Centurion: march to see it in your hundreds

In 2008, I saw what I knew to be one of the best British horror films I had seen, and would see, in a while. The film was 'Eden Lake', and other than the impressive selection of 'This Is England' castmembers (Thomas Turgoose and Jack O'Connell in particular have built huge reputations onscreen) it starred Michael Fassbender, who I have been looking forward to seeing again. This is why I was so excited to see that he was the lead in 'Centurion', bringing with him Dominic West.
     Fassbender and West were both cast as part of the hugely successful Spartan epic '300' in 2006, and it, undoubtedly, is not dissimilar from 'Centurion'. One thing that made '300' what it was, is the almost laughable cliches used throughout; even though they have been replaced with satisfying repartee between the cast, the comfort brought by them in such a rarity of an epic was not lost. Vast landscapes and impressive CGI was replaced by earthy darkness and shakey filming, to create a sense of realism that was, commendably, to the same standard in both films. If this film doesn't gain as wide an audience as '300' did, then an attrocity has been committed.
     There was a very graphic sense to the film, created by the use of close-to-the-action filming and very grimey violence. This is something done well in British-made films such as 'Eden Lake' itself, and sets it apart from peers, even including the likes of '300'. 'Centurion' is a UK Film Council production, which has produced some modern, and sometimes timeless, classics; these are titles like 'This Is England' and 'Somers Town', both including the afore-mentioned Thomas Turgoose, and Noel Clarke's cult 'Kidulthood' and 'Adulthood'.In fact, Noel Clarke also takes up a role in 'Centurion' itself.
     Although, it is only natural to be prepared for disappointment when the logo is shown in the opening credits, after ventures such as 'The Imagnarium Of Doctor Parnassus'. This was a film with so much promise, directed by Monty Python's Terry Gillian and including the likes of Johnny Depp, Heath Ledger, Colin Farrell, Jude Law and a classic performance as the devil from Tom Waits. The film was unfortunately ruined by the performances of the lead cast, a huge disappointment from the film Ledger actually died in the process of making. As one of the greatest actors of his time, I hope 'The Imagnarium Of Doctor Parnassus' is swiftly omitted from being part of his legacy.
     The UK Film Council's occassional let-downs is only more reason, however, to celebrate the triumph that is 'Centurion'. The director, Neil Marshall, made a fantastic job of this warrior epic, with scenes of suspense worthy even of horror films. Fassbender handles these with heart-pumping pleasure, showing why we should all expect to see him in more 'Eden Lake'-esque horrors, and helped no doubt by Marshall's experience directing and writing the suspenseful 'The Descent', something I greatly enjoyed seeing in 2005. Marshall also directed 'Doomsday' in 2008, where he worked with 'Centurion' actress Axelle Carolyn; Carolyn has worked in a few horror films, but I hope this film makes her name. Her performance is one that makes the film what it is to watch.
     Perhaps the team behind this film having a background in horrors is something that makes it so successful to watch as an epic, and if it is, then it's a move between genres that I'm looking forward to seeing in the future. 'Centurion' is a warrior epic up to the standards of the international '300', and has a fantastic team behind it, with a fantastic reputation in the best of modern British classics, but it's the experienced horror aspect that makes it worthy of international competition.

'Vampires Suck' sucks, rename it Team Straight-to-DVD

You can't say with any conviction that you don't like a film, if you haven't seen it. That was the reason why, even though I wasn't expecting to like the Twilight saga at all, I watched the films anyway. I resent the coverage it's been given, considering I didn't get more than a matter of a few pages through the books because they were so incoherent. I disagree with the fact that people obsess over the films, splitting themselves into teams depending on whether they want Bella to choose Edward or Jacob by the end of the series. I even despise myself for knowing the characters' names, and regret having seen the films. I will be the first to admit that I like watching films, and of course I have favourites, but I hate the Twilight saga for having so heavily merchandised itself that it has become such a huge obsession; this is not the way even the best of films are supposed to be watched.
     So, when given the oppurtunity to see 'Vampires Suck', I used the same philosophy that it took to make me watch the saga in the first place, and I sat through the spoof. However, for a film that so heavily wants to take every spare second to poke fun at the original films, all I was thinking was 'why would I want to see 'New Moon' for a second time?' This is exactly how it feels to watch the film. You get the impression that the makers weren't impressed by the film, but every effort has still been made to cast actors who look like their real-life counterparts, to shoot scenes from the same actors and to convey exactly the same storyline as 'New Moon' itself.
     You are left wondering whether the makers (the highly acclaimed team behind films such as 'Scary Movie' and 'Epic Movie') actually liked the original saga, which in turn presents another way in which 'Vampires Suck' is a complete farce; why attempt to write jokes that poke holes in everything from the make up used to the plot? The film, therefore, doesn't work from any angle you look at it. And still, no matter whether the makers did intend to write an attack or a tribute to the Twilight saga, the jokes themselves are written badly enough to make you want to turn the film off or leave the cinema.
     There were no jokes in the writing of the film, the dialogue was there solely to give the same storyline as 'New Moon' or to give half a try at attacking it, a contradiction in itself. Then, there is the monotony of the slapstick in the film. Physical humour is possibly the least successful way of getting a laugh during a film, and as there was either comic-book punches, rubber shovels or dancing in every scene, what is left is a film where I didn't laugh once. In fact, I felt embarrassed for the cast at parts, which would have been successful if it was the intention. It clearly wasn't.
     It was also obvious that the film was casted based upon there similarities to the original 'New Moon' characters. If they weren't believeable, it would have been accounted for by their comic timing, but the lack of comic timing merely contributed to making a comedy that just wasn't funny. I have been looking forward to seeing Ken Jeong from 'The Hangover' in more films, but after his hilarious character in 2009's hilarious film, I was let down by this. I wouldn't like to see a single member of this film's cast in another film. All of the flaws joined forces to make an overall amateur film so uncomfortable that I couldn't wait for it to end.
     There is a YouTube channel called 'Monkey And Apple' who make Twilight spoofs with comic timing that genuinely makes you laugh after seeing the actual films, and this film was so amateur as a film, it felt like a YouTube video that didn't know when to stop. These videos are a good deal shorter than 'Vampires Suck', and a lot funnier, so for an amateur Twilight spoof, my advice would be to watch those instead.

The Expendables did not live up to it's own posters and hype.

It is clear that within 'The Expendables', there are two types of actors. There are the legends of the genre, in which I would place Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bruce Willis, Jet Li, Mickey Rourke and Dolph Lundgren. All of these actors have established themselves in action films over the years, Stallone and Schwarzenegger having been in countless blockbusters such as the Rocky and Terminator series' respectively, while Willis has fronted the Die Hard series, Jet Li has acted in martial arts films for many years, and Mickey Rourke and Dolph Lundgren make up the group of legends as they have both successfully navigated the action genre for some time now. Dolph Lundgren in fact worked with Stallone in 1985 during a role in 'Rocky VI'.
     Then, there is a slight gap in status before we reach the second group, who have certainly made a name for themselves, including Jason Statham in films such as 'Crank', 'The Transporter' and 'Snatch', throughout the 21st century thus far. It is merely the short time he has been working that has set him apart from the true giants in the film. Although, he has had the chance to work with such big names in the past, as Jet Li's 'The One' starred Statham in 2001. He has successfully gained a name for himself in the world of action, and fits in well with names such as Stallone, the two of them becoming somewhat of a pairing throughout 'The Expendables'.
     Also in the second group is Steve Austin, who started his career as a WWF (now WWE) wrestler, and much like Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson, stepped into film. However, we can commend Austin for not having moved into the recent ill-advised speight of children's films.
     'The Expendables' quickly took it's cast to be it's selling point, and it worked, because with such huge names, it was hard not to be excited. Schwarzenegger films are the induction to anyone's liking of action films, the staple diet of any action fan, and if that is just one of the names Stallone managed to bring together in one film, it is already a triumph. I found it hard to believe that Schwarzenegger could have found time outside his job as Governor of California to film, and the solution was revealed during the film; there is merely one scene in which Arnie can be seen, and it's poorly done. He doesn't act well, as he is clearly out of practice, and his character is completely unnecessary. With both of these things being true, it was honestly not even worthwhile to have included him as a token cinema giant. Also, the things that make his previous films so classic and timeless is the writing. I wouldn't by any means say they were written well, but they were timeless because they were so corny. And when making the film, Stallone and the writers could have included this, and didn't. This is just the first point that lets the film down.
     The next is the way the older generation has aged. Stallone and Rourke have been Hollywood A-listers for a substantial time, and this has rendered them, after decades of working on their looks, simply unbelievable as action stars. This was compensated for by writing them in as the most charismatic of the team, to try and give the viewers something to believe in, but this was ruined by two things. Firstly, Rourke's character must be somewhat notorious to be included in this exclusive ring of thugs, which I have already said is unbelievable. Secondly, Stallone is in almost every scene, which is understandable as the screenplay is his. This means that he has a very important role within the film. His wit is written to make up for the lost believability, but for an actor who is recurrent throughout the entire film, his poor acting during scenes where he is not fighting lets the entire film down.
     So, if the film does not fulfil it's criteria as 'the best action cast ever assembled', according to the posters, then we have to look for what else it is relying on. This must be it's merits as an action film. This said, it doesn't compare well. There are explosions throughout, tough characters, constant violence to the point of being gratuitous, but when there are other alternatives out there, and the public is expected to see it as being the standard of the cast's previous accomplishments, while even the likes of Statham don't appear to be doing their own stunts, the cast simply let themselves down.