with his female counterpart Marguerite (Charlotte Le Bon).  So many of the greatest scenes in the film were quiet moments between these two, and, unfortunately, they were only fleeting within the larger scope of the movie.

Food, which is the binding power of the story, becomes a lost image as the story rolls on.  During the introductory phase we are treated to wonderful visuals of ingredients and preparation, as well as gaining insight on an almost spiritual relationship between Hassan and the dishes he prepares.  It was such a strong connection that really established who Hassan was, and it was unfortunate that director Lasse Hallstrom did not revisit it throughout the film.  Instead, Hassan is no longer built as what we are told he was; a passionate chef with a deep understanding of flavours.  As with the dramatic elements of the movie, we are told that it exists even though we cease to experience it and understand it.

Rating - 2 out of 4 stars

The Corporation

The problem with some informative or social documentaries is that the knowledge they disperse can grow stale with time, making their relevance lessen as time marches on.  However, in the case of The Corporation, the flipping over of the calendar has done nothing but prove a timeless nature to its existence.  This documentary focuses around the history and being that is a corporation, and attempts to give the public a different perspective on this financial creature, giving ominous warning of what they could be and do.

With the economic crisis of 2008, The Corporation’s lessons reveal the truth to their message; that businesses can be out to make money and think about the short term results in the process.  As with many documentaries, there is a bias to this one as it has a definitive message that it is attempting to convey.  However, watching it gives one the feeling as though both sides of the story have their opportunity to speak openly and truthfully.  It is this ability that packs the true power as it delivers the honest, straightforward views reinforces the film’s premise.

If you are like me and have ever pondered as to just how stores can afford to sell brand new t-shirts for five dollars, or how dollar stores are able to stock their shelves with cheap merchandise, The Corporation shows there is good reason to ask those questions.  The hope is that those who have never considered anything other than the magnificent savings they get may begin to think more after seeing the documentary.

One of the techniques in the film is comparing a corporation to a human being (since corporations can legally be considered human) and putting it through a psychological test to see what kind of mental state it would have based off of how they operate.  By going through a checklist, they illustrate that a corporation is similar to a psychopath.  This process may not be following the most scientific of methods, but the image is the intriguing aspect.  It allows a symbolic reference that is a unique perspective and opens the door for conversation and thought on the topic to veer in new directions.

The narration may sound bland and distant, but I believe that it fits with the content of the documentary.  It is almost a lifeless voice that guides the viewer, an emotionless guide in a topic that revolves around the very questions of morals and base human feelings.  This experience is truly one that walks the line of the edge of what makes us human as well as what relates to the ‘human’ corporation.

I know some people who have an issue with the run time of the documentary, which clocks in at two hours and twenty five minutes.  Personally, I always enjoy the freedom from oppression of a lengthy film, but I also believe that if there is a story to be told it should not cut corners for the sake of being friendly on the arse and bladder of the audience.  Time means nothing if there is flow, focus, and proper intention.  Similar to 2013’s The Act of Killing (two hours and forty minutes), the weight of the content is enough to forget the passage of time.

Some documentaries aim to be informative and some to offer perspective, among a number of other goals they may have.  The Corporation strives, and succeeds, in both enlightening the audience as well as opening the mind to think about the global market place from alternative angles.  It does not seek to demonize the people at the top, and even makes a case for remembering to separate the individuals from the actions.  The culmination is an engaging film that does not answer all the question one may have, but opens the door for contemplation and further thought and investigation.

Rating - 3.5 out of 4 stars

Get On Up

For those who have not yet heard the name Chadwick Boseman and are unaware of the promise that is held by this rising star, Get On Up is the perfect introduction to the skills that he wields.  The film is a biopic about the life and career of James Brown, with Boseman playing the hardest working man in show business.  Last year he took on the mantle of Jackie Robinson in 42, and people may be starting to look to him for more biopics due to the depth of performance he has been able to dish out.

In Get On Up I found myself situated in a two hour and eighteen minute paradox (in perfect honesty, the movie never felt that long).  The contradicting forces within this film came around the pathos, with it being both distancing the audience at arm’s length while also ultimately relying on an emotional connection for us to have with James Brown and his circumstances.

Existing within the performance from Boseman we see a tremendous nuance on display that conveys the emotions of James Brown in scenes of revelation towards inner turmoil.  That is great and intriguing, but the progression of the movie, and the script itself, keeps the film impersonal to show how Brown kept many issues to himself and closed himself off from those closest to him.  However, to properly accomplish this there needs to be elements in the film that lets the audience inside to gain perspective on what lays below his exterior.  This never happens, and the disconnect with James Brown is a barrier that becomes difficult for us to break.  Without context or consequence to the eroding life circumstances of the lead character, the conclusion of the film, one which is designed to show a personal nature, is unable to properly achieve its goals.  

There is one relationship in the film that does feel real and authentic, showing a sincere side to James Brown.  This is between him and his manager, Ben Bart (Dan Aykroyd), who are able to see past the difference in skin colour as well as their business partnership.  Both actors play well with each other, and it becomes both a touching and encouraging angle of the film.  The sad part is that this was not to be the crux relationship of the film, and instead was secondary to everything else.

Playing along with the Oscar worthy (yes, I do believe that his performance was that good) role of Boseman was a wonderful soundtrack that encapsulated so much of the tone and drive of the film.  This is more than a necessary aspect, because to have messed up here would have been a crippling shot to the foot.  The audio is captured to give a live performance vibe that tantalizes the ears and forces foot to tap.  The visuals of the performances, however, were not quite able to keep pace as it never was able to plant the audience within the screaming crowd.  Successful spectacle films are a vehicle to fully transport the audience into another world, to integrate us within the moment and forget that we are sitting in a theatre.

This is a story with a nonlinear narrative, jumping around through different times of the life of James Brown, sometimes chaotic and others feeling organic and well arrived.  It could be an illustration of the drug induced state that James Brown found himself in in the late eighties.  It could also be an attempt to keep the intentional emotional distancing between the audience and the film.  Regardless of director Tate Taylor’s reasoning for it, the format never becomes as much an issue as the lack of understanding and connection to the Godfather of Soul, which keeps this film from truly being great.

Rating - 2.5 out of 4 stars

Guardians of the Galaxy

What more can be said about Guardians of the Galaxy than the fact that Marvel Studios and Disney prove exactly why they are the leaders in comic book movies.  The remainder of the major studios are diligently grasping at what their properties can do to be able to recreate the success that The Avengers had with shared universe concept.  Sony has even been hedging its bets on making spin off movies for numerous Spider-Man villains to follow the concept that has been laid out.  Warner Bros. has turned the Superman sequel into essentially a Justice League film, and Universal is looking at re-inventing its classic monsters of old and creating a shared universe for them.

While each of these studios are setting the ground work to arrive in a few more years where Disney and Marvel landed two years prior, we see what has made them the followers.  Instead of just resting on the success of the films that build into The Avengers, they are pushing the genre even further, creating more ground between them and their competitors.  While the fad is creating superheroes in a ‘realistic’ earth setting, Guardians of the Galaxy ditches that concept completely and takes a fantastical voyage through space with an assortment of locations, aliens, and wonderful colours.

It is such a departure from what they have been previously doing, but the product is top notch and demonstrates that carving a new path can reveal the riches that can be uncovered in the cinesphere.  It is a sprawling space opera that works with the clustering of unlikely travelling companions who each have personal agendas and see the others as a means to their ends.  Writers James Gunn (who is also the director) and Nicole Perlman keep a flowing story of amassing evil on a galactic scale, but also keep it personal and intimate with wonderful and humorous dialogue between the heroes.

I recently read a tweet that mentioned what you would think in 2008 if you heard there was going to be a movie you were anticipating starring Bautista, Chris Pratt, Vin Diesel, Bradley Cooper, and Zoe Saldana.  It made me chuckle because I would not have any faith in it.  It illustrates how much the careers of people can evolve over a few years, and what a skilled director can do with the talent they are given.  The best example is professional wrestler Dave Bautista who plays the powerful warrior, Drax.  He is only given that which he can handle, and is able to deliver comedy as well as he uses his bulk.  If used properly by directors, we, the audience, can be continually be surprised by performances from people who it may have seemed easier to simply write off.

To spend time talking about each character and performance would bog this review down in a sea of words that, while hopefully enlightening, would possibly dilute the sheer joy that I had during the movie experience.  Chris Pratt, the main character (he who desires to be called Star Lord) wields action, comedy, and a humanistic element.  The wonderful treat with this ‘popcorn muncher’ is that each character (even the walking tree named Groot) ushers in all three of those characteristics.  The blending of writing and performances keeps the film, from start to finish, exciting, chuckle inducing, and touching.

There is no profound allegory here.  There is no faltering message that underlies this bit of science fiction.  It is about going to the theatre and having that marvellous experience that reminds us all of why going to the cinema can feel like a  proper event.  It triggers the inner child and it had me already thinking about what I want to see in a sequel before it even concluded.  It may not end up being a genre defining picture (only time will tell that), but it plants a flag on the long desolate planet of wondrous, camp space fun and begs us to return.

Rating - 4 out of 4 stars