samuel-legassick Reviews

Barney's Version (2010)

Barney's Version Is THE Version - Hint Of Spoiler But Not Really

[8/10 · 30 January 2011]

Full review here http://thewildbore.blogspot.com/2011/01/review-barneys- version.html

Paul Giamatti stars in this strange drama/comedy about Barney, a TV producer who has had a string of ladies and booze and also a hint of murder ...

This was totally not the film I thought it would be. From the cover it looks like a funny, 'indie', happy film about a charming, charismatic man but yet it couldn't be further from the truth. Instead, "Barney's Version" was a melancholy, sad, tear-jerker about a man who makes a lot of mistakes and he might seem like a miserable, old, sleazy git but in essence he's a victim and by the end, you seem to completely sympathise with him.

We are introduced to Barney as an old man making prank phone calls, as a bitter, twisted, lonely specimen who is accused of murder by that guy from the Tesco adverts. We soon jump back in time and see Barney's first wife - the bohemian, messed up Rachelle Lefevre who is completely self- obsessed but when it's over, Barney is ridden with guilt and, once his career starts picking up he runs into Minnie Driver. Driver is a self- righteous, rich, Daddy's girl and Barney marries her not out of love, but out of the need to succeed. As his father played by Dustin Hoffman states, he'd be a fool not to marry her. Hoffman's role as the single father, a man who also has his own demons, is incredible and should have picked up an Oscar nomination - simple, effective and without any acting flab. Barney's love for another woman during his marriage might seem perverse and wrong in the eyes of society, but once you scratch away at the surface, you see he is truly a romantic and feels that Mirium (Rosamund Pike) is the one he should be with. It's like the passionate scene at the end of a rom-com, but more realistic. All the while, he's being accused of killing his best friend, whom he misses like mad and his drinking is getting worse.

.... Rest here: http://thewildbore.blogspot.com/2011/01/review-barneys- version.html

Black Swan (2010)

Film Of The Year?

[10/10 · 30 December 2010]

Go to www.thewildbore.com for this and more reviews

Probably like many of you out there, I walked into this film not really knowing if I was going to like it. I love Aronofsky, even The Fountain which a lot of people hated I still hold in high esteem. His brave filmmaking defies convention, pushes boundaries and he always gets top performances from his cast. However, the trailer is somewhat misleading. Is it a thriller? A drama? Even a horror? But then, all these genres have filled his works in the past (apart from The Wrestler), it's hard to label it, which is all part of the magic. Even the Russian-inspired posters look amazing and will grace many a wall in the future of young trendies I'm sure. But the main point of issue however was really the fact it was about ballet and to be matter-of-fact about it, I know sweet FA about ballet. Fortunately, it doesn't matter and I have never been so enthralled by a film of this nature.

To put it simply, the story focuses on young Natalie Portman as Nina, a ballet dancer who is trying her hardest to win the Swan Queen part in a new vision of Swan Lake but she just cannot exhibit the passion of the Black Swan. Her slow, torturous journey into the dark realms of her psyche uncover more than just passion and soon we start to question reality as we travel alongside her.

Aronofsky does his typical European 70's 'amateur' 16mm style film- making that uses a lot of handicam, jump cuts, shaky, 'realistic' shots that make us feel like we are part of the action, that we are part of Portman's character, an extension of her consciousness. She is so innocent, so child-like that the idea that she has to play a dark, seductive monster through movement of her body alone seems unrealistic but Vincent Cassel as Thomas believes in her, he sees something, a darkness she keeps hidden. Like pretty much all of Aronofsky's work, the human body is an important factor in his films, whether it's sexual, violent, or through expression - everything counts, and in Black Swan, it's here in spades.

Portman plays rather an understated, muted yet remarkable performance as Nina gets to grip with her role. There's so much going on here, said in so little, that it's hard to express unless you've seen it. We all know that ballet dancers are known for having eating disorders, putting their body through unbearable pain, often resulting in a child-like appearance and Portman, at her thinnest and youngest, is going through all this to be perfect. She's an obsessive compulsive which doesn't help either and her child-like appearance is often reflected in her demeanour. She doesn't like talking about sex, she has an overbearing mother, no friends, works too hard and has a melancholiness that is hard to relate through words. We know she has a history of self-abuse and that her mother (who is creepy to say the least) is living her dancing dream through her daughter, that the other girls don't really like her but what is truly frightening is that by opening the pandora's box of restrained emotions, it's making her go insane. This isn't really a drama, it's a psychological horror that I think will make a lot of cinema-goers uncomfortable and shock them, but in a positive way.

Nina is taking over from Winona Ryder in the main Swan Lake part, but it's a position Ryder's character is somewhat reluctant to leave. As a result of this, Cassell tells us that by being self-destructive, by being that passionate, is what perfection is about, it is what makes Ryder's character such a joy to watch, and he constantly drives the point home in that she must lose control to really give a great performance, that you can spend all your time learning the moves but without that soul, it's meaningless. However, she is trying her best to stay in control of losing control because her world is crumbling around her, she is literally being corrupted in front of our very eyes.

Throughout all this, she feels pressure that Mila Kunis' character Lily is ready to jump into her shoes at any minute. She knows that Lily's care-free, easy, passionate attitude is something Cassell wants in the Black Swan performance, and in fact Lily soon becomes a representation of the dark side of Nina, and it's this dark side that is so tempting ...

More on www.thewildbore.com

Tron: Legacy (2010)

Should Tron Leave The Legacy As It Is? I Hope Not ...

[8/10 · 30 December 2010]

Whole review and more at www.thewildbore.c*m

After reviewing the Tron Legacy soundtrack and the Tron Evolution tie-in game, finally here is the review for Tron: Legacy - and it certainly is a Merry Christmas for one and all.

Before starting to delve into The Grid and it's inhabitants, I have to start by saying I've always been a huge Tron fan. As a kid, I would often pick up Tron again and again to watch over and over and has always had a special place in my heart, so when the initial concept footage for Tron 2 was released, you could imagine my excitement. Since then, I've been cautious not to get too over-excited. Sure the trailers look incredible, Daft Punk (whom I adore) were signed on to do the music, Jeff Bridges was going to do it, it was going to be 3D and also in IMAX. I had to bestill my beating heart that every time I get over-excited about a film, it very often disappoints and I didn't want that to happen here. Not to Tron. Please.

As readers know, I didn't rate the game very highly but Daft Punk's score got top marks (both reviews can be found on the right hand side or on Youtube's 'thewildboretv' channel) and once the film was released it got some very mixed reviews but I tried my best to keep out of it until I'd seen the final product myself, which was in centre seats at Waterloo's IMAX by the way.

If you don't know already, Tron Legacy takes place after the events of Tron (but not Tron 2.0 - the PC game for those non-geeks) where Kevin Flynn is taking advantage of being able to enter digital space by playing God and creating his own world. However, random beings, pieces of code or whatever they are, called ISO's have turned up and inside them could be the answers to the Universe, apparently. However, Flynn's 'supervisor' program Clu has a lot of ideas above his station and believes the ISO's to be imperfections and thus destroys them in The Purge (events of Tron Evolution). Kevin Flynn is banished and is hiding out with the beautiful Olivia Wilde (Quorra). Meanwhile, Sam Flynn, heir to his father's company, is busy causing havoc and being a rebel in the real world until he enters The Grid where luckily all his extreme sports hobbies come in good use.

Firstly the visuals are probably the best I've seen in anything, ever. It looks f*cking cool and is absolutely incredible to witness. The first time we see the Tron world, it's unlike anything I've ever seen before. In this respect, the 3D-ness (is there a word for it?) works perfectly and it's the best use of 3D effects I've seen yet, and yes that's including Avatar. However, there is one massive flaw and I've seen it crop up time and time again in reviews - and that's the young Jeff Bridges as Clu. It simply doesn't work. It looks like Tom Hanks from The Polar Express or something, it is clearly animated and really stands out as he stands next to real people. It's a shame that technology has come leaps and bounds but actors don't have to worry, because recreating actual people won't be an issue for a while. It's a shame because it takes away from the rather dramatic scenes rather than adding to it. ......

For rest of review please go to www.thewildbore.c*m

13 (I) (2010)

A Remake By Same Director? Surely This Isn't A Game Of Chance

[3/10 · 10 December 2010]

Sadly another foreign classic has been taken on by Hollywood and ripped apart. It's a shame as the cast is quite impressive: Mickey Rourke, Ray Winstone, Sam Riley, Jason Statham, David Zayas (looking a bit more menacing here), an awful 50 Cent and the incredible Michael Shannon (fast becoming one of my favourite actors). But with such an engaging story, a respectable cast and with the same director as the original French film, surely they're not taking any chances here? Spin. Aim. Not necessarily survive. 13 Tzameti was a great film for all the right reasons. The story, if you don't know, is about an underground game of Russian Roulette where people bet a lot of money on the outcome. In a weird sequence of events, a young man gets involved without knowing what it is and ends up having to play the game. The first film was a black and white, gritty, disturbing film that was full of suspense and everything that worked about it has sadly floundered in this remake. There's a number of reasons why. Firstly, there is a multiple narrative about some of the other contestants, this means that you lose the personal attachment you have with Riley in the first place. It also means that due to the famous cast, you know who is going to survive and who isn't. The Hollywood sheen where it looks pretty, full of rich colours and takes place in a rich mansion means it loses all it's dirty, hostile and cold surroundings that made the original film feel so awkward to situate yourself in. The build-up to watching the bulb is about 1% of the tension of the original, you honestly didn't know what was going to happen in the first one but in this instance you feel like you do and the tension isn't there at all. Instead it feels like a stupid game where you don't care about anyone. The stories of the other contestants detract from the mood and feel like a complete distraction. Rourke's storyline especially. His little story alongside the painfully unbearable 50 Cent is completely unjustified and a waste of time. Statham and Winstone's brotherly love hasn't been thought out and feels superfluous to say the least. Sam Riley does an okay job as the young innocent player, but his lack of conviction makes you feel like a voyeur rather than being involved. The actual game itself and the gambling techniques were also completely unclear and convoluted with the bulb, once being the main source of tension in the first film, rather being set as a preoccupation. The reason why they had a hanging bulb in the first room is that it was a tiny concrete room, so the only thing there was the bulb hanging down, casting judgement. Whereas here, you can't imagine that blowing each other's brains out around such rich tapestry is ideal for cleaning up. The rest of the acting was awful and even Shannon, as another crazy character, is so OTT that you can't help but feel it's comical. The only saving grace about this film is the Russian Roulette itself but I implore you not to watch this film and go out of your way to watch the original instead, otherwise it will ruin the experience for you completely. You'd think since 2005 Babluani would have become a better director, sadly he hasn't and with The Legacy ( L'héritage ) being his only film made between the original and this one, perhaps he's just out of practise. A film that should never have been remade and is an example that Hollywood should sometimes just leave things alone instead of ruining the experience for everyone. Rating: 3/10

Rare Exports (2010)

Where Being Naughty Or Nice Is It A Choice Between Life Or Death

[8/10 · 8 December 2010]

Full review here: http://thewildbore.blogspot.com/2010/12/rare-exports- Christmas-tale.html Finland isn't known for it's film exports, so here truly is a 'Rare Export' but should we return it? It's not exactly in the spirit of Christmas is it? This film is rather a prequel to two short films that the director made in 2003 and 2005 (both I will stick at the end of this article) where Santa isn't the merry old fat man we've come to know and love but is rather a beast of the wild that is tamed and exported around the world. But deciding that some short films weren't enough, Jalmari Helander decides to make a feature film about his 'hunters' before the events of Rare Exports Inc. & Rare Exports: Official Safety Instructions. I have to put this film into context because when viewing the film, not knowing much about it, it seemed very strange afterwards but now it kind of makes sense. However, it might be worth watching without seeing the videos included here, but it's your choice. Either way, the story is about how some corporate diggers are excavating something from a mountain near a remote village in the snowy outdoors. But it is a young boy who works out what is buried beneath and is taking every precaution just in case, whether it's taping cardboard to your bum or carrying around a shotgun, he's not taking any chances. I read somewhere that this harks back to the kiddie films of the Eighties like The Goonies where the kids were always right and the adults were idiots, but this has much more of a horror element to it. In fact, it is very funny in different places for different reasons but always keeps a dark, sinister edge whether it's the weird wooden dolls, the crazy rich excavator or the creepy Santa they find, there's always a tinge of horror at all times. The film is very well directed and, like many have said (mainly because of the snow) reminds people of The Thing, but all the set-up's are there and around the whole thing is the myth of Santa Claus (or Claws in this case). It makes for a very exciting, disturbing experience that is set around a time where people are supposed to get together and for someone who doesn't really enjoy Christmas, like myself, it makes a welcome distraction to all the 'niceness' of the Christmas season. The acting is, for the most part, very impressive and the end sequences with hundreds of naked old men running across the mountains is both funny and breathtaking at the same time. The film finds a great balance between horror, terror, humour and remembering that it shouldn't take itself too seriously, the gag is that it's about Santa after all. I always found something creepy about a fat, old man going into children's houses at night and giving them presents, seeing if they've been 'naughty or nice' and this plays on people's insecurities especially at a time where paedophilia is all over the news these days. It also has a rather serious, dramatic edge with an obviously painful father/son relationship, a man who is frustrated with the world and a 'coming-of-age' element about sacrifice and becoming independent. It could also be seen as a war of male generations, the son against the father, and the father against his own father, which in this case is represented by Father Christmas, it would make sense seeing as there is no females in the whole film but rather a world of manly hunters where soppy things like Christmas have no place. Overall, the film is enjoyable and the last five minutes is rather strange but makes sense once you see the short films. It might have a few plot holes but has been well thought out, perfectly directed and for something that could have so easily been one big joke, remains an impressive piece of work that the director clearly cared about. I recommend that you forget the usual Christmas ho-ho-Hell's and delve into a dark place where being naughty or nice is a life or death decision.

Unstoppable (2010)

Tony Scott and Denzel Washington are back with yet another 'thriller' as an unmanned train is running along the tracks. Not exactly Trainspotting...

[2/10 · 8 November 2010]

Article By: Sam LeGassick Twitter: LG45 <- Please follow! Website: www.thewildbore.com Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Wild-Bore/299067834888

Why, oh why, oh why do I even bother going to see a Tony Scott film, they are unbelievably awful. The camera is all over the place, making me feel sick, his focus pulling, sweeping shots, intense close-ups and shaky-cam look unprofessional to say the least. This whole effort to create action through a flimsy script by making the audience feel like they are on a roller-coaster is, in essence, playing on people's stupidity. By drawing their attention away from what matters, it's like dealing with a thick child who has fallen over; he's so taken away with a cuddly toy that he forgets that his knee is bleeding everywhere - and watching this film was definitely painful.

The journey to even get this film made was painful. The overrated diva that is Denzel Washington refused to have his $20 million salary cut holding up production. Tony Scott even got his pay cut to $4 million, though God knows who would pay him so much. It's a recession remember? The entire budget for the film was $90 million, so you can see how much of that was spent on Denzel's pulling power. Finally the film got made and is 'inspired by true events'. This statement always makes me laugh. Isn't every creation inspired by true events? Based on true events is something different (and usually a lie in films anyway) but 'inspired' by true events? You could say that about a diary of birdwatching - which would probably be more interesting than this film.

In any case, a train is left accelerating by accident without anyone driving it and it's left to Washington and Pine to save the day. Denzel plays his classic 'everyday' hero role that he usually does, especially in Tony Scott films, and Chris Pine tries to keep some integrity in the film by giving off a clearly angry young man on his first day on the job. How unlucky for him then. There's some lacklustre back story which is to fill in the gaps where trains are moving because, as every commuter knows, train journeys are usually very boring. The two bond and it's supposed to show a coming together of generations, and a somewhat meagre attempt at how people are losing their jobs, which Denzel can obviously sympathise with seeing as they were unfairly offering him only $16 million - the cheap bastards, no wonder he was threatening to pull out.

They film the train like it's a monster on the rampage when it seems to be going at different speeds from shot to shot. It needs to be stopped before it goes round a rather nasty bend which is inconveniently located above a bunch of fuel tanks and is carrying a load of flammable liquid as well. Not ideal then - who decided to put the train track there? So yeah, they have to stop a train. When I came out, some people were saying how great it was and that it was 'just like that programme 24' - so I guess there's always a market - for idiots - who probably don't watch 24 anyway. I was also annoyed I lost a button on my coat which got caught on the drinks holder as I stood up. That didn't help.

There's some explosions and it has Rosario Dawson in it as a dressed down stressed out worker, but she's still hot - and for the ladies Chris Pine has his shirt off at the beginning of the film so maybe watch it for that and then leave. I would rather have not gone and then I'd still have that button. Stop the Unstoppable and just don't watch this film. It's sh*t.

The American (2010)

The Isolation Of America

[6/10 · 2 November 2010]

Article By: Sam LeGassick Twitter: LG45 <- Please follow! Website: www.thewildbore.com Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Wild-Bore/299067834888

Dutch music video director Anton Corbijn returns from the success of his first full length feature 'Control' with a take on the novel 'A Very Private Gentleman' starring George Clooney as a gunmaker hiding out in an Italian village. Is this 'thoughtful thriller', as Corbijn puts it, another Jason Bourne? Definitely not ...

Let's start by saying that this film isn't the action blockbuster that Focus have made it out to be. Instead it's a slow, reflective piece that works almost like a serious Lost In Translation, which can only be a good thing right? Well, not really.

Clooney plays Jack, a man who right from the first shot of him sipping on a drink while his girlfriend puts her arms around him from behind, while he stares emotionless into the middle distance, looks dead inside. He's completely detached from the world and after getting found by his enemies (why they are after him in the first place we never find out) he has to leave to set up shop again in a small Italian village. Whilst he is there he makes friends with the local priest and falls in love with a local prostitute and soon wants out of the game. That's the whole film, apart from the opening action, a small chase scene halfway through and the end, that's all the action you're going to get. Boring? Well, yes and no.

What Corbijn has done here is taken Clooney's paranoia and brought us into it. Through the score, the shots, the look and the general silence (it feels like hardly a word is uttered throughout the film), we start questioning what's around the corner, if anyone can ever be trusted and a mere shadow makes us just as tense as Jack. The way this feeling of suspense effortlessly glides from character to the audience is a masterful stroke in itself, but with all the suspense in the world even the master himself Hitchcock knew you have to give the audience a pay off, and The American just doesn't do it enough. It might build things up, but the audience's confidence in Jack means that there's no situation we feel he cannot control and so the tension can only work to a certain degree. However, the constant turning of one's head and lack of trust is an important concept that you can imagine all these spy thriller heroes would have to go through. It looks lonely and exhausting and, as we know from the off, Jack is no hero either.

It's also interesting how it's called The American. His lack of trust and paranoia is something that could be said of the country's social mentality post 9/11, but also how he feels isolated outside of his natural habitat - as if America feels cut off from the rest of the world and how, in some ways, it is. I don't think it's just by chance that he deals arms and is ex-military either. I'd also argue that the whole world he's living in is his own Hell, which is even suggested by the priest at one point. There's a lot of talk of religion, of cleansing sins, of hope and despair and the ultimate trial of opening up to someone and falling in love. All the while he's making deals with the devil for monetary gain and has, in theory, sold his soul.

It's a film that is more about what's not being said than by what is. Little looks, turns of heads and the use of light indicate a director who knows exactly what he wants and the framing and cinematography in general is beautiful. Every shot is like a perfect picture and cannot be faulted, you can see why this man is one of the best photographers out there. However, I can't help but feel that this should have been an art-house film with perhaps an unknown in the lead. Not that there's anything wrong with Clooney, in fact all the acting in this is superb, but the expectation of this being a Clooney spy thriller means that it becomes a disappointment for a lot of people. It's a slow-paced, suggestive tale of one man trying to reach out to others and would have been better off without being touched by Hollywood. Had this have been advertised as a slow, emotive, indie art-house foreign flick (whatever that means anymore) I would have liked it more. As it is, it feels like a pretentious, yet beautiful, sequence of images that is more about scoring credibility for all involved rather than entertaining the audience. If people say they loved it, it's more likely because they feel they have to. It's a good, quiet, sombre film that jogs along and keeps you guessing, but essentially it was a bit boring.

Rating: 6/10

Paranormal Activity 2 (2010)

Surfing on the popularity of the first one, this prequel tries it's best to deliver the same scares with lame results.

[3/10 · 22 October 2010]

Article By: Sam LeGassick Twitter: LG45 <- Please follow! Website: www.thewildbore.com Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Wild-Bore/299067834888 <-Please Add To Your Page

For those who have not yet seen the first Paranormal Activity, you're missing a real treat. Released in 2007 the film was shown around festival circuits to great acclaim, the cast was essentially two people, it was shot in the directors house and used very simple techniques to great effect. In fact, I would go as far as saying it's really a masterclass in film-making.

This might seem far-fetched but it's so clever in it's execution that any budding auteur ought to take note. Firstly, the narrative is simple and the 'monster' is really a metaphor for the relationship between Micah and Katie. The film also relies on your imagination to create fear, you're actually subconsciously interacting with the film, it's framing makes you look in places that you wouldn't normally find interesting, in fact you're looking for something in the shadows. It's open doors invokes a Hopper-esquire sense of desperation and mystery with the depth of the image playing an important part in creating the tension. That's the real killer, the tension, there's more tension than anything Hitchcock could have done, and I don't say this lightly. You know watching every diary insert that you're about to see something and it's gradual development from an opening door, a light switching on to a more violent intrusive force makes every night shot more and more unbearable. It plays on the post-9/11 paranoia and terrorism-at-home American sensibility (which in fact is joked about in the sequel). Not only all this, but the sound, the simple effects and the 'possession' (a brainwashing of sorts) all create this horrible yet thoroughly enjoyable 90 minutes of the fear of the unknown and no matter what anyone says, if you're at home by yourself at night you can freak yourself out by just thinking about it.

However, once Spielberg got a hold of it and wanted to release it internationally, he wanted to do different scenes and a different ending. Therefore, if you went to see this on the cinema or saw this on DVD recently, chances are it's Spielberg's monster that you saw. I would thoroughly recommend viewing the original, or at least watching the different endings on YouTube because the original ending is a million times better. Anyhow, it's the re-released 2009 version that this prequel draws from, which is important.

This might sound like a long-winded approach to dealing with the second film, but it's very important to make people aware of these issues because the problem with the second one is that it recreates, to a much less effect, almost exactly the same as what happens in the first one. The deal is Katie's sister has just had a baby boy with her new family she's married into, after a while things start going bump in the night as the monster tries to claim baby Hunter.

The problem is (and here's a SPOILER if you haven't seen the first one) you know you're not going to see the monster harassing them because of the first one. So every noise, every opening and shutting door is just stuff that you've seen before so you don't find it scary, instead you're waiting for the more hardcore stuff. However, all this ghoulish foreplay takes up about 70 minutes of the 90 minute film and there is a LOT of watching nothing, but you're watching it knowing not to look out for anything because you know you won't see anything. The idea of the baby being harassed yet guarded by a brave dog is a good one that doesn't get interesting until near the end and, unlike the original first one (not the remake), they get hassled during the daytime and the night-time. But it's everything we've seen before, dragging them away, opening doors and a ridiculous pool cleaner that keeps turning up outside of the pool (a machine not a man). However, there's something going on in the basement which I thought could turn into something interesting but instead becomes a REC wannabe that wasn't scary at all. Katie's sister becomes possessed and she is completely lame and the whole thing lacks all the originality, all the fear, tension and mystery that the first one thrived on. In fact, it was what made the first one any good, so if you take that away you're just watching people doing nothing and getting scared about tiny things.

The company have also not released the details of the cast which is trying to keep to the 'real' element of the first one (when it obviously cannot be real) as we know full well, with enough interviews, promotions etc. that it wasn't real. Why try and recreate the Blair Witch effect the first one had? 'Found footage'. We're not idiots! Who would actually think this was real? The girl was in 24 for God's sake.

During the film they try to create more of a backstory and a 'why' to all the attacks but I don't want to know why. The whole point is it could happen potentially to anyone and even though the first one made it clear this stuff had happened to Katie before, that's all I needed to know, I don't want to know all the details of their family tree, of deals with the devil or whatever, MYSTERY remember? When it coincides with the first film it is completely cr*p and the ending made me want to throw something at the screen. It took everything that made the first one great and shat on it, in fact it might have potentially corrupted the experience of the first one for me by being so sh*t. I'll never want to watch this again, in fact I'm really angry about it. (Cut short due to IMDb guidelines please go to www.thewildbore.com to read full review)

RED (2010)

Really Excruciatingly Disappointing

[4/10 · 19 October 2010]

http://thewildbore.blogspot.com/2010/10/red.html Twitter: LG45

Bruce Willis heads up an interesting cast in this comic book adaptation about a group of retired CIA agents who are wanted by ... the CIA. Is it time to put this in a home and leave it to die? Short answer - yes.

Director Robert Schwentke has had a very strange career up to this film. His real break into Hollywood was directing Jodie Foster in the massively average Flightplan and then the ludicrously disgusting The Time Traveller's Wife (which was poorer than the book, if you can imagine such a thing) and now from thriller (if you can call Flightplan a thriller), to drama, to comic book action. I've not seen his first German feature Tattoo which is supposed to be a slightly gory horror neither his follow-up comedy The Family Jewels, but either Schwentke doesn't want to be pigeon-holed, or he can't settle on a genre, or maybe he just doesn't really know what he is any good at. Well let's just say, it ain't this.

Bruce Willis is in retirement getting his kicks by borderline stalking a young woman who is in charge of sending him his cheques (I say young, it's actually played by Weeds Mary-Louise Parker who is actually 46 and looks amazing for it), some agents try and kill him and so he goes on a quest to find out why. The actual plot is ridiculous, I still don't really get the whole picture, something about a cover-up of some mission that has something to do with the Vice President, it's all complete nonsense and the way the characters are introduced is completely lame. Bruce Willis is actually good as his usual cocky yet genuine action hero who oozes charisma, he has aged remarkably well and Parker does a good job as the fish-out-of-water act, in fact you could say the whole film is just her fantasy what with her obsession with romantic pulp novels.

In terms of the rest of the cast, Helen Mirren as a posh British assassin is boring and completely vanilla, the only time she stands out is shooting a massive gun at some cars in an end sequence that is the most long-winded and stupid way of trying to kidnap the Vice President. Who came up with this plan? These guys were CIA? Morgan Freeman who I think could possibly be one of the most overrated black actors ever, apart from maybe Denzel Washington, is a lame duck and the last time we see him can't come soon enough in a rather forgettable fashion. No-one talks about him afterwards thank God. Richard Dreyfuss is some kind of rich businessman behind it all or something, I don't know because I stopped paying attention, but the only real interesting characters were John Malkovich's paranoid schizo (originally to be played by John C Reilly - which would have been terrible), Brian Cox as a suave Russian ex-spy and Karl Urban as the young agent trying to chase them down. Clearly the whole cast had fun shooting the whole thing and this comes across as you watch the movie, but it's a complete disappointment.

The action is okay with the best bits in the trailer and they've tried to flesh out the characters a bit but it doesn't work, instead I thought it was a 'shoot-now-ask-questions-later' scenario where they were never really taking anything seriously. So the novelty of old killers is fun for about 45 minutes, but after that it's hard to keep interested. What with such terrible comic adaptations sprouting up where studios are trying to cash in on the comic buck as soon as possible rather than letting a script evolve for a while, you get fodder like The Losers and remakes of films only recently been made (Hulk/Spiderman/Superman) and unfortunately films like Red.

Retired Extremely Dangerous? More like Really Excruciatingly Disappointing.