So the snow is back and what better time to have a review by Brotherton, this week he looks at The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - sounds like a crapfest of love romance mystery bullshit, i mean its no TRANSFORMERS IS IT!!! Anyhow here's the review.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

The word Curious really does best describe David Fincher's new film. A man who has spent nearly 20 years traumatizing audiences with serial killers, anarchists, conspiracy thrillers and basically anything that will involve guaranteed bloodshed, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button comes across as a film that would have been more suited to someone along the likes of say...Robert Zemeckis.

Of course cynics have recently, and unfairly, compared this film in some ways to Forrest Gump. Although it is written by Gump scribe Eric Roth, and it deals with a man's entire life and the paths he crosses leading to romance, involvements in wars and oddball friends added with a touch of smaltzy sentiment, Benjamin Button is an entity of its own. Based on an avant-garde short story about a man who ages backwards at birth from a shrivelled old man to a healthy young baby at 80 years. The film diverts from the source material considerably by including a childhood romance, deaths, journies across the world and mainly the change in time settings from the 19th to the 20th Century.

Its a formula that sounds just like the perfect outlet for an epic romantic Hollywood film, but given the film's bizarre fantasy premise, it leaves it with several flaws. For one, its primary goal it seems is to endear audiences with the romantic link between Button (Brad Pitt) and Daisy (Cate Blanchett) but seeing as they both venture off frequently into different routes in their lives, meeting, sleeping and falling in love with several other people only to cross each other again, their bond seems utterly false and pretentious, even with the drawback that one them is reverting back into a child.

Its also arduously long. Running at 2hrs 45mins this film can wear on audiences' patience, as it hasn't got much of a bold statement to make. Is this film a life-lesson? A unorthodix romantic fable? Or is it a gunner for cheap sentiment to gain Oscar glory? (This is my only explanation for the unecessary 13 nominations its gained.)

On a techincal note though, its utterly incredible. The combination of make-up and computer-generated effects to make Brad Pitt from a decrepid old man to an untainted teenager is truly remarkable to see. The same could be said for Blanchett's transformation from a 20 year-old youth to a woman dying in her 80's. Made wholly believable not without Fincher's strong direction and the actor's performances to help pull this off.

All in all, a decent but very uneven film. Has a lot to show but little to say from it. At times touching and human, and at other times meaningless and unbalanced. I didn't leave the cinema with a clear feeling of what I just watched. Maybe that's why the title states Benjamin Button's life was merely...curious.

Rating: 3 out of 5.

So that was Winter then, first proper winter for 18 years and some decent snow!! i hope everyone went out and made snowmen, this only happens every 18 years FFS!!! So what now, back to standard rain and wetness and general gloom for the rest of the winter before, but hey at least we don't have tornados or rabies or poisinous spiers - so lets be thankful for good old blighty!

Dont forget tonight is SCHPUNK night and this week I believe its on at OPIUM LOUNGE AGAIN!!! I hear it was quite a night last week so dont miss out!

And as a treat for friday we've got another Brotherton review - this time he checks out UnderWorld THE PREQUEL WITH THE SAME ACTORS EVEN THOUGH THAT DOESNT QUITE FIT IN WITH THE FIRST TWO FILMS. Enjoy!!

Underworld: Rise Of The Lycans

Prior to sitting down in the cinema to see this 3rd installment of the much derided franchise, I had seen no trailers, no TV or radio spots, only posters next to bus stops. And the cinema I went to was nearly packed out, and the queues for the evening showings were even longer after I left. That shows just how much appeal the Underworld series still has, regardless of the mass critic-bashing.

Put simply, you're either a fan or you're not, and critical consensus won't deter you either way from seeing this.

Since the first Underworld flick came out in 2003, it has won over a pretty large fan-base, mainly all thanks to screenwriter Danny McBride's inscrutably layered history of his vampire/lycan war. But as much thought is given into each of the characters involvement throughout this fantasy yarn, the end result is that each actor is given a role that's required to do sod all apart from snarl and growl - especially if they're a werewolf.

For this prequel, the entire plot ark revolves around a flashback sequence from the first film where lycan maestro Lucian (Michael Sheen - why DID he return for this?) revealed his motive for the war; a Romeo & Juliet style love story between a werewolf and vampire where the latter was executed which thus started the war. So all the cheap Crow/Blade/Matrix guns 'n' leather knock-offs are now replaced with sword fights, castles and other derivative periodic elements.

It may sound like I've just given the whole plot away, but anyone who's still bothered about the Underworld series knows about which of these characters are gonna live or die to appear in the present films, and how, too. It may be an improvement by having a less convoluted plot this time round, but the usual over-acting, dull action sequences and incredibly uninspired storytelling will appeal to few unless you're a fan.

Rating: 2 out of 5.

Stay tuned to the forums for the latest but it looks like SCHPUNK will be somewhere in Romford tonight, but probably NOT at Pacific Edge BUT it might be!!!! I dunno check the forums innit!!! Its more complicated than the ARSHAVIN transfer.

Something for FRIDAY though, here's a BROTHERTON review of the new Tom Cruise film VALKYRIE (wasn't that a character from Gauntlet - now that was a game!!!)

Valkyrie

It may be sad, but the first time I heard of Claus von Stauffenberg was from a gag in an episode of Red Dwarf where Lister steals Hitler's briefcase in a mutated timeslide only to discover its from Stauffenberg and its bombed.

Prior to seeing the film, I read nothing about the infamous 1944 July 20 plot where a large group of high-ranking Nazi officials conspired to assassinate Hitler and lead a coup to overthrow the government to end the War, but afterwards, I was more compelled to know about the people involved and why these chose to do it. Why?

As much as I enjoyed this little thriller, what stops it from being a top-notch historical thriller is the very large mistake of not actually letting us know who these people were. There is no background behind Stauffenberg, his aristocratic roots, roman catholic upbringing or reasons why he chose to join the Nazi army when he clearly hated their methods. No, this film is simply a very detailed account of the Coup itself.

Directed and written by the people behind The Usual Suspects, this film does very well in keeping you gripped throughout, meticulously detailing the actions each man went, to pull this off, particularly towards its final act when the bomb detonates. Of course, you all know very well thanks to your school history that this mission inevitably failed as Hitler committed suicide in 1945 which ended the War, so the end would come off as somewhat anti-climactic if you happen to be the cynical type.

Nevertheless, Valkyrie is a good entertaining film with strong perfomances from all, but with a plot about a conspiracy we knew in the end was doomed to failure, you can't help if you were better off if you watched a dramatization on the History channel instead.

RATING 3.5 out of 5.