The Expendables

The cinematic equivalent of an 80s revival tour, bringing together gone but not quite forgotten stars like Stallone, Schwarzenegger, Dolpg Lundgren, Mickey Rourke and Bruce Willis. Throw in a bunch of charisma-free wrestlers and a couple of more modern muscle-men (Jason Statham and Jet Li)  and you have The Expendables.

This is kind of film which doesn't let small things like plot, story and character get in the way of the next explosion. In other words, it really is a throw-back to the 80s action flicks and what was good or not about them.

The most talked about scene is the one where Stallone, Arnie and Willis appear together. Contrary to what you may have read - it doesn't work. The scripting here (which is good) requires a certain amount of verbal repartee and banter that is slightly beyond the acting abilities of Sly and Arnie, who are more comfortable delivering a bad one-liner having already killed everybody else in the scene. Willis (who can act) looks totally lost amongst the thespian wooden-ness around him. Arnie at least wins points for willingness to make fun of himself (at least, I assume he got the joke).

In many ways, that's sympomatic of the whole film - it has that kind of Oceans Twelve feel to it. You can tell that the cast had great fun making it, but that doesn't necessarily translate to great fun for the audience. Not that the film is without any merits - Sly can clearly still cut it, Lundgren is surprisingly good and Rourke predictably so, but underused. Statham (who has made a lot of bad films recently) comes out pretty well, whilst poor Jet Li gets used more as comic relief.

Overall - 5.5/10 It does exactly what it says on the tin, for better or worse.

Salt

The lead role in Salt was originally supposed to be played by Tom Cruise. He turned it down as reportedly being too close to Mission Impossible and the film was re-written to accommodate Angelina Jolie playing the role. That there are no signs of this fairly major re-write is a credit to both the writers and Jolie's performance - one of the few leading ladies who can handle both serious acting and serious action.

She plays Evelyn Salt, CIA agent who is accused of being a Russian sleeper agent and goes on the run in order, purportedly, to try and save her husband, who is being help prisoner by the bad guys. She's pursued by her boss (Liev Schreiber) and counter-intelligence agent, Chiwetel Ejiofor. There follows the usual mix twists and turns, some more predictable than others involving plots to assassinate the Russian president and launch a nuclear attack. There's not much here that is original - the opening is lifted almost straight from Die Another Day. There's latex masks from Mission Impossible and whole vibe they try to take from Bourne. There's also a (franchise launching?) end sequence which makes no sense - surely there was a much simpler way to sort out guilt and innocence? And I struggle to believe that the White House bunker would be that easy to penetrate by one person, not matter how good she is!

That said, this is not a bad film. Director Philip Noyce (The Quiet American, Patriot Games, etc...) handles the action well. There are some great sequences, the customary chase through the traffic is better handled than most and the "take down" of the Russian president is possibly the highlight. As mentioned above, Jolie handles the action with skill and is ably supported by Schreiber and Ejiofor. So right up until the final chopper journey, this is well-handled gripping spy-thriller, its just the great one that it aspires to be.

Overall - 6.5/10 This so desperately wants to be the female Bourne that it hurts. Its not, but it's a solid spy-thriller nonetheless.

The Last Airbender

So here comes the other Avatar - this movie, based on a series with the cumbersome title Avatar: The Last Airbender was originally going to have that title until a certain Mr Cameron (no, not David) got in first. I think its safe to say that this Avatar won't be troubling the box office records.

I'm slightly heretical when it comes to M Night Shyamalan films. Whereas most critics see an almost uninterrupted decline from The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable, I tend to think the latter is vastly over-rated and one of his worse films. I like the criticised The Village, and even had time for the critically panned Lady in the Water. However, even I thought his last, The Happening, was simply crap and this raises the standard hardly at all. Its difficult to tell whether this is the material or the director's handling of it, most likely both.

There are too many scenes that solely exist for clunky exposition of the different strands of the plot. Most of the young cast just can't act (we're talking much worse than the early Potter films here), so its difficult to tell whether its the acting or the script that creaks most. Only Slumdog's Dev Patel manages to inject anything like a performance into his role, but the character arc for the hopeful later episodes is rather heavily signposted. Even the established adult actors, like Cliff Curtis, struggle with the material.

Visually its mixed. Some of the effects come across a bit naff and the 3D adds absolutely nothing here, but there are some stunningly imagined settings and some nice cyber-punk touches for the fire nation's machines. The final battle is set-up to be a promising set-piece, but Shyamalan directs too much of the focus onto his wooden leads, who are not really involved. However, there are some nice effects with the "bending" of the elements and in the brief moments when the Avatar finally leaps into action, we finally get some genuine thrills and spectacle.

This is supposed to launch a franchise, but like many recent attempts at child orientated fantasy, you suspect it won't.

Overall - 5/10 Its not as absolutely dreadful as some reviewers would suggest, but is still disappointing - more Eragon than Narnia or Harry Potter

The Karate Kid

To get the quibbles out of the way early, really this should be called the Kung-Fu kid as karate doesn't feature at all with the action relocated to China. The change in setting aside, the only other real change is the reduction in age of the kid and his bullying opponents from older teens to tweenagers, which makes some of the violence they treat each other to in the final tournament rather more uncomfortable.

In tone, there's also a shift - this feels a rather more serious affair than the cheese-tastic 80s original. It also displays a thooughly American attitude to geography. Its set in China, so we must have the Great Wall in there somewhere (in the same way the Eiffel Tower must appear in anything in France), even though the film is actually set in Beijing.

Notwithstanding all these criticisms, the new Karate Kid is a solidly good and entertaining film throughout its rather long running length. It gives a reasonable portrayal of both culture shock and bullying (although the later feels slightly old fashioned - what no bullying by text and facebook, these teens really are behind the times), both of which are helped by a winning performance from Jaden "son of Will" Smith, who looks destined to follow in dad's footsteps. Jackie Chan is also surprisingly good in the Mr Miyagi role - stripped of all but one action sequence, he actually has to act and finds some real emotion in what may be his best performance in an English language film.

Overall - 6.5/10 It may not be as much fun as you'd expect, but might be a better film for that.

The Cameron Enigma.

I find myself increasingly unsure what to think of our new Prime Minister. Little he did before taking office impressed me, but the way he pulled together the coalition and some of his early actions and comments on the likes of civil liberties meant I was at least prepared to withhold judgement. And now?

Well, he seems to be a foreign policy disaster waiting to happen every time he gets on the plane. Its not just the gaffes (schoolboy errors though they may be), there often seems to be a lack of awareness of the wider picture. His comments on Pakistan might be accurate, but in complicated context of the region I'm not sure they are helpful or display any understanding of the different pressures any government of Pakistan faces. If anything I suspect that comments like that only help to strengthen the Taliban in Pakistan. His approach seems more George W Bush than anything else, and as such he'd be better off leaving Hague to run things.

On one hand, he has modernised the conservative party on social values and the environment, without a doubt. On the other hand this week he has both targetted benefit cheats (who, in context, cost the UK taxpayer really not that much - we lose more to error than fraud and probably save more in unclaimed benefits than we pay in either), whilst simultaneously recruiting a man (Philip Green) who's tax evasion through the use of tax havens probably single-handedly accounts for almost as much money lost as all the benefit fraud combined. And now I'm thinking same old tories - its ok to rob the tax-payer as long as you're rich.

Similarly we have had much touting of the return to cabinet government and genuine discussion through the coalition (which would make a genuine and welcome change from the Blair years) and then Cameron announces off-the-cuff policy ideas about housing without any consultation with his own party, yet alone his coalition partners.

My overall impression is that he is a man who doesn't really quite know what he's doing yet in the job and is letting his inexperience show at times. I'm also not totally sure whether it is him or Osborne who is the main driving force behind the scale and pace of the cuts we are facing. BUt that's a topic i'm planning on covering some time soon.

The Labour Leadership.

I've not put up many political thoughts for  while, so I thought it was time I shared something about the race for the Labour leadership as it heads towards decision time.

Firstly, I have to say a bit like the TV leaders debates before the election, none of the candidates on offer are exactly inspiring me and standing out as the next Labour prime minister.

Secondly, I do find the fact that the unions still have a block vote of a third in deciding the leader slightly strange in modern politics, but maybe I'm just not left wing enough to get it, but it does mean that somebody who is both a party and union member gets two votes.

As to the runners and riders.

David Milliband is probably the favourite still. He has the style certainly, but I'm not sure that there's all that much else to him. He's like Blair without the newness factor. He also brings the added liability of the most closely tied in to previous Labour administrations which could tarnish him on the economy, Iraq (and human rights abuses there - Hague has commissioned an enquiry into this). Imagining a leaders debate between him, Cameron and Clegg its hard to imagine there being much difference or much to excite with any of them.
Chances of becoming leader: Good. Jack Straw's backing is a good sign here
Chances of winning the next election as leader: Toss a coin. If Cameron gets pulled to far to the right of the centre or becomes very unpopular, quite possibly. Otherwise, it would be hard to tell.
Would he make a good PM? I've seen little so far to suggest so.

Ed Milliband is still struggling to come out from David's shadow. He's probably second favourite now through picking up union support, but that could be a poisoned chalice if the unions become increasingly militant in the face of Tory cuts, a leader strongly linked to them could doom Labour at the next election and play into a Cameron landslide.
Chances of becoming leader: Reasonable if he doesn't fall too far behind his big brother
Chances of winning the next election as leader: Very slim
Would he make a good PM? Doubtful


Ed Balls is definitely the fieriest candidate. Seems to relish being in opposition more than he did being in government. Might cause the most trouble for the government over the next 4 years until the next campaign starts. At that point, I suspect he would become a liability, although he has a good brain and says some smart things, I'm not sure he's electable.
Chances of becoming leader: Not out of it, by any means
Chances of  winning the next election as leader: Very slim. He's unlikely to be the next Labour PM, although he might be married to the next Labour PM.
Would he make a good PM? No.

Andy Burnham lacks some of the exposure of the three above him. Also lacks experience, but has possibly impressed me most in some of what he has said.
Chances of becoming leader: Slim, unless he finds someway through the middle as a compromise candidate.
Chances of  winning the next election as leader: If he grew into the role over the next four years, it might happen.
Would he make a good PM? He could be a solid, team-leader kind of PM if not an inspirational visionary.

Diane Abbott is the rank outsider, but its good to have her in the race. Never having been in cabinet or shadow cabinet, she would be an unlikely choice, but she does at least shake up the contest a bit being neither white nor male.
Chances of becoming leader: Next to none, lacks support from at least two of the three voting blocks.
Chances of winning the next election as leader: None - she's too far to the left.
Would she make a good PM? No, unfortunately not, and I think she knows it. That's not why she's in the race.

Knight and Day

Sometimes bad reviews can work in a film's favour. After some disappointing reviews, I went into Tom Cruise's latest, Knight and Day, with very low expectations.Thus, coming out having watched an average but entertaining film, I was this pleasantly surprised and feeling better about it than I would have if I'd gone it expecting more.

Cruise plays super-spy Roy Miller, who may or may not be rogue or mentally disturbed or both. He gets mixed up with ordinary girl June Havens (Cameron Diaz) following a chance meeting at an airport and she gets sucked into his running battle with Federal Agents and international arms dealers. Much predictable action, mayhem and stunning locations follow.

The two stars do a decent job with what their given. Nobody does intense, borderline-nuts quite as well as Cruise (Nicolas Cage is usually too far to the nuts side) and he clearly relishes the chance to play a bit with his Mission Impossible/Top Gun  image. Diaz has less to work with - why scriptwriters create a female character who's into cars and mechanics and still spends half the film screaming and being generally helpless is beyond me - but still does well when called upon her. Cruise bags most of the laughs, but Diaz is very funny when under the influence of truth serum. There's also a strong supporting cast (even if they are mainly playing stereotypes) - Peter Saarsgard hardly stretches himself in his customary is-he-good-is-he-bad role but is still watchable, whilst Paul Dano (Little Miss Sunshine) excels as the scientist at the centre of things.

What lets this down is the material given to the cast to work with. The Macguffin is ridiculous - a battery about the size of AA that can power a whole city (although this is a long way from being the most ridiculous macguffin of the summer, see The Losers  and Prince of Persia). The main problem is that the film can't decide whether its a straight action-spy film, a parody or a romance and manages none consistently well.  It's best when it's being a parody and there are some good laughs here. As a straight action-spy flick, its star is starting to get a bit too old and the film is over-reliant on dodgy greenscreen and CGi which means that it can't live with the likes of Bourne or modern Bond and feels lacking in punch. As a romance, its ok - but with Cruise and Diaz you could hardly fail, but you could do better than is achieved here. They also cut huge corners in the plot by having different characters drugged at various points and waking up in different locations, which actually works surprisingly well on the whole.

Overall - 6/10 This is not a classic by any means, but as undemanding entertainment it just about passes muster with some good funny bits and passable action.

The A-Team

At the risk of being heretical for somebody my age, I was never that into The A-Team as a child. When it came to Saturday tea-time TV The Dukes of Hazard tended to win out. Given that, I approached the big screen remake with less trepidation of treasured childhood memories being ruined.

This is very much an origins story, the whole film heading towards those famous words that started every episode "They survive as soldiers of fortune. If you've got a problem...". On the way it covers Mexico, Iraq, Germany and finally the US with some very ingenious plans coming together.

There is an argument to say that it starts too strong - the Mexico and Iraq sections work well with some entertaining action, but set the bar so high that later sections have to try to hard. The flying tank is at least fun, but the finale over-reaches itself into some very dodgy CGi territory, which is a shame as what has gone before has been entertaining - utter nonsense with huge plot-holes, but highly entertaining utter nonsense.

Of the cast, Bradley Cooper's Face and Sharlto District 9 Copley's Murdock are spot on. Liam Neeson lacks George Peppards easy charm, but adds a bit of depth and seriousness. It is former wrestler Quinton 'Rampage' Jackson who has the hardest shoes to fill and he never quite manages to step out of Mr T's shadow as BA Baracus. Wisely he decides not to try a sraight imitiation but to make more of his own character and does enough to show that he has a future in acting, but is still the weakest link of the quartet. That said its Patrick Wilson's CIA spook Lynch who comes closest to stealing the whole movie.

Smokin' Aces director Joe Carnahan handles the action well-enough, although some moments are still too blurry and confusing, which is a common modern fault. (Very few directors seem to be able to master Paul Greengrass' ability to put the camera right in the action and still make it followable) and there are some good moments in the script.

Overall - 6.5/10 This is not the classic that fans might have been hoping for, but neither does it disgrace the TV show's memory. It won't tax your brain-cells, but does provide entertaining action, slightly let down by an over-reaching finale.

The Morning Rant

Sometimes you have to wonder. Against the current political climate, talk of widescale cuts and public sector pay freezes, Unison in Scotland this week voted against a 1.5% pay increase over 3 years (1% this year, nothing next and 0.5% the year after). I know this is below inflation and some people will genuinely struggle, but in all likelihood what they will end up with now is nothing. There will be little or no public sympathy for strikes at the moment, when everybody else has had to deal with cuts and redundancies, etc... striking for a bigger pay increase will not go down well.

I know this probably damages my left-wing credentials, but I never really claimed to be a true socialist anyway, but this is symptomatic of the problem I have with unions. In theory I think they're a great idea, but in practice they seem powerless to do anything when workers really are being exploited and are run, in general, by people who lurch to easily into an us-and-them mentality because it strengthens their own status rather than trying to work in a constructive way to resolve issues. (BA cabin crew, anybody?)

Combined with this we have Tony Benn's resistance to the coalition movement, backed by many prominent union leaders (who, by the way, line their own pockets through expenses, etc... far worse than MPs were caught doing) threatening mass protests and industrial action. I do like Tony Benn - I think he's an old school politiciam who often talks a lot of sense and will steadfastly refuse to toe any party-line, and I think resistance to the level of cuts planned by the government is to be welcomed. However, if this spills over into widespread industrial action a la 70s, it will play right into David Cameron's hands. If Labour become too closely tied to this through their archaic union links, they will be doomed at the next election and there will be a Tory landslide in regions of 1983 territory.

A final word about the cuts - I think talk of 40% cuts across all departments is a bit of a smokescreen. Its to make the real figure of 25% seem more palatable. Even then I doubt they will manage to achieve 25%, just as I doubt they will manage to eliminate the deficit in 5 years, but in aiming to do so they will at least hit Labour's target of halving it (which is probably more than Labour would have managed). Personally, I think that in reality the coalition will achieve cuts somewhere in the region of 15-20%, but even that is going to hurt a lot.