Easy recipe, easy laughs

Shrek Forever After (2010) - dir. Mike Mitchell - 3 stars

The fourth and final instalment of the Shrek franchise doesn't take any risks when it comes to its story but still manages to whip up an entertaining experience with a worthwhile new villain, who is as deviously funny as Lord Farquaad from the original. 


The film essentially picks up where the third entry left. Shrek and Fiona are living 'happily ever after' in their swamp, but the film doesn't lose any time to introduce the dull routine of their lives. Shrek, like any male human who finds himself in a marriage with kids, discovers that ogre males have the same psychology. He feels their world revolves around the kids and that he has no control over his life. He misses the days when he used to roam freely in his swamp scaring the wits off villagers. A fight with Fiona and a magical contract later, Shrek finds himself in an alternate day when people still fear ogres. The fine print on the contract turns out to be a bit more tricky though as our new villain turns the tables on Shrek.  He finds himself on a quest to save not only himself but everyone whom he has ever cared about. It is a worthwhile premise for the franchise as the story goes back to its roots about true love, but a part of me still wishes that we could have accompanied these colourful characters on an all-new quest one last time.


Even though the Shrek sequels have never been as good as Toy Story 2, if there's anything they've done well, it's the villains. From Lord Farquaad to Prince Charming and the Fairy Godmother, the Shrek writers have always created screen-worthy bad fellas. The 'bad' ensemble adds Rumpelstiltskin with Shrek 4, who originates from a German fairytale. Wonderfully voiced by Walt Dohrn, who is also Head of Story on the film, Rumpelstiltskin is quite a character. From having different wigs for different occasions to fashioning the best evil grin to grace the Shrek films, he dominates the film despite his dwarfish size. Given the initial cliché of middle-age crisis, Rumpelstiltskin represents the creative side of the story. He tricks Shrek into the magical contract and gets the kingdom he has always been waiting for.


The original Shrek became a huge hit because it made fun of the age-old clichés of the animated world and brought a modern day take on fairy tales. From birds exploding by the princess' song to the reality show treatment of picking a queen for Lord Farquaad, the original grew from its clever restatement of Disney classics. As new sequels got added to the mix, the writers took off a different direction: the films became about the Shrek universe. The final instalment is a product of that transformation, where the film tries to stand on its own legs without resorting to ridicule of animated classics. It can achieve this to a certain extent as the characters are well-established and loved, but it is also obvious that the writers resorted to some quick and easy gags to fill the laughs. At the end of the day, the Shrek universe is an off-shoot of the traditional animated world, and its admittance of that fact made the original so good. It's valiant to see an attempt to create a new, standalone universe, but there isn't that much new in the mix to support a fourth bloat completely.

Ignorance is bliss

Four Lions (2010) - dir. Christopher Morris - 1 star

One cannot boil down the intricacies of home-grown terrorism into a comedy. Let me preface this review by saying that I do not lack a sense of humour. The truth is that Morris' presentation of his characters does not constitute a dark comedy; it is just a bad film. It completely omits the psychological, social and religious background that would be necessary to develop the mindset of a terrorist. I urge anyone, who is inclined to find out, to read Shiv Malik's article on the issue over at Prospect Magazine, which is well researched and written. Morris, on the other hand, implies that the making of a terrorist is to be laughed at, which doesn't make the situation any more tolerable or funny for that matter. It is just dangerous. As much as I love escapism, this is one film that is so disconnected from its characters and their community that it doesn't just escape the issue but rather misrepresent it.


Morris' TV background glares throughout the film with its handling of the central issue. It picks up with the assumption that the four main characters have decided to be jihadists and never bothers to explain why.  This assumption and treatment may work well for TV productions, but it just doesn't fly high on the big screen. Two-dimensional characters cannot exhibit the urgency required to sustain a feature-length film, especially one that deals with a tough topic like terrorism. Morris' characters start and end the same. They do not learn or grow; they do not change for better or worse. They have no real incentive to have become who they are or continue down their path, nor do they exhibit any identity confusion or have any issues in their life that would push them to pursue jihad. All we know is that they are all rather stupid, except for Omar, played by Riz Ahmed.


Omar is the 'brains' of the group. He's the one who edits their ridiculous videos, the abundance of which says more about their narcissism than their dedication to the ideals they are fighting for. The others are less rounded - if you can call Omar a well-rounded character that is - where their main character trait is their naiveté.  They come off as simpletons frankly, and the viewer gets to find out nothing more about them.  We have no idea about their families, what they do to earn a living, how they have come to be friends with Omar, etc. The worst script flaw though is related to the 5th recruit, a young Pakistani guy whose first appearance in the film ignites a sense of thoughtful commentary. It is the only moment in the film where Morris says something, but then true to form, he later degrades this one single moment of potential revelation by having him become one of the jihadists. 


Despite its focus on unintelligent humour, the film attempts to pull some dramatic strings towards the end and show a hip attitude towards violence a la Tarantino, but what might be construed as a cool approach is actually just annoying. The film really feels like a Western attitude towards the complexity of a suicide bomber. If something's too hard to figure out or understand, people tend to joke around it in an attempt to diminish its importance and their lack of understanding. Four Lions really feels like it was written by four British friends at a pub, who have no idea about the Pakistani community, the confusion that 2nd generation immigrants face when growing up and how terrorist organizations feed off of this.  It is ignorance at its best, and as Thomas Gray says, ignorance is bliss, but it has no part in good film-making.

Blanchett is the saving grace of Ridley Scott's Robin Hood

Robin Hood (2010) - dir. Ridley Scott - 3 stars

I would have loved to be at Cannes to see the reactions of the critics after seeing Robin Hood last night.  Ridley Scott claims to have made the most historically accurate Robin Hood film, and while it may be the case, the film feels devoid of energy despite its attempts to appear epic. A visual and directorial quality that seems more appropriate for a TV series haunts the 140 mins. The film is too focused on getting the story moving that it forgets to pay attention to its characters, which results in the same experience as watching the Tudors on TV. The only scenes where the film really grips the viewer are courtesy of Cate Blanchett, whose Lady Marion owns and rules the screen.

Unlike many previous films, Scott doesn't deal with the traditional part of Robin Hood's story. The film doesn't involve his band of thieves who steal from the rich to give to the poor. The sheriff of Nottingham is reduced to a mere side character. Instead, Scott focuses on the origins of the man himself and how he became to be Robin Hood.  Granted, it is a very good story that involves familial separation, rediscovery of identity, a thirst for revenge, and unexpected attraction. As a common archer in King Richard the Lionheart's army, Robin Longstride witnesses the death of the king on his return home from France. Through chance or some may call it fate, he intercepts the French who are trying to possess the King's crown. This encounter sets him on a path back to England posing as a knight named Robert of Loxley, delivering the crown to King Richard's brother. Through many more story twists, he ends up leading the charge against traitors and the invading French and finally makes a stand for democracy, which obviously doesn't go down well with the new King. Thus, he becomes Robin Hood.

I must say that I have never been a fan of Russell Crowe, and his performance as Robin Hood feels like Gladiator 2 to me. His acting range is very limited so the only character-specific changes I could notice were physical. Crowe is a bit puffier and meatier than before, but the range of facial expressions is still limited, not to mention he looks a bit too old for the character. Cate Blanchett, on the other hand, once again convinces everyone that she is the living, breathing Marion Loxley. Blanchett is one of those few actresses who can really differentiate the characters she plays. If it wasn't for her, my rating for the film would be lower.

But Blanchett can only do so much. The only epic moment in the film is either a copy or a nod to Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan, and the washed out colors don't help the cinematography become somewhat exciting. All in all, Robin Hood leaves a lukewarm taste; it's a not a bad film, but it's not a great film either. It sits on the verge of acceptable, and that just won't do for the great director Ridley Scott.

Can't feel the pulse; is it dead?

Iron Man 2 (2010) - dir. Jon Favreau - 2 stars

Comparing the second serving of the Iron Man franchise to its original would be a big mistake.  The special effects are better than before, the Iron Man suit is shinier than ever, and we have a new villain who can kick some ass.  But it's a failed attempt as it has none of the charm, surprise, or fun elements of the first film.  It's downright boring.  Both films have the same actors and the same director so you might be curious as to how this could have happened.  It's the screenplay I tell you, the awful screenplay, coupled with some bad directorial choices.

Iron Man 2 picks up six months after the end of the first film.  Our hero's ego has reached behemoth levels where he proclaims him and himself only as the key to world peace.  This peachy view is somewhat scarred as the US government starts to treat him as a potential threat to national safety and a vengeful scientist builds the same technology to bring Iron Man down to earth.  All this while, Tony Stark also needs to deal with the consequences of his mechanical 'heart.'  It all sounds good on paper, right?  You have the fundamental flaw of the main character challenged by an arch enemy while he is trying to secure his destiny, which ultimately forces him to reconcile his own definition and identity.

Unfortunately, besides the special effects, nothing leaves a lasting impression.  The acting is second rate where obviously Favreau omitted doing multiple takes for some scenes sacrificing his chance to get the best performance out of each actor.  This makes the film feel hurried and unpolished.  The dialogue doesn't follow well and feels spotty.  Tony Stark's character is meant to be a bit short when it comes to dialogue, but that doesn't mean every other character needs to be that way.  At several moments in the film, I just stopped listening as I wasn't missing much anyways.  But let me get back to the point, as these are minor grievances considering the root cause, which stems from a bad screenplay.

Any film that is based on a comic book already has a certain leeway for taking short cuts in the story, and it's generally OK. We don't expect every comic book film to have the depth of Nolan's Batman, but it's downright sad to see too many holes in Iron Man 2.  Who is Samuel L. Jackson in the film and what's with the eye patch?  Why does Petter Potts accept to become CEO of Stark Industries? There are too many holes to mention here...  What's worse is that the film completely ignores these holes and tries to sandwich scene after scene of what we've come to expect from comic book films.  Hero is at the top of his game; gets challanged; loses his initial incentive along with a personal loss or trouble; hero goes down the wrong path; his new enemy reminds him of who he is; he comes back with a pow.  Great.

But the pow never happens in this film.  It has a flat pulse that never seems to pick up and lies dead on the floor.  The events are so uninteresting that even the characters forget about them a few seconds after they happen.  Explosions?  Big whoop.  Let's kiss.

Do yourself a favor.  Save your money; watch it on a plane where you're stuck and need time to kill.

The Woody Allen I like is back!

Whatever Works (2009) - dir. Woody Allen - 4 stars

Allen's latest is being hailed by many critics as a return-to-roots for the director .  It's being compared to Annie Hall, which in itself is a compliment. Considering that Allen wrote the script for Whatever Works in the 70s, the comparison isn't too surprising. Having found his leading man in Larry David some 30 years later, Allen decided to unearth the script and finally shoot it.  (Boris, the character that David plays, was originally written for Zero Mostel who passed away in 1977.) Whatever Works serves as a fresh serving of good ol' Allen with its hysterical antics, wacky characters, unexpected twists and trademark non-stop dialogue. It's a good thing that we're finally getting it in the UK a whopping one year after its US release; what's up with that?


The film traces the life of a New York misanthrope by the name of Boris Yellnikoff. The strange name is just the tip of the iceberg for this interesting choice of protagonist.  A one-time nominee for a Nobel prize in physics, he has a high opinion of himself and the lowest possible opinion of the human race as he believes we would be extinct by now if only nature had her way.  The only things he really enjoys in life are insulting others, keeping to himself and listening to classical music.  He abhors sex, human contact, children - basically everything.  Boris essentially plays out like an exaggerated Allen as most of his conversation beckons to the director's own views.


When a twenty-something named Melody from the South appears on his doorstep asking for shelter, Boris unexpectedly allows the "submental baton twirler", played by Evan Rachel Wood, to stay with him. As they grow on each other, romance starts to flourish between them, which is challenged as Melody's parents show up on their doorstep with their own issues to sort. Regardless of each of their situation, the name of the game is finding happiness and love with whatever that works as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. The film definitely drives this point in as many ways as possible as the Southerners embrace New York and its eccentric comfort with anything and everything.  With a bit of luck and a nudge from the universe, two people can meet with one-in-a-millionth chance and that might be it.  That might be love.


Whatever Works carries the trademark Allen humour with non-PC comments scattered around in continuous dialogue.  David, who is a master of improvisation as evidenced in his role in the HBO hit series Curb Your Enthusiasm, occupies a different ground here as he sticks to his lines devotedly including the three page monologue that starts the film.  He apparently tried to improvise and was encouraged by Allen to do so, but he was afraid to not sound like Boris and end up sounding more like himself, so he gave up.  He does an admirable job with the role and the lines, and I cannot think of anyone else who could have assumed the role better than him.  As for the rest of the cast, the right actors are wearing the right hats. Everyone from Evan Rachel Wood to Patricia Clarkson, who plays Melody's mother, fit the bill creating a nice ensemble.


All in all, this is the Woody Allen that I've always loved and missed.  Yes, the characters and the story might seem outlandish - they may even appear irritating! - but they do instill a sense of childish positive attitude that things do work out at the end if one just goes with the flow.  The universe may be random; we may be here by some stroke of luck, but luck works both ways, and it's better to give in than live against the current.  As Boris says, "Christ, you know the odds of your father's one sperm from the billions finding the single egg that made you? Don't think about it or you'll have a panic attack!"  Here's to Whatever Works!