"Indiana Jones 4": No joke here today. It's a big enough joke as it is. Not that I accept its existance. IT DOES NOT EXIST.

"Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" "(2008)" Dir - Stephen Spielberg

**NB This film does NOT exist. Anyone who says otherwise is a danger to themselves and others and should be remanded in custody until a psychoanalyst can prescribe them the appropriate treatment for their delusions.**

Spielberg is one of the biggest names in the business. So is George Lucas. They share a common problem though. That being they don't know when to bloody well quit. Lucas is infamous of his ability to milk a franchise dry, most notably Star Wars, so he was the obvious choice when taking a classic adventure story of the 80's and rape it beyond comprehension to make a fast buck. Especially in the modern world of disposable income and retroflective teenagers, yearning for their childhood years of Christmas time and Raiders of the Lost Ark on television. I'm sorry to say, I'm one of those teenagers, so between the tears and screaming at my boxset of the good Star Wars films (before the invention of the horrifically Rastafarian frog man), I will be typing in lament. Thank Christ this film was never actually made and never blighted cinema history.

Subliminal advertising
was pretty poor before
development

I'll go back to Spielberg. He is regarded as one of the most influential men in cinema alive for good reason. He has produced 127 titles, directed 49 and written 21 proving he was always striving for quantity. He also starred in Austin Powers in Goldmember (2002) as "Famous Director", so he's been around the block to say the least. That said, it was Jaws (1975) that rocketed this man to stardom and two years later he hit big on a stupidly long and overrated film, Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977). However, in 1981, Raiders of the Lost Ark hit silver screens internationally and he was finally onto a winner. It is probably one of the greatest films ever made for its simplicity, quotable script and the fact is was original. Here we had a schoolteacher casting off the tweed blazer to go fight Nazis in a tomb for the Ark of the Covenant. No-one had done this before because no-one had thought it would work, but it did, and it deservedly earned a great revenue. However, this only encouraged Mr Spielberg.



Someone's not on BUPA



Fortunately, 3 years later in 1984, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom hit screens. This was immediately another cult classic, developing a following of its own on the back of its older brother. Once again, there were heavy religious overtones in this film and that is important because I will come onto this later.

Finally in 1989, Sean Connery got his (very Scottish) ass in the third of the franchise, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. This allowed for his American son to make complete sense. However, I will forgive it this as it is a superb film of a father and son bonding after many years of separation. However, this time they go in search of the Cup of Christ. Yes, the Holy Grail. My main disappointment with this film was that even its title of the **LAST** Crusade couldn't stop a fourth film being made. I mean, not made. The film does not exist. I refuse to admit its existence.

Now, unlike usual, this review will be filled with spoilers, mainly because it's not as though you can go see this film, it doesn't exist after all, but you do need to be warned of the utter pile of crap this film *could* have been.

Kingdom of the Crystal Skull- 12 inch figure

This film is off to a poor start as it sets the tone. Indiana Jones must take some Soviet forces (50's update from the Nazis and a tasty reference to the Cold War) to a crate in "Hanger 51" which has the body of an alien in it. Yes, it's going to be an alien movie. After he takes them to the crate he escapes on a rocket sled (no seriously) and ends up in a plywood town that is stereotypically 50's (it establishes the era without a cheap shot to a calendar). Unfortunately that town is actually a nuclear testing facility so when the red lights flash and the sirens go off, Indy climbs into a "LEAD LINED" fridge. He takes a direct hit from the nuke, is blown into the air, travels several miles and crashes, creating a huge crater, in the desert. This became such a popular scene, genuine action figures were created to celebrate this moment.

As regular readers might be aware, I hate fictional science, or "Crap" as I like to call it. Firstly, to approach the plausible; the lead lined fridge might have helped shield him from the radiation if he were several miles away. However, inexplicably, he gets radiation washed later. If you're going to stick to one story, make sure you stick to it and don't confuse matters later. Now, to assume the fridge protects him from the blast, he'd be roasted alive instantly from the intense heat of a nuclear blast. To assume the fridge protects him from the heat (it is a fridge afterall) the shockwave, blast and compression would have liquidised him. However, the blast throws him miles away, crash landing. Now, if you climb into a wheelie-bin and push it over, it hurts a great deal. I know, I'm a teenager. Increase the density of the surface and hugely increase the impact and you'd be subjected to such a shock your body could not cope at all, let alone allow you to walk away uninjured.

Agreed, sir.

Forget this, there is worse to come. Turns out the aliens have skulls made from quartz, and another has been found in Peru. Off to Peru Indy flies and he discovers that the skulls are so magnetic, they even attract non-ferrous objects such as gold. They briefly try to explain this as being psychic, but fob it off as magnetism anyway. I don't think there are enough swear words in the world to explain how stupid this is from a scientific perspective.

Long story short, if you get all the skulls together, the mothership can take off because it OPENS A PORTAL TO ANOTHER DIMENSION. Yes, a huge flying saucer in the middle of the Peruvian jungle and a PORTAL TO ANOTHER DIMENSION. No really. I originally saw this film in the cinema with my excited father and typically not-interested-by-adventure-movies-or-Indiana-Jones mother and she fell asleep just before the skulls were explained to be magnetic. She woke up as the mothership took off and honestly asked me this question, "I fell asleep, is this the same film I was watching earlier?" She made a resounding point.

My main problem with the film is this. Indiana Jones was always recovering lost artifacts from religious symbols to give to the Museum to be studied. In this film there are no religious icons or references beyond Mayans worshipping interdimensional aliens who taught them how to make pyramids and cut each other up. This doesn't follow the pattern of what Indiana Jones was all about. It would have made no less sense if he gave up being an archeologist, took up plumbing and the rest of the film was an advert with Han Solo working at B&Q. It steps too far off the path for me to call this an Indiana Jones film, the best I can give it is "poorly written fan-fiction". They'd might as well have called it Indiana Jones and the Waste of Your Time.

The only audience I can see this appealing to is children young enough to have never seen the previous films. That said, in the event they saw the first three after the fourth, they wouldn't enjoy them. The world is going to hell and the kids are cheering along with mouths filled with popcorn and heads full of a lack of respect for a time when there was no CGI. Films did have low production values in comparrison to now and we still love them for it. It was honest, hard work by men and women, not computers and this has led the younger generations astray. If it isn't in 3D with shiny CGI effects then it's a rubbish film because that's how quality is judged nowadays. Fortunately, this film is packed with computer generated scenery and effects so at least the littluns can enjoy themselves whilst the middle aged men and teenagers cry to themselves and try to force the drinking straws from the overly-large cups of cola you can only get in cinemas and bowling alleys into their eyes.

"One day I'll kill the childhood dreams of
hundreds of people in one film - Transformers?
Ok, two films..."

If I were to say this film were good, it would be for one of two reasons. Firstly, if the first three films had never been made. To compare them is to compare Super Mario to Super Paper Mario and the Adventures of blah blah. It doesn't matter what you have now, or how much you modernise it. You owe everything to the groundbreaking original and to consistantly add to a franchise and, as I said before, bleed it dry, just goes to show how little people care for stories now when shiny lights can do all the work for you. Secondly, if Shia LaBeouf hadn't been in it, let alone Indy's son. He is and always will be the little kid from Even Stevens

It doesn't even matter that Harrison Ford put on a great show despite the fact he has aged considerably since the first films. It has blighted a legacy for many years to come and they can never take this back now. They have aired their dirty laundry in public and that is it. Thank Christ almighty that this film was never actually mad- OH DEAR GOD THEY'RE MAKING A FIFTH!

The Italian Job: The Only Thing It Fails To Steal Is The Show.

The Italian Job: LA Heist (2003) Dir - F. Gary Gray.

With everyone from granddads to grandkids from the last thirty years having at least attempted to perfect their impersonation of Michael Caine's famous line, the original Italian Job is deservedly a legend amongst classics. With the original Austin minis, the ‘Self Preservation Society,’ Michael Caine’s unique cockney charm and of course, ‘you’re only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!’ The Italian Job was an icon of the English; a sign that we still ‘had it’ and that, despite it all, America was still just the new kid on the block.

Perhaps that’s why an American decided to remake it.

I will openly admit that when I first sat down to watch this movie, I went in to it biased with all the above points littering my mind. I found it hard to believe that someone had decided it was a good idea to ‘remake’ such a well-known and highly regarded movie and that it was destined for failure. Oddly enough, lo and behold! I was right.

Felix Gary Gray, who I refuse to call by the letter ‘F’ as he wishes us all to adhere to, is not actually a bad director - sure, his filmography may be 95% rap star biographies, but he showed his skill and intelligence in Law Abiding Citizen; a brilliant movie with a fantastic plot and driving point. Even The Negotiator will comfortably stand up to most critics. Why then, did he decide to forget all that and make LA Heist?

My main issue with this movie is the clarity with which it’s shown. Through all the trailers and throughout the film, Gray fails to make it clear - or even address - whether the Charlie Croker of his film is the same Charlie who was left hanging precariously from a cliff at the end of the original Italian Job simply adopting a sudden American accent (let’s face it, odder things have happened in sequels – just take a look at Fast and Furious (2009)) or if this is an all-out remake. For the sake of argument and with the amount of utterly pointless references to the original movie such as Charlize Theron’s mini (regardless of the fact this is the later Rover-model) and Michael Caine’s Alfie on the TV screen (yet another British movie remade badly by an American director), I decided to just pretend it was a remake.

Gray's remake then, falls miserably short of the original. The cast itself is solid; Jason Statham provides adequate representation of British brilliance and charm, with his Caine-Croker’s cockney charisma with the ladies; Seth Green plays the role of complete computer geek – whose ridiculous amount of typing and lack of mouse grant him the film ability to hack into any pc or database he wishes without effort – amply. Charlize Theron plays the role of ‘heroin’ well with a refreshing lack of the near-nudity that normally fills Hollywood movies and Mark Wahlberg, whilst never an overly emotive or brilliant actor, does his normal adequate performance that helps the film move along. However, despite these strong character types and their ample on-screen chemistry, the plot fails to bring out its potential.

The plot itself is again, not brilliant; simply a typical, average heist film driven by a fairly basic revenge point. The movie’s opening heist however, set in Venice, is unique amongst movies; mainly because it is actually more thought out and well executed than the expensive, heavily directed, mini-orientated one that ‘justifies’ the movie. It features some fairly intelligent ideas - providing you don’t probe too deeply - and the boat-chase offers refreshing diversity from the every-day car scenes that feature in most movies. Sure, it might be lifted almost directly from Moonraker but we can pretend to ignore that for the film’s sake. What’s peculiar about it however is that, despite its over-arching effects on the plot, this five minute scene is the only reason that the movie can be called the Italian Job. The scene could have realistically occurred anywhere else with very little tweaking – if any – and only seems to have been devised to justify the title and the awful American tradition of mentioning the name of the movie within the story. Why then, is this even related to the original Michael Caine movie? It features three minis (the modern BMW versions, but minis nonetheless), the use of Croker and Bridger as names for two of the main characters, the mob – Ukrainian this time rather Italian Mafia - and a plan that involves using the traffic control systems of a city to steal some gold - but that doesn’t mean it’s a remake; it’s actually hard to name movies within specific genres without identical plot and prop twists and similarities.

I guess my main problem with this movie then is not actually the movie itself. The movie itself is genuinely not that bad. Not great, certainly, but nowhere near the same level of excrement that other sequels and remakes have reached in the past – yes I am pointing at you XXX2, that thing with Harrison Ford that went under the pretence of a fourth film, Shrek 3, Alfie, Clash of the Titans and all you Disney animation sequels….My main problem I think is the ‘Italian Job’ that’s latched on to the title like a cancerous parasite that sucked all my enjoyment out of it. Without it, the movie is, as I said, not that bad. It’s got a functional plot, an adequate cast that could have been brilliant, a good score and musical direction and enough ingenuity to entertain its audience. The Italian Job attached to it then seems to be merely another show from American film writers that they can do 'one up' on their English counterparts. With the new Mini cooper's giving him the excuse to 'update' the British classic, Felix Gray fails to realise that bigger is not necessarily better. It’s a shame he hadn’t used the new Mini Countryman to create an ‘Italian Job: Farmyard Robbery.’ That at least could have had some interesting scenery besides Theron.

Before I finish though, I want to go completely off the rails. Wrench. WHO WAS THAT GUY? A random Latino chauvinistic gearhead who appears two or three times throughout the film and served no purpose other than to apparently do some mechanical work that, to be honest, didn’t need to be mentioned – or at the very least, could have been done by a random extra or Handsome Rob; we didn’t need to know he’s a hopeless incompetent at stripping cars. He then later came in and ‘seemingly’ sold the rest of the team out (without wanting to give anything away here). Why did he even exist?

Entrapment: En-crap-ment (Yeah, once I thought of it, I could think of nothing else)

Entrapment (1999) Dir - John Amiel

John Amiel is not a name which immediately springs to mind when you think of the silver screen. That's because he's done so little, and directed such crap people have wiped him from their minds. This is possibly his greatest cinema achievement which is like saying contracting HIV is the highlight of your sex-life. That might be a little cruel, he did after all direct The Core (2003). No wait, that was a minefield of absolute rubbish too. What is it about this man and completely fictional science? We need to fix the planet by starting the core spinning again? Stop it.

Speaking of crap science, I'm going to do something unexpected and drop a spoiler right at the beginning of the review before I've even detailed the cast or basic plotline. Assume you are one of the greatest criminal minds of the past few decades. When you steal a solid gold mask from on top of a pressure switch, why would you casually plant DNA evidence on the scene of the crime, precisely where you took the mask from? Because that's exactly what Catherine Zeta Jones' character does. She holds the pressure switch down with her damn chewing gum. This is 1999 supposedly! The police team (which you supposedly work for by the way) would pick up her old wad of gum, send it off to the lab, identify her as the culprit and pick her up faster than she could leave the city. It kills the credibility faster than an alien race kills the dude who happens to be wearing the red shirt in a Star Trek landing party.

That's the face of a man who is
checking his heart is still beating

Right, the cast. To be honest, this was pretty high budget stuff. Catherine Zeta Jones plays the feisty Virginia Baker - a double or triple or quadruple agent, no-one really knows. Either way she's part cop, part robber and a whole gravedigger. I mean Christ, the love interest is an aging Sean Connery and she's married to this dude. Micheal Douglas. Yup, 25 year age gap. This woman obviously has more daddy issues than Elisabeth Fritzl. Anyway, the character displays more complexity than Ramond's description of String Theory and I can't honestly tell you having watched this film multiple times if I give a damn about her. She changes side so many times that unless there is 4 hours of extra footage on the cutting room floor this film makes NO sense. So what are you? Master thief? Police officer? Art insurance saleswoman? Gymnast? I'm not sure if I honestly care.

Actually, on the topic of gymnastics, the costume designer for this might be the costume designer on 300's heterosexual cousin. I can only imagine the conversation sounding like this: "Let's pack her into as much tight clothing as possible and get her to stretch really close to the camera!" - "That's a marvellous idea! More Viagra, Harold?" - "No thanks, I'm hard enough already from the six I took before I started visualising a young actress in a skintight, neoprene leotard."

Exhibit A (A stands for 'Ass')

This woman honestly does more stretching and unnecessary balletics than is imaginable so if you have the hots for this lady from the Valleys, go nuts. If you like to hear sense, go elsewhere for your fantasies.

Next we come to the antagonist/protagonist/love interest/Scotsman Robert MacDougal - played very well by Sean Connery. It was only a matter of time before someone wrote him a role where he was Scottish when he insists upon maintaining his accent. Seriously, go watch The Wind and the Lion (1975) where he plays Arab-born Mulai Ahmed er Raisuli. First Arabic man I've seen with a broad, Scottish accent... In this film, you could be forgiven however if you confused him for his famous role James Bond. The similarities are beyond ignoring. Penchant for suits, nice cars, gadgets out his ass, breaks into secure governmental buildings, gets the girl despite his age (unfair in this case when you put him with someone who is almost verging on necrophilia). It's Bond through and through. Well not quite, Bond wasn't Scottish.

They even look the same!

Finally worth mentioning, Mr Ving Rhames as Aaron Thibadeaux. The character is an enabler for criminals by supplying difficult to obtain technology. HOLD THE PHONE! I'm describing his previous role of Luther Stickell in the Mission Impossible franchise! It's ok though, this character is later hired by a governmental body as an agent and technology expert. HOLD THE PHONE! You get the picture. They are the same character.

Now, the plotline. I won't use character names for sake of simplicity but I'm sure you'll follow along. Person 1 breaks into building, steals painting. Person 2 turns out to have actually stolen the painting. Person 1 works for an Art insurance company. Person 1 also works as a cop. Person 1 is sent off by cop, Person 3, to help capture person 2 by stealing a mask with them. Person 2 is also a cop, working with Person 3 to help capture Person 1 despite the fact Person 1 and Person 3 WORK IN THE SAME DAMN OFFICE. YOU DON'T NEED SOMEONE ELSE TO CAPTURE THEM. Person 4 helps Person 2 and Person 1 steal a lot of money, but they too are a cop working with Person 2 and Person 3 to help catch Person 1. They catch Person 1, but then let them go just for giggles. Person 1 and Person 2 then disappear into the sunset to go steal more stuff whilst Person 3 is angry and Person 4 watches. End of film. Put it this way, this is a complicated waste of time. And 'Person' doesn't look like a word anymore.

Maybe I'm being too critical of this film. It is moderately entertaining, has a good cast, some great acting, incredible cinematography and scenery, good effects, some clever twists and script and an overall sense of having been polished. This wasn't a slapdash, spur of the moment thing. Time and effort went into it. That said, it's somehow disappointing. You're left with this sensation that with such a good cast and so on, there would be more to it. It's like drinking piss. It will quench your thirst, but it won't taste good on the way down.

Gulliver's Travels: A Massive Failure

Gulliver's Travels (2010) Dir - Rob Letterman

I won't lie to you. From the off I was dubious of this film due to Letterman's previous film history. Being most notable for his direction of Shark Tale (2004) and Monsters vs Aliens (2009), this film didn't strike me as a potential Oscar Nominee. In fact, the only thing I remember from either of the previous films was that the Fresh Prince made a terrible fish. But I'm not reviewing that catastrophe, so I'll continue reviewing this one instead.

Firstly, the cast. Being the Hollywood giant he is (no pun intended), this film was off to a great start with regards to casting Jack Black as the intrepid adventurer Lemuel Gulliver. Who could resist the bubbly wit of such charismatic man, in a family film, (supposedly) ramped up with comedy? The main issue however was that the production team and scriptwriters clearly forgot one thing. Jack Black is Jack Black. There is no getting away from this fact. He will do whatever he wants to create the exact same character in every film he has ever been in. At least this made sense in School of Rock. Here however it just clashed with various other famous comedians, all imposing their egos on the poor audience. I'll list a few:



I don't blame you for scowling at them.



1) Billy Connolly - The King of Liliput. I can only imagine the monetary woes Billy must be going through to have agreed to do this film. I know it seems unlikely, especially regarding the fact he has such riches from a long and glorious career, but I can't think of any other reason why he'd agree to play this role. He gets peed on by Jack Black for Christ's sake! He's such a good actor in other things such as Muppets Treasure Island, The Man who Sued God and The X Files film where he played a paedophile priest, so it's not as though this was a brief cameo by a famous face. He's done serious work in the past so it seriously disappointed me that he has had to lower himself to do this. Poor man.

2) Catherine Tate - Queen of Blah Blah. Who really gives a damn about her? Honestly? She's a terrible actress, she isn't funny and there is nothing in this film that involves her without her overacting in such a ridiculous way. She is just awful. Doesn't stop her trying to steal the limelight though.

3) James Cordon - Someone inconsequential. Good. Frankly, I was quite pleased that he wasn't involved too much as I don't particularly like him either. Lesbian Vampire Killers was dire and I didn't want him anywhere near the camera at any point of this, just in case he opened his mouth and said something.

I'll stop. There really is only so much crap you can take from the cast. On paper it sounds amazing, but putting lots of comedians together onscreen and expecting them to play nice is never going to work. It's like putting a bucket of scraps in the middle of a pigsty and expecting the porkers to cue up for their share. It won't happen, they'll fight for every drop they can get at the detriment of everyone and everything (in this case, the credibility of the film).

No really. She did.

Right, the heroine to the hero, Amanda Peet (yes that woman who exposed herself to Chandler in The Whole Nine Yards and never lived it down in her career). The now not-so-young Amanda plays Darcy Silverman, editor to Gulliver and love-interest. That's about it. Her character goes nowhere, doesn't develop, does essentially nothing and then does some more nothing. There's not much I can really say except that once again, Miss Peet was terrible. You can't base an entire career on looking good (at least not in the film world). I honestly can't describe how one-dimensional and predictably wooden she is in the film so I guess I'll just move on.



Even he looks disappointed at the
 casting team's choice.



The villain: General Edward. Casting team, I ask you this: why when casting the villain, would you choose a lovely Irish comedian, known for his soft nature? It's like casting Roger Rabbit in the role of Al Capone. Why the hell would you do it? Chris O'Dowd made his name in comedy as the surly but lovable scamp, Roy from Channel 4's hit series The IT Crowd. I'm sorry, but giving him evil-looking facial hair doesn't change this fact. He is, and always will be a nice guy. Occasionally frustrated enough to have a bit of an impotent rant, but nothing more. Give him a coffee and a hug and I expect he'll sing you his favourite song from Guitar Hero. Production teams of the future, do us all a favour and cast this man forever more as the lovable protagonist who likes to have little digs at people when no-one can hear him. He would not only excel at this, but chances are that would also make a good movie. Who needs plot lines when you have good characters?

On that topic, apparently this one (though of course no-one told anyone that this film had no good characters either). At no point in this film did I sit there and think that the scriptwriters did a good job. For the first 10 or so minutes I had to sit through painfully obvious suggestions that Jack Black's character would never be a "big man" and other such drivel. Here is a message just for you people who wrote this crap: WE GET IT. WE KNOW HE'S GOING TO BE A GIANT. STOP DROPPING HINTS THAT ARE AS SUBTLE AS A BRICK TO THE BACK OF THE HEAD. And another thing whilst I'm on this topic, when you're trying to be poignant, try to write something that makes a modicum of sense. Ending on the supposedly wisdom-filled line of 'There's no small jobs - just small people.' defied belief. What does that even mean?! I can't make any sense of this whatsoever. It's like you looked at what you wrote, took one or two choice themes ("Um, he's writing a big report to get a promotion and win the heart of a girl in the office, and it's filled with tiny people. How can we link them?"), failed to find any connection whatsoever, so decided to stick them together anyway in some useless pseudo-wordplay. Let me re-write this in context of the actual film: "There's no such thing as difficult office jobs, just lots of small people in a mystical island somewhere." Congratulations. You're all idiots.

He liked what he saw in there.

The only redeeming feature of this entire fiasco are the effects. I'm assuming after paying for Mr Black, most of the remaining budget went on the SFX department because there is more CGI rendering in this than the last Shrek film. There isn't more I can really say about this besides the use of green-screen. It's pretty seamless and I won't lie, the weather effects during the storm are pretty impressive to say the least. Oh, and the best bit about the film was this guy. Joe Lo Truglio. He's a venerable actor, having been in many comedies such as the recently released Paul, Superbad, Hitch, Rolemodels, Pineapple Express... The list goes on. However, his character title and credit was "Butt-Crack Man" for being sat on by Jack Black. That was his entire 5 minute role in this bad, bad movie, and you know what? He did a good job. Five stars to you, sir.

Now comes the worst part. The last few minutes of this film are cringe-worthy. I'll avoid spoilers but it was quite clear Jack Black ensured in his contract that this would happen. A big musical number with him singing in characteristic style, War by Edwin Starr with everyone dancing and joining in with the singing. I can only explain how I feel about this film truly, by borrowing a lyric from said song. "What is it good for? Absolutely nothing..."