Album: Screaming Bloody Murder - Sum 41

It's been four years since Sum 41's last record, Underclass Hero, was on the airwaves. Besides a few songs - namely the title track, Walking Disaster and The Jester (personal favourites) - the album as a whole was a failure, perhaps not sales-wise, but definitely critically. Now though, Screaming Bloody Murder did in fact turn up slightly under the radar. It was only by chance I discovered their new single on Spotify, meaning I probably wouldn't have even noticed it was out. That is a disappointment, because Screaming Bloody Murder is a return to form for Sum 41, not to the punk feel All Killer No Filler gave us, but to Chuck, the album that I think is Sum 41's best.

The album itself is quite heavy on the love aspect, which is expected, as Deryck Whibley must draw a lot of his writing from his life with Avril Lavigne, from their meeting right to their divorce. But, at least for me, the love songs on the record are not a bad thing. Rather than going down the awfully cliché route of singing a ballad, Whibley mixes it up. In “Reason to Believe”, the first track on the album, it goes swiftly from a hard chorus to a soft, piano melody without breaking stride – a pleasant surprise, I found. Contrast that with Crash, a quite obvious love song, separating the trio of songs (Holy Image of Lies, Sick of Everyone and Happiness Machine) that were originally meant to be one 12 minute song called “A Dark Road out of Hell” from the end of the album.  Crash is a pleasant interlude near the end of the album – Whibley, his piano, and accompanying riffs from a guitar in the background.

“A Dark Road out of Hell” is what we’ve come to expect from Sum 41, power chords, straight talking lyrics - back to the old Sum 41. I much prefer this Sum 41 to the slower one, myself, but I did enjoy Crash. In fact having said that, the entire album returned to the Sum 41 of old. Reason to Believe and Screaming Bloody Murder set up a fine opening duo, before heading into Skumf*k, which I’ll talk about later, and right up to Crash it racks out the tunes. What Am I To Say is a highlight of the album, an anthem feel to the chorus, I can very easily imagine the crowd belting the chorus out on their next tour. 

Skumf*k is, quite simply, the best song on the entire album. What Whibley means by “best of luck as the only resident skumf*k” I’m not entirely sure, but the entire song is perfectly made musically, an excellent minute-long intro with acoustic guitars, building up to one of the most catchy chorus’s I’ve heard in a long time. The relentless guitar is breath-taking, before abruptly ending in another piano sequence that never feels out of place - the perfect ending to probably my favourite Sum 41 song since Pieces.

My only gripe with the album is the final song, Exit Song. To me, it was as if they simply put the song in there because they didn’t think Back Where I Belong was a good enough closer, whereas I completely disagree. The lyrics sound like a statement of intent from the four-piece – I have had enough/I’m on my own/for I am back where I belong. In short, Exit Song is a non-event sadly, but that shouldn’t put you off this excellent rebirth of Sum 41.

Sum 41 are indeed back where they belong. They’ve knocked out a sixth album (seventh if you count “All The Good Shit”) that should surely win back the fans that may have been disappointed by Underclass Hero.

4/5.

Oscar is back!

As a sort of companion post to my friend's new blog, which you can find here, I thought I best give my personal summary of what I want to win and what I think will win big tonight. I posted this originally on a forum I frequent, but I'll change it a bit to suit here.

Black Swan for Best Picture. I started watching it thinking I wouldn't enjoy it too much, I was more intrigued by it, because I'd heard from people who had seen it that it was "insane" and "fucked up". And, considering it's effectively a film about ballet to the outsider (when you finish it, however, you realise it's definitely NOT a ballet film!), I didn't have high hopes. After it finished, well, more like as soon as it started, I was absolutely blown away by it. I loved every second of it. From the way it's directed, the lighting, the attention to detail, the acting, it's very nearly the (well, my) perfect film.

However, though I haven't seen it (I wish I had though), I do think The Fighter might pull up a shock victory on this one because of all the things I've heard about it. I don't think The Social Network should be counted out either, thinking about it, another film I absolutely adored. We'll have to see.

James Franco for Best Actor. Colin Firth is nearly definitely going to win this one, let's face facts, but for me James Franco shouldn't be counted out and, for me, should win it. Franco managed to carry a pretty much 2 hour film, 127 Hours, almost entirely on his own with the most of the film in a cave, with him rambling on and on to his slowly dying camera, fighting off a cloud of insanity that gradually sets in and grows stronger. You can see with every passing minute in the film, Ralston (the character) is slowly giving up trying to get out, until one surge of positive insanity leads him to cutting his own arm off, easily the most important decision Ralston himself has made in his lifetime.

Side note, one has to think that Ryan Reynolds for Buried missed out on a nomination too, seen as the basic ideas are both very similar, except that Franco is helped out slightly by short scenes from Ralston's past - in Buried, Reynolds is literally on his own for the entire film, only talking to people on the phone and seeing one person via a video through his phone for quite literally a few seconds. Though admittedly, Reynolds's performance isn't quite as remarkable as Franco's because Buried is more a pure survival story, compared to Franco battling off his own mental demons.

Natalie Portman for Best Actress. Hands down my favourite and a clear favourite in general, her performance is remarkable. It seems Oscar likes his mental problems in performances, and Portman's is exceptional. Her transfer from this image of perfection (her White Swan) to a more let loose, free Black Swan is unbelievable. Portman's ability in Black Swan

Geoffrey Rush for Best Supporting Actor. I thought he was the strongest point of The King's Speech if you ask me, the way he held Firth's Bertie together at his weakest moments was amazing, how he stays calm when it would be so much easier to just scream back at the incredibly frustrated King. I did not enjoy King's Speech as much as I should've, but I can appreciate a good performance when I see one, and Rush's is exactly that.

Supporting Actress is a bit more of a challenge for me to choose because I've only seen the always fantastic Helena Bonham Carter performance (but in The King's Speech I didn't really get that blown away by her performance, it was good definitely, but Oscar worthy is another matter entirely). I'll have to skip this one for now, but I can see myself wanting Amy Adams to win it, we'll see.

Side note, I have to ask why Barbara Hershey for her role as Nina Sayer's (Natalie Portman) mum in Black Swan is beyond me. She's magnificent. She's just as mentally troubled as her daughter in that she used to be The Swan Queen, and now her own daughter is, she goes to incredible lengths to get Nina to be "perfect". She loses her rag completely, and she's wonderful at it.

Toy Story 3 for Best Animated Picture. Without a shadow of a doubt. Normally sequels to films are never as good as the original, but somehow, Pixar actually made 2 better than 1, and then somehow made 3 better than 2. Absolutely remarkable. Any film that can reduce and 18 year old to near tears is good enough to win in my book. I think I loved this even more because I actually grew up with the film, I saw the first one in the cinema when I was 3, and relived it an incredible amount of times since, I saw 2 in the cinema when I was 7 (this one I can actually remember going to the cinema to see, because it was one of the few occasions my Dad came along to watch a film in the cinema with us as a family) and waited 11 years for the conclusion to one of, if not the, best trilogy of all time, alongside Lord of the Rings and Back To The Future (for me, anyway).

Darren Aronofsky for Best Director. I think he should walk away with this one, simply for his attention to detail when making it (I love the use of mirrors in every single scene, for example), the clothing choice, and his over-the-shoulder, single camera filming technique, as seen in his other fantastic sports epic, The Wrestler, suits the film's dark tone perfectly. The use of one camera for the most high-tempo scenes putting you right into the action. Plus, I loved how the shots in the film were either very in your face, right up close to the actors, or far away, looking down or in on a scene (the arguments between Nina (Portman) and Thomas (portrayed incredibly well by Vincent Cassell are up close, and when he storms out, we cut to a distance shot of her on her own in a ballet studio, completely surrounded by mirrors). Definite contender.

David Fincher won the BAFTA for this one, so he shouldn't be ruled out by any stretch, I think he's actually the favourite, and though I did love The Social Network, I didn't see too much actual direction involved in comparison to Black Swan or The King's Speech. One thing I will note though is why isn't Christopher Nolan nominated for this one AT ALL? To quote my favourite film critic Mark Kermode, "Inception is the MOST directed film of the year" and he's absolutely right. Every shot is absolutely key to the story (how difficult it is to see Cobb's ring finger for example (people who've seen it will know what I mean as to how important it is)). Oscar missed a trick on that one.

There we have it. My comprehensive round up of the 7 big awards that'll be revealed gradually over the next 6 or so hours. Enjoy!

Tapas Tuesday

This is definitely a first for my reviewing blog. I've only reviewed one album, but a countless number of films, and here I am, about to review a simple two songs performed by an up and coming band from Pontypridd – Tapas Tuesday. The name itself brings quite an amusing story in itself, quite simply it was named after an event, if you will, that three of the members (Osian Williams, Meilyr Rees and Dylan Ebbsworth) regularly attended. A Tapas bar every, err, Tuesday. Hilarity nearly always ensued for the trio, and it seemed that starting a band between these three was an inevitability, rather than a simple wish. Add to the equation Steffan Davis (who arrived slightly after the band recorded Move On), their rather excellent lead guitarist, and you have a four piece ready to storm.

Both Osian and Meilyr share the vocal duties in the band, with the former playing bass (á la Robin Hawkins of The Automatic) quite remarkable considering he's actually self-taught, and that some of the bass riffs in both their songs are pretty complex. Both Osian and Meilyr wrote Move On together, and for a first song, it's mightily impressive. Meilyr is more the lead singer of the band (he takes main duties in their second song, Silver Lining) and strums his guitar (generally the rhythm), and sings each song to a very impressive standard, also playing pretty excellently. Dylan Ebbsworth, the final member, is their drummer, and having been to school with all three of them, Dylan's drumming skills are nothing short of incredible, definitely the best drummer I've seen with my own eyes (aside from, possibly, Biffy Clyro drummer Ben Johnston, after seeing them live last November). The already mentioned Steffan Davis is the band's lead guitarist, who evidently helped write Silver Lining, given during the pre-lyric phase, it was called, in short, Steff's Riff, and it is a pretty excellent riff.

Of the band's two songs, Move On and Silver Lining, the latter is definitely my preferred track, but I'll get to that a bit later. The acoustic vibe from Move On is wonderful. The song itself (lyrically) is pretty conventional in today's market. A story of a lost love but the chorus brings a happier tone, as the songs protagonist has, indeed, moved on from this mystery girl (I gotta move on, move on from you/I gotta move on to something new), perhaps saying that this girl was simply a stepping stone towards greater things, that now he's had this experience, he can find exactly what he's looking for, i.e. someone to understand this song. Considering this is the first song, the production value is pretty good, although if I'm honest the guitar seems a bit on the quiet side, which is a slight shame because the riff is one that is quite easily picked up, and very easy to strum along peacefully to. The shared duties on this one are great, both of them holding their own, giving the band some options as both of whom do have very good singing voices. Plus, playing an instrument and singing at the same time is A LOT harder than it looks, so I have to applaud the two of them for that one. I do have a very small gripe about this one, mind, it's that Dylan and Steff's playing is reduced quite substantially, although this is most definitely made up for with their next song, Silver Lining.

Silver Lining is, truthfully, a fantastic song. There's no doubt about it, it's a brilliantly catchy tune (especially the chorus) that should surely increase their continuously growing fan base. Silver Lining seems almost professionally produced, the previous issues with slightly too quiet guitars, for example, has been rectified greatly, giving both Steff (Steff given an incredibly good solo in this one) and Dylan more chances to shine (the drum beat is far more complex in all areas of the song) alongside the already established Meilyr and Osian (Osian sticking to backing vocals in the chorus). It's a much snappier song too, much faster paced, and nearly a minute shorter than Move On, this is definitely a, as Max Rushden of Soccer AM fame would say, a TT - toe tapper! I'm even sitting here right now, the song maybe playing for the fourth or fifth time, I find myself singing along to the chorus, given its nature, it's definitely a sing-a-long, that should surely be a favourite among their live performances. Something that I've quite literally just learnt, is that they only wrote Silver Lining for the Battle of the Bands competition, as a sort of stepping stone to do so. They should be entered into competitions like this more often, if they belt out songs of this standard given a bit of encouragement.

To my knowledge, Tapas Tuesday have performed live three times, I've seen them twice back in our hometown, but their most recent performance took place all the way up in Bangor, North Wales, where Meilyr, Osian and Dylan are at Bangor University, where they competed live on Storm FM in a battle of the bands competition - and won! I couldn't hear the actual performance sadly as for some reason the Internet in my University (Nottingham) doesn't like you listening to the radio! Thankfully, their performance of a Mumford & Sons medley (on ukulele!) is pretty excellent, which I'm hoping they'll properly record and release on to their MySpace, and shows their diversity from the harder, upbeat Silver Lining, to the very mellow and excellent medley they performed.

In summary, Tapas Tuesday are a little known but growing band from Pontypridd, with a couple of impressive tracks under their belts, should, with a bit of luck, go on to much bigger things.

Their MySpace
Their Mumford & Sons medley

127 Hours

Critically acclaimed director Danny Boyle's latest outing starring James Franco hasn't had as much praise as one would hope. Slumdog Millionaire, for example, absolutely ruled the Oscars back in 2009, everyone adored it. Me, however, I liked it, but I don't really see what the fuss was about. It’s an unlikely hero story that you can see in the cinema consistently. I do not doubt Boyle's ability as a director, I simply doubt the public’s ability to truly see a classic film - 127 Hours is exactly that.

127 Hours is the film based on Aron Ralston’s autobiography "Between A Rock And A Hard Place, the incredible true story of how Ralston went climbing in Utah, and slipped, falling into a crevice, his right arm trapped against the crevice wall by a pretty hefty rock. The 70 or so minutes in which Ralston is trapped under the rock in the film (it was actually, er, 127 hours....) is more or less Ralston’s failed attempts at freeing his arm, but also his on-going battle with keeping his sanity, as his water gradually runs out, with only a camera to keep him company.

The film boasts some incredibly moving sequences, occasionally frightening instances, and some genuinely funny moments. On hindsight, I don't think I can find a single flaw in the film's infrastructure - James Franco is a revelation as Ralston, the scenery is quite simply stunning, and praise has to be aimed mostly at Danny Boyle, for using probably hundreds of different camera angles in such a tiny space. Boyle went out to make the film as true to Ralston’s story as possible - the crevice is the exact crevice Ralston was stuck in, Boyle got Ralston’s real family in for some scenes, and he even went as far as getting the same helicopter pilot that rescued Ralston when he finally escapes. The attention detail is nothing short of remarkable, which is why this film deserves a lot more praise than it's gotten. Films like The King's Speech all have 5 Stars all over their movie posters - 127 Hours has numerous 4 Star reviews, maybe the odd 5 Star, but it's way short of what the film deserves.

James Franco's performance is, to put it bluntly, Oscar worthy. Franco manages to keep the audience captivated for the entire film as his portrayal of the book, according to people who've met Ralston, is pretty much perfect. Ralston has an arrogance about him from the word go. The fact he goes climbing on his own in Utah without telling anybody - his parents, his work boss, and his friends - he even leaves without taking a phone with him. Climbing is an unbelievably dangerous sport anyway; it's pretty safe to say that having some way to contact someone if trouble strikers should be first on your list of things to pack in your bag. Some people have claimed that Franco's performance isn't brilliant because he comes across as not-likable - which baffles me completely. How is it Franco's fault that he comes across as dislikeable, when his friends and family have admitted that Ralston himself was (he isn't now, as you can probably guess) an arrogant so and so. Based on that, Franco is exceptional as Ralston, judging him because of the character is simply unfair. I haven't seen as good a performance as that in a very long time - I applaud you, Mr Franco.

I simply can't review this film without going into particular detail about the scene everyone has been talking about - the now infamous arm-cutting scene. In a word - sublime. The film has been known to lead to one of two people fainting, others feeling nauseous, and, the more common occurence, people simply walking out half way through the scene. I have to admit, I've seen a fair share of gore in films in my time, but I haven't seen a scene like this look so real. Normally when there's a scene involving a lost limb, there isn't much detail and a bucket load of blood, whereas in this one, you can see the bone, muscles, tendons, the lot, it looks amazing. Moreover, the music used is quite exceptional, so exceptional that I have it on my Spotify (in fact, Liberation, the song that plays over this scene, is my 4th most listened to song on Spotify in the past week!), and it's truly superb. There's a genuinely horrific moment during the scene where Ralston is trying to cut through his nerve, each touch of the nerve with his rusty pen knife cues a tremendous musical scream that sends shivers down my spine every time I hear it. It’s a definite contender for the Best Soundtrack award at the Oscars (competing alongside, more than likely as the official nominations haven't been revealed yet, the absolutely phenomenal Inception soundtrack), and, if there were such an award, Best Scene of the Year too. It's only January. 

Even though 127 Hours fits just into the threshold to compete at the Oscars coming up in a few weeks (when the nominations for the Oscars are announced I will do my best to give my own comprehensive round up of the films I have seen, and indeed do my best to see the films I haven't before the Oscars itself), but 2011 has a lot to offer if it's going to satisfy my film needs as much as Danny Boyle and James Franco did with this masterpiece.

Unbelievably good; would happily see it again! 9.5/10

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage Of The Dawn Treader

***There are going to be a few spoilers in this one sadly, I have a very specific way of reviewing this film in my head, the only way to do so is to spoil the ending. And even though the ending is incredibly predictable, I feel I must give you this alert, just so I don't feel a sense of guilt as I spoil.***

Phew, that's a long title to type out, but two words were repeating over and over in my head from pretty much the beginning of the film - Oh dear. Oh dear. Oh dear.

Narnia is a much loved children's book series for millions of people around the world, it's hailed as a classic every where you go. The film adaptations, however, are anything but. What the Harry Potter franchise managed to do was convert an also much loved book series into a much loved film saga. Where did it all go wrong for CS Lewis' classic? Whether it be that the stories may be slightly out of date to truly succeed in the film world we have today, which I don't think is true at all, or that simply everyone in general has moved on from fairytales as a genre, if you can call it that, is another matter for debate. What I do know for a fact, however, is that this is the last time we'll see Peter, Susan, Edmund and Lucy on our screens, as the trilogy within the Narnia saga comes to a close, but whether we've seen the last of Narnia is another question.

Dawn Treader doesn't take very long to get into the swing of things, one of the few things I liked about the film, it's a brief interchange between Edmund and Lucy, and a brief introduction to Eustace, the irritating (yet very well acted) cousin of Edmund and Lucy. Then something bizarre happens with a painting in their bedroom, and we return to Narnia, with no actual explanation of why they were called back. In the first installment, Lucy discovered the place by accident. In the second, they were called because Narnia was struggling and under attack. In this one, there's no direct explanation, we can only assume that Aslan called Edmund and Lucy to do a task he needed done, but that's never specifically explained. We gradually learn that a relatively unknown evil power is wreaking havoc in Narnian territory, King Caspian, Edmund and Lucy inevitably are entrusted with finding the source of the evil and stopping it. In order to do so, they must find 7 Lords that have been lost for a very long time, and in particular, find their swords. Their swords hold some sort of magic that can stop the evil, but only when all 7 are placed together at Aslan's table (obvious homage to The Last Supper, one of an incredible amount of religious references in the film).

What struck me about the film (I sadly haven't read the books so I'm basing all this on the film) is that finding each of the 7 swords was far, far, far too easy for our protagonists, especially when considering this is meant to be an adventure film, of discovery and hurdling barriers set in front of them. They would sail across the sea, unaware of their task at hand and find an island that should, but curiously doesn't, be of Narnian rule. When they go on land, they are caught and kept under lock and key under the new ownership of this island, the identity of the owners is always hidden, whether that's a screenplay error or a book error is unbeknownst to me. In their cell, they find one of the missing Lords who tells them what they have to do. That I have no problem with, it gives us the plot and sets the scene for the following 90 minutes or so. From that point onwards though, the Dawn Treader (if I haven't explained that before, it's the name of the Ship that Edmund and Lucy stumble across when they go through the painting in their bedroom) is sailing in the supposed grand ocean of Narnia, and they stumble across 4 islands, all of which conveniently have the swords and missing Lords on them. It's all far too convenient for my liking. There has to be some sort of coincidence, yes, but there have to be misadventures along the way too, where they could go to an island looking for a sword, come across a giant man-eating-monster, battle and slay that only to find that the sword isn't there, it makes good viewing because it adds a bit of scope to the whole thing, rather than showing that our protagonists have an incredible amount of luck. Hell, at one point, they find 3 of the swords all at the same time! I'm sorry, that's not in the spirit of true adventure films. I actually don't think for a single sword, apart from the last one, there isn't an obstacle for them to defeat to get the sword. The hardest it gets for them before the climax is that Caspian and Edmund have a bit of a personality crisis and have a mini face-off arguing who should lead the charge and take control of the newest sword they've found. It's ridiculous.

To get back to reviewing, as has been obvious amongst everyone watching the films for the past few years has noticed, the four actors playing the children are, let's be perfectly honest, dire. The film may be set in World War 2, but that doesn't mean that all of them have to speak in a pretentious, stereotypically upper class drone! In an incredibly interesting story line, Lucy faces a personality complex as she wishes she was as beautiful as her not-that-beautiful-in-all-honesty sister. I saw it as an attempt to get into the mind of Lucy, as she is clearly the main focus of this film, a bit of character development if you will, which is incredibly pointless because she's not going back to Narnia ever again, therefore we'll never see Lucy on the big screen ever again. That's not to say that Lucy was poor in this film, as she did exactly what was asked of her to a pretty decent level, I'm not bemoaning her, I'm bemoaning the story. Edmund, however, is woefully poor. I can't be bothered to look up his name, simply because he's never going to be in another film ever again, therefore we won't need to know his name. See, I'm saving you valuable memory here. His pretentious upper class voice is even worse than Lucy's.

Plot holes galore (why did Edmund's sword light up in the final battle? It wasn't one of the 7...), pretty bad acting and pointless moments lead this to a pretty terrible score for a much loved classic. I'll give it a 5/10, the action was of a good standard and Eustace was really well portrayed, but that was about it. Disappointed.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1

The first installment of this epic two-part finale was never going to match how incredible the second half of the actual book is, let's be perfectly honest here. However, what this part does do, is give us an all-important character study into our favourite trio, and sticks incredibly well to its already brilliant set text.

Anyone who doesn't know the story of Harry Potter by now should be very ashamed of themselves. To quote a tweet from one of my favourite YouTubers, Hank Green (one half of the VlogBrothers) - "If you call "spoiler" on something that happened in a Harry Potter book, I have no sympathy for you." Well said, Hank. However, I will do my best to avoid spoilers of Part 2 in this review, but if I accidentally do, then I won't apologise. It's your own fault. Let's face facts - this is definitely one big set up for Part 2 as, truthfully, not that much happens in this film that will interest people who haven't read the books (i.e. youngsters who've grown with the films rather than the books), but if you're like me - an all-round, self-confessed and proud Harry Potter nerd - then this film is the best Harry Potter film to date.

It may seem weird that not much happens in this film, it lasts a whopping 2 hours 30 minutes, but with not much happening, previous readers will know that a lot does actually happen. A lot of it is simply dead end leads, arguments and Voldemort terrifying his followers and generally looking awesome. The plot of the story is that Harry, Ron and Hermione have to track down Horcruxes, 7 things Voldemort put part of his soul into so that he couldn't die unless someone managed to destroy these seven things. What Harry and co. need to figure out is what these 7 things are - they literally could be anything. Thankfully, two of which have already been destroyed by the beginning of this film - Riddle's Diary way back in film two - Chamber of Secrets and Marvolo Gaunt's Ring (a distant relative to Voldemort himself) that Dumbledore destroyed in the most recent film, Half-Blood Prince. The task proves almost impossible for Harry, it leads to a feeling of uncertainty in their midst as they feel the task Dumbledore set them is simply too great to defeat.

This film is, finally, well-acted (for the most part) by everyone in this film. Daniel Radcliffe has come on leaps and bounds since the beginning, especially since the third film, Prisoner of Azkaban ("He was their friend....HE WAS THEIR FRIEND!!" Oh, Dan....). Rupert Grint is brilliant as usual being the most experienced and all-round better actor than the other two, and Emma Watson is as gorgeous as she's ever been, and surprisingly acts quite well, especially when dealing with one of the dream team's departure. There's even a scene where Hermione is naked. Thank you, David Yates! There's definitely a lack of more mature actors in this one (previous outings have seen the not-brilliant acting from Radcliffe and Watson being saved by legends such as Alan Rickman and Michael Gambon), but that's understandable since the trio quit Hogwarts in order to do their task. There will be more of the older actors in Part 2, I can guarantee it, even from those you don't expect to be in Part 2, if you know what I mean....

There are a few action set-pieces for us to feast our eyes on, the highlight of which being the truly brilliant chase scene, almost at the very beginning of the film, as we see Harry and Hagrid fly through the streets and tunnels of London on Hagrid's (or Sirius', depending on your Harry Potter knowledge) flying motorcycle being chased by numerous Death Eaters. The effects are exceptional in the entire film, numerous explosions take place and they're a joy to behold. Ron's "splinching" is impressive too, with a bit of blood and gore top horror filmmakers would be proud of. There's even one set piece that had me jumping from my seat, it got me that scared!

To finish, there has been much discussion on the placement of the ending. I personally think that was the best place to finish it, it sets the second part up absolutely perfectly, with one terribly depressing, heart-wrenching moment as my favourite character from the entire series is killed, followed by a short scene that doesn't bode too well for the Wizarding World as Voldemort succeeds in claiming what he's been searching for during the whole film.

All in all, a truly excellent adaptation from one of the best books of my generation, definitely the best film in the series so far at sticking to the story. It gets a very, very respectable 8.5/10.

Album: This Is Me by Charlie McDonnell

Yep, I do albums now. Well, this is my first album review, but I do love my music, so why not review albums too? Off topic side note, I'll get around to reviewing the newest Harry Potter film at some point tomorrow too, I want to write about it so badly! Anyway, This Is Me.

Charlie McDonnell (you'll probably know him as charlieissocoollike) is a pretty famous YouTube vlogger. He's so "pretty famous" that he's the most subscribed YouTuber in the UK, with 680,000 subscribers (thanks, Wikipedia!). He's a big fan of writing music, and he's pretty bloody good at it too. He's posted a few songs on his channel, and he's in two bands (Sons of Admirals and, my preference, Chameleon Circuit (a Doctor Who rock band!!)). This Is Me is his first ever solo album, and I have to say, it is a bloody good one at that.

To be brutally honest, the opening track, Rhymezone.com, didn't fulfil my expectations as much as I'd hoped. It's literally a song about trying to find words that rhyme with each other for songs. It has a pretty good tune to it and it is catchy, but there's something about it that doesn't quite agree with me. It seems like a song that he just wrote to fill up his album (which, ironically, he actually does with A Song About A Song, but does so with a very tongue-in-cheek feel to it, which I love). The quality from then on just gets better and better. The following is a quintet of old favourites that we've seen before on his channel like A Song About Acne and Duet With Myself (the latter has had more than 3,000,000 views on YouTube, and I even link to it in one of my posts on my normal blog, which you can see by following the link at the top of the page, if you wish), re-recorded for a better quality sound to them, almost re-mastered, and they do sound brilliant. There's always something great about hearing something broken down and raw, but when you hear a well recorded song, it's very satisfactory.

The rest of the album is a mix of old and new, with two standouts from the new selection - Bread and the title track, This Is Me. Bread is actually quite a beautifully told story about a young girls aspirations about becoming a baker (very cleverly called Flora Spread), this is the first single, or rather the first video from the album, which will be embedded at the end of the review, but I really do like the song. This Is Me is a completely different song, it's literally a description of Charlie's anatomy, but the way it's written is brilliant, each body part is like a reflection of Charlie himself (These are my hands/on my arms/on my conscience/with fingers that shake/while they strum). I loved it.

As a whole, this is actually an excellent first outing from Charlie, I've been listening to it all day today, and I don't plan on stopping.

Out of 5, this is a very well deserved 4.

Bread:

The Sorcerer's Apprentice

Be warned: This film contains a long haired Nicholas Cage. But don't let that put you off this Disney magical epic, starring the consistently hilarious Jay Baruchel.

The title really tells you the story of this one. Jay Baruchel plays Dave, the clumsy protagonist and protegé to Nick Cage's sorcerer, Balthazar. Balthazar has been searching for hundreds of years to fine the "Prime Merlinian" - Merlin's successor. Somethings happen that you have to watch the film to explain because it's a bit complicated, but Balthazar gets trapped in an urn for 10 years. There is a sub-plot or two, with Jay's romance story with the fit girl, Becky (Teresa Palmer), and Balthazar's quest to find the sorceress he lost all those years ago.

Where the films succeeds is with the banter between Balthazar and Dave, Dave has many great one-liners and the occasional laugh-out-loud lines, confirming a very long career in comedy for this young man. A personal favourite line of mine is along these lines:

Dave: I've been chasing Becky for 10 years, do you know what that feels like?!
Balthazar: Yes, I've been stuck in an urn for the last 10 years!
Dave: So have I!....A figurative urn of...a broken heart!

Funny guy, funny guy.

I'm not all that bothered about reviewing this to huge extent, but I'll just say that it doesn't offend anyone, it's a bit of a laugh and it has some very special, special effects.

That was a shocker of a review, I apologise.

7/10.

Inception

Since I came out of the cinema, I've been dying to write about it. This film had such an affect on me that I've been thinking about it since the closing credits. I watched Toy Story 3 after this one, and I found Inception crossing my mind over and over again, deducing what happened and what I thought of it. What did I think of it? It's one of my favourite films of all time.

The story is, to put it bluntly, insanely complicated. Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) is an "extractor", which means he goes into people's dreams and steals their secrets. However, he has a scarred past to do with his wife, and because of numerous contracts with many people, he can't go home meaning he's permanently away from his wife and kids. So, he makes a deal with a big business man to do with Inception. Inception, in this film, is where a person manages to plant an idea into some one's dream leading to this someone implementing that idea. Cobb has to do this Inception on another big business man, so he gathers a team to do the job. Though that sounds kind of simple, it really isn't. I can't explain much further as I will give away numerous spoilers, so I won't. You'll have to see it to understand it.

I'll discuss the film as a whole at the end, I'll do the simple stuff now.

The main cast of the film is full of supremely well-known actors, namely the likes of DiCaprio, Ellen Page, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Cillian Murphy and, that English guy, the one in Batman....oh yeah, Michael Caine. Everyone delivers stellar performances, DiCaprio plays the struggling extractor trying to forget (or is he?) his past superbly, I wish we could've seen more of Ellen Page, not only that she's lovely, but also that her Ariadne (Ar-ee-add-nay) is brilliant, but the winner of this cast is Gordon-Levitt. He's superb as the sort of side-kick to DiCaprio, as he gradually appears to be the rock to Cobb and the behind-the-scenes mastermind behind the entire plan.

It would be utterly impossible not to talk about the effects in this film. As dreams "collapse", i.e. the subject is about to wake up from his dream or he's realised that he's being extracted, the many explosions and crumbling buildings are simply a joy to watch. It seems Christopher Nolan, the genius behind this whole film (he wrote, produced and directed it), took a leaf from the Jerry Bruckheimer notebook, but it was far more classy than any Bruckheimer production. Nolan wanted the whole thing to be as real as possible, meaning even the falling debris actually fell from the ceiling (nevertheless it was soft, but still, not as much CGI as you'd expect from a film of this magnitude). The highlight of the entire film regarding CGI, nay, the highlight of the entire film? When it all goes into zero gravity, which is easily explained and makes perfect sense. Gordon-Levitt is forced to float through corridors, move the dreamers and even have a zero gravity fight. It's insane, I've never seen anything like it before.

Finally, Inception as a whole. In short, it's genius. Nolan has given us such an original film that you have to applaud the man, considering his previous films - The Dark Knight, Memento, The Prestige - all films that make you think, challenges you into connecting the dots, doesn't let you calm down for one second as if you don't concentrate for, quite literally, 5 seconds, you will be forever lost in understanding the complexity of the film. You have to pay attention for all 147 minutes, never take your eyes off it, listen to every spoken word as it is always relevant to the big picture.

Quite simply, Inception is one of the best films I've seen in a very, very, very long while. Not much this summer will be able to match my excitement for it, it's possible that when Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows comes out, I will be more excited, but I don't think I'll see an overall better film in the cinema than this one for many years to come.

9.6/10. Practically perfect.

Toy Story 3

Having seen two films earlier today, Inception and Toy Story 3, Inception is going to need so much more depth and analysis than Toy Story, so I'll do that after this one.

It's been 11 years since Toy Story 2 came out, a film from my childhood, so as you can imagine I was immensely excited to see the next, and final, installment of what Mark Kermode (my favourite film critic) has called "the greatest trilogy of all time." And I have to say, he's absolutely right.

Toy Story 3 begins with a scenario not dissimilar to its predecessor, a fictional high-action scene, this time involving Woody, Buzz, Jessie, Bullseye and Rex leading the charge to fight Mr. and Mrs. Potato Head, Hamm and the 3 Aliens' dastardly plan. It's a brilliant show of the advancement of technology for Pixar since 1999, and the rest of the film doesn't disappoint. Its story is more emotional than the previous, this time, Andy is 17 and is about to go off to College, meaning he leaves all his favourite toys behind, and all of whom are donated to a day-care centre. Woody escapes to try and find Andy, but then he is forced to go back and help his friends to save the day, like he always does.

We meet many different toys in this one, a personal favourite of mine was Buttercup, a white unicorn with hearts on his cheeks voiced by Jeff Garlin, the man who voiced the captain of the Cruise Ship thing in the brilliant WALL-E. Each toy has such an immense level of detail attached to it that you just have to stop and marvel at how incredible they look. Even with the classic characters, it seems Pixar have gone all out to make them the most beautiful they've ever been, on Woody, you can actually see the stitches and seams of his costume. After seeing Pixar go better than the first Toy Story with the pretty much perfect Toy Story 2, you wouldn't think they could top it, or even match it. But with the third installment, oh, they have.

This film is much more emotional than the last two, as the toys are scared at losing Andy for good, we're scared of losing the characters we all know and love for good. In the climactic scene at the rubbish tip, you can feel every single emotion the people at Pixar had coming through, you can feel it so much that I actually got goosebumps on more than one occasion. The painfully happy yet sad final scene is amazing, I was on the verge of shedding a tear or two, and I was actually begging myself to cry, it seemed that Toy Story and Pixar has done enough over the last 15 years to warrant my years. I was gutted I didn't when I came out of the cinema.

To sum up, Toy Story 3 is an emotional, gripping, incredible animation that proves that Pixar are leagues ahead of any other animation studio today.

9.0/10

The Twilight Saga: Eclipse

I reviewed New Moon on here, and I surprisingly liked it. However, I need to revisit that one as sudden revelations have lead me to change my opinions of that film, and even though Eclipse is better than New Moon, you can't help but think this is all getting a bit ridiculous now.

Usually, this second paragraph is one that fills you in on the plot of the film I've recently seen - this film, in all honesty, doesn't have much of a plot to report. Eclipse has the same plot as the other two films, i.e. Bella and Edward falling in love. By this point they have fallen in love, and if you remember from the end of New Moon, Edward asked Bella to marry her. Shock horror. This film is the exact same as New Moon, with the addition of New-Borns, one of the few things I liked in this film. New-Borns are people who have only just turned into Vampires (or the Twilight equivalent of Vampires - shit ones). Eclipse puts forward the idea that New-Borns are Vampires at their strongest, because they have more or less no control over their ability - they're volatile, and will do anything to feed. Not a bad idea from Miss. Meyer there. So, we've discovered that Bella and Edward love each other, and of what I know of Breaking Dawn, they both live happily ever after. Why that takes four books and, annoyingly, five films (bloody Twilight copying Harry Potter by making Breaking Dawn into two films), I have no idea. So, what are the films pros and cons?

I'll start with the pros. To begin with, there really isn't that much fighting, it takes a good hour or so to get any action scenes into it. You get a snippet when the Cullens practice fighting in preparation of battling the New-Borns, which is mildly entertaining. When we finally get to the battle I've been begging for, truthfully, it doesn't disappoint. It's fast and furious, the Cullens (Jasper especially) completely destroying the oncoming New-Borns in tremendous fashion. I found two things annoying in that scene - the occasional cut scenes back to Bella and Edward, I just wanted to see some fighting! And secondly, how the Vampires died. Because of the now infamous way the Vampires in Twilight react to sunlight, these vampires simply smash when they get their head punched off. Which is all very well, but part of me hoped it would be better. Considering the director, David Slade, who's the man behind my favourite horror film of all time 30 Days Of Night, I was expecting maybe a little bit of more epic incidents when it comes to killing Vampires! Sadly though, to keep the 12A, they had to just smash. Slight downfall to a great scene. Sadly though, the fighting scenes are the solitary pro in this, well, mess of a film.

The first con is how they went about telling the story. I think the screenplay writers assumed that everyone going to see this film would know thoroughly what's going on in the story. Err, not quite. Most of the characters were throwing names out all over the place. Whenever we heard Bella, Edward or Jacob, we were okay. Names like Jasper, Alice, Rosalie, Carlisle, Victoria were tolerable, if occasionally confusing trying to differentiate the different Cullens. It's when they throw names like Harry and Billy into the mix is when I get confused. Firstly, who is Harry? And apparently, if I remember rightly, they killed Harry's son at some point too? I have no idea, I was too busy working out who the hell Harry was. Issue number 1. Issue number 2 was the piss poor special effects in the chase-through-the-forest-scene. How that made it past post-production, I have no idea. When you watch it, you'll know what I mean. The Cullens chase Victoria through the forest, surprisingly, and firstly they don't look like they're even running, they're like moving pictures with the occasional expression change to give off the impression that they're actually doing it. Issue 3, however, is the biggest of the lot. In fact, so big, that it deserves its own paragraph.

How terrible Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson and Taylor Lautner are at acting, especially the latter.

Somehow, we as an audience are meant to believe that Stewart and Pattinson are meant to be totally in love, and are happy to stay with each other for, literally, ever. Though, from the opening scene containing Bella and Edward, the word "awkward" sums it all up perfectly. The non-sensical, awkward conversations they have, the awkward kissing moment, even the awkward seating position Edward is in (he's basically shoving is crotch into Bella's bum area). What's even worse is that they used to be a couple. Maybe that's a factor in the awkward, but they should know that this is a film millions upon millions will be watching. At least try and give it some oomph. Taylor Lautner, then, suffers from I've-Got-A-Six-Pack-Which-Means-I-Can-Act Syndrome. My arse can he act. He spends nearly the whole film with his shirt off, meaning every female in the cinema will be staring at his stomach rather than concentrating on what he's saying. He also suffers from this awkward theme, by gazing bizarrely at Bella and Edward embracing. His very bland way of showing his feelings for Bella is just embarrassing, and whenever he gets a mildly humourous line, he doesn't have the comic timing to do it properly. For instance, in a tent on a mountain, Jacob and Edward have a sort of man-to-man, heart-to-heart talk, and near the end of the conversation, Edward says something like "You know, if we weren't natural enemies, then I might actually like you." Fair enough, Mr. Edward. What Jacob returns with is the insanely predictable line, "If you weren't dating the woman I love *TOO LONG A PAUSE* nah, I'd still hate you." Err, was I supposed to laugh at that? Why leave a 20 minute pause to deliver the punchline? Instead of undressing Bella with his eyes, he should've paused for half a second, and said the line. Not wait for 10 minutes to catch the next bus, go to town, by a t-shirt, come back and then deliver the punch line! Not amused, Mr. Lautner.

To summarise, this truthfully is a piss poor attempt at a continuation of an immensely (though why, I have no idea) popular franchise. The action is the reason for the score below, but if the action wasn't there, it would've been even lower.

4/10. Cringe worthy is the phrase, I think.

P.S. You know this whole Team Jacob, Team Edward malarkey? Well, watching that, I really have to wonder why there are such teams. Lautner has a bizarre face, he actually looks like the werewolf he turns into, and Edward is just weird looking. He's disproportionately thin if you ask me. Team Alice and Rosalie for the win.

The Collector

Here we go, the first 18 certificate film of my film reviewing career! Except, I'm still 17. So, you'll be happy to know that I actually broke the law to review this film for you. Be proud.

This story is actually quite different to any horror I've seen before. The first scene sets the tone for the film, with a suspicious looking box, man opens it, gets grabbed, screen goes black, the film properly starts. Like many, many other horror films. Arkin, our protagonist, is a construction worker of sorts and he's out along with some bug extermination team to do stuff for an evidently rich family who live in an epic mansion (which seems to shrink when they actually go inside, as inside it just looks like a normal sized house....) and we find out that he and his wife aren't on very good terms, as she has many an issue with Loan Sharks. Arkin needs money to help his wife, so he goes to this big, burly, black guy to help him out. Arkin decides to rob said mansion. Okay, I see where this is going. He goes in, starts unlocking a safe, when he hears some movement in the house - "The family are away for the weekend", he explained with the big, burly, black man. This baffles him, and he soon discovers that there is a murderer in the house! Dun dun dun. Cue lots of extremely tense moments within the house and throw in a fair amount of blood and guts (literally...) for good measure.

That sounds rather sarcastic, giving the impression that I didn't like the film. Whereas I actually quite enjoyed it. I do like a good horror, and this is from the Saw mould admittedly (the guys that wrote this film wrote a couple of the Saw sequels, incidentally), but this is far cleverer than Saw, employing for more scare tactics rather than plain old torture porn. The murderer and our anti-hero come within inches of each other without actually seeing each other thanks to the mansion as it beholds probably about 9 doors for each room. Clever pan shots of the house, where it looks down on two adjacent rooms, Arkin in one, the killer in the other, separated by inches of wall. I found those scenes in particular very well done when it comes to the cinematography point of view.

The acting from Arkin is a stand out, as he is rather excellent I thought, changing from a robber who went in to do one thing and one thing only, dragged into a situation of saving a family from the hellish being that holds them captive. The others are fairly irrelevant as, I'll just tell you the truth, no one in the film lasts very long once in the house, besides Arkin and Hannah, the youngest daughter of the family. One thing that befuddled me was how surprisingly calm Hannah was in this situation. Her Mum and Dad had been caught by this monster of a man, and yet we don't actually see her crying. For a girl around 8 years old, you'd have thought crying would be first on the agenda, but never mind. Oh and lads, there are boobs in this, from the lesbian girl in Heroes, you know, the one that gets with Hayden Panettierre? Yeah, her. Just saying.

All in all, I enjoyed, I don't think the others enjoyed it very much, Ffion for example dreaded walking the 20 feet to her front door in case she got abducted. Like The Strangers, another home-invasion film I utterly adored, this kept be hooked from the get go, but contrasting with The Strangers, this has blood, and lots of it. Bear traps, fish hooks, knives, you name it, it's in this film. The Strangers didn't bother with all that, it went straight for the scariest approach possible - plan and simple terror. This employed a tactic of terror, with some cringe worthy, and on one occasion (I'll let you decide which I'm talking about), genuinely sick-making moments.

I'd give that a 7/10. A good, solid horror flick that's far, far better than the current horror's that grace our cinemas.

Killers

It may interest you to know that this is, in fact, my 25th film review. Is that the silver one? Or the bronze one? Or the something shiny one? No matter, I'll ignore that, I have a film to review, he said excitedly.

Killers. The title makes it sound promising. When you read the title, you immediately think action epic starring some buff actor, probably Jason Statham. Sadly, you're mistaken. This epically titled film stars heart throb Ashton Kutcher and the gorgeous Katherine Heigl. So there we go, that's the female audience covered in Kutcher and the male audience covered in Heigl. But, sadly, the film doesn't quite live up to expectations. In short, the film is very good looking, but lacking in any real substance.

Kutcher is, we learn quickly, some sort of James Bond/Jason Bourne super spy. He has the looks, the gadgets, the skills, everything. Plus, he has the power to pull anyone he wants, namely, Katherine Heigl. Now the beginning is, quite frankly, shit. There's no two ways about it, it's just how the two meet, and nothing happens. Cut to a shot of a quaint suburban village, and the words "Three Years Later". For the lads in the cinema, this is the best scene of the film, because Heigl is in her bra. Excellent. But anyway, this is finally where the film kicks into action. We find out that Kutcher has a bounty of like $20,000,000 or something on his head, and that's the story - Kutcher and Heigl go on the run, with pretty decent action scenes in between them and the end of the film. That's, literally, it. So then you sit back, relax and enjoy, because after the Three Years Later bit, it is quite enjoyable. The explosions are pretty awesome and, though Kutcher's character seems pretty useless at it, the fight scenes aren't half bad either.

Apologies for the below-par review, there really isn't much to go into great detail about! But it's worth the £7 I had to pay to ogle Katherine Heigl all film. Good times.

I'd give it a 6/10. Alright, I suppose.

Prince of Persia

(This review has been a very, very long time coming. I wrote the first two paragraphs the day aftter I saw it, the rest are going on pure memory!)

When you have a look online at the latest films, or what you want to go see later in the cinema, any time you see a film adaptation of a game appear on the list, you immediately seek to avoid said film at all costs. Hitman is but one of many examples. Prince of Persia, however, is a very good exception to this rule.

The story is rather complicated. We quickly learn that Dastan (Gyllenhaal) is an orphan with exceptional courage and is rather good as free-running (you know, climbing up walls and jumping from building to building). The King of Persia saw this courage and talent and adopted him into the Royal Family of Persia - the first member not to have any royal blood whatsoever. Zoom on 6 or 7 years, and you know have Dastan with a supremely impressive 6-pack, and a knack for disobeying the rules. Lots of things happen in a very impressive battle and we learn of The Sands of Time. Lots of other things happen, Dastan steals a dagger, and escapes alongside the gorgeous Princess of Alymet (or something), Gemma Arteton - she really is gorgeous. The two go on a few adventures together and bicker continuously as the story goes on, but, inevitably, they both realise they have a thing going on. (They do kiss in the end, they may bonk aswell, but I forget)

That's all there is to it. The rest is a number of battle sequences that involve lots of special effects (in particular the final battle, which is good on the eyes, but looking back, it's very silly). Because I forgot about this review, I'll keep it blunt - it's a good film if you just want a bit of fun and if you're a heterosexual boy/homosexual girl you can stare at Gemma Arterton for 2 hours, or if you're a heterosexual girl/homosexual boy you can stare at Jake Gyllenhaal for 2 hours. If you're looking for a deep plot with twists and turns, then this isn't for you. Oh, and for good measure, it has a predictable ending.

6.5/10.

Let The Right One In (2009)

I have literally just finished watching this film - around 30 minutes ago - and though this film isn't, and wasn't, out in any cinema near by, I think this needs reviewing. Such is the effect of the film on me, it will test my reviewing skills to the extreme.

I watched this film with very high expectations. All reviews I'd read previously had said that it's among the greatest Vampire films of all time, 5 stars all across the board, using superlatives such us "amazing" and "jaw-dropping". I couldn't wait to get my teeth into this one (oh, vampire pun!).

We begin with a harrowing scene of 1981, Sweden, the place picturesquely covered completely in snow across a set of flats, which is where we first see our bumbling hero, per se, in his pants. Why he's in his pants, I have no idea, but in his pants he is. The opening 15 minutes or so is merely setting the scene for what's to come, a 12 year old school boy bullied by his peers being called again and again "piggy". He isn't fat, he's just called piggy, presumably for his pig-like facial appearance, but we won't go into that. This is Oskar, the young boy secluded from society totally, a loner who knows a bit too much about murder it seems. We are then introduced to Eli, the also (more or less) 12 year old girl who quickly befriends Oskar as he practises his knife wielding skills on an unsuspecting tree. The conversation between the two gradually develops from childhood shyness after meeting a pretty girl to subjects far too morbid and evidently deadly for 12 year olds to fully comprehend. Sad to say though, my enjoyment of the film was dampened very, very slightly by the pure annoyance of Oskar himself. That said, I guess that is Oskar, so our young star Kåre Hedebrant did brilliantly. The show is stolen completely however by young Eli, the vampire played exceptionally by Lina Leandersson.

We then meet a group of conspirators who, after hearing of two murders in their small village, obviously suspect the worst, regularly meeting to conspire and discuss the latest incidents. One member of the group (I won't divulge who, I'll keep it a surprise) is attacked by young Eli, leading indirectly to the second most spectacular set-piece in the film (the first I'll talk about later) really gives the director - Tomas Alfredson - reason to boast to the Michael Bays of this world that big budget stuff really doesn't mean a good film.

The cinematography and direction in general of the film is up there with the best I've ever seen. Every shot has a symbolic meaning behind it, for example, the closed door between Oskar and Eli, symbolising that however badly they want their love to flourish, there will always be an invisible barrier between the two. Similar to the barrier that prevents vampires from entering another's home, something we get to experience quite incredibly and disturbingly. 10 respect points for Alfredson. The snow covered world the film is set really gives a sense of harrowing worry as to whether Eli wants Oskar to be her boyfriend, a friend, a sidekick or simply lunch is always a possibility, one which on one occasion very nearly becomes a scary reality as our blithering idiot that is Oskar purposely cuts his hand in order to made a "blood brothers-like" connection between him and Eli.

The film is filled with small hints towards it's incredible conclusion, truly showing how far the young lovers are willing to go to help each other (Oskar putting his life on the line to save Eli as one of the conspirators approaches Eli in her sleep) to one of the best moments in film I've ever laid my eyes on. As Oskar plays with fire as he takes the word of Eli and sticks up for himself and "hits back", he inadvertently brings his bully's older brother into the mix, leading to a sublime 30 seconds of cinema, taken place underwater as we play the guessing game of "how the hell did that happen?!" Those 30 seconds sum this film up absolutely perfectly - not what you expect, yet utterly amazing.

In a time where it seems vampires are suddenly the new wizards, it's a feat to set your film apart in comparison to 30 Days of Night and True Blood, and this film has done so, in incredible fashion. To even use it in the same sentence as Twilight would be a disgrace to man kind, so I won't. Let's just say that if you like Twilight, you really have no idea what a vampire is. Let The Right One In is, in effect, a love story told so darkly and absorbingly, that it's a true horror film, and it's an absolute masterpiece. Give me none of this torture porn you see all over the place, I want Swedish vampire films.

There is an American remake of the film coming this year, which I will review in comparison to this one, but hear this: If the remake is better, then it will be the greatest film of all time. That's how good this film is, it'll be nigh on impossible for anyone to do better.

Simply stunning. 9.8/10.

The Hurt Locker

Bizarrely, The Hurt Locker has never been screened here in the United Kingdom. Typically though, this is the film that went on to dominate every awards show (apart from the Golden Globes, but no one really cares about them anyway), and most importantly it won 6 awards at The Oscars. But at home, no one has actually seen the film, which led us all to doubt the credentials of the film itself, considering the huge success that was AVATAR worldwide, but for a film that was pretty much only shown in America to blow it out of the water. Finally, I paid the fee charged by Sky Box Office and sat down, ready to answer the question that's been on so many people's lips. What's all the fuss about?

The opening scene is enough to answer that question. The immediate stark realisation of the wasteland that is Baghdad, Iraq, of the unimaginable living quarters that the Iraq people have to live in day in day out, of the strange fact that the locals watch the Army go about their work from the safety of their apartment, if you can call them that, windows. The opening scene makes you completely forget that you're even watching a film, the shaky camera that's at work puts you right in the thick of the action, almost as if you're there with them, watching the terrifying incidents unfold before your very eyes.

The story itself is easy enough. Simply, it follows the US Army's Bomb Disposal Squad as it answers its calls out to the open wasteland. That's it. But that's not the point of the film, Kathryn Bigelow (director) set out to make a point, that a film needn't have a huge, complicated plot (unlike AVATAR) in order to be good. As long as it's interesting, it'll do. Now some of you may turn a blind eye because of the lack of storyline, but once you're in, you don't want to look away. Every scene as an unparralelled level of intensity, caused by the impending doom that surrounds Iraq, the occasional jet heard screaming over head causing a brief panic that that jet plane could be a missile. Every pile of rubble passed by the soldiers could contain a monstrous size of explosives.

As the film passes, you realise that this is as close to reality as any film is ever going to get. The use of real-life soldiers, the naturalistic, almost improvised dialogue. And don't even get me started on the explosions. I've never seen better explosions on screen, and the stop-motion camera adds a realism to the opening scene, and is only used once more in the whole film. The stunning stop-motion moments are the defining images of the film, particularly at the beginning. But then, you've got all these special effects and it's all very well, but interestingly enough, the best scene in the film is stripped down totally, focusing primarily on two men and a Sniper Rifle. The scene lasts 15 minutes. No sound effects besides maybe four gun shots. It's pure cinematic genius.

We Brits may feel a sense of dubiousness when it comes to seeing this film, as it may be a very pro-American, all guns blazing gung-ho War film. Pay no attention to this whatsoever. When it comes to War films, everyone will talk about the Saving Private Ryan's, or the Apocalypse Now's or the Black Hawk Down's. The first film that will come to mind when talking about War films is The Hurt Locker.

What's all the fuss about? The fuss is about an absolutely incredible film that you should catch while you can, one of the great war films of our time and though it won all those awards, it will never get the recognition it deserves, from us here in the UK, anyway.

9.4/10. Amazing.

Sherlock Holmes

This Victorian tale was filmed by the man behind films such as Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and RocknRolla - Guy Ritchie. You would think that the person that's directed numerous gangster films wouldn't be the best director to direct a classic detective in Victorian London with very few guns to use. And yet, Ritchie managed to direct a very, very good film. The was some furore regarding Sherlock himself - Robert Downey Jr. wouldn't exactly be the Sherlock we've come to expect over the years. The very smart, elegant detective that goes about his duties with not much fuss. And yet, Downey Jr. plays an oh so different Skerlock, that I absolutely adored (my man crush on Downey Jr. did further this adoration, mind you).

Once the film started, you could easily tell that Ritchie had spent much time thinking about the setting of the film - Ye Olde London. The very dark and idyllic London is simply stunning, with half-built Tower Bridge being the piece-de-resistance. Each dark alleyway that Sherlock and Watson trudge along from time to time have a genuine eeriness about it that shows that though London is one of the most well known cities in the world, back in the day London had many skeletons in its closet, with courtesans and shafty salesmen being a regular sight throughout.

The story itself is a very interesting one (that Sherlock, naturally, is able to suss out, for the most part), and I was captivated by the way Sherlock went about at explaining how he figured all of the important elements out, sometimes with a sort of flashback, and others you really had to listen to what Sherlock was saying as only a few pictures were shown. This isn't a film you can just watch as a bit of fun on a Sunday evening, if, like me, you want to figure out the story before it gets explained, then your attention is a must. Sadly, I didn't figure out what happened before Sherlock had to explain, but I was oh so close.

Finally, you have to mention the camaraderie between Downey Jr.'s Sherlock and Jude Law's Watson is among the great partnership in current cinema. The connection between them is second to none, regularly making quips to one another.

The film has it's flaws, obviously, but there are so many pros that out weigh the cons that you nearly miss them. Oh, and the fight scene at the beginning is amazing.

To summarise, the classic detective portrayed in not-so-conventional fashion, but this really was a conventionally brilliant film.

7.7/10.

Avatar

Here we go. The film everyone has been talking about for months. The return of James Cameron, director of Titanic and Terminator. Revolutionary special effects, we were promised? Are they? Oh hell yes. Was it worth the wait? Oh hell yes.

If you don't know what this is all about, where have you been for the past 6 months? Well, this is the story of a man named Jake Sully who takes part in the AVATAR Programme in 2154 (yes, I paid attention to the video logs) where he takes control (drives, as called in the film) of a member of the Na'vi, a tribe of aliens that live on a planet named Pandora, where he becomes one of them in order to find a rock named "Unobtanium" (stolen from "The Core"?) and, well, obtain it. The story is one of simplicity, and yet the manner in which the movie goes about it is so incredibly epic, that you couldn't care less about the story until it all kicks off in the last 30 minutes, you just want to watch Jake's progress as he learns the ways of the Na'vi.

When I first saw Jake's Avatar, around 10 minutes or so in, I was a bit apprehensive. He started running around the camp in which he was "made" per se, and he easily stood out as a CGI creature, and I was wondering "oh no, please don't say it looks like that for the rest of the movie!" and two things occurred. 1) It doesn't. 2) Even if it does, you don't notice because the creatures are so immaculately created. After the bump in the first 10 minutes, it was pure jaw-dropping sights. The Pandora jungle is simply stunning, everything has been created to the tiniest detail. The space is so vast, it's unreal how, err, real it actually looks. But, what's even more impressive than that are the creatures in the jungle itself. Every tree, flower, strange floating insect has had time spent on it, getting every detail precise. An astonishing feat considering the vastness of the whole project.

I'll talk about the Na'vi later, I'll begin with the animals. Well, not animals, creatures. The bizarre dog-like aliens that attack Jake early on his Avatar experience, are incredible. Even the way they're mouths open is astounding. The big dinosaur crossed with hammerhead shark creatures are cracking too, but the big achievement animal wise has to go to the ikran, or however you spell it, commonly known as a Banshee. They're just amazing. They're pterodactyl likeness and the different colours on their heads are of such detail that it'll take hours and hours of viewing to see every little thing they've put on these incredible animals.

The Na'vi. These 12ft beasts are just astounding. Where Cameron came up with this tribe is beyond me, it's like Smurfs have been subject to Gamma radiation and this is the outcome. The fact that Jake and Naytiri look so real is one thing, but to have thousands upon thousands of them, all with they're own personal traits and evident trademarks, set them apart from everyone else in the crowd of thousands. Though the female Na'vi remind me a bit of Mystique from X-Men, they're originality is breathtaking.

After leaving the cinema, I had time to have a real think over what I just saw. I did that with Transformers 2 and look how that turned out. But this one really is a spectacle you mustn't miss. It's been twelve years in the making, and it shows. Everything has been meticulously planned. Everything from that huge mean animal called a Thanator, to that has wings that spin colourfully when it flies. The added effect of when at night, everything sort of glows, with a fairytale like appearance to it all. Clearly, Cameron as taken time. In fact, to make one scene, it took 2 years. That's just phenomenal (I'm running out of superlatives here). He's not rushed into anything, he's planned every scene to a tee, every conversation, the Na'vi language, the shrieks of the Banshee's, everything. Exceptional.

Cameron has said that if Avatar is a success, he's planning 2 sequels. We only see a snippet of the wondrous world of Pandora, it has so many different directions it could go to. If so, I've already booked my tickets. But please Mr. Cameron. Don't rush into it, you've set a brilliant foundation. Don't ruin it.

Though the film is a bit weird, and it probably won't be every one's cup of tea, it really is outstanding. Make sure you go see it, make sure you can say that you were there when the future of cinema truly began.

Using my brand new RBJ-O-Meter, I give Avatar, an incredibly impressive, 9.1/10.