Review: Chronicle (12A) / Director: Josh Trank / Screenplay: Max Landis / Starring: Dane Dehaan, Alex Russell, Michael B. Jordan / Release date: February 1st

Mixing elements from teen, horror, sci-fi and superhero flicks, Max Landis has crafted a strong script that is complimented by great direction from Josh Trank, resulting in a fresh entry into the already crowded ‘found footage’ genre.

The story revolves around three teenagers who gain super powers from a mysterious source and soon find their lives spinning out of control. Andrew (Dane Dehaan) is struggling with a life filled with abuse and sadness so decides to film everything with a handheld camera, chronicling his existence. The first part of the film is seen through Andrew’s eyes, spanning the high school corridors and teen cliques who bully him on a daily basis. He is an observer and a victim to his alcoholic father’s angry outbursts who is tormented by the fact that his wife is bedridden from illness. Andrew’s character and background are developed well and the domestic abuse scenes are chillingly real. Dane Dehaan moves from an awkward, shy teenager to one bristling with confidence convincingly. His character provides the crux of the film’s turn into darkness and his ability to deliver a strong performance raises the film miles above the many others in the found footage genre.

The teen element of the film is handled well, with Matt (Alex Russell) and Steve (Michael B. Jordan) both well rounded characters, who at first seem to fit into the usual stereotypes, but as their friendship and powers grow so do their characters. All too often the importance of good characters are overlooked; sometimes for special effects or gore but Landis and Trank have written a script that tells a dark tale of teen angst and misuse of power that still allows for those thrilling moments of spectacle. The witty banter between teenage boys is there but so is the intimacy of a friendship born out a secret.

Rather than focusing on how they came about their powers the film looks into how they harness them – they use their powers to impress and have a bit of fun, as any teenager would. The well-adjusted Matt and Steve encourage Andrew to use his powers as they do, but his dark past means he struggles with how to use his newfound abilities. The initial excitement wears off as they begin to deal with the consequences of their actions.

There are moments of gore, including some bloody teeth pulling and well-placed humour as the friends bond over a series of practical jokes. It’s witty, yet goes to extremely dark places and its sharp observations of teenage strife make it extremely engaging. Andrew’s state of mind as the film progresses is portrayed well through his actions; his sinister downward spiral is depicted with an epic final act that is both terrifying and inventive.

Director Trank moves away from footage solely shot by Andrew in the latter half utilising mobile phones, security tapes and some shots from a female vlogger who acts as a love interest to Matt. Wanting to include some more intimate father and son moments makes the reasoning behind why certain footage is available questionable though. Trank manages to pull this back with a raucous finale that will keep you engrossed. Much is left unexplained at the end of the film, but a satisfying conclusion is still reached.

Overall, Chronicle is a superbly orchestrated and well thought out film that doesn’t rely on special effects to lift it out of the lazy habits of many Hollywood blockbusters. An exciting and refreshing spin on the superhero movie and an extremely promising debut. This writer/director duo has the potential to make an impact on the film world; we can’t wait to see what they come up with next.

Expected rating: 8 out of 10

Actual rating:

Review: Blood Car (TBC) / Director: Alex Orr / Screenplay: Alex Orr / Starring: Mike Brune, Katie Rowlett, Anna Chlumsky / Release date: 24th February (in selected UK cinemas), 30th July (DVD)

Blood Car, written and directed by newcomer Alex Orr, caused a bit of a stir at the Edinburgh Film Festival 2008, the Cinequest Film Festival and the Toronto After Dark Festival and over-excited film critics have waxed lyrical about it ever since, to the extent that one even called it ‘the best Goddamned indie movie ever.’ Having not seen every indie movie ever made I really couldn’t comment but, intrigued by its rapturous reception and, always one for a movie about a car powered by blood, I slipped the preview disc with some trepidation into the hungry mouth of my DVD player.

Here’s the thing. Blood Car is actually pretty good. Where cheap UK horror movies tend to involve zombies and generally don’t have a lot going for them, American indie cinema usually tends to be a bit more inventive and is very often the breeding ground for talents which go on to create more perverse, bigger budget pictures which nip at the heels of the Hollywood studios and make them sit up and take notice. Alex Orr’s dark, dark comedy is a real triumph of style and content over lack of budget; it’s raw and uncompromising yet it’s clearly got its tongue planted firmly in its cheek, designed to amuse as much as it’s designed to titillate and terrify. We’re in the near-future where fuel prices are so astronomically high hardly anyone can afford to drive any more and the countryside is littered with graveyards of abandoned motor vehicles. Gawky vegan Kindergarden teacher Archie Andrews (Brune) is busily trying to invent an alternative engine which will run on wheatgrass but his experiments come to nothing until an accident causes the mixture to combine with drops of his own blood. His car’s engine springs to life… Obviously Archie can’t keep fuelling the car from his own veins so he sets about finding alternative sources of energy, starting with small animals but it quickly becomes apparent that, to keep his car on the road at all costs, he has to find something with considerably more blood. Before long he’s installed his pulverising fuel-extraction system into the boot (sorry,trunk) of the car and, despite his vegan lifestyle, he’s soon bundling anyone he can lay his hands on – a car-jacker, a disabled war veteran, a busty hitch-hiker – into the back of the car so he can keep his wheels and impress his sex-mad new girlfriend Denise (Rowlett). His activities have also caught the eye of a bunch of rather inept Government agents who are closing in for the kill…

Made in 2007 and debuting in 2008, it’s taken a while for Blood Car to find its way to UK cinemas (where it’ll enjoy a limited theatrical release at the end of February before arriving on DVD in July) but it’s a guilty pleasure worth tracking down if only because it’s just so bizarre. The American dream is, it seems, all about possessing a decent set of wheels – Archie becomes an irresistible attraction to women just because he’s got a working car – and Archie’s own vegan principles quickly go by the board when he realises what he has to gain just by staying on the road. Quirky and irreverent, determinedly lo-fi in attitude, Blood Car is often laugh-out loud funny and even its occasional bouts of pumping blood-letting have a shambolic charm about them which make them more amusing than horrific and Brune’s geeky, disturbed Archie is a likable lead even as he’s routinely slaughtering anyone he can lay his hands on. Blood Car’s message – keeping America in fuel is more important than life itself – is hammered home to an extreme in the last few minutes, but the film remains a quietly-accomplished little effort with a sparse, witty script directed with real verve and intelligence by Orr. He’s one to watch and so is Blood Car; you’d be a fuel to miss it.

Expected rating: 4 out of 10

Actual rating:

X: Night of Vengeance (18) / Director: Jon Hewitt / Screenplay: Jon Hewitt, Belinda McClory / Starring:Viva Bianca, Hanna Mangan Lawrence, Peter Docker, Stephen Phillips / Release date: Out now (in selected UK cinemas), Feb 20th (DVD)

X (as it was known in the US) may take place on the streets of Sydney but the central characters could be in any inner city underbelly, anywhere in the world. The workers in the oldest profession have been the subject of many films over the years, but one thing is for sure, this is NO Pretty Woman.

Holly (Viva Bianca) has had enough of her job. She is paid well, does not have to work the streets but she is tired of the duplicity her chosen role has caused, pulling off her short, bobbed dark hair wig to reveal lovely long blonde locks, at 30 she is ready to hang up her thigh highs for a new life in Paris. Her work involves staging a live sex show for a group of middle aged high society women, who sit watching as if they are at a WI cake making demonstration, not even looking up to see their champagne glasses be re-filled. Shay (Hanna Mangan Lawrence) on the other hand, is new to the streets, not all together comfortable with what she must do to get enough money to eat. The best she can hope for is to get paid for a quick hand job and not have the money taken from the local pimp and his crack whores.

After a slow build up the pair team up for what will be Holly’s last job. Trouble is, things get out of hand when they become witnesses to a double cross drug deal and they spend the rest of the night running from a cop, Bennett (Stephen Phillips) who has murdered their client and now wants to do the same to them.

After the first half of sleaze, sex and grime, the ferocious second half comes as quite a jolt. Sure, earlier Shay is punched to the ground and threatened by the pimp, but that is nothing compared to what is to follow. While not as nasty and unrelenting as some films we’ve endured in the past year or so, it still packs quite a punch. The film is very dark, in more ways than one, since almost all the action, save for the opening and closing shots, take place at night, but that is not to say it uses the dark to hide in, we are exposed to the dirty, drug ridden underbelly of the inner city in a quite unflinching way.

Director/co-writer Jon Hewitt has come a long way since his 1992 début, the pretty damn awful vampire heist film, Bloodlust. Here, he has made a stylish but totally realistic view of the subject. At times the first half could be a fly on the wall documentary, with very little music used to lead the scenes and it works all the better for it.

X is more proof of the talent Australia has to offer at the moment, there have been several very good genre films come from down under in the past few years (Storage, The Tunnel, Snowtown) and you can add X to the list too. It is gritty and brutal at times, but once the pair become the pursued it hardly takes its foot of the pedal, right up to its sombre, quite downbeat but ultimately honest ending.

Review: The Woman in Black (12A) / Director: James Watkins / Screenplay: Jane Goldman / Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Ciaran Hinds, Janet McTeer, Liz White, Alisa Khazanova, Tim McMullan, Roger Allam, Daniel Cerqueira, Shaun Dooley, Mary Stockley, Cathy Sara, David Burke, Victor McGuire, Lucy May Barker / Release date: (UK) February 10th, (US) February 3rd

The Woman in Black, Susan Hill’s 1983 novel, was adapted by Nigel Kneale for television in 1989 (shown on ITV) and screened once again in 1994 (on Channel 4). The huge success of the stage play, however, has been its true lasting legacy.

Whilst the TV movie took some liberties, Jane Goldman’s screenplay moves even further away from the source in a mission to bring about fresh subtext on grieving, new narrative angles and some quintessential British humour. There’s also very much what Anne Billson described in her BFI Classics monograph of The Thing (1982) as Chinatown Syndrome (as reference to Roman Polanski’s 1974 classic). This being the sense that what unfolds is ‘melancholy destiny’. This isn’t apparent in Hill’s original work nor the television show or play.

Goldman, in the run up to production, mentioned the influence of Japanese horror on her adaptation but therein lies a major problem with this film, bar the casting of Daniel Radcliffe, who is far too young for the role given his character is lumbered with a four year old boy and dead wife. It feels less like a J-horror film and more the poorer US variety; complete with over-use of CGI. It’s quite admirable The Woman in Black tries to deliver something a bit different yet the book’s simplicity and refreshing use of a curse – and gothic environment – provided more than enough base material for a great telling. It’s sad to report Goldman and director James Watkins’ take is too much of one thing and not enough of the other. And what is this other? The answer is: subtlety.

Arthur Kipps is already a haunted man in the film’s opening moments. His wife died in child birth and he’s a young widower with a child. Daniel Radciffe is twenty-two years old and all early marriage and unfortunate death is entirely feasible, it’s just a bit of a stretch for the guy playing Arthur Kipps. He’s still a kid. This role really needed a stronger actor, slightly older.

Radcliffe is very good as Kipps. He’s just got a backstory that sets its own agenda and causes a few wobbles. Kipps’ heartache also clearly spells out his doom from the off and this lessens the denouement. The foreboding in Hill’s book and even the television movie becomes signposted – quite clearly – from the start. 

Kipps is sent off to Crythin Gifford on assignment by his boss. Geographically it’s ambiguous, but one would suggest Lincolnshire. He’s tasked with sorting out paperwork of a recently deceased client, a reclusive old lady named Alice Drablow.

Goldman ramps up the supernatural aspect from the opening scene in which the ghost basically hypnotises children into committing suicide. ‘Never forgive’ is the ghost’s raison d’etre and this sense of unstoppable killing is both scary and quite silly in the way it’s handled. At one point the film literally tells the audience – via ghostly voiceover – just in case they don’t ‘get it’. Subtle insinuation and chills are lost for old fashioned – and very American – jumps and scares. Some are good and some are bad.

The scenes with a solitary Kipps walking around the old house and super-creepy island (now realised in gloriously OTT gothic fashion) are strong and only punctured by overuse of CGI. A good example of this occasional misfiring occurs when Arthur sees what looks like a face in a top floor window. He looks up and registers a vaguely spooky face, thinks nothing of it, then it lurches backward into the darkness of the room, out of view, wearing a menacing grimace. The first part of this short scene is genuinely spooky, the second part overcooked.

Watkins and Goldman also deal with the woman in black’s curse as existing unambiguously, hence all the ghostly pyrotechnics, melting faces and sudden rushes of terror. All the villagers are not superstitious: they believe and live under constant terror. If this was made a few decades ago it would pass for political allegory. The other main character, Daly (Ciarán Hinds), insists he doesn’t believe in the curse but we know he’s lying from the off.

Before Kipps sets off on his assignment that becomes a misguided but honourable mission, he invites his boy and carer to holiday with him after finishing up. This provides a third act race-against-time as the woman in black, although reunited with her boy thanks to Arthur’s help in a spot of grave-digging, might well claim his son because ‘never forget, never forget’ is the malevolent ghost’s angst-driven message. Children’s souls are for the taking – Freddy Krueger style. Sorrow and anger is forged into a supernatural vendetta is a superb angle for folklore, but weakened by clumsy parallels drawn between Kipps and the ghost.

As mentioned, some things this movie gets right. There’s a nicely done Hammer Horror atmosphere and some brilliant set-pieces. The art design and cinematography boast excellent qualities and it features the scariest looking Victorian dolls in screen history. The glassy-eyed toys are lit with a great sense of comic terror and one even possesses jagged teeth. This oppressive décor is ramped up to the max.

However what is meant to be an inescapable curse thrust upon an innocent man turns into stale tragedy because, well, he’s a sad heart who wouldn’t possibly mind dying so he can be reunited with his dead wife now he’s got proof another plain of existence exists.

Neither does Watkins’ film equal the brilliantly mounted scare involving Kipps waking up at night and finding the woman in black staring at him inches from his face. Instead, we get a film where creeping fear is replaced by well-timed scares much like a ghost train. The Woman in Black could have been a genuine classic, but too much meddling with a fine novel and J-horror flourishes nullify the cause. The play radicalised aspects to fit with the restrictive setting of a theatre but film (like literature) is freedom to imagine. This new screen adaptation, whilst pursuing new avenues, feels strangely unsatisfying.

Expected rating: 8 out of 10

Actual rating:

Review: Red Tails / Cert: TBC/ Directed by: Anthony Hemingway / Screenplay by: John Ridley, Aaron McGruder / Starring: Nate Parker, David Oyelowo, Cuba Gooding Jr, Terrence Howard, Tristan Wilds / Release date: June 6th

Putting the ‘dog’ in dog-fighting, George Lucas’s purported swan song shows plenty of promise in its early stages but ultimately takes a nosedive. Based on the real-life exploits of the Tuskegee Airmen, a group of black World War II fighter pilots who overcame racial prejudice to kick seven bells out of the Luftwaffe, Red Tails favours whiz bang heroics over historical grit.

Conceived by Lucas to be an inspirational yarn for young black men and a tribute to the bravery of the airmen themselves, the filmmaker’s intentions are undoubtedly noble. Unfortunately, aside from some spirited performances and strong digital effects, the quality of the finished product is patchy at best. Although the Star Wars mogul executive produces rather than directs, leaving TV veteran Hemingway (The Wire, True Blood) to call the shots, Red Tails, for better or worse, feels very much like a Lucas film.

Stationed in Italy in 1944, the Tuskegee Airmen are considered inferior by the military top brass, represented here by Bryan Cranston’s (Breaking Bad) racist officer. With the men longing for a real mission that will let them show their worth, their colonel, AJ Bullard (Howard), fights to get them a real assignment, while the stalwart Major Stance (Gooding Jr) does his best to keep the pilots’ morale up and their skills sharp.

This lack of combat, however, is driving hot shot pilot Joe ‘Lightning’ Little (Oyelowo) to take bigger and bigger risks, bringing him into conflict with his best friend, and captain, Marty ‘Easy’ Julian (Parker). Finally presented with a worthy mission, Easy leads his men to a stunning victory over the Nazis, and the Tuskegee Airmen begin to win some grudging respect.

Painting the tails of their planes a distinctive red and forging a reputation as the selfless defenders of vulnerable bomber squadrons, the men are soon getting the recognition they deserve. As Easy’s drinking and Lightning’s recklessness put the other Red Tails in jeopardy, however, the men must battle both the Nazis and their own demons to survive.

Star Wars fans will be well-aware that George Lucas based his space battles on footage from old WWII movie dogfights and Red Tails allows him to further demonstrate his love of blending kinetic action and breakneck editing to create memorable mid-air melees. What’s more, apart from a couple of dodgy background shots, the CGI is top notch and in many sequences only experts will be able to tell the digital planes from the real thing.

Lucas has long been dogged with accusations that his films suffer from corny dialogue and Red Tails has plenty, although the main players do a fantastic job of giving their lines some spark. Tristan Wilds (The Wire) as the naive Raygun, rapper Ne-Yo as the deadpan Smoky, and Andre Royo (another Wire alumnus) as cranky mechanic Coffee form a fun ensemble cast who imbue the thin material with humour, vigour and charm.

Old hands Howard and Gooding Jr also manage to do a lot with a little, squeezing real emotional weight out of lines that would be lacklustre in lesser actors’ hands. Parker and Oyelowo are also endearing as the flawed heroes, but again it’s the material that lets them down. Easy’s alcohol problem is woefully underdeveloped, as is Lightning’s romance with a local Italian girl; the latter being so lifeless and perfunctory it brings to mind the Anakin/Padme love affair from the Star Wars prequels. The racial prejudice that the Tuskegee Airmen face is also dealt with in the broadest of strokes, and while this might be in keeping with the bright and breezy tone of an unabashed adventure yarn, it’s a missed opportunity to bolster the flimsy plot with some resonant drama.

Just as the Tuskegee Airmen fought to keep their planes in the air, it seems that the cast of Red Tails are fighting to do the same for Lucas’s film, and they almost succeed. It’s a series of mishandled elements that ultimately shoot it out of the sky, however, from the ill-fitting score, to the strange decision to slap obtrusive opening credits over a stunning opening sequence, to a POW plot strand that is executed with hum-drum indifference.

Perhaps most jarring of all is the voice work of the bomber pilots who comment on the exploits of the Red Tails in a grating monotone that makes Hayden Christensen sound like Laurence Olivier. Add to this a script that runs out of steam half-way before barrelling towards an abrupt and very unsatisfying ending and you have an adventure film that takes off really well before coming in for a nasty crash landing.

Expected rating: 8 out of 10

Actual rating:

Review: Underworld – Awakening (18) / Directed by: Mans Marlind, Bjorn Stein / Screenplay by: Len Wiseman, John Hlavin, J Michael Straczynski, Allison Burnett / Starring: Kate Beckinsale, Stephen Rea, Charles Dance, Kris Holden-Ried, India Eisley / Release date: Out Now

They’re back! The all-out battle for supremacy between the vampires and the werewolves (Lycans) is in full swing in this fourth entry into the increasingly-dreary Underworld franchise. Seriously, what’s the point in these movies now? Does anyone really care? Have they ever? There never seems to be much in the way of a buzz or even a hardcore fan-following for this stuff and yet, every two or three years, out rolls another one powered, presumably, by the decent box office returns the films generate without creating any real heat and certainly not displaying much originality or creative thought.

So here we go again and whilst there are one or two changes – Kate Beckinsale’s back in the leathers as kick-ass vampire Selena after sitting out the third movie – and director Len Wiseman (Kate’s hubby) is on screenplay duties this time (alongside, amongst others, J Michael Straczynski of Babylon 5 and Oscar-nominated, BAFTA-winning screenplay for the superb Clint Eastwood movie The Changeling – which makes you wonder how he got involved with lowbrow guff like this) – but otherwise it’s pretty much business as usual.

Selena wakes up from a twelve-year cryogenic sleep to find that not only has humankind been quietly eradicating the two supernatural species and that the werewolves are fighting back, working on a method to give themselves immunity against silver bullets but also that she has her own super-powered vampire daughter who’s attracting a lot of attention herself. Cue the usual bombardment of slo-mo gun battles – Beckinsale blazing away with her dual pistols – iffy werewolf CGI with a hefty dollop of 18 rating-earning gore as heads are torn off, throats ripped out, stomachs routinely gouged. 

This is all well and good; it’s loud and unsubtle and of course Kate B still looks foxy in her tight leathers (but not quite so sexy in one clumsy scene where she slides across the floor on her ass) but the Underworld films have always been – and still remain in this latest outing – so thunderingly dull. It’s odd because the idea of a centuries-long war between vamps and wolf men has always had such promise but the sub-Matrix realisation of the concept in this series has left it pretty much stone dead. The Underworld movies are so horribly po-faced and portentous (come on, someone gimme a smile; tell a joke!), visually dreary (the colour palette being predominantly grey with a bit of blood red thrown in here and there) and in Awakening we’re again treated to 3D so perfunctory it’s really barely noticeable. Part of the problem is that the series has fallen into the same trap which scuppered the second and third Blade movies; with little or no human interest save the odd cop or scientist, all we’re left with is two supernatural creatures which actually don’t exist beating each other up and without much immediate threat to humanity. The vampires and the wolves are so flat, unlikable and remote I really couldn’t care less who wins their interminable war as long as they stop making movies about it.

In truth I’ve never been much of a fan of this franchise. I bailed out after struggling through the second film (although there’s a boxset of all three sitting on my shelf somewhere – oh, who am I kidding, I’m a bloke, it’s filed away in the ‘U’ section) and Awakening isn’t likely to send me scurrying back to catch up with what I’ve missed. It’s not a bad film as such, dead-headed script aside. The action scenes are done with some flair, the last half-hour’s fairly frantic and energised and I was briefly diverted by what seemed to be the casting of Coldplay’s Chris Martin as a pumped-up werewolf (until I realised it was actually lookalike Kris Holden-Ried who had me similarly fooled in the Canadian fantasy drama TV series Lost Girl) and the final scene might as well have ended with a caption stating ‘Underworld will return in…’ such is the way it achingly sets up the inevitable sequel. 

Undemanding action fans and those who have taken to the series will probably find this entertaining enough but for me it’s not so much Underworld more ‘underwhelming’.

Expecting rating: 5 out of 10

Actual rating:

Review: The Muppets / Directed by: James Bobin / Screenplay by: Jason Segel, Nicholas Stoller / Starring: Jason Segel, Amy Adams, Chris Cooper, (voices of) Steve Whitmire, Eric Jacobson, Dave Goelz / Release date: February 10

Jim Henson’s felt-faced critters are back in their first major movie in years and it’s an all-singing, all-dancing extravaganza delivered with gleeful aplomb and a big pair of fart shoes. Co-written by and starring Segel, who demonstrated a nascent flair for puppetry in Forgetting Sarah Marshall, The Muppets drags Kermit & co into the modern age with a touching comeback story that’s as big on meta-textual gags as it is on heart.

Muppet aficionados will be aware that the franchise has been on the wane ever since the late nineties, with hits like 1992’s The Muppet Christmas Carol giving way to 1999 flop Muppets from Space and a number of lacklustre TV movies. While the beloved characters have been on the ropes rather than dangling from strings for the last few years, this riotous reboot hopes to reignite our passion for Henson’s big-hearted Muppet adventures and introduce the gang to a whole new generation of fans. 

The clever, self-referential premise sees mild-mannered muppet Walter (voiced by Peter Linz) growing up in a regular human family alongside brother Gary (Segel). Both huge fans of TVs The Muppet Show, the siblings schedule a visit to the famed Muppet Studio in Los Angeles as part of a romantic trip Gary is planning with his girlfriend, Mary (Adams). 

While Walter’s presence on the sojourn causes tension between Gary and Mary, more heartbreak comes when the young muppet discovers that the studio is practically in ruins and that unscrupulous tycoon Tex Richman (Cooper) is planning to buy the site and raze it to the ground. 

Learning that the only way to save the studio is to raise $10 million, Walter tracks down the reclusive Kermit the Frog and convinces him to reunite the original Muppet line-up for an all-star telethon. Travelling the world to locate the likes of Gonzo, Fozzy Bear, Animal and the inimitable Miss Piggy, the gang begins to reform, but Tex Richman will stop at nothing to prevent the Muppets from winning back their studio. Although the main thrust of the plot is charmingly simple ‘let’s put on a show’ stuff, The Muppets neatly touches on some surprisingly emotional themes, in particular the quest for personal identity. Walter’s growing realisation that he belongs amongst his fellow Muppets is really quite touching, as is Gary’s attempt to come to terms with the fact that he will eventually have to let his brother go. This coming-of-age plot crux is beautifully summed up in a sequence set to ‘Man or Muppet’, one of a number of pitch perfect songs penned by Flight of the Conchords star Bret McKenzie.

Of course, it wouldn’t be a Muppet movie without barnstorming musical set-pieces and Bobin’s film has several fantastically choreographed treats. Most notable is the delightfully perky opening sequence set to McKenzie’s ‘Life’s A Happy Song’ and a discotastic scene featuring ‘Me Party’ – an ode to the joys of being stood up – belted out with perfect comic timing by Adams.

Both Adams and Segel are as breezy and amiable as the good-natured script requires and there’s a string of cameos to keep celeb-spotters happy. That said, as with any Muppet movie, the real stars are the manic marionettes themselves. Despite reports that original Muppeteers, including Frank Oz, had disapproved of Segel and Stoller’s script, there’s little here that strays from Henson’s benign vision for his characters; although admittedly the inclusion of Fozzy Bear’s fart shoes and an impromptu punch up at a therapy session do push the boundaries a little. Anyone worried that the Muppets might have gone blue, however, should rest easy as the non-stop gags are the best kind of inspired silliness and devoid of anything remotely mean-spirited.

In the US, the film has been heavily criticised by right-wing TV channel Fox News for its perceived liberal bias and apparent demonisation of the wealthy in the form of Cooper’s broadly villainous Tex Richman. While the accusations are fairly ludicrous, The Muppets may well be a movie of the times, not so much through any kind of anti-capitalist messaging, but through its championing of unabashed optimism and plucky resilience in the face of adversity.

Coming in at a relatively lean 98 minutes, The Muppets does feel a little flabby in its last third and probably could have used an editorial trim to make the last reel as punchy as possible. Nevertheless, it still manages to build to a gloriously triumphant finale and, most importantly, captures the innocence, exuberance and sheer fun that first made The Muppets such an important part of our childhoods.

Expected rating: 8 out of 10

Actual rating:

Review: The Borrowers / Directed by: Tom Harper / Written by: Ben Vanstone / Starring: Aisling Loftus, Christopher Eccleston, Sharon Horgan, Charles Hiscock, Shaun Dooley, Victoria Wood, Stephen Fry, Robert Sheehan/ Released: December 26th, BBC One

This isn’t the first time Mary Norton’s quaint children’s book has been adapted for the screen. It’s been an early-1990s TV series, a big-screen 1997 version (featuring a pre-Malfoy Tom Felton, fact fans) and most recently a Studio Ghibli animation. But now the BBC are dusting off the rights again for this feature-length version to air on Boxing Day.

In this modernised take on the story, teenager Arrietty Clock and her parents Pod and Homily are the titular little people living under the floor boards of James Millman’s house, a young boy whose life has been torn apart first by the death of his mother, and then by the recession. But James’ Grandmother has tipped off the dissection-happy Professor Mildeye to their presence, and they’re forced to go on the run with sewer-wise Borrower Spiller as their reluctant guide.

The Borrowers has always been a kid’s story, and, as the 7.30pm scheduling suggests, it is still very much child-friendly. But thanks to clever casting it’ll guarantee itself an all-ages appeal. Christopher Eccleston surprisingly pops up as Pod, bringing some grit to the overprotective patriarch, while Pulling fans will be pleased to see Sharon Horgan bringing chemistry with Eccleston in her role as Homily, and Robert Sheehan alone should bring in a hefty fanbase, playing a Spiller who is basically a less-foul-mouthed, more-heroic Nathan. The real coup, though, was in persuading Stephen Fry to take a rare acting job as Professor Mildeye. He and his eccentric South African assistant steal the show and it leaves you wishing Fry would step out from behind the QI desk a little more often.

Despite a rather starry cast (did I forget to mention Victoria Wood?) this film is actually something of a test run for three relatively unknown key players. Writer Ben Vanstone has previously only written for Merlin and some soaps, but here he brings a wit and modernity to the rather staid source material, essentially turning it into a charming coming-of-age story. Director Tom Harper, who cut his teeth on the pretty-damn-awful ITV series Demons before moving onto more respectable fare with This is England ’86 and Misfits, brings a verve and pace to proceedings, coaxing an excellent performance out of child actor Charlie Hiscock as James, punching above his budget with the special effects and overseeing some truly spectacular sets.

The final bright young thing is Aisling Loftus as Arrietty, previously known for such unrelentingly grim dramas Dive and Five Daughters. She brings an eagerness and wonder to Arrietty, as well as a bravery initially born out of naivety but soon becoming the real thing. Rest assured, once The Borrowers airs her name will crop up in any discussion about who will be replacing Karen Gillan in Doctor Who.

The Borrowers is perfect Christmas TV viewing – joyous and exciting with inventive set-pieces, something that taps into your inner child without patronising you. The cast is uniformly brilliant and Vanstone and Harper have announced themselves as sci-fi/fantasy talent to watch. I’d be surprised if we didn’t soon get an announcement that the cast would be returning for another seasonal special in the near-future.

Review: Sherlock Holmes – A Game of Shadows (12A) /Directed by: Guy Ritchie / Screenplay by: Kieran and Michele Mulrooney /Starring: Robert Downey Jnr, Jude Law, Jared Harris, Noomi Rapace, Rachel McAdams, Stephen Fry / Release date: Out Now

The first Guy Ritchie directed Sherlock Holmes film was a lot of fun and genuinely a fresh take on the world’s greatest detective. It skillfully balanced the action elements with the intricate mystery plot and sowed the seeds for the introduction of Holmes’ arch nemesis Professor Moriarty. There was great chemistry between Robert Downey Jr and Jude Law and their buddy action comedy style banter was perfectly at home in a film produced by Joel Silver. Perhaps because of the enormous success of the first film and its more risky take on the myth of Sherlock Holmes, the makers have decided here to amplify the action elements in favour of the mystery and clever plotting. Whilst as an action adventure movie Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows works brilliantly and is two hours of fantastic entertainment, it still feels like a missed opportunity.

The story picks up some time after the events of the first film with Holmes investigating Professor Moriarty’s dastardly deeds and their connection with a series of bombings throughout Europe. During this introduction the problems with the screenplay are apparent straight away. Gone is the smartly dressed man in the shadows from the first movie, Moriarty as played by Jared Harris is just there straight away like nothing happened. It’s almost like two movies worth of plotting and story didn’t get made and we have picked up the thread of the story at film number four in the series because it feels like a lot has happened between the two arch enemies. There is an unexpected death of a major character from the first movie which sets the stakes fairly high for the rest of the film. After the introduction scenes we learn that Watson is about to finally be married and that Holmes is his best man. These scenes are fun and we get introduced to Holmes’ brother Mycroft, played brilliantly by Stephen Fry with just the right level of reservation and eccentricity. The stag party and wedding scenes, whilst amusing don’t really add a lot to the plot overall and just pad out an already flabby screenplay. Whilst on the stag party for Watson, Holmes meets a gypsy fortuneteller who is being targeted by Moriarty for reasons involving her missing brother. After Moriarty makes a direct threat against Watson’s life, Holmes has no choice but to tag along on the happy couple’s honeymoon and instead he and Watson embark on a breathless chase through Europe in order to find out Moriarty’s true plan.

There is nothing wrong with Jared Harris’ portrayal of Professor Moriarty, the actors unassuming appearance works well and suggests a whole fountain of evil rage behind the calm exterior. Had the role been played by someone like Gary Oldman then the expectation would have been for scene chewery which hasn’t happened here. The problem is Moriarty is supposed to be Holmes nemesis and the only villain ever truly worthy of challenging Holmes’ vast intellect and cunning. If you think of Holmes as Batman, then Moriarty would be the Joker. In this film Moriarty’s plan boils down to being the same as any number of Bond villains or villains from dumb Joel Silver produced action films from the 90s. It just feels like they went a completely different route with the character instead of really making this story a battle for the ages. I hate to do this because I think that they are completely different beasts but compare this film to the Sherlock BBC series for a moment. The plots in those episodes are some of the most brilliantly written television for quite some time. The manner in which they introduced Moriarty there was excellent – it made a lot of sense for the character and was actually kind of scary. If the film series could match writing that skilful with Guy Ritchie’s talent for directing action scenes then we could be talking classic movies here.

Whilst it may sound like I am quite down on this it’s really not a bad film at all. If you look at Game of Shadows through the prism of pure entertainment then it’s a roaring success. The comedy is amped up; Holmes gets even more eccentric here with his experiments and little quirks. Downey and Law’s chemistry is present and correct and they bicker and banter their way through the film and even get some of the fast becoming cliché bromance type scenes which deepen their friendship. There are some very expensive looking and brilliantly filmed action scenes with a great use of slow motion and pyrotechnics, the whole thing is very accomplished and technically impressive. It’s rollicking good fun throughout and a good bet for a great night out this Christmas. The finale happens to actually live up to all of the potential the sequel had and manages to be one of the best climaxes in a film this year without over reliance on explosions.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows is top notch entertainment and still one of the smarter blockbuster sequels to come out for many a year. It’s just a waste of a good villain and a potential classic has been lost.

Expected rating: 9 out of 10

Actual rating: