The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

High fantasy seems to be a difficult genre to exploit in Hollywood and only a few films are worth mentioning in that niche category: Conan the Barbarian, Excalibur, The Princess Bride, Willow, The Dark Crystal and of course, The Lord of the Rings trilogy.

Based on the book The Hobbit (or Bilbo The Hobbit) by J.R.R. Tolkien, the story of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (Hobbit), takes place 60 years before Frodo’s departure from the Shire in the LotR trilogy of films and for any lover of high fantasy, it is pure joy.

Concerning The Hobbit.

Purists be damned, I loved this film! Despite the many additions and the length of the movie, Hobbit is a great roller coaster ride. It takes about thirty minutes to reach its stride, after that it’s a constant series of ups and downs between action scenes and character development sequences, until the very end when we are served a very nice helping of magic and swashbuckling swordfights in an exceptional escape sequence reminiscent of the best pursuits of the Indiana Jones films… minus the monkeys.

The structure of Hobbit is almost the same as The Fellowship of the Ring. It begins in the Shire with Gandalf presenting the Hero with an adventure, all the way to the end when the heroes look upon what is left of their journey from atop a hill, towards the peak of the Lonely Mountain. Even the halfway point is in Rivendell, where a council is convened.

The story of The Hobbit is a mere three hundred pages, but Peter Jackson and his team have incorporated many elements from Tolkien’s appendices to add length and meat to the tale. Many will use these tidbits to criticize the work in a negative way, however it is also interesting to witness how Hobbit links to LotR and how the lore is presented to the viewer. It almost seems as though Jackson has purposefully tried to tell most of what is to tell about Tolkien’s universe in his new trilogy. Personally, I hope this is the case.

The desolation of technology

Movie goers have the option of watching Hobbit in the normal 24 frames per second, or in 48 frames per second (plus the usual assortment of Ds, screen sizes and powered seating options). I have seen Hobbit twice in 24 FPS, but it is said that the other speed makes the film look like a cheap wedding video, less lifelike. The fact is this is the opposite, as the human eye actually functions at 60 FPS, and 48 FPS is simply closer to reality. Being unaccustomed to this may generate much flak for an otherwise flawless visual execution. If the viewer doesn’t want to pay that extra 5-10$ on extra tech though, the 24 FPS format still looks amazing!

The same visual effects as to the size of the characters are back and better than ever. Where there were some anomalies in Fellowship, Jackson’s team has mastered this technique and it is seamless on screen; although Bilbo should be much smaller standing next to a dwarf…

It is also worth noting that much like the first trilogy, the effects here serve the story, not the other way around. Even the all-CGI creatures Azog (Manu Bennett) and Gollum (Andy Serkis) are flawlessly created and the strings are nowhere to be seen. Very impressive.

The Company of Old Friends and New

 As usual, Sir Ian McKellen takes the cake. This Gandalf is slightly more joyous and mischievous, specifically when it comes to his intimate relationship with a certain Elf. All thirteen dwarves get decent exposure without stomping over each other’s toes, all the while leaving enough screen time for Thorin, Balïn, Gandalf and… Bilbo.

Martin Freeman was a stroke of casting genius. At times oblivious, at others sensitive and always a Took, Bilbo is a great character expertly personified by Freeman, who even looks the part. We only wish this first volume of the trilogy would be more centered on him instead of the dwarves, specifically Thorin.

In the book, Thorin Oakenshield is a jerk. This trait is apparent in Hobbit, but it is tempered by a sense of loyalty and honour, and the fact that he is a great warrior and leader. He doesn’t think much of Bilbo at first, but this changes during the course of the journey. His quest is the motivation for the company, a quest to reclaim their home from Smaug (pronounced Sma-ôg), a fire drake from the north.

All the other dwarves bring various types of comical relief and we can only hope each will get their turn in the spotlight. They already have distinct personalities and roles within the company but the focus of Hobbit is mainly on Thorin and Bilbo.  

There and back again, next year.

So far, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey has more of a magical and adventurous feel to it than the LotR trilogy, after all this story is not about a couple of midgets walking towards a mountain for twelve hours. There is more happening; the series of events is more focused, there are more characters who each get their turn at shining, for the most part.

Some additions to the original story sometimes feel out of place or tacked on, but taken by themselves are always interesting and add to the lore of this world that anyone who hasn’t read the books may be curious about.

The effects are flawless, the acting is much better and the new set of tunes from Howard Shore help drive the story home as much as his previous score for Jackson did.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey lacks the emotional impact of The Fellowship of the Ring, but its many strong points outweigh its few flaws and any fan of Peter Jackson’s previous trilogy should enjoy this immensely. I know I did.

See you all again in Middle-Earth… next December.

9.5/10

The Avengers

Six films were needed to bring The Avengers to life. One would think that with so much material on the table, not much would be left of the story to fill a two and a half hour movie.

One would be wrong.

With perfect pacing, a huge budget dumped in marvellous special effects that actually serve the story, a fantastic cast that have mastered each and every character on screen and a director (Joss Whedon) who knows the material as well as the core audience it is intended for, The Avengers becomes the perfect blockbuster, the type of film that Hollywood has produced since the 70’s (Jaws and Star Wars) but has truly succeeded (above the financial) in only a handful of cases.

The six heroes and the villain of The Avengers all had their origin story told in previous features, allowing the film to begin with a bang, gripping the viewer’s attention and never letting go, until the full story is told and shown.

Everyone gets their dues, from Iron Man to Hawkeye. If any one of these heroes is your favourite, you will love this movie!

It is the best Iron Man film, the best Captain America, the best Thor and certainly the best Hulk. In fact, Hulk’s scenes are few but they leave a very definitive mark.

There are no filler scenes in The Avengers. Even when the action settles down, the masterful dialogue keeps us entertained with clever, witty Whedonian humour that helps develop the characters even further than the prequel films ever could. The action set pieces are wonderfully fun to watch and completely satisfying, from a very effective struggle between two hot-headed heroes to the final climactic battle. Everything is there, for everyone to enjoy, in a very nifty and complete package.

All this being said, I’m not sure if I should look forward to a sequel. There is the fear that the studios would add more characters, more villains, more action and special effects but less great dialogue. What if another director is at the helm? What if Joel Shumacher is involved?

As it is, The Avengers is a completely satisfying piece of entertainment that deserves every little ounce of hype it is receiving.

Go see it. Now. Twice.

12/10

Ok, that’s impossible.

10/10

The Raid - Movie Review

The Raid is a particularly brutal martial arts film about a SWAT team attempting to arrest a sadistic criminal bunkered at the top of a 15-stories apartment building filled with his machete-wielding thugs.

Don’t let the simplistic story fool you, The Raid is not about the complexity of its script or the caliber of its thespians.

The Raid is about punching your face.

Rarely has a martial arts film been so brutal in its combat sequences, and this sentiment is even more potent when one realizes how little CGI is used in The Raid.
 The movie reminded me of older MA films from the 80’s, when stuntmen died because the combat was real, or so I’ve heard.

The Raid is filled with punches and kicks and machete strikes that make you think “how’d they do that without hurting this guy?” In one fight, Rama (the protagonist) twists the arm of an opponent and the skin on the arm twist and the bone visibly breaks, without any apparent editing cut. Also, a first for this kind of film, enemies do not attack the heroes one at a time, but in groups of 4 or 5, feeding the action very effectively.

The fights are fast, but they are also well lit and shot, so the viewer can see every single move and hit in glorious Hi-Def! The sound design is spectacular and so is the music. Acting-wise one would think it horrible, but it’s actually pretty good. The laughs are induced by the surprise from extreme ways in which the enemies are dispatched, not for the appropriately dramatic acting performances.

With The Raid, you go in, you get punched in the face, you come out. Simple yet effective.

9.5/10

P.S. Not a date movie.

The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim Review

The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
Bethesda Softworks, 2011

Context
Skyrim is the northernmost province of Tamriel, the fictional continent on which all of The Elder Scrolls (TES) stories take place.
A land largely covered in snow and ice, with numerous high-peaked mountains reaching through the clouds, separated by vast tundra-like valleys and misty swamps.
Aside from its assortments of bears, large feline predators, wolves, walruses, mammoths, giants and trolls, Skyrim is inhabited by the Nords, a powerful and proud norse-like people with names like Sven Battle-Born and Gunther Silver-Blood, as well as other humanoid races, in lesser numbers, such as the feline Khajit, the reptilian Argonians, the shadow-skinned Dark Elves, the silver-tongued Imperials, the magically-inclined Bretons, the warrior-blessed Redguard, the agile Wood Elves, the enraged Orcs and the apparently evil and magically-endowed High Elves.

Skyrim is torn apart by a civil war opposing the ruling Imperials from the province of Cirrodiil and the local Stormcloaks, a faction of rebellious Nords determined to only be ruled by another Nord, believing the Imperials’ strings are being pulled by the Thalmor, a race of Elves who plot in the shadows to rule the whole of Tamriel.


Humble beginnings
In this world, as a shackle-wristed prisoner, you are being led to your execution in the back of a wooden horse-pulled cart. You share your apparent fate with a thief from Cirrodiil and three Nords, including Ulfric Stormcloak himself, rightful heir to Skyrim’s throne, captured some time after assassinating the King.

No time is wasted with idle chit chat after you disembark from the creaking cart. The thief tries to escape and is quickly killed with an arrow to the… back. The first nameless Nord is kneeled to the block, and his head is chopped off with a massive blood-stained axe.

And now, it is your turn.

Your head is pushed down onto the gory tree stump.
The executioner’s axe rises toward the sky.
And drops…

…quickly interrupted by a massive dragon that begins incinerating the small walled village of Helgen. The axe wielder missed and burned in the flames of the incredible beast, as an Imperial grabs your hand and leads you to the relative safety of the keep. You briefly meet Ulfric Stromcloak and quickly plan your escape from the flaming carcass of Helgen.

You grab a sword and armour from a chest and fight your way through Stormcloak invaders, frostbite spiders and a cave bear, and finally emerge in the safety of a nearby forest. Hopefully by this time, you know what kind of person you want to be, what kind of hero you will build to rid this land of Dragons.

Thus begins Skyrim, the fifth instalment of The Elder Scrolls series of video games.


First Impressions
First, let’s get this out of the way: Skyrim is good, very good. I have been playing almost every day since the release, with over 100 hours on my character. Yes, the addiction is beginning to wear off, however every time I load up my main save file (take note: use at least 3 saves), I can play for many hours before forcing my self to stop. I just don’t dream about it anymore at work, in the car, in the shower, etc.

Second, let’s get this one out of the way also: The game is vastly superior on PC. No matter if it’s the visuals, the game play or the bug count, it’s all better on PC. The controls do need some getting used to, however once the user has figured out how to use quick keys and make choices as to what should be included in the Quick Menu, the game plays very well. Tip: Tailor your Quick Menu with your play style, don’t overload it with every single piece of equipment, potions, magics, powers and shouts you have. Enter what you usually use during normal play, such as your main weapons, your favourite magic combos and maybe a couple of potions and rings. I’d say about 12-15 items in your Quick Menu should do it, with 8 of them with assigned keys. I regularly switch between 2 daggers and the Nightingale Bow. I don’t need to equip each dagger for each hand. There are some quirks to the system, but it’s nothing game breaking.
So far (100+ hours) I’ve yet to encounter a single game breaking bug. I’ve crashed twice and encountered a few anomalies here and there such as floating rocks, falling mammoths and a weird bug involving the corpse of a witch I just killed staying upright and not being marked as killed during a Companions (the warrior faction) quest (I reloaded the autosave upon entry to the cave and it was fixed), but most of the worst was triggered with the 1.2 patch and immediately fixed with the 1.3 patch.

Skyrim was very stable, right out of the box.


Understanding the Beast
Now, how to play an Elder Scrolls game, especially Skyrim, without getting bored or lost? Easy: RELAX! This is a game built to be enjoyed slowly, savoured meticulously with every minute of play time. Yes, it’s ok to stand still on top of a rock and admire the scenery. No, you don’t need to complete every quest of a faction’s quest line one after the other, although you can. No, you don’t need to catch every butterfly and pick every flower. Yes, you can complete the main quest first, or last, or never! It’s ok. The Elder Scrolls games are all built to allow the user to play any which way he/she wants, without holding your hand with a focused storyline or a “rail” mechanic.
You can overpower your character but you don’t have to. The option is there but no one is forcing you. I’ve read reviews that say this is a flaw. It’s not. It’s a design decision; it is one of the many great things that make the Elder Scrolls games unique and great.

No other video game encourages exploration of its game world like Skyrim does. It’s part of the addiction and the fun of playing. Where Diablo would hook its players with the experience bar, Skyrim keeps us glued to our screens with little black icons appearing on our compass, compelling us to head in that direction and find out what treasure can be uncovered in the depths of caves, dungeons, dragon lairs, forts and shrines. Oh and Skyrim also features the experience bar… IT’S HOPELESS!!!


Crafting
The user can also create his items, weapons and armour. The game can be exploited to make immensely powerful equipment, a feature that many reviewers have complained about, not realizing that the game is designed to provide this possibility. Again, complete freedom.

Skyrim also offers other forms of crafting besides smithing, such as alchemy and enchanting. It also provides the user with the means to cook and chop wood. The problem with these is that they’re for role playing purposes only, as they do not offer experience, and they do not have an attached skill. If cooking would reward the user with alchemy ingredients or maybe items to boost a companion’s stats, and if wood chopping would result in enhanced stamina or parts for furniture (the user can buy houses in Skyrim), that would be something, but as they are now, these features are utterly useless.


Perks
This brings us to perks. Perks were brought in from the Fallout games, and they are basically skill enhancing bonuses and extra abilities, categorized by skill groups such as Pick pocketing, Enchanting, One-Handed weapons, armour types, etc. Every time the character levels up, the user can put one point into the perks tree. So the character can gain extra damage with bows, better resistance with armour, more potent potions and poisons, etc. The system is very effective at customizing the character any way the user wishes.


Skills
Skills, such as enchanting, blocking, sneaking, etc. are levelled up through use, just like all previous Elder Scrolls games. This is a great and unique system that allows the user to customize his character based on his play style. Skyrim also features Skill Stones that, when activated, will help level up certain skill sets (Warrior, Mage or Thief) faster. The Skills Stones can be found early in the game through exploration, and they are but one type of Stones scattered throughout Skyrim that provide extra bonuses to a character’s skills.


Combat
Combat in Skyrim has received a lot of flak since its release. “Repetitive”, “Mindless”, “Too easy”, “Too hard”, “Boring”, etc. are some of the criticism Skyrim has endured. The bottom line is that, like the rest of the game, combat is dependent on the user’s play style. For example, I use a bow to snipe enemies from afar, and if a foe is able to reach me, close quarters combat is executed with a pair of enchanted daggers. One paralyses my enemy, the other adds frost to the base damage of the weapon. I could’ve enchanted my daggers with Soul Trap and Poison, I could’ve enchanted my bow with paralyse or Magicka Drain (great against spellcasters), etc. As a Thief/Assassin I can also sneak behind an enemy and backstab him (large damage bonus), which also works on paralysed enemies during combat. A user can also cast certain spells that will enrage foes and make them attack each other, among many other possibilities. There’s nothing boring or mindless about that.


Murders, rebellions, dragons, Oh My!
The story of Skyrim is as interesting as it is short, or so I have read; I have yet to complete the main stories. On one hand, the character is hired by the Blades (a secret group of warriors who protect the Dragonborn with their lives) to investigate the resurgence of Dragons, who are supposed to be extinct. Turns out they are being revived from death by Alduin, the Boss Dragon, and it is your job, as the Dragonborn, to destroy him and his plan to eradicate the world.
On the other hand, there is the rebellion against the Empire. You must choose a side and help either quell the rebellion or remove the Imperials from power. This civil war was triggered when Ulfric Stormcloak murdered the King with his Shout, or Thu’um (a power supposedly possessed only by the Dragonborn).
These storylines seem thin when synopsised so simply, however each of these stories and others are told through events that trigger a series of quests that allow exploration and the discovery of powerful weapons, armour and magics.
It has been told that all the quest lines in the game are very short, but just like all the other aspects of Skyrim, the length of each quest line is determined by the user’s play style. They can all be rushed, gulped in one quick swallow, or savoured slowly like an old scotch; and by Talos are they gripping!


Delicate sound of thunder
Jeremy Soule has composed the music for both previous instalments of The Elder Scrolls, and his master touch continues to amaze in Skyrim. Some pieces have been borrowed from Oblivion and possibly Morrowind.
From the smooth classical exploration themes to the thunderous symphony and chorus of the dragon battle theme, his work completes one of the best video game soundtracks in recent memory. Jeremy Soule is the John Williams of the video games industry, and not only does he prove it again with his work on Skyrim, he cements his position for years to come. Simply extraordinary.
The voice actors also do a great job in each of their many roles. Some have returned from previous games, such as Linda Carter, and we have new additions to the cast including Christopher Plummer, Max Von Sydow, Joan Allen, Michael Hogan, Stephen Russell, Kari Wahlren, Claudia Christian and of course Jim “Butt-Kicking… For Goodness!!!” Cummings, among many others.
The voice cast is much larger then previous games in the series, however the world is so huge and filled with so many NPCs (non-player characters) that even with such a large cast, there is repetition in the voices to the point where a user can easily recognize the actors speaking, some even speak with themselves in a few instances. Casting Stephen Russell as the head of the thieve’s guild was a stroke of genius, and a very special wink to gamers.
The sound design is excellent, from footsteps in the sand to the clinking of armour and weapons, to the roar of dragons flying overhead.


The End
The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim is not a perfect game. Some aspects leave to be desired. However the sum of its many complex parts make it completely endearing and irresistible. The fact that we as gamers can shape the game however we see fit, coupled with the great music, voice acting and the vastness of its world make it one of the best games ever made. It is in a genre all by itself, unique, spectacular.

10/10

The Adventures of Tintin - The Secret of the Unicorn

A large grin dressed my face throughout the picture and in all honesty, it is very difficult to say something bad about The Adventures of Tintin - The Secret of the Unicorn, other than the usual exaggerations of recent Spielberg films, the ending that is not really an ending, and Milou’s stupid name translation (Snowy??!! What the hell is wrong with Milo??!!), although this was not Spielberg’s decision.

A pure pleasure.

I’m French (Canadian) and I grew up reading all the Tintin books. In fact, The Black Island was the first book I ever read/looked-at-the-pictures when I put on my first pair of glasses at a very young age, and it remains my favourite Tintin adventure to this day.

My expectations were very high when delving into the dark theatre. After all, this was one of the more interesting adventures of Tintin put on the big screen by a true Master film maker, Steven Spielberg, and Peter Jackson, who delivered the absolutely magnificent The Lord of Rings trilogy. Add to this a plethora of great voice actors including Andy Serkis as Captain Haddock (perfect casting), Simon Pegg and Nick Frost as Thompson and Thomson (no, they’re not twins!), and Daniel Craig as Sacharine/Red Rackam, Weta Workshop on special effects and music by John Williams. Things of this magnitude have gone wrong before, but this time George Lucas is not involved...

So The Secret of the Unicorn exceeded my expectations in every way. Quick but steady pacing, flawless visuals, great use of 3D (although the exasperation for the technology is beginning to grind at the enjoyment), refreshing setting (mostly Europe), fantastic story effectively told, beautiful music and impressive sound effects, etc. Like dark chocolate dipped in smooth fudge topped with cool raspberry syrup and wrapped in bacon. Delicious!

A few bumps in the road.

The Adventures of Tintin - The Secret of the Unicorn is similar to the Indiana Jones adventures in many ways. In fact, Steven Spielberg as mentioned before that Indy was partly inspired by Tintin. It is therefore not surprising that the film shares some of the flaws of Spielberg’s previous adventure efforts, most notably Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. A few cringe-inducing scenes from Tintin are painful reminders of the nuked fridge or monkey chase scenes, most notably an action sequence in which Captain Haddock restarts the engine of a crashing plane using only the fumes from his alcohol-infused breath, or when two galleons locked at the masts twirl with each other above raging waves during an intense flashbacked naval battle.
I also found that Tintin was quickly eclipsed by the exuberance of Captain Haddock, and even Milou (sorry, I can’t bring myself to call him Snowy) in many scenes. Tintin drives the story forward, but the film is more a Haddock vehicle, which I believe is the case with the book, but we are expecting a Tintin adventure, not a Haddock sea tale.
Rest assured, these are very minor gripes that pale in comparison to the complete work, like three small drops of water in a bottle of great and ancient wine.

Forget the haters who say this is a kid’s movie or that it’s too far from the source material, or who cry “SACRILIGIOUS!” at the few changes that were made to accommodate the medium. Tintin was great. Like reconnecting with a dear old friend or watching Raiders of the Lost Ark for the first time. This is Steven Spielberg film making at its best, and sometimes at its worst. But more importantly, The Adventures of Tintin – The Secret of the Unicorn is a fun time at the movies, a total blast from beginning to end.

9/10

Sucker Punch

One word easily describes Sucker Punch: Disappointing.
It can be compared to Star Wars: The Phantom Menace, as a film full of great ideas and potential that ultimately falls flat, and as being much less then the sum of its parts.

Sucker Punch is a completely original idea from director Zack Snyder (300, Watchmen), something that is a rarity in Hollywood (originality, not Zack Snyder), carried by a carefully selected and directed cast, with fantastic visuals, sounds and themes, great action scenes, troubling drama, and a story that cannot be considered a rehash or predictable.

Somehow, Sucker Punch fails.

What I knew about the film was that a girl dreams up a world to escape some terrible real-life predicament, and that this dream world, from the previews, looks totally awesome.
What I didn’t know was that the rhythm of the film suffers from being constantly broken by the brothel scenes. The editing gives Sucker Punch a “mission’” structure, very similar to many video games. This is not always a bad thing, but it is in this case.

Sucker Punch’s tale is told on three levels: The Reality (R1), in which Baby Doll (Emily Browning) accidentally kills her sister and is sent to a mental institution by her stepfather in order to be lobotomized, so that this asshole can get to his dead wife’s inheritance in place of her daughters. The Dreamworld (D1), made up by Baby Doll to escape her grim fate, is a brothel in which girls, “owned” by Blue the “gangsta”, dance for money. And finally, the Dreamworld within the Dreamworld (D2), where Baby Doll and her four girlfriends from D1 battle creatures and demons to find the artefacts that will set them free from the brothel/mental institution. D2 comes up when Baby Doll uses her dancing talent in D1 as a diversion while her girlfriends can acquire the items/artefacts. Much like Bollywood films show a musical number in place of a love scene, Sucker Punch presents us with a high-octane action piece in place of Baby Doll’s dance.

By the way, there is a big, confusing twist.

Personally, I think Sucker Punch would’ve made its point with R1 moving into D1, replace the dancing thing with something else and move into D2 for most of the film, then out into D1 and finally, back into R1 with the same finale.

Does that make sense?

Also, Sucker Punch does not hold men in high regards. With the exception of the Wise Man (Scott Glenn), all men in the film are dirty rotten scum, rapists, pedophiles, murderers, greasy disgusting losers, etc. The film almost made me want to cut my balls off.

Almost.

What works in Sucker Punch are the actors, the music, the visuals and each set-piece by themselves are all great. The problem is that when they are edited together, they feel as though the director had a bunch of really cool ideas (they are) that he wanted to put into a single film (he did) instead of making a movie for each, and patched together the dream within a dream plot that is far from being as efficient as, say, Inception.

It’s the kind of movie that should make for some very nice home entertainment on Blue Ray, so I advise to wait a few months and rent it.

4/10

The Green Hornet

The Green Hornet is a Seth Rogen vehicle, and nothing more.

The story is very average, uninteresting and bland, the movie is not very funny, the visuals are ordinary at best and since it takes place in Los Angeles, the environments are ugly and drab, the acting is subpar for the most part and the music, even though we get nice rock tunes, generally the pieces don’t fit too well with what’s on the screen.
The Green Hornet has a few good moments, but most of them are ruined by Seth Rogen’ man-child idiotic antics.
Rogen’s Britt Reid is obnoxious and completely unlikable from start to finish. Rogen doesn’t even act He just plays the same character he’s been playing for ten years: a slacker pothead with no ambition.
I could probably write about the performances of Christoph Waltz (awesome), Cameron Diaz, Edward James Olmos, Tom Wilkinson and Jay Chou, about the cool cars and gadgets, the action and the 3D, but ultimately it’s all ruined by Seth Rogen’s overacted incompetence.

By the way, why is this film in 3D? It’s completely useless, and I had to add 3$ to get those stupid headache-inducing glasses. NO MORE 3D PLEASE!

If you still like Seth Rogen, you will probably like The Green Hornet because the film is all about HIM. If not, skip it and go see something else.

The shortness of this review compared to the others I’ve written should be a good clue to STAY AWAY!

3/10

Tron Legacy

Tron Legacy is a difficult film to review. It’s good, but it follows the Hollywood recipe so closely that it also becomes forgettable. The events depicted in the story are predictable, but there is a strong nostalgia factor that is difficult to ignore. It is visually stunning, even in normal D, and the acting is exceptional, especially from Jeff Bridges who steals the show as always. The rhythm of the film is smooth and regular, even during the excellent action pieces, and the soundtrack, composed by Daft Punk, is beautiful and very appropriate.

The story of Tron Legacy follows Sam Flynn (Garret Edlund) as he searches for his father Kevin (Jeff Bridges), who vanished 20 years before, after telling his then 7 year old son of a miracle happening in The Grid, a virtual world he created within a computer. Sam is eventually trapped in this world, and with the help of his father and Quorra (Olivia Wilde), a program within The Grid, he plans his escape from this world, and to bring his father home.

The comparisons with The Matrix would be embarrassingly obvious if Tron Legacy wasn’t a sequel to a film released twenty years before the Wachowski brothers’ Magnum Opus. However, if The Matrix “borrowed” ideas from the original Tron, it is difficult not to wonder if Tron Legacy also “borrowed” ideas from The Matrix. Some scenes are filmed almost shot for shot, most notably a fight in a hotel/club with guns and sword-like weapons, and the Zuse character, which is a carbon copy of The Merovingian (Lambert Wilson).
Other scenes are reminiscent of Star Wars, such as a dog fight where Sam mans the turret of a transport ship (for those who don’t know, the Millennium Falcon is a transport ship) and proceeds in shooting down Tie fighters… I mean light jets. He even gets cocky!

Visually, Tron Legacy is absolutely marvellous, even in Double D (2D). The Grid is a beautiful place, clean, crisp, full of light, colours and detail; this world is complex and believable. I can’t wait for the Blu-Ray goodness that this film will provide.
Although personally I am not a fan of electronica/pop music, I was very surprised at the beauty of the score. Daft Punk’s work with Tron Legacy is one of its best features, along with Jeff Bridges’ acting. If there is one soundtrack I will be buying this year, so far it will be Tron Legacy.

Tron Legacy has great visuals, great music and sound with an average story depicted by average actors, with the exception of Jeff Bridges.
It is a movie that is best described as a burger on the BBQ. It’s fast food, but it tastes so good that you want to take your time and savour the flavour.

Enjoy.

7.5/10

Predators

Imagine walking around in a thick jungle full of heat, dampness and mortal danger, minding your own business, when suddenly you find yourself running from a huge dog equipped with long bony spikes protruding from its face and back. That dog wants to eat you. What do you do?

What DO you do?

You call Arnold, because He is your only hope.

Watching Predators will generate the feeling you now have in your gut.

The original still stands today as one of the best science fiction movies ever made, and one of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s best works, right up there with Conan the Barbarian, Terminator 2 and True Lies (I omit Total Recall because it did not stand the test of time like the above four).

Predators is a sequel/remake/reboot type of film that, although not bad at all, goes the safe way and keeps the themes of the original while changing the characters just a little bit. It takes place on another planet, but a jungle is a jungle so who cares?

The themes are survival in the face of impossible odds (just like every American film made in the last 100 years), teamwork, mystery, guns and violence. Please feel free to comment if you can find more. I think like I’m stretching this already though.

The team of usual suspects (the quiet, super awesome loner, the heavy weapons guy, the useless civilian, the crazy mental guy, the badass leader, the pretty girl, etc) must face three of the Nameless Aliens we have come to know and love. This time around however, the humans are not Marines or police officers but scum, killers, rapists, assassins, themselves predators and chosen by the Nameless Aliens as game for the hunt.

Very little is known about the characters on screen. We do not have much background, aside from their daily job and some of them have family. All we know is that they are all killers, except for Topher Grace’s character who is a doctor. In fact, the last words of the movie are from the two main characters who finally reveal their name to us. I suppose this is so that we don’t identify with murderers, god forbid we should go home, get our shotgun out of the closet and begin pumping lead into strangers…

That being said, the absence of identifiable characters doesn’t really hurt the film. This picture is about big guns, gore and special effects, not much more, and on this level it succeeds very well. There are some clever strategies used to survive, mostly from Adrian Brody’s character, and a few twists, although predictable, bring some welcome spice to the story.

For those who enjoyed the original, this is a step down, except for the visuals and acting. But it fills a whole for the lovers of violent science fiction films.

7/10

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1

Note: To be enjoyed to its fullest, this review must be read with a thick English accent.

I have seen all the previous films, but I have read none of the books. The reason for this is that books are usually better than the films they inspire and I wanted the movies to motivate me in reading thousands of pages and be awed by the words.

The problem is that I didn’t enjoy any of the Harry Potter films. All except for The Goblet of Fire and The Order of the Phoenix, which I enjoyed more. Not to say that they were particularly good movies for me, but they were more interesting and fun, and almost made me want to read the complete works of J.K Rowling. “Almost” means I didn’t.

The worst of the series, for me, was The Half-Blood Prince, which was a complete bore from start to finish. I mean, why Harry couldn’t simply ASK Dumbledore who the f*** the Half-Bloody Prince is, because the movie would be over? That’s a pretty thin excuse for a screenplay. And just when our bifocal-wearing “hero” finally realizes he could ask his old friend, the man dies, after 12$ and almost three hours of my wastable time that I could’ve spent plucking my chest hair, going out for a quick session of waterboarding or watching reruns of Dancing with the Stars.

Speaking of heroes, Hermione is the real hero of this series. She solves all the problems while Ron, drooling, stares at her boobs and Harry, also drooling, looks up at the skies looking for Death Eaters in the hopes he can cast the only spell he apparently knows, Expecto Petronum.

So, as one can imagine, it is with some reluctance that I stepped into the theatre last night.

Maybe it was because my expectations were low, but The Deathly Hallows – Part 1 was actually very good, probably the best film of the franchise.

Since the second film of the Harry Potter franchise, all have been darker than the previous, according to everyone. Well, Deathly Hallows is no exception. In fact it’s the darkest of them all. Many characters die, some more important than others, the film begins with somewhat of a torture scene involving a very cold Severus Snape, and we even get to see blood in this one!

Most noticeable is the acting performance of the main cast, which has been greatly improved. The year break seems to have paid off, with Daniel Radcliff doing theatre and Rupert Grint featured in a movie or two. Emma Watson has been great from the start, although her constant frown in Deathly Hallows will tire some people. Hey, she’s sad ok!

The story revolves around Harry being the target of Voldemort’s minions. The Dark Lord needs to kill him, you see, to regain his full power. oooOooOooh.
But Harry now knows of a way to destroy his arch nemesis once and for all, and he sets out to find the last of the Horcruxes and destroy them, with the help of his friends Hermione and Ron.

However, through their travels and escapes, Harry, Hermione and Ron stumble upon information concerning the Deathly Hallows, three powerful magic items given to three brothers by Death itself. The Elder Wand, the most powerful wand in existence, the Resurrection Stone, which can bring the dead back to life, and the Cloak of Invisibility which, as the name implies, can make one invisible. Someone with these magical artifacts can actually become the Master of Death. Guess who wants them for himself… That’s right. RON!

No, I’m kidding.

It’s Voldemort of course.

So now Harry needs to find the Horcruxes and the Deathly Hallows before Voldemort, or… the movie is over.


Here’s where I go “WTF?”

Even though Harry uses a cloak of invisibility throughout the entire series, no one in Deathly Hallows even wonders if the cloak they’ve been using for ten years is that same cloak of invisibility. WTF?

The story feels more like an adventure compared to the other movies. Being out of Hogwarts and surviving on their own, without the safety net of teachers, brings an extra sense of peril for the teenagers, peppered with a few very funny scenes, including one at the very beginning when all of Harry’s friends drink a polyjuice potion that turns them all into Harry clones. The process of this is hilarious and very well made.

There is some truly beautiful filming in Deathly Hallows. Hermione sure knows where to plant her tent: on the edge of a rocky cliff overlooking a valley of hills, in a picturesque forest of tall, thin trees beside an icy, slow-flowing river. Wiki says filming took place entirely in England, but I suspect many of those awesome shots were done in New-Zealand, as some are reminiscent of The Lord of the Rings Trilogy.

As is the case for the previous Harry Potter films, the best thing going for Deathly Hallows is the cast. A lineup like this is simply biblical: Ralph Fiennes, Helena Bonham Carter, Alan Rickman, Bill Nighy, Robbie Coltrane, Warwick Davis, Michael Gambon, John Hurt, Brenden Gleeson, David Thewlis, Rhys Ifans, Miranda Richardson and Jason Isaacs.
The only ones missing are Sir Ian McKellen and Dame Judy Dench!

The special effects are also very good, with the CGI characters of Dobby and Kreater taking the cake. The filmmakers could’ve drop Verne Troyer in a suit and we wouldn’t be able to tell the difference.

The movie ends with a good cliff hanger but it doesn’t feel like a middle part, aside from the fact that the story doesn’t end here. It lasts almost three hours, including previews, but I could’ve taken another thirty minutes or more. It’s that good.
There is still a lot of dialog but I found myself much more interested in what the characters had to say then I did for the previous Harry Potter movie. Ron’s whining was less annoying, probably because his reasons are good this time around and he is actually useful here.
I enjoyed the fact that they are travelling outside of Hogwarts for a change and the real danger they are in this time.
Finally, Voldemort is much more prevalent in Deathly Hallows and Ralph Fiennes is a really great actor. He is creepy and evil, a perfect performance for the character.

Until next time…

8.5/10

The Expendables - A Movie Review

First Blood, Cobra, Commando, Raw Deal, Die Hard, Missing in Action. They just don’t make them like they used to. So, here comes The Expendables!
Did we really need a ‘80s action film? With the recent great war films and documentaries, like The Hurt Locker or Apocalypse!, one has the right to ask the question, and the answer after watching Sly’s latest work, is a resounding YES!

The Expendables is a man’s film, the Sex and the City for guys, the Sense and Sensibility for the BBQ and Football lovers.
With motorcycles, lots of guns and a few babes, ultra realistic violence and super-human one-man-armies, this film is the perfect guy movie, dropped in our muscular lap just in time to prevent every guy from turning gay (not that there’s anything wrong with that…) amongst all the super pink and sterilized romantic comedies, 3D children’s films and PG13-rated “action” movies.

The plot is simple and serves only as a means of lining up action sequences and a few touching male bonding scenes. The film is actually more a tale of friendship than a revenge/kill-the-bad-guys story, and much like Stallone’s two previous efforts (Rocky Balboa and Rambo), The Expendables has more sensibility to it than the films which it is inspired from, and those few scenes also serve to balance the rhythm of the film so that the viewer is not overloaded with explosions and gore, which there are plenty of, especially in the last half hour of the movie.

There are two or three pretty good fight scenes also, most notably one involving Jet Li and Dolph Lundgren, two well-established action stars and both martial arts experts in their own disciplines. It would’ve been very much appreciated to have a few wide shots of this scene but unfortunately they fight in very close quarters and the camera is too close and shaky for the viewer to really appreciate this scene. It’s not a complete failure, but the director (Stallone) could've given us a few more open shots of this great and much anticipated fight.

The Expendables is also a very funny movie, with most jokes involving the real life quirks of the many stars gathered for this picture. Randy Couture reveals the story behind his strange ears and we find out what Arnold Schwarzenegger’s problem is. He also appears very thin, frail and his acting is, well, pretty bad. But it’s fun to see him on screen with Sylvester Stallone and Bruce Willis in the same 3-5 minutes scene.

The highlights of the movie are the realistic violence, the relationships between the characters and how they were written, especially for Sylvester Stallone and Jason Statham, Terry Crews and his amazing “canon-gun”, Dolph Lundgren who is quite obviously having a tremendous amount of fun, a series of jokes and events involving Jet Li’s height and of course Mickey Rourke who, again, gives an absolutely amazing performance.
The less shining elements are the one-dimensional villains led by Eric Roberts, the fact that mercs are all killing people for a living and for the most part don’t seem to be traumatized by this at all (although this is addressed in a very touching scene with Mickey Rourke) and the length of the movie. It’s a lot of fun and another thirty minutes or so would’ve been great.

The Expendables is violent and funny with a simple story filmed with skill and obvious enjoyment. It’s a movie for guys, the kind they don’t make anymore with a sequel on the way, and the only thing missing is Chuck Norris. Then again, a two-second movie is not very profitable…

Go see it today!

8.5/10

Prince of Persia, The Sands of Time – A Movie Review

Prince of Persia, The Sands of Time (Popsot) is a film based on a video game remade by Ubisoft in 2003 from an older game, Prince of Persia, from 1989.
As a videogame-to-film piece, Popsot comes out somewhere on top of the pile, possibly even eclipsing Tomb Raider 1 as the King of the genre.
Not only does the general story follow that of the Ubisoft product, some filming techniques even mimic visuals from the game, such as the “preview” sequences from its console cousin. The use of acrobatics is also a welcome addition to the film. Although not as prominent as in the game, in which it is the core gameplay element used to solve puzzles and advance the story, it was a nice touch to make it one of the more important character traits of Dastan, the titular Prince of Persia of the movie, without overdoing it.

The characters are well written and acted, with a solid cast who seems to be having a lot of fun with the material, with one exception being Ben Kingsley, who has this look on his face like he is wondering what the heck he’s doing in these clothes? The special effects are on par with a summer blockbuster, meaning they are big, loud and feel like way too much icing on a good cake, which is to be expected with this type of film.
The movie is non-stop action, from the first minute to the very last second, with barely any filler to speak of. The script goes to the point, does what it is supposed to and stays true to the source material in a way that is rarely experienced in a film based on a video game.

Prince of Persia, The Sands of Time is a fun time at the movies that should not be missed on the big screen for its visuals and sounds. It will shine a bright, warm light on a rainy day of summer.

7.5/10

Movie Review - Clash of the Titans

I did not remember the first 1981 film enough, so I went to Wikipedia to find out what were the main differences in the story. This film review will therefore take this into consideration.

I’m a big fan of the video game God of War. I read some time ago about a movie in the works based on the game, with bloggers and forumites debating on many websites on who should play Kratos, who should direct the movie, what it should be about, how much of the game’s story should be covered, if it should be rated R or PG-13, etc.

With Clash of the Titans, there is no more need for a God of War movie, as this is basically it. Only the names have been changed to protect the “innocent”.

The story does not take much time to tell as there isn’t much meat in this regard for this remake. Based on what I’ve read and what I remember, the 1981 original had a much more fleshed out story, with more events and characters, more fights and more creatures.

We are again served with the typical Hollywood recipe, which is the tale of an ordinary working man (in this case a fisherman) destined to topple an evil invading force (in this case Hades, God of Death, elder brother of Zeus and Poseidon, and Ruler of the underworld) that threatens to destroy/change his way of life, against all odds, using powerful weapons (in this case a magical sword) and his friends who all die, sacrificing themselves for the Hero (except, always, The Girl), who in the end triumphs and rides away on a horse towards the sunset (no shit, this is still going on after 100 years of movie making!).

His family murdered by a God, Perseus (whose name can be pronounce differently depending on the actor speaking it, apparently…) seeks revenge and finds the means to accomplish his goal with the rebellious warrior-citizens of Argos. After an ultimatum issued by Hades in the name of the Gods, Perseus sets out with a band of merry men to kill Medusa and retrieve her head, in order to turn a monstrous creature into stone, saving the city-state of Argos and its Princess.

That’s it. He even gets The Girl (who is actually his cousin or sister if you think about it…), too!

Reviewers have been very harsh for Clash of the Titans, but I personally had a great time and I would’ve liked another half-hour or so. It was a lot of fun and it ended too soon in my opinion. It felt as though large chunks of Perseus’ adventure have been edited out, like something was missing, but the whole still felt as it's holding together.

I remember the original having many more encounters with wondrous creatures such as the Cyclop. With this version, we get giant scorpions, Medusa and the Kraken, with in-betweens against confrontational Argosians and dialogues which are all mostly heard in very generic scenes that could’ve been picked from any medieval/fantasy-ish movies such as Braveheart, LotR, Willow or Kingdom of Heaven.

These three action set pieces are very well done and should satisfy the FX junkies out there. The fight scene with Medusa is especially intense and sees the demise of the entire party save our hero. The final battle however, although quite beautiful, is somewhat anti-climactic as the entire sequence lasts about thirty seconds and involves the simple pointing and shooting of the Medusa Head. I must say I was expecting some jumping-on-back and sword slicing from Perseus but alas, I sat disappointed.

There is also a very good battle with Calibos, so far one of the better villains of this year’s movie offerings. Deformed by Zeus’ wrath and empowered by treacherous Hades, Calibos sets out to kill Perseus and who’s blood in the sand births huge, powerful scorpions and another very good action scene.

Clash of the Titans is a pretty decent popcorn film that serves impressive visuals and action set pieces in a very entertaining package. It’s a by-the-book Hollywood blockbuster that doesn’t surprise much, but if taken for what it is and not some artsy-fartsy oscar-grabber, it should leave most of these viewers with a pleasant aftertaste.

Enjoy!

7.5/10

TV Review - Legend of the Seeker

Ever since the (great) ending of Battlestar Galactica I have been looking for a replacement show, and there are a few very good options that come to mind. Chuck, Spartacus, True Blood, etc.
Being currently in a “fantasy-type” mood and watching films such as The Lord of the Rings and The Sword and the Sorcerer again, I heard through the grapevine about this little known show called Legend of the Seeker (LoS).
Starring Craig Horner, Bridget Regan, Bruce Spence, Tabrett Bethell and Craig Parker, the show is based on the Sword of Truth novels by Terry Goodkind, and tells the tale of a young woodsman who is destined to save the world from an evil and powerful tyrant.
Sounds familiar? Of course it does. It’s high fantasy!

My wife and I have been calling he show “Shire Wars” because it really is Star Wars set in The Shire. Not a single episode airs without us pointing to the TV screen and shouting things like “This is where they shot the Insects coming out of the ground scene in LotR!” or “This is where they run across the plain after leaving the mines of Moria towards Lothlorien in LotR!” or “If you want him, COME AND CLAIM HIM!!!” – Because that river from LotR is filmed very often in LoS. Add to this a glowing sword, a wizardly mentor teaching the youngling how to use and control his powers, a badass loner that joins the group after reluctantly helping out, hidden family relations, Ewoks and Gungans (no, not really), etc and you really have Shire Wars!

That being said, Legend of the Seeker has managed to keep me watching religiously for almost two seasons now and this is not an easy task to accomplish. I’m very picky (and yet I watch Smallville. Go figure).
Produced by Sam Raimi and his team, who gave us Hercules: The Legendary Journeys and Xena: Warrior Princess, the show is more serious than these two previous works with more action and risky subjects. Sword fighting is plentiful and filmed quite well for the most part, using slow motion techniques akin to those found in films such as 300.
We even have a wizard (of the first order, no less…) who actually uses fireballs and teleportation!

Suck it, Gandalf!

Legend of the Seeker takes some risks with the material, as we often learn that children are being raped, tortured and killed (without actually seeing it on screen, but still… I’m a dad so it affects me). The D’Harans, a cruel people led by Darken Rahl (Craig Parker) who seeks to rule the world, are truly vicious and a real challenge for our heroes. Here, we are far from the normal bad guys who are usually nothing more than bumbling fools and sword fodder. They pose a real threat; killing and torturing the people of the Midlands in order to spread fear and seize power.

You know, like America. There. I said it.

The first season introduced us to the characters while laying down the story of how Richard Cypher (Craig Horner) and his new friends, the Confessor Kahlan Amniel (Bridget Regan) and the Wizard Zeddecus Zul Zorander (Bruce Spence) used wits and good nature along with the Sword of Truth to slay Darken Rahl and free the people of the Midlands from his tyranny.

Yes, season one concludes with the slaying of the main villain. But remember, Death is only another part of a journey. Or something to that effect…

Each episode is pretty much a stand alone affair, with minor scenes that follow the thread of the main storyline. Some episodes are more centric to the core story, but those seem to show up at the beginning and end of the seasons and in the middle, around hiatus, with a nice little cliff hanger to keep us waiting for a few weeks or months. 35 episodes in total have aired as of this writing and a third season has been announced but unconfirmed.

The characters in Legend of the Seeker are an interesting bunch. From the leads to the supporting cast, everyone was meticulously written and shines onscreen thanks to some pretty fancy acting, especially for a show like this (high fantasy on TV? Come on!).

Richard Cypher is our Seeker, the good hero, pure of heart and mind with a streak just mean enough not to give him nightmares of all the bad people he has killed. No Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder for our Seeker. Craig Horner plays the role with passion. We can see how much fun he is having with it. He is however one of the weaker actors of the cast and his work has suffered since the end of the first season. Let’s just say he over does things sometimes and leave it at that.

Kahlan Amniel, the Mother Confessor who can bend men to her will with a single touch, turning them into slaves who will do anything, obey her every command without a sigh, a complaint or a ball scratch. “Can you stop watching the game and take out the garbage sweetie?” “Yes Mother Confessor”. It IS high fantasy… Bridget Regan is the shining jewel of this distribution. She masters the character completely and her performance is only more appreciated when the script demands some variations, such as when Kahlan is being impersonated by a con artist, or when her personality is split between two copies of her body. I can’t wait to see what Ms. Regan does next.

The Great Wizard of the First Order Zeddecus Zul Zorander serves as the Obiwan/Gandalf of the story, a mentor to the Seeker who has many secrets of his own. Most notably, Zedd is Richard’s Grandfather (don, don, don, doooonnn) and can actually throw fire balls/stream known as “Wizard’s Fire”. He is wise but also serves as comic relief on many occasions. Bruce Spence is best known for his roles in Mad Max 2, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (he played The Mouth of Sauron) and Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith (he played that tall ugly red and white guy who’s people is under siege from General Grievous). He handles himself well but the long white hair doesn’t suit him. He should tie them in a pony tail.

Darken Rahl is the main antagonist in The Legend of the Seeker. He is pure evil, demonstrated by his willingness to send out parties of soldiers to murder little babies in the middle of the night in order to avert a prophecy that predicts his own death at the hands of one of those babies. Well, when one of them grows up, I mean he won’t be killed by an actual baby. That WOULD be silly and it would make the story very short. Lord Rahl is a powerful wizard and a very capable swordsman. Craig Parker, who played Haldir in LotR: The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers, is pretty good with Rahl. His contained performance shows a calm dictator with a glint of madness in the eye, like if a monster was ready to jump out of his skin at any moment.

Cara is a Mord’Sith, a cast of women who serves as Lord Rahl’s personal protectors. Mord’Sith use pain and suffering to make people do their bidding, unlike a Confessor who uses love and compassion for the same purpose. Cara uses two Agiel as weapons; they cause her constant pain which she can withstand because of her training, and she is completely devoted to Richard, who she thinks is the new Lord Rahl. She is quite stunning, and a real badass. This is Tabrett Bethel’s first major role, having done some minor acting in the past, along with modelling and cheerleading. Of the main cast, despite her awesome role, she is the weakest so far, with a very small range of expressions. We actually call her Zoolander because she always has the same face on.

The show is based on the “Sword of Truth” series of books by Terry Goodkind. I recently began reading the first writing, Wizard’s First Rule, and I enjoy it very much. For me a book needs to captivate me within the very first pages or I will abandon it, much like a television show and this book, just like its small screen counterpart, has done just that.
Despite its many flaws, The Legend of the Seeker is one of the best High Fantasy-set television shows ever made, with high production value, great writing, very decent acting overall and just loads of fun to watch.
Legal mumbo jumbo has kept a confirmation for a third season from being set and the terrible timeslot is surely hurting the ratings, but I can only hope it will return and continue this great story for a few more years.

8/10

Airbourne – No Guts, No Glory – A Review

The band is best known for being an almost illegal mimic of AC/DC, as well as their musical contributions to video games, with pieces such as Too Much, Too Young, Too Fast and Runnin’ Wild, both from their first album.

No Guts, No Glory (NGNG) is very similar to their first effort but it feels dirtier, heavier and mostly faster. The guitar is clearer, less gritty and their sound, one can tell, is getting more focused and unique, taking a slight departure from the obvious inspiration that is a certain Australian quintet.

What strikes me the hardest about NGNG are the lyrics. They are very dirty, with many innuendos to sexually explicit situations and desires, and barely contained references to alcohol and drug abuse. I usually don’t mind these things, especially the sexual innuendos, but drug usage is another matter. I don’t care about pot or other “small” stuff but when it comes to mixing hard liquor with heavier drugs which can potentially cause death, I draw the line.
Also, even though I don’t expect grandiose lyrical poetry with deep thoughts on politics, religion and heavy philosophical questions from Airbourne, for me there is a limit to how graphical the innuendos can be. Am I comfortable singing those words from Armed and Dangerous or Chewing the Fat in the car with the windows down and my little girl sitting in the back? I am with AC/DC (Given the Dog a Bone, Beating Around the Bush) but in this instance, no.

Musically, the album is very good, especially for lovers of true, hard, real, rock. Comparisons to AC/DC are inevitable, with some pieces, such as Back on the Bottle, that contain riffs and sounds that could be considered plagiarism in a very near future. Towards the end of Bottle, for example, there is a piece of the track that is exactly like one from Let There Be Rock, especially the live version of this song from the album of the same name.
Airbourne are faster than AC/DC. A journalist once said in an interview that the band was like AC/DC on a 12 pack of Red Bull. Airbourne also lacks the blues influences of their older cousin; perhaps this is what gives them a faster sound. To me it’s like they replaced the blues of AC/DC with 80’s hair metal from bands like Cinderella or Ratt.
Also, there is no denying Joel O’Keefe’s talent. He is a fantastic guitar player, capable of great speed and complexity with good riffs and melodies that grab the ear and never let go, complemented with a loud, raunchy voice, perfectly suited for Airbourne’s style of dirty rock. No Guts, No Glory takes full advantage of those talents to give us loud, no bullshit hard rock.

Personally however I preferred Runnin’ Wild, Airbourne’s first album, over NGNG because it was a little bit slower, with some tracks contrasting with the rest of the album with increased fury and speed (Runnin’ Wild, Girls in Black), taking the listener by surprise and making for some nice variety. There are no such moments on NGNG, as all the tracks are pretty much the same.

Not that this is a bad thing, since all the tracks are good. They rock, they make you want to pump up that volume and scream those dirty words like Joel O’Keefe while driving down the highway, with no filler tracks, present on too many albums, even AC/DC’s.

I discovered Airbourne a few months ago and they have become my favourite new band. I love their dirty rock sound and although they are a little bit too fast for now, I really can’t object to a replacement of my true favourite band when they decide to hang up their instruments.

No Guts, No Glory is fun, loud and dirty, just like a true rock album should be.

8/10