The Hobbit: The Desolation Of Smaug

This is a version of a review that aired on ABC Ballarat in January, 2014.

(M) ★★★★

Director: Peter Jackson.

Cast: Martin Freeman, Ian McKellan, Richard Armitage, Evangeline Lilly, Orlando Bloom, Lee Pace, Luke Evans.

Bilbo had found more chocolate coins than you could poke an Easter bunny at.

WE'RE five films into Peter Jackson's journey through Middle Earth and it's bleedingly obvious he could lead the way with his eyes closed.

The Kiwi director deftly navigates a path between the dark perils of JRR Tolkien's fantasy world and the necessary jokey lighter moments. He knows the landscape, the history and the races probably better than his native New Zealand, and he understands the stories of Middle Earth on both the small scale and the large. Because of this, The Hobbit Part II is a walk in the park for him, albeit a park filled with shapeshifting bear-men, large spiders and an even larger dragon.

The flaws of it are the same as those of the first film, but the peaks and strengths are the same as we have seen throughout the rest of the acclaimed Middle Earth movies - in fact, these are things we've come to take for granted.

So as hobbit "burglar" Bilbo Baggins (Freeman), venerable wizard Gandalf (McKellan) and the 13 dwarves continue their journey towards the Lonely Mountain to reclaim the dwarves' home and wealth, we are again treated to a film that looks amazing, is well performed, and is immensely enjoyable.

The biggest issue coming into each instalment of Jackson's Middle Earth films is managing our own expectations - we've been so spoilt with the previous works, plus so many people are so familiar with the source material, all of which works to set the bar pretty high. With The Desolation Of Smaug, Jackson clears the bar with ease.

Two of the key components of this section of the story - a wild barrel ride down an Elvish river and the introduction of the toothsome firebreather Smaug himself - are triumphs of the film, with the former turned into an epic and impressive running battle, and the latter a wonder of CG animation and given voice through Benedict Cumberbatch and some impressive audio trickery.

The liberties taken with the original text, such as the introduction of new character Tauriel (Lilly) and the expansion of Gandalf's side adventure, serve to make the tone of story sit closer to The Lord Of The Rings, rather than the kiddishness of Tolkien's book, and drawing more out of the simplistic tale.

The flipside of this is the biggest flaw of the two Hobbit films so far - trying to stretch such a slight book into a trilogy means that there is a bit of excess padding. There are no songs this time around, but Jackson takes his sweet time with every character and every plot point, which is not totally a bad thing and the padding is less obvious in part two, but the pacing does slow to a crawl every so often.

It's a minor quibble and let's face it - Jackson's Middle Earth is a pretty cool cinematic universe to hang out in and kill some time, largely because of the director's insane attention to detail, particularly evident in the art design and set creation involved in bringing Lake Town to life.

Amid all the epic fantasy, it's easy to overlook the performances, but again they are solid. Freeman continues to prove an inspired piece of casting, McKellan's Gandalf is once again outstanding, Armitage leads the dwarves admirably, while the additions of Lilly as Tauriel and Luke Evans as Bard are welcome. Strangely, it's only Orlando Bloom - a veteran of the Lord Of The Rings trilogy - who doesn't quite seem at home, as if he's wondering what he's doing back in Middle Earth.

There are other issues, such as the fact radiant heat seems to be non-existent in Middle Earth (particularly evident in the final showdown with Smaug) but it feels silly arguing about physics in a movie with a huge dragon and a man who can turn into a bear.

If you've been enjoying Jackson's ride through Middle Earth, you won't be disappointed with The Desolation Of Smaug.

Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues

(M)  ★★★

Director: Adam McKay.

Cast: Will Ferrell, Steve Carell, Paul Rudd, David Koechner, Kristen Wiig, Meagan Good, Christina Applegate, James Marsden, Dylan Baker.

Godzilla didn't look that scary.

It may come as a surprise, but the first Anchorman movie was not an immediate box-office smash.

It wasn't until the DVD audience latched on to it that the adventures of Ron Burgundy and co became one of the most quoted movies of all time, resulting in lines such as "I love lamp", "Boy, that escalated quickly", and "60 per cent of the time, it works every time" regularly invading conversations and the internet.

Maybe that's why it has taken nine years for a sequel to emerge - the first film was still building momentum for a lot of that time.

For Anchorman 2, the plot - and I use the word 'plot' very, very loosely - focuses on Ferrell's moustachioed newsreader Burgundy hitting rock bottom and attempting to claw his way back to the top courtesy of fledgling TV network GNN.

GNN, led by fiery award-winning producer Linda Jackson (Good), is the first 24-hour news network, and Burgundy and his team - daft weatherman Brick Tamland (Carell), insane sports reporter Champ Kind (Koechner) and lothario journalist Brian Fantana (Rudd) - are along for the ride.

There are also some subplots about Burgundy attempting to repair relationships with his wife Veronica (Applegate) and his son Walter (Judah Nelson), a rivalry between Burgundy and handsome fellow anchorman Jack Lime (Marsden), Brick's office romance with equally odd receptionist Chani (Wiig), and some mostly pointless waffle about Aussie network owner and media tycoon Kench Allenby (Josh Lawson).

But Anchorman 2's success doesn't hinge on its storyline, which is fortunate because it ranges from the bizarre to the bland, such as Burgundy and his son raising a shark called Doby (bizarre), and anything involving Lawson's Allenby (bland).

This film is about the laughs and the antics. There are certain things fans are probably expecting in the sequel - a bit of jazz flute, Brick's nutty non-sequiturs, a large-scale news team battle royale - and they're all here, plus the laughs come in sporadic but frequent-enough waves.

In this sense, the sequel is a success. The dialogue is quotable, the gags hit more than they miss, Brick's idiocy is a highlight (particularly his encounters with green screen and a funeral), and the cameo-heavy fight at the end is worth the ticket price alone.

Is it as good as the first one? The short answer is no.

The longer answer is that while much of the humour and situations feel interchangeable, the first film moved at a steadier pace and with a better winning-joke ratio, whereas Anchorman 2 suddenly grinds to a halt in the latter half and features a lot more jokes that miss their mark. A particularly wasted opportunity is Lawson's Allenby, who looks like Richard Branson but acts like Rupert Murdoch and had the potential to be an interesting character but who just becomes part of the film's applaudable moral about the importance of the news and what the media should be doing in our society. Surely "our Josh" deserves better.

The cast are at ease returning to their roles, and Carell gets more screen time, his star having risen in the period between films. The reliance on improvisation is unfortunately more obvious this time, evident in the far-from-seamless editing within scenes.

But no one who goes to see this film cares about that stuff, do they? They just want to laugh at Burgundy's ego-driven idiocy and Brick's endless stream of 'what the?' moments.

With that in mind, it's perhaps easiest to simply say this - if you love Anchorman, you'll love Anchorman 2.

Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs 2

(G) ★★

Director: Cody Cameron & Kris Pearn.

Cast: (voices of) Bill Hader, Anna Faris, James Caan, Will Forte, Terry Crews, Kristen Schaal.

Animals you can eat? What will they think of next?

THE first Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs was zany with more than a chance of becoming a favourite for fans of quality CG animation.

It was a feast for the eyes, with its wacky food-gone-crazy antics mashed onto a disaster-movie base to create a tasty new treat that was very different to the offerings served up by Pixar, Blue Sky, Dreamworks or any other major animation house.

Naturally, Sony Animation had to go back for seconds, but the latest helping of this story is a bit like eating chocolate cake - sure the first piece is good, but the more you eat, the less enjoyable it becomes.

Cloudy 2 picks up where the first film left off, with Flint Lockwood (Hader) and his friends saving the day from his invention that turns water into food, which ran amok and turned their island of Swallow Falls into something that resembles the floor under the kids table after Christmas dinner.

Just as they're celebrating shutting down Flint's FLDSMDFR (yes, that's what the invention is called), famed inventor Chester V arrives at Swallow Falls to lead the clean-up operation, ushering residents off the island and recruiting Flint to work at his company.

But all is not as it seems, and soon Flint and his friends are heading back to Swallow Falls, which has become a menagerie of "foodimals" that could threaten to takeover the world.

These "foodimals" are both the best and worst thing about Cloudy 2. While they are visually impressive and make for an interesting plot device at times, they ultimately become a tiresome parade of bad puns - their portmanteau names like "shrimpanzees", "watermelephants" and "flamangoes" are increasingly groan-inducing, yet it seems this is the bulk of the film's humour.

They're a good example of the kids-only gags that have replaced the all-ages laughs of the first film, with only the background antics of Flint's monkey Steve saving the day.

As a children-only adventure, Cloudy 2 works reasonably well. It's a frenetic barrage of colour and action, with plenty of bizarre set-pieces to keep the attention of a young audience. It revels in its "mysterious island" setting, the plot isn't too bad, and it does a good job of maintaining momentum, mostly by ditching things such as character development, any deeper themes, or any kind of emotional investment.

On the other hand, the teens and adults will be left hungry for something more substantial. The inventiveness of the first installment seems reduced to a one-ingredient dish, the themes are so subtle as to be almost non-existent, and its difficult to find much of a care-factor for Flint and his friends because they're not meaty characters.

This is where the difference between these two servings of Meatballs lies. The original was a well-cooked smorgasbord for the whole family, while the sequel is like a kids' dessert menu - all sweets, no substance.

If you think the food metaphors and similes I've whipped up in this review became increasingly tiresome and childish, then that perhaps is the best analogy of all for describing Cloudy 2.

Thor: The Dark World

(M) ★★★

Director: Alan Taylor.

Cast: Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, Tom Hiddleston, Christopher Eccleston, Anthony Hopkins, Stellan Skarsgård.

When shooting boy band publicity shots, never look at the camera.

WITH its sequel to Thor, the eighth movie in Marvel's Cinematic Universe, the comic book company's film arm is proving to be not unlike Thor himself - pretty much bomb-proof and unstoppable.

Even Iron Man 2, the runt of the MCU litter, made a mint, but if you're looking at Thor 2 and expecting a turkey or a flop, keep looking.

It's far from perfect - The Dark World has got some serious script issues - but even these can't detract from the fun and spectacle on display.

But be warned - the MCU is becoming an increasingly tangled web of stories and newcomers are less welcome with each new film. References to past events from the series fly by faster than Thor's hammer so prior reading is expected. If you haven't seen the first Thor or even The Avengers, this sequel is not the place to dive into these tales of superheroes, gods, and their growing mythology.

The big baddies this time around are the Dark Elves, a scary bunch of hi-tech ancient ones led by the dead-eyed Malekith (Eccleston), who looks like a pointy-eared shark with a ponytail.

He's seeking vengeance for a past defeat, which he hopes to pull off with a universe-destroying MacGuffin known as the Aether. Naturally, Thor and his hammer are out to stop him.

There are some surprising plot holes in the early stage of the film that don't feel like mistakes, but more like the film has been slightly trimmed to cut down the running time, leaving the audience to fill in some mildly annoying gaps along the way.

Despite this - or maybe as a result of this - the plot moves along at a good pace, dotted with impressive fight sequences, good gags, and a few jaw-dropping CG sequences.

Amid the carnage are good characters and some great performances. Hemsworth seems more at home than ever as Thor, more confident than cocky this time around, while Hiddleston's Loki is again a highlight. Their relationship is central, as it was in the previous Thor film, but has evolved into something new and intriguing this time around.

It's these returning characters - and the development and relationships given to them by the writers and actors - that are a highlight of the film, bringing depth amid the bombast and explosions. The connections between Loki and Thor, Loki and his parents Frigga (Rene Russo) and Odin (Hopkins), Odin and Thor, and Thor and love interest Jane (Portman) that make this a healthy melodrama somewhere between Shakespeare and soap opera. The return of Skarsgård's Erik Selvig is also hilariously welcome.

The humour really is a highlight - it could be argued this is the funniest Marvel movie to date, even outpacing the typically Whedon repartee of The Avengers. Some bit players are there only for gags, such as Kat Dennings' Darcy, Chris O'Dowd's Richard and the otherwise unneccessary Ian the intern, but it is Loki who is again a scene-stealer, delivering moodbreakers and withering putdowns with humourous ease.

The humour does ride on a knife-edge though. It's a necessary foil to the po-faced business of Norse gods flying between realms and saving the universe, but it almost goes too far into self-ridicule (and some fans might find the hilarity hard to stomach).

Take for instance the ending, which is great - it's wildly inventive and hilarious. But it teeters on the edge of wackiness, balancing precariously over a chasm of plot-holes that are filled in with technobabble so as to be less obvious. If you can laugh along and still be gripped, it's a spectacular finale.

Thor was seen as being a risk for Marvel first time round, but they pulled it off with casual ease. It seems to be a trickier world to manage on a second outing, but fans will still be pleased.

Prisoners

This is a version of a review that aired on ABC Ballarat and South West Vic radio in October, 2013.

(MA15+) ★★★★

Director: Denis Villeneuve.

Cast: Hugh Jackman, Jake Gyllenhaal, Viola Davis, Maria Bello, Terrence Howard, Melissa Leo, Paul Dano.

"What do you mean you don't 'do drive thru'?"

WHEN we think of horror movies, we tend to think of haunted houses, exorcisms, and knife-wielding psychos in the night.

But what really horrifies us in our everyday lives is the possibility our loved ones could be taken away from us, and that we would be powerless to do anything about it.

It's fitting then that Denis Villeneuve's first English-language feature feels like a horror film. As it tells its tale of two missing girls abducted in broad suburban daylight, the sense of dread and foreboding, the intense uncomfortableness of what follows, and the perpetual sleet and mist that hangs in the air are straight out of a scary movie.

The two missing girls belong to Keller and Grace Dover (Jackman and Bello) and Franklin and Nancy Birch (Howard and Davis), whose lives are torn apart one foggy Thanksgiving when their young daughters Anna and Joy are abducted.

Detective Loki (Gyllenhaal) is on the case, but progress is slow and frustrating for the two families, particularly Keller, who is angered when lead suspect Alex Jones (Dano) is released from custody.

Convinced the mentally challenged Alex knows the location of the kids, Keller kidnaps and imprisons him, starting down a dark road that will test Keller's Christian values and blur the lines between good and evil.

The title is an apt one - not only are people imprisoned literally but everyone is held captive and controlled beyond their will by something, whether it be their grief, anger, faith, mental capacity, past or even their job, with the latter being the case of Gyllenhaal's detective.

Loki is an intriguing character, mainly because we get so little information about him compared to everyone else in the movie. His tattoos and a nervous blink hint at a past we're never told about, and aside from his introduction where he dines alone, we never see him outside of work.

He may be seen as a token cop or a frustratingly underwritten character by some, but he is a refreshingly cliché-free lawman so driven and determined that he lives entirely for his job.

Far more colourful is Jackman's Keller - a survivalist, a Christian, and a committed father who provides the film's grey-area morality. It's a stunning performance, filled with coiled anger and relentless desperation, and certainly worthy of an Oscar nomination.

Jackman and Gyllenhaal do the heavy lifting but it's a top-notch cast all round, boasting one Oscar winner, four Oscar nominees and a Golden Globe nominee. Davis' limited screentime is memorable, Bello is convincing, while Dano is excellent in a thankless role.

Veteran cinematographer Roger Deakins perfectly captures the bleakness of the situation and the mist-shrouded suburbs, while Johan Johannsson's score (aided by a dash of Radiohead) is suitably ominous.

Prisoners is haunting and will stick with you. It messes with your sympathies and your moral compass. It keeps you guessing and wondering how it can possibly come together, and even demands a second viewing if you can handle its at-times confronting nature again. There are puzzles at play here, so pay attention.

The only criticisms might be the ending, Loki's lack of development, and whether the film maintains its two and half hours fully, but those possible gripes aside, this is one of the best films of the year.

Pacific Rim

(M) ★★

Director: Guillermo Del Toro.

Cast: Charlie Hunnam, Rinko Kikuchi, Idris Elba, Charlie Day, Ron Perlman, Burn Gorman, Robert Kazinsky, Max Martini.

"What have I told you about getting your Transformers wet?"

Guillermo Del Toro's Godzilla Vs Transformers - sorry, Pacific Rim - is both as dumb and as awesome as you'd expect.

It's dumb because it's about giant monsters fighting giant robots. But it's awesome because, well, it's about giant monsters fighting giant robots.

The set-up is done with applaudable efficiency in the first five minutes. Enormous creatures called kaiju have come to Earth via a portal deep under the Pacific Ocean and have been wreaking Mothra-style havoc on cities for a number of years.

In order to defeat the beasts, world leaders decided to build jaegers - ie. giant robots - to fight back. They are piloted by two humans who are mentally linked by something called "the drift" and control the machine like two synced-up puppeteers sitting inside the robot's head.

All seemed to be going well in the battle to save humanity until the attacks became more prevalent, the kaiju got bigger, the jaeger program became too expensive, and now we look doomed.

Admirably, Pacific Rim is not about the arrival of the monsters and the need to build these giant robots. It drops us into the thick of it - we get our first kaiju/jaeger fight in a matter of minutes, so Del Toro at least knows what people going to this movie want to see.

There is no tedious build-up, and very little in the way of a Jaws-like approach to the monsters or the mecha. Just a barrage of Cloverfield-type beasties punching on with Optimus Prime's big brothers.

But what happens between rounds in this hyper-heavyweight fight? Well, that's where Pacific Rim suffers and, as a result, so does the audience.

Surprisingly, the biggest problem is the cast. While admittedly most of the dialogue is exposition, the script isn't total rubbish, but some actors handle it much better than others.

Rinko Kikuchi is the best and acquits herself well as the jaeger pilot-wannabe, desperate for revenge but traumatised by her past. Idris Elba is okay despite getting the hammiest lines possible as the jaeger program commander, and ditto for Del Toro regular Ron Perlman as a blackmarket crimelord, but from there it really drops off.

Charlie Hunnam, who is the star of the show despite being so terrible as the lead in Frankie Go Boom and The Ledge, is stilted and utterly uncharismatic, while the "comedy" pairing of Charlie Day and Burn Gorman as the constantly sparring kaiju researchers seems to be a moronic competition to see who can go the furthest over the top without getting a laugh.

And then there's Robert Kazinsky and Max Martini as Chuck and Herc Hanson, the two Australian jaeger pilots. Not only are their performances rubbish, but they use two of the most hideous Australian accents since The Simpsons came down under.

With all this dire dialogue and bad acting, it's a relief when the monsters and robots start thumping the radioactive snot out of each other.

The special effects are nothing short of astounding, by the way. I know we take these kind of things for granted these days, but there is some seriously impressive CG work here.

Sure, most of the battles take place at night, in the rain or underwater in order to hide the seams, and occasionally Del Toro's camerawork has the same problem as Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen in that it gets too close to the action so you can't actually tell what the hell is going on, but when it pulls back and shows these two leviathans duking it out, it's glorious to behold.

But that is about all Pacific Rim has going for it. Even Del Toro's usually visual stylings, so distinctive and sumptuous in Pan's Labyrinth and the Hellboy movies, is almost totally absent. Only a small section of the film revolving around Perlman's character Chau bears the signature glow and style of Del Toro.

If you expect nothing more than monsters fighting giant robots, you'll love Pacific Rim. If you were hoping for something more from Del Toro, at least there are monsters fighting giant robots.

Man Of Steel

(M) ★★

Director: Zack Snyder.

Cast: Henry Cavill, Michael Shannon, Amy Adams, Russell Crowe, Diane Lane, Kevin Costner, Laurence Fishburne.

"What a beautiful day. Be a shame if someone were to destroy it in a blizzard of CGI."

FOR DC Comics, there is a lot on the line with this reboot of the Superman saga.

If Man Of Steel flies like a bird or a plane, it will open the door for DC's own shared universe, which they hope will rival Marvel's ongoing Avengers' adventures.

Bad luck, DC. Man Of Steel sinks like a massive chunk of kryptonite.

It's ambitious, yes, grandiose, yes, and sure to be a hit at the box office, but in almost all other aspects, it is a $225 million turkey.

This rebirth of Superman, which literally begins with the birth of Superman, retells the story many of us know and love - the alien child, sent to Earth just before the destruction of his homeworld Krypton, raised by the kindly Kents of Kansas, and growing into a near-invulnerable superhero.

The twist in this version, as compared to Richard Donner's 1978 groundbreaker, is an attempt to imbue with the story of Superman/Kal-El/Clark Kent with deeper themes and a more realistic look at the implications his arrival would have. It also ramps up the Christ allegory and picks at the relationship Superman has with humanity.

It's all part of the "Nolanisation" of Krypton's favourite son. Having turned DC's other heavy-hitter - Batman - into a real world concern with a dark edge, Christopher Nolan was attached to this project in the hopes he would help do the same with Superman.

It doesn't work. Man Of Steel comes off as utterly humourless, pompous, melodramatic, dumbed-down, repetitive, and even sporadically boring.

The film makes similar mistakes to that other DC bomb Green Lantern - it tells us everything we need to know in the first act, only to tell us everything again when the main character needs to find out. More editing is badly needed.

And while they were undertaking some more judicious editing of the first half, the filmmakers could have done away with the frustrating non-linear storytelling. Not only is it annoying to have the story jump back and forth between Clark's childhood, his teenage years and his nomadic adulthood, but it continually breaks the emotional flow of the film. Much of that heart comes from a nice turn by Costner as Clark's dad Jonathan, but the fractured storyline gets in the way of the audience connection with him.

Worse than this is the dialogue, which almost entirely falls into one of three categories - "Now I must explain my actions", "This is what just happened" or "This is what's about to happen". There is no subtlety, nobody talks like a real person, and the characters don't develop naturally, if at all.

This dumbing-down goes for the grandiose themes of the film as well, which are boiled down to infuriating obviousness, giving the audience no credit what-so-ever.

And I never thought I'd get sick of explosions and destruction in a movie, but I finally found my limit. It came with about 20 minutes left to go in the film - I actually sighed with relief when the final confrontation was over. And I've seen Roland Emmerich's 2012.

It's all a shame because the cast is great. Cavill makes for a great Superman/Kal-El/Clark, capturing that mix of nobility and humility that Christopher Reeve nailed. Shannon is menacing as Zod, Crowe brings gravitas as Jor-El, and Costner and Lane work well. Only Adams, as Lois Lane, feels out of place, but poor writing hampers her more than anyone.

Are there highlights aside from the cast? Some of the fight sequences are quite good before they become numbing, and the flashbacks, despite being jarringly scattered throughout the film, are nicely done. Snyder makes the film look good, particularly in the flashbacks.

These are slight redemptions. And maybe with really low expectations this will have a brainless charm to it. Maybe this is exactly the Superman movie some of the comic book fans have been waiting for.

But for all its ambition, this Man Of Steel fails to soar, instead crashlanding in a humourless, melodramatic mess of explosions.

The Wolverine

(M) ★★★

Director: James Mangold.

Cast: Hugh Jackman, Tao Okamoto, Rila Fukushima, Haruhiko Yamanouchi, Hiroyuki Sanada, Will Yun Lee, Svetlana Khodchenkova, Famke Janssen.

Lovely day for it.

THE X-Men movies generally fall into two distinct categories - the good and the awful.

In the former column is X-Men, X2, and First Class. In the latter; The Last Stand and X-Men Origins: Wolverine.

The Wolverine is the first to land right in the middle.

For much of its running time, it transplants the blade-bearing hairball to Japan, making for an interesting juxtaposition.

Logan aka Wolverine (Jackman) finds himself embroiled in an intriguing family struggle after old acquaintance Yashida (Yamanouchi) requests the clawed mutant visit him on his deathbed. Soon Wolverine's on the run with Yashida's daughter Mariko (Okamoto) from the Yakuza while trying to figure who's trying to kill who and why.

Ordinarily this would be a cinch for the effectively indestructible mutant, but Logan's superhuman healing powers are mysteriously out of action.

The sixth outing in mutton chops for Jackman (counting his brilliant one-line cameo in First Class) is engaging on a few levels. It features the usually invulnerable Wolverine at his most vulnerable, it captures an emotional insight into his torment at Jean Grey's death in The Last Stand, and it uses the mutant-as-prejudice metaphor of the X-Men series and turns it into a way to look at being a westerner in Japan.

The Japanese backdrop is also a nice point of difference from the rest of the series - it has a look all its own, and the fights embrace a frenetic samurais-and-ninjas style.

The problem is the film says "sayonara" to these strengths - and its sanity - as it hits the last act. The plot unravels with alarming speed, characters quickly change allegiances or entire codes of honour in a heartbeat, and the whole thing devolves into a generic smash-'em-up battle.

This battle sees the introduction of villains Silver Samurai and Viper, who prove to be unsatisfying and uneven. Hardcore fans of the comics will add these to the list of characters the series has failed to do justice to (alongside Deadpool, Juggernaut, Banshee, Gambit, etc).

The effects-heavy final battle feels like it has beamed in from another, less-interesting movie that lacks the grace, intrigue and culture of the first two acts.

Having said that, the first two acts are not without their flaws, such as when Logan criticises a woman's fiance for being adulterous, right after Logan has slept with the woman. There is also a perpetual run-and-chase quality to the middle section, although this is softened by some nice intimate moments and a rather cool battle atop a bullet train.

The major positive is that at least it's better than X-Men Origins: Wolverine and The Last Stand. Sadly it goes no further than that.

Monsters University

(G) ★★★

Director: Dan Scanlon.

Cast: (voices of) Billy Crystal, John Goodman, Steve Buscemi, Helen Mirren.

Mike was just minutes away from being used as a hackysack.

AMID the heavy hitters of Pixar's back catalogue, Monsters, Inc. is the under-rated gem.

Often unfairly overlooked compared to the Toy Story trilogy, Up, Wall-E, Finding Nemo, and The Incredibles, the tale of scare-mongering duo Sully and Mike Wazowski was a wildly original, creative, hilarious and surprisingly touching comedy caper.

This is why it pains me so much to say this prequel is a major disappointment. Don't get me wrong, it's not a terrible film - it's still mildly enjoyable - but it feels so stock standard and flat compared to its dazzling predecessor.

As the title suggest, Monsters University covers Mike and Sully's college years, where Mike is the dedicated student following his dream of becoming a scarer and Sully is the naturally talented slacker expecting to coast through his degree.

A rivalry develops between the two, leading to college head Dean Hardscrabble (Mirren) kicking them out of their scaring course.

The only way to get back into the course is through a foolhardy bet between Mike and Hardscrabble - if Mike, Sully and their geeky fraternity can win the inter-fratenity competition known as the Scary Games, they can return to the scaring course. If they lose, they're out of Monsters University for good.

If all this sounds familiar, it's because the plot plays like a lazy mash-up of "college romp" movies such as Animal House and Revenge Of The Nerds.

The typical college life provides plenty of opportunity for the monsterised sight gags of Monsters, Inc., but again, it feels all too easy. Even the Scary Games feels like a tired trope despite being transplanted into Mike and Sully's world.

The silly sight gags are what is likely to keep the kids entertained because the plot appears aimed at an older audience, ie. one that grew up watching Monsters, Inc. and is now at college. This might make it a cult hit at universities, which is strange for a G-rated movie and makes you wonder if Pixar have completely missed their target on this one.

On the upside, the charms of Mike and Sully, voiced by Crystal and Goodman, that make this mildly enjoyable. Pixar have always been smart enough to realise that making the players more than just pixels is the secret to success, and here we get some heart and soul between Mike and Sully and the rest of their fraternity of misfits.

They all get some good lines, especially Crystal, and there are a few really solid gags and an endless array of adult-aimed nudges.

Best of all is the final act, when the film finally stops being a college collage and heads into intriguing territory. That's where Monsters University finally becomes surprising and interesting.

But it's almost too little, too late. The film predominantly coasts along a slacker student, doing only just enough to get by.

Of course, kids aren't going to mind. This will probably serve as their introduction to the college movie, and in years to come they may realise what Monsters University was riffing on, but in the meantime, it's likely most of it will fly over their heads.

Pixar have played with pre-established genres before, whether it be subverting the superhero ideal (the brilliant The Incredibles) or going weird on the spy movie (the misfire Cars 2).

But this dabble with the college romp feels stale and lazy, and only gets across the line thanks to nostalgic goodwill and some decent gags.

Fast & Furious 6

(M) ★★

Director: Justin Lin.

Cast: Vin Diesel, Paul Walker, Dwayne Johnson, Tyrese Gibson, Michelle Rodriguez, Sung Kang, Chris Bridges, Luke Evans, Gina Carano, Jordana Brewster.

"Look ma! No brain!"

IF someone told you in 2001 that The Fast & The Furious was going to turn into a six-film franchise worth more than $2 billion, you would have laughed in their face and told them to lay off the weed.

The first film was a surprisingly sturdy undercover cop actioner fuelled by some exhilarating street racing and car chasing sequences, but it didn't appear to have the gas to go the distance of a long-running series.

Much to the surprise of everyone, here we are, 12 years and five films later, and the Fast & Furious series shows no signs of hitting the brakes.

Since re-calibrating the series with Fast 5, steering away from its street-racing origins and driving in the direction of international crime, the franchise looked to be in supreme condition.

Unfortunately, the laws of escalating returns have caught up with F&F, much like it did with Pierce Brosnan's 007 stint. The need to go bigger and better is this film's undoing - the insanity of the underground car races that appeared in #4, which became the admittedly enjoyable vault-dragging scenario of #5, has begat the truly mental showdown that ends this shark-jumping entry into the series.

Following on from the successful Brazilian heist of Fast 5, Dom (Diesel), Brian (Walker) and the rest of their fast-driving crime gang are living large and enjoying the good life.

But US agent Hobbs (Johnson) shows up on Dom's doorstep, asking for help in stopping a new team of lead-footed criminals. Hobbs also has some tantalising news: that his old flame Letty (Rodriguez), who was so unceremoniously blown up in film four, may still be alive and working for the new bad guys.

While the set-up of Fast & Furious 6 shows promise, particularly with its mirror-image crime gangs, the film proceeds to get increasingly baffling and ridiculous, eventually escalating into a full-blown tidal wave of stupidity.

The flagrant disregard for how the law, logic, and even reality work is at the centre of so much of the movie. That a group of criminals, with the help of a gun-toting US agent, can boss around army officers on an army base, ordering the army officers to release the chief villain, despite having spent the whole film trying to catch said mastermind, is an example of the movie's ability to be mind-bogglingly infuriating.

But that's only one moment out of many in F&F6 that beggars belief. The last part of the film attempts to set a number of records, including the world's longest runway, the world's slowest take-off, and the largest number of impossible things that can happen in the space of 20 minutes.

No one has ever watched the F&F series for its gritty reality or its acknowledgement of how the universe (particularly physics and logic) actually works, and if you can ignore the litany of script errors, #6 is as exhilarating as ever.

Long-time series director Lin knows how to put the audience in the middle of a street race (without the need for 3D thankfully), and it's hard to beat his flair for piecing together a race or a chase. Also, there are at least two action sequences in this film - one involving a tank, and another involving a huge airplane - that are impressive in their ludicrous over-the-top-ness.

For the diehard fans, who may not be as vocal as say the Twi-hards, Trekkies or Potterheads but who must be out there somewhere, there are a few pay-offs, including an intriguing epilogue that points to the already-planned F&F7.

It's hard to really hate the F&F films. The franchise's unexpected longevity has given it an underdog status that's endearing, the bromance between Walker and Diesel (with added Johnson) is as charming as ever, and the ability to capture the necessary speed and ferocity is unrivalled.

But having been so pleasantly surprised by how great Fast 5 was, Fast & Furious 6 is a massively bonkers disappointment.

The Great Gatsby (2013)

This is a version of a review airing on ABC Radio Ballarat in May, 2013.

(M) ★★★

Director: Baz Luhrmann.

Cast: Leonardo DiCaprio, Tobey Maguire, Carey Mulligan, Joel Edgerton, Elizabeth Debicki, Isla Fisher, Jason Clarke.

"Here's to becoming a classic gif."

F. SCOTT Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby is generally regarded as a serious contender for the title of "best book ever".

Unsurprisingly the story has been filmed repeatedly, with Aussie director Baz Luhrmann the sixth director to have a go at the story of the elusive Jay Gatsby, his lost love Daisy, and the glittering American dream of the 1920s.

Luhrmann is perhaps the most distinctive filmmaker to tackle the novel and it was the prospect of his flair for the razzle dazzle that made his adaptation an intriguing proposition.

However, Baz's kinetic camera movements and stylistic tics are both the best and worst thing about this take on The Great Gatsby.

Told from the point of view of hapless bystander Nick Carraway (Maguire), it focuses on his enigmatic neighbour Jay Gatsby, whose palatial mansion regularly holds enormously decadent parties, despite the host remaining some what of a mystery to his hundreds of often-uninvited guests.

As Nick comes to know his fabled neighbour, he learns of Gatsby's connection to Nick's cousin Daisy, who is married to the rich philanderer Tom Buchanan, and Nick is slowly drawn into an intriguing web of lies and love.

Initially, the film is annoying. Luhrmann's over-the-top shots and hyperactive editing are distracting, while the framing device of Nick narrating (and later writing) the story from a sanitarium is awkward.

Having said that, Luhrmann's cinematic panache is pitch-perfect for Gatsby's parties. Mixing his camera moves, an anachronistic soundtrack, and the mercurial set designs and costumes of his Oscar-winning wife Catherine Martin, this adaptation captures the booze-soaked decadence and orgiastic excess brilliantly.

Outside of Gatsy's parties, Baz's tics and tricks (such as words appearing on the screen, fast edits, or his flat-chat runs through the New York landscapes) are distractions. The film works best when Luhrmann gets out of the way and lets F. Scott Fitzgerald's story and the talented cast do the heavy lifting.

In DiCaprio, Luhrmann not only had his perfect Romeo but now an indeed great Gatsby. DiCaprio is excellent, combining the necessary "old sport" affability, the tortured soul, the idealistic naivety and air of mystique. Could this finally be the role that snags him a much-deserved Oscar? His performance here is certainly worthy.

Mulligan is also good, as is Maguire, but Edgerton is the sneaky scene-stealer as the brash and bullish Tom Buchanan.

Another positive is the stellar soundtrack - the non-era hip hop and electro slip in effortlessly - and Luhrmann's love of the text, its heavy symbolism, and its weighty themes is obvious.

Far less effective is Luhrmann's extensive reliance on greenscreening and CG work. It looks terrible. If it's meant to demonstrate the falsehoods swimming around some of the characters, mission accomplished. But generally it's just rubbish and there must have been other ways of demonstrating the fakeness of the society in which the characters live that didn't look like total crap.

This adaptation goes so close to being definitive in places, but is frequently annoying, particularly in the first act.

Like Gatsby himself, it comes so close to achieving its dream, only to fall agonisingly and frustratingly short.

REWIND REVIEW: Jurassic Park

(PG) ★★★★★

Director: Steven Spielberg.

Cast: Sam Neill, Laura Dern, Jeff Goldblum, Richard Attenborough, Bob Peck, Martin Ferrero, B. D. Wong, Samuel L. Jackson, Wayne Knight, Joseph Mazzello, Ariana Richards.

Parking inspectors are pretty ballsy in Jurassic Park.

We take computer-generated imagery (CGI) for granted these days, but there was a moment in 1993 when it dawned as the future of film-making, laid out on the big screen for all to see in a single moment of wonder.

That moment was when the power of pixels brought the long-extinct brachiosaurus back to life, walking casually across a green pasture and eating from the tallest trees in Spielberg's box office-busting and ground-breaking Jurassic Park.

Like Dr Alan Grant (Neill) and Dr Ellie Sattler (Dern) in that particular scene, audiences were stunned - the awe portrayed by those two characters mirrored the reaction of those looking up at the big screen in darkened theatres around the world.

It was a jaw-dropping, magical moment. Sure, CGI had been used before, as far back as Tron and The Last Starfighter, and more recently in The Abyss and Terminator 2: Judgment Day.

But here was a photo-realistic dinosaur. In broad daylight. No jerky stop-motion, "go motion", or in-camera trickery. It was as if they'd found a brachiosaurus and put it on the screen.

Here was a long-dead creature brought back to life through the powers of science in a film about long-dead creatures being brought back to life through the powers of science. It was a perfect storm of the technology not only catching up with the ideas, but featuring in the right idea. No wonder the film broke all box office records, and was the biggest grossing film in the world (until Titanic came along four years later and sank it).

Twenty years on, without that context of the thrill of the new, Jurassic Park exists now as one of the pinnacles of popcorn cinema - a terrific thrill ride that is more than just the sum of its special effects.

Re-released in 3D for its anniversary (an effect which proves unnecessary but not distractingly so), it's a delight to see this back on the big screen, if only to remind us all of how good the film is.

Its high concept kick-off remains tantalising; what if we could bring back dinosaurs? And from that springboard, Michael Crichton's novel (developed as a script by Crichton and David Koepp) spins a man-versus-nature story laced with the dangers of science, human humility, and dashes of Crichton's directorial debut Westworld and its out-of-control theme park plot.

The screenplay is perfectly balanced, in spite of its much picked-at plot-holes, such as the sudden appearance of a steep drop into the T-Rex paddock, or how the T-Rex manages to sneak up on the heroes in the film's climax. Spielberg, who would follow this with its polar opposite Schindler's List, takes the script's ups and downs in his stride, his pacing and tone not that dissimilar to his work on Raiders Of The Lost Ark.

The technique he accidentally perfected in Jaws thanks to a malfunctioning shark is played out repeatedly and effectively throughout, and it's amazing how satisfying the reveal of each new and potentially dangerous creature is, which is testament to Spielberg and his editor Michael Kahn.

The script introduces its characters swiftly and cleverly - the practical, child-phobic paleontogist Dr Alan Grant (Neil), his enthusiastic and tenacious partner Dr Ellie Sattler (Dern), the charismatically odd mathematician Dr Ian Malcolm (Goldblum), and the Icarus-like visionary John Hammond (Attenborough) are all shown to us through economical but natural dialogue, intelligent performances and smart direction. Malcolm's not-so-subtle wooing of Sattler, Hammond's sudden appearance in Grant's trailer, and Grant's solution to his seatbelt problems are telling examples of the old screenwriters' axiom "show, don't tell".

Maybe some of the effects aren't quite as perfect now, but it's barely noticeable and just nit-picking. When that T-Rex appears out of the stormy darkness, it's still one of the most awe-inspiring sights cinema provided in the '90s, if not ever. And maybe Dern's acting is a tad over-the-top, and the film plays a little loose with the science, but Jurassic Park is a how-to guide for structuring a multi-character disaster film.

That fact often gets ignored in the face of the mind-blowing special effects, but if this was merely a movie with pixel-perfect dinosaurs, I doubt we'd care about it as much 20 years on.

Iron Man 3

(M) ★★★

Director: Shane Black.

Cast: Robert Downey Jr, Gwyneth Paltrow, Guy Pearce, Ben Kingsley, Don Cheadle, Rebecca Hall.

It's better than drinking alone.

THE good news is Iron Man 3 is better than Iron Man 2. The bad news is it still can't live up to the excellence of the first film.

It's a shame really. This could be Robert Downey Jr's last film as Tony Stark (his contract is up) and if he should bow out, it would have been great to see him go out on a high.

Not that Iron Man 3 is a total misfire. It features some of the best moments of the trilogy, but it does feel a bit like a missed opportunity. There is so much good material in here - almost too much - that the story barrels along like a learner driver, hanging on for dear life and only just keeping things under control as it swerves wildly through traffic, jumping a few kerbs along the way.

The set-up involves Stark struggling to deal with the fallout from the alien attack on New York (as seen in The Avengers), which has left him with insomnia and a kind of post-traumatic stress disorder.

While he compulsively tinkers and builds in his Iron Man workshop, a terrorist dubbed The Mandarin (Kingsley) has been unleashing terrifying explosions across the US, including one that severely injures Stark's friend Happy (Jon Favreau). This leads Stark to issue a threat against The Mandarin, jeopardising himself and his girlfriend Pepper Potts (Paltrow).

There's so much to like here. Stark's issues following the events of The Avengers make for an intriguing character development, the use of the Extremis virus (much-loved in the comics) is interesting, and the rogue's gallery of villains such as The Mandarin, scientist Aldrich Killian (Pearce) and a team of Extremis soldiers is enjoyable.

Also thrown into the mix well is Captain Rhodes (Cheadle), whose Iron Man-like persona of War Machine has been rebranded as Iron Patriot, much to Stark's amusement.

The level of comedy that has been a consistent triumph of the series is certainly here, although the film does tend to the wacky end of the humour spectrum a few times.

And with such a talented cast, it almost goes without saying that the performances are uniformly excellent, particularly Downey Jr, Pearce and Kingsley.

As for those "best moments of the trilogy" previously mentioned, a "barrel of monkeys" skydiving sequence is awesome, the final battle has some cool pieces, and there's some Spielberg-like magic in Stark's interaction with a young boy named Harley, although it's wonderfully subverted by director Shane Black and Drew Pearce's script and zippy dialogue.

So where's the problem?

Well, there are plot issues that are difficult to discuss without giving away spoilers, but one example is the government's efforts to find The Mandarin appear to have been non-existent until the story called for them, yet Stark can find him when he needs to. The involvement of certain characters is also questionable, while the finale's wrap-up of everything is way, way too neat to the point of ridiculousness. There are other leaps made and it's hard to tell after one viewing whether the script is being subtle or asking the audience to fill in a few too many gaps.

Iron Man 3 almost suffers from Too Many Villains Syndrome, which is a common affliction with superhero sequels, and the film struggles to keep all its characters and subplots in focus throughout. As mentioned, it seems to be a case of having too much good material.

Having said all that, the more I think about Iron Man 3, the more I like it. The initial feeling walking out of the cinema was one of mild disappointment. There were questions, things that didn't stack up. It probably begs a repeat viewing, in which case I reserve the right to change my star-rating down the track.

But for now, my gut tells me this is a three-star film, and hopefully not the last time we see Downey Jr as ol' Shellhead.

The Croods

(PG) ★★★

Director: Kirk DeMicco, Chris Sanders.

Cast: (voices of) Nicolas Cage, Emma Stone, Ryan Reynolds, Catherine Keener, Clark Duke, Cloris Leachman.

Outside the cave - McDonald's restaurants, as far as the eye can see.

SCHOOL holidays are usually a time when you put away the learnin' books and break out the fun, which makes The Croods the perfect school holiday fare.

That's because despite being set in prehistoric times and focusing on a family of Neanderthals, you won't learn anything about life 100,000 years ago, but you may enjoy yourself.

This is the latest computer-animated feature from Dreamworks Animation, who have been on a winning streak of great family films lately (their last five films are Megamind, Kung Fu Panda 2, Puss In Boots, Madagascar 3, and Rise Of The Guardians).

The Croods is a weird blend of familiar ideas, where a Flintstones-like family goes on an Ice Age 4-type adventure through an Avatar-esque world. They are led by Grug (Cage), whose motto of "never not be afraid" has kept his family alive while secluded in a cave.

But the curiousity of his eldest daughter Eep (Stone), combined with a serious case of continental drift, means The Croods are about to discover there's a great big world outside the dark hole they call home. History gets replaced with fantasy in this version of prehistoric Earth, which is populated by turtlebirds, owl cats, piranhabirds, giant sabre-tooth kittens, mouse-aphants, and crocodogs. 

It's a weird world but it generates a sense of wonder via its lush animation. Equally fantastical is the movie's portrayal of its prehistoric humanoids. One minute, The Croods are presented as being like animals, the next they're discussing their feelings and emotions, and behaving like a thoroughly modern version of mankind.

Less uneven is the film's sense of humour and adventure. It barrels along at a solid pace, stopping appropriately for its emotional notes, but all the while embracing a bone-breaking level of slapstick.

Luckily these characters are seemingly impervious to all injuries and accidents, including falling from great heights and being crushed by giant rocks... repeatedly. This does take some of the sense of danger out of the film, but does provide some good laughs.

Nic Cage's distinctive delivery is slightly distracting, but there is humour to be had from Stone's Eep, love interest Guy (Reynolds) and his cute pet sloth called Belt, and the comic sidekick grandma (Leachman).

It's this knack for laughs and a rollicking good time that helps the film overcome its deficiencies, which also include a distractingly over-the-top score from Alan Silvestri.

Another plus is the strong characters, who cover up for the movie being too ludicrous in places. If only the film had been brave enough to go for the super-powerful, stick-in-the-memory ending that it flirts with instead of the silly way out it took, then we might have had something truly worthy on our hands. Instead, this is just uneven fun. Nothing more, nothing less.

Oz The Great & Powerful

This is a version of a review that aired on ABC Ballarat Breakfast on March 15, 2013.

(PG) ★★★

Director: Sam Raimi.

Cast: James Franco, Mila Kunis, Michelle Williams, Rachel Weisz, Zach Braff, Joey King.

Hobart sure did look pretty this time of year.

A PREQUEL to The Wizard Of Oz? Who would be fool enough to try to emulate such a landmark piece of movie-making?

After all, such cinematic lightning has never struck twice for the many reimaginings of L Frank Baum's beloved story through the years. The dark 1985 sequel Return To Oz, the 1976 Aussie rock'n'roll version Oz, the 1978 African-American take The Wiz, The Muppets' Wizard Of Oz - the best any of these has achieved is a status as a cult favourite, and none of them have come close to reaching the lofty heights the 1939 classic.

This belated predecessor would like to think it's cut from the same cloth as the film that it's prequeling, but really this is more like Tim Burton's recent adaptation of Alice In Wonderland. It collects familiar tics and tricks from its source, tries to mould a solid story to some sketchy background information, and it does it all with an over-abundance of shiny computer-generated imagery.

In the context of what it's up against, what had come before, and what director Sam Raimi and scriptwriters David Lindsay-Abaire and Mitchell Kapner are trying to do, Oz The Great And Powerful is as good as it could be.

It tells the story of how a carnival magician named Oscar Diggs ended up in the magical land of Oz and ended up becoming its Wonderful Wizard.

In spite of the film's propensity to answer questions no one was asking (Why is the wicked witch wicked? Why does she fly on a broom? What's the deal with that wizard guy?), it's a solid-enough look at one man's journey to overcome his own caddishness and become a good man.

Standing between Oscar and the incalculable riches of the Emerald City are three witches (played by Kunis, Williams and Weisz), and the movie's main conceit is figuring out which one is good, which one is wicked, and which one is a homicidal maniac.

The familiarities are innocuous enough and mostly endearing - the black-and-white real world changing into the colour of Oz is done well, there is a selection of anthropomorphic creatures to join Oscar on his journey, there's a reference to a cowardly lion, and the tricks that the wizard would later hide behind are used as plot points.

Wisely, Oz The Great And Powerful is not a musical, and it makes a slightly predictable but still worthwhile joke about the fact.

It certainly looks a million dollars (or $200 million apparently) and most of the CGI is pretty good, even if it is over-the-top and filled with unnecessary detours as opposed to necessary details.

There are some decent family laughs in there and the characters are fleshed out reasonably well. Franco is good and gets strong support from the trio of witches, particularly Kunis and Weisz.

Overall the film is decent-enough. It was never going to be exceptional and it was going to be impossible for it to match the wonder of its 1939 follow-up. The story is too constrained by what comes next when Judy Garland's Dorothy arrives to be surprising or feel fresh, but Oz The Great And Powerful is adequate for a film that no one was asking for. 

Cloud Atlas

(MA15+) ★★

Director: Tom Tykwer & The Wachowskis.

Cast: Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Jim Broadbent, Hugo Weaving, Jim Sturgess, Doona Bae, Ben Whishaw, Hugh Grant, Susan Sarandon, James D'Arcy.

Rainbow Serpent Festival was really going off this year.

DAVID Mitchell's tour de force novel Cloud Atlas is a sprawling, epoch-spanning marvel that's as entertaining as it is ambitious.

It's also one of those books that was always going to be difficult to turn into a film.

As a movie, Cloud Atlas is as bold as the novel. However, it is predominantly a noble defeat - compressing Mitchell's six segments and endless interwining themes into a streamlined narrative proves beyond the grasp of The Wachowskis (The Matrix trilogy, Speed Racer), Tom Tykwer (Perfume, Run Lola Run) and a willing cast.

The six stories span almost five centuries and in Mitchell's book they run sequentially forward, then back again to the beginning, but in the film they are edited together into a mass of parallel stories that jump back and forth between each other.

In 1849, lawyer Adam Ewing (Sturgess) is battling illness on a trans-Pacific voyage. In England, 87 years later, musician Robert Frobisher (Whishaw) is reading Ewing's journal while helping composer Vyvyan Ayrs (Broadbent) write his symphonies. In San Francisco in 1973, journalist Luisa Rey (Berry) discovers Frobisher's letters to his lover while she investigates corruption at a nuclear power plant.

Luisa's story ends up as a manuscript in the hands of publisher Timothy Cavendish (Broadbent) in present day England, where Cavendish is fleeing unhappy clients only to end up trapped in an old folks' home. His story is eventually made into a movie that transfixes Sonmi-451 (Bae), a clone in Neo Seoul in 2144, who is whisked from her regimented life by a freedom fighter (Sturgess) with the intention of using her as a figurehead and catalyst for social upheaval in the corporatocracy they live in. And finally there is Zachry (Hanks), whose people worship Sonmi in a post-apocalyptic 2321.

As you can likely guess, jumping back and forth between these tales is disconcerting, distracting and disruptive. Despite the best efforts of the directors and their editor, Cloud Atlas struggles to maintain momentum or allow an ongoing connection with the characters.

It does allow the film to play up the links that run through the segments though, which are tied together by ideas about past lives, reincarnation, and an undying spirit of survival and determination that runs through humanity, as well as themes of prejudice, love, regret, redemption, freedom, and oppression.

It's these ideals and concepts that give Cloud Atlas a depth that may come to be appreciated over multiple viewings (if you can handle the 172-minute running time). Moments fly by, narratives are set aside almost randomly, and the individual vernacular and style of each story thread can take some time to adjust to, particularly Zachry's post-apocalyptic tale, which is told in a pidgin English that is a struggle to follow at times. But going back to soak it in again and again could make this film a rich experience that rewards over time - it's likely this is destined for cult status.

Watching it first time through, however, will leave many cold. It's scattershot approach is distancing, despite the best efforts of the cast, who appear in multiple roles though some ingenious make-up work, further highlighting the links between the different time periods, albeit in an occasionally distracting and slightly confusing way.

There's a lot to like about Cloud Atlas and the effort to adapt Mitchell's novel should be applauded. Unfortunately it doesn't quite fit together - it's big ideas and ambitious plotting fly by at the expense of having an engaging story that builds emotion and connects to an audience.

Ultimately, it's a scattershot film that courageously tries to incorporate as much of the novel as possible, only to find it doesn't translate well from the page.