Due Date Premiere Interviews

Chatting to Director Todd Phillips, Robert Downey Jr and Zack Galifianakis on the red carpet for the European Premiere of Due Date in London

MTV Movie Awards 2009

The MTV Movie Awards is a bit like the Oscars naughty cousin. It’s less dignified and respectable, but much more popular and playfully tongue in cheek. It’s a celebration of what’s ‘big’, but not necessarily what’s ‘clever’. As each year, an eclectic mix of celebs swarm together for a night of silliness, music and movie parodies.

Tonight, the Emo revolution took another worrying step toward global domination, as Twilight won everything in the world. Robert Pattinson won best male breakthrough performance and the undying love of your moody teenage sister. It must be fun to be dreamy. Twilight also won best fight, best female performance, best film and the infamous best kiss award. Slumdog Millionaire was this year’s big star at the Oscars, but it left empty handed, wondering why it didn’t have more hot vampires in it.

Elsewhere, Zac Efron and Ashley Tisdale both picked up awards for their wholesome musical efforts in High School Musical 3. (Yes, they did make three of them... no, don’t worry, it probably won’t happen again). Heath Ledger won yet another posthumous prize for his best villain performance as the Dark Knight’s Joker. Hannah Montana and/or Mylie Cyrus (which one’s real again...?) won for best song. Jim Carrey picked up an award to prove he’s still got some funny left in him, while the nights semi-prestigious ‘MTV Generation Award’ went to Ben Stiller. There were even some glimpses of the new Harry Potter and Transformers movies for anyone who bothered to watch the whole thing live.

The MTV award shows consistently produces landmark pop culture moments. It usually involves Britney Spears making out with aging pop queens, dancing with snakes, or self destructing. This year, it was Eminem getting an unwelcome face full of Sacha Baron Cohen’s crotch. Dressed in a thong and angel wings, Cohen was making his way to the stage on a high wire when he ’accidentally’ plummeted upside down into the rap star's lap. It seems to be widely accepted that he was in on the joke, but I’m just not sure why anyone would volunteer for such public humiliation. I will say this; Eminem’s expression was not one of a man pleased to see buttocks.

Pictures and links to the video below check it out and make up your own mind....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8076898.stm

Twilight Premiere footage below for anyone who enjoys screaming and Robert Pattinson's face...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcuCWkGyyrY&feature=channel_page

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

After the X-men trilogy made over a billion dollars it was a commercial inevitability that Wolverine, the series most popular brooding hero, would return. This film is the first of three planned solo outings, plotting the years of Wolverine's life before he joined Professor Xavier's team of X-Men. ‘X-Men Origins: Wolverine’, shows us just how Wolverine got his indestructible adamantium skeleton and those famous claws. It also reveals his bitter rivalry with his ferocious half-brother Victor (aka Sabertooth) and the tragedy of his doomed first love.

In the comics, Wolverine’s exact origins were an elusive secret for a long time. In a way, revealing the character’s back-story in such explicit detail does rob him of much of his aura of mystery. Arguably Wolverine is a more intriguing character as a man haunted by a terrible forgotten past. In particular, the introduction of an obligatory love story, feels more like a plot device rather than a genuine emotional connection between the characters. The film’s attempts complicate Wolverine and his origins don’t match the simple animal rage that epitomised his best comicbook incarnations. The film isn’t convincingly dramatic or mindlessly entertaining; but what else is worth watching?

The innate problem with any prequel is that we already know what’s going to happen. It’s all but impossible to generate suspense when we know with absolute certainty who’s going to live and die. Added to the fact that Wolverine is already almost impervious to physical harm, this leaves all the film’s earnest action deprived of danger. Another major challenge for this film is that it has to maintain continuity with all the existing X-men movies. This severely limits the plot, which at times seems contrived and painfully predictable. It's certainly not helpful that X-Men 2 already dwelt heavily on Wolverine’s murky past. Most of the film's supposed revelations will feel overly familiar to anyone with a basic knowledge of the character.

The film draws heavily on the endlessly vast universe of popular characters from Marvel comics for its supporting cast. However, the rapid parade of fan favourites looks like a cynical ploy to widen the appeal of the film as much as possible. The huge potential of characters like Gambit and Deadpool is wastefully squandered on a handful of scenes and a few glib lines. It’s pretty clear, the only reason they’re really here is to test the waters of audience interest before these characters get their own spin-offs. The fact that the studio announced that Ryan Reynolds's Deadpool was getting his own movie, within weeks of Wolverine's opening, seems to confirm these suspicions.

Although the film’s visual effects are without fault, the high standards set by the previous X-men trilogy leaves little room for it to distinguish itself. The spectacular has become so commonplace that it’s now impossible to overwhelm an audience’s good sense with some CGI and a few explosions. Hugh Jackman convincingly captures Wolverine’s iconic feral look yet again, but his surly charms are nowhere near enough to save an uninspired script. Pruning away the ensemble cast of the X-men trilogy was supposed to be a good thing. However, the weight of credibility which actors like Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen lend to a film can’t be underestimated. Liev Schreiber is an effectively menacing presence as Victor, but the film generally lacks performances of substances. Good actors fight a desperate losing battle against shallow writing, armed with only limited screentime. The film’s casting was adept; unfortunately almost every other aspect of the production falls disappointingly flat.

Marvel has already announced production on a further five movies in the X-men franchise. Only time will tell if these efforts will repay the faith of comic fans or further disappoint them. Of course you’ll still watch Wolverine, but you probably won’t like it much. Let’s just hope they find a proper script and some real claws for the sequels, because we both know, you’ll end up watching those too.

Monsters vs. Aliens

DreamWorks animation studios can claim credit for Kung Fu Panda, Madagascar and the phenomenally lucrative Shrek franchise. Despite having persistently lagged behind Pixar in animation techniques and Oscar acclaim, DreamWorks’ bright, unashamedly childish efforts have brought them inconceivably vast box office success. Shrek 2 is the 10th highest grossing film of all time and made $919.8 million at the cinema alone. The DVD and Shrek 2 merchandise are estimated to be worth a further $800 million. Just one film about a green ogre with a suspiciously Scottish accent made DreamWorks nearly $2 billion. No wonder they’re starting production on Shrek Goes Forth with greedy haste. But first they aim to take a technical leap past Pixar with Monsters vs. Aliens in 3D.

You have to admire the cheerful simplicity of any title which manages to capture a film's plot and playful spirit in just three words. When aliens attack Earth, a desperate President turns to a crackpot general W.R. Monger and his ragtag team of monsters to save the day. The monsters and their foes of robots and alien clones are all joyously ripped straight from classic sci-fi B movies. The prospect of watching them duke it out for the fate of the planet is appealingly silly and unpretentious.

Like most of DreamWorks’ efforts, the film’s vocal cast sparkles with unquestionable A-List calibre. Reese Witherspoon is typically endearing as Susan, a young woman whose wedding day is ruined by a meteorite which turns her into the towering 60 foot ‘Ginormica’. With much of the film focusing on her struggles to accept her newfound monstrousness, this character could easily have been irritatingly timid and hysterical. Luckily, Witherspoon’s trademark plucky charms translate well to animated form. The rest of the cast also seems equally well chosen.

Taking a rare break from all Jack Bauer’s bad days, Kiefer Sutherland clearly enjoys playing the gruff and battle hungry general W.R. Monger. Likewise, Hugh Laurie revels in the chance to show off his rare comedic gifts as a Mad Scientist turned into a cockroach by an experiment gone deliberately awry. Seth Rogen feels strangely typecast as BOB the likably brainless and indestructible blob. His attempt to romance a bowl of jelly is perhaps also one of the films funniest moments. Meanwhile, skyscraper sized bug ‘Insectosaurus’ just might be the most adorable thing to ever terrify on the big screen. Arrested Development’s Will Arnett plays Neanderthal fish-man ‘the missing link’, while political funny-man Stephen Colbert fulfils the secret wishes of many Americans by playing the President.

Recent 3D Movies have ranged from the sublime Nightmare Before Christmas re-release, to the ridiculous Spy Kids 3-D. The concept had previously found more consistent success in theme park rides than feature films; remaining a novelty rather than establishing itself as a filmaking norm. Perhaps, new technology and the recent wave of successful 3D movies, finally marks the real arrival of a new dimension in cinema. The added depth and sense of motion compliments the playful cartoonish action of films like Monsters vs. Aliens. Of course there’s a couple of scenes where things fly off the screen into the audience, startling kids and parent alike, but such tricks are sparingly used. Overall, 3D is less jarring and distracting for animated films than it often seems to be for live action.

Considerable time and effort has clearly been put into Monsters vs. Aliens with evident visual and casting success. However, my one major reservation would be that the action focused plot is quite insubstantial for more grown-up audiences; the film really has little to offer beyond a traditional "it’s okay to be different" moral. Unfortunately, the sophisticated brilliance of Pixar efforts like Wall-E and Ratatouille has permanently raised expectations for children’s cinema. Compared to the endlessly re-watchable magic of those films, Monsters vs. Aliens seems disappointingly simple and ironically two dimensional. There is just enough silliness and action to cling to an audience’s attention once, but certainly not much to merit a second glance. It's good... it's just not Pixar good.

A link below to the history of 3D for all those who prefer to know how magic tricks are done...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_Cinema

Eagle Eye

Making a good technological thriller is a notoriously tricky task; few other genre’s are shamefully responsible for quite so many cinematic atrocities. A frequent problem is that these films are usually plagued by implausible overly complicated plots based around one simple theme, namely what if technology turned evil. Time is also often unkind to such movies, as today’s cutting edge gadgets and science becomes redundant history at an increasingly rapid pace. Watching people in old movies marvel at lasers or explain what a microchip is can be an embarrassing ordeal. It’s like seeing cavemen congratulate themselves on inventing the wheel. I cautiously avoided Eagle Eye when it strolled through cinemas, but as it emerges on DVD I find myself inescapably confronted.

Supposedly based on Steven Spielberg’s first original story since ‘The Goonies’, I was left uninspired by Eagle Eye’s generic premise. Two strangers lose control of their lives to a mysterious voice on a phone that uses an eerie power over technology to manipulate them into doing its bidding. There’s little originality in such a literal representation of the well established cliché that our lives are ‘controlled by technology’. The power to change street signs or remotely operate heavy machinery is unlikely to inspire the desired fear and awe in a savvy technology encrusted audience. These concepts already felt tired and rehearsed even in their mid 90’s heyday.

Unfortunately the film’s cast is just as underwhelming as its lacklustre story. Lead actor Shia LaBeouf is a rising star who has grabbed leading roles in Transformers and the latest Indiana Jones movie. Even Steven Spielberg has an admitted if frankly inexplicable admiration for him. I will admit that LaBeouf’s ‘talents’ are unique. I can’t think of many other actors who can be both painfully melodramatic and devoid of any emotion at the same time. He seems to approach every role with the same combination of flaccid wit and sullen agitation. LaBeouf’s label as the ‘next Tom Hanks’ does a huge disservice to the legacy of a great talent and massively overestimates the appeal of LaBeouf’s ‘everyman’ qualities.

LaBeouf’s co-star Billy Bob Thornton has more screen presence and accomplish as an actor, though his most recent achievement has been to offend the entire nation of Canada with just one disastrously obnoxious CBC Radio interview. The actor apparently took objection to being called an actor whilst pretending to be just a musician. With the myth of his charisma finally exposed there’s really little appeal left in watching Billy Bob play a stereotypical surly FBI agent.

Eagle Eye isn’t unbearably awful; it’s just average and unexceptional. The plot holds very few surprises and hinges largely on the fact that LaBeouf’s character has an identical twin brother. Such a ludicrous cliché threatens to collapse the films fragile credibility into a big pile of silly. The film might actually have been more entertaining if it had been worse. Sometimes it’s better to be memorably terrible than just mediocre and forgettable...