Reviews

Ah man, I remember when 28 Days Later came out...I wasn't old enough to see it, but I saw some clips of the opening sequence and I loved the abandoned London feel.

Needless to say, when I saw it it was...and still is...an incredibly good film.

So I came to check out 28 weeks later.

Basically the 'rage' virus has apparently died out and so people start to live in London again, which seems to have been taken over by the Americans.

Two kids are reunited with their father (Robert Carlyle) and all is happy in the rebuilt world for a day or so.

The kids proceed to sneak out and go to their old house, and in the panic that ensues, the zombie plague rises again. But there's something special about these two kids...and everyone around them is very keen to keep them alive.

First of all I loved the scenery in this - the landscape shots are brilliant, and it has this dark - quintessentially British - feel to it, the kind of channel 4 movie feel. Which works well and ramps up the creeping feel of dread at times.

It also has a lot of frantic shots - e.g scenes in very claustrophobic areas that are cut very quickly to build tension. A lot of the time this works, but as a viewer I like to know what's going on and this style of film-making took that away from me at times.

Was good to see Imogen Pootz in this, her career has since gone up and up - Carlyle is good value too, although doesn't get much screen time.

The opening quarter of the film is good, but sadly it fell apart from there - I didn't feel that involved in the two main children characters, and wasn't really rooting for them and I found the ending really disappointing. As I saw the final few shots I had to roll my eyes.

Call me cynical but if you liked the first one, don't bother. The zombies are the same - and yes, they are scary - violent, mindless fountains of speed and rage that you feel hopeless against - but other than that you're better off visiting the original again or going to see some classic Romero flicks.

It's hard to believe that this film is eighteen years old! While technology has moved on a tad, paranoia of being watched & listened to by the government is still just as prevalent as it was then.

In this conspiracy thriller Will Smith plays a high flying lawyer who unwittingly becomes the recipient of a tape which documents the murder of a politician by some FBI members.

What follows is a cat-and-mouse chase - the kind of story that we've seen many a time before. Smith teams up with ex spook Gene Hackman and tries to turn the tables on his pursuers.

Some of the dialogue, particularly in the first quarter of the film, is a little on the nose - I'd gone into this expecting an intelligent thriller (which I guess it is in many ways) and this put me off a bit. But I prevailed, and things seemed to get better.

There's a good ensemble cast when it comes to the bad guys - Jon Voight, Seth Green, Jack Black, the sniper from Saving Private Ryan and Ace from Starship Troopers! However, as nice as it was to see these actors on screen, they interacted like juveniles at times, and while I'm no Andy McNab, I can't imagine that covert operatives would talk like fratboys pulling an all-nighter in the library the night before an essay is due in.

Also, when they chase a witness to the murder near the start of the film they are unbelievably blatant about it and cause havoc across a big city. How their faces didn't end up on the news or at least spotted by a lot of the general public I do not know. This scene should have been so much slicker - there are about six of them and they can't catch a guy on a bicycle! As sheer luck (for them) would have it he ends up being squashed by a fire engine.

Hackman is good in this, although when he met up with Smith I was worried it might turn into one of those tired-out 'mismatched duo on the run' films - but the interplay between the two was good, a personal highlight for me.

There's a good use of aerial shots here, which adds to that whole 'everyone is watching you' feel - and for me worked very well.

I also wasn't keen on the way Smith's wife was portrayed, she's supposed to be a barrister (or so I thought) but behaves like a grumpy teenage girl and is more worried about the underwear he bought her for Christmas than the fact his life is in danger.

All in all, this whirrs along at a nice pace and keeps you going until the end - but, ultimately it's nothing we haven't seen before and suffers from poor dialogue in patches.

Ever since the TV show Castle I've been a fan of Nathan Fillion and I remember buying, and enjoying, the original White Noise on DVD years ago - so, this seemed a natural choice as something to watch.

Fillion is happily married and living with his wife and young son. One day they're sitting in a greasy spoon and chowing down...when a weird guy enters and proceeds to shoot woman and child dead. Instead of shooting Fillion the assailant shoots himself dead. Weird, huh?

Naturally our protagonist is devastated by this and tries to take his own life. He fails, and after being technically dead for a few moments, wakes up in hospital.

Things get a little weird and soon Fillion finds that he is able to tell whether or not someone is set to die soon and begins to intervene with fate...with very bad consequences.

To be honest this had very little to do with White Noise, EVP is mentioned very briefly but if anything it's more like 'Final Destination'. May as well have marketed itself as a standalone film.

It held my interest for the most part and there were a few 'jumpy' scenes - but what really put me off was how unrealistic everything was. I know film is an escape from reality, but every death-scene or premonition was quite simply unbelievable.

When Fillion realises that someone is going to die, it's not something as simple as him lecturing them to stop smoking. It's something like...a bunch of muggers are going to throw someone off of a bridge or a grand piano is going to fall off of a balcony and crush eight people.

The premise here is good, and in the right hands it could have been a decent little shocker. But way too much is thrown into 'Final Destination' style scenes. There's some vague subplot that was relating somehow to The Bible, but I couldn't pick it up properly - and I have a good concentration span, I once read (most of) 'War and Peace'.

In short, this is watchable but don't go out of your way. There are much better horrors out there, I was done by the final third and was just waiting for it to end so I could at least say I'd seen it through.

Do you ever have those moments where, once a film's credits roll, you just sit back and say to yourself - "man, that was good fun".

Yes? No? Maybe it's just me. But, that's exactly how I reacted once 'The Three Days of the Condor" drew to a close and I got up to contemplate what I'd just seen.

In this 70s conspiracy flick Robert Redford plays a booksmart CIA analyst. One day the office in which he works is the scene of a brutal killing - everyone apart from him is killed, he only manages to escape as he was out buying lunch at the time! How's that for luck?

The rest of the story follows Redford as he evades some enemy agents who are out to get him - some being a little closer to home that he'd expected.

While this is an old film, it holds up well and entertained me throughout. Reford plays a good, resourceful lead and I certainly found myself rooting for him. Also, look out for Max Von Sydow - who plays a cultured assassin.

There's a subplot involving a hostage who Redford uses - Fay Dunnaway. They have a strange, almost slightly forced romance that I really didn't enjoy. I think she's a great actress, don't get me wrong, but I feel as if her role wasn't really necessary.

All in all, a good enjoyable experience and a chance for those who don't remember the era to really revel in and enjoy a classic 70s slice of spy action. Look out for one of the tensest endings in the genre too...good stuff!

A military prison run by a heavy-handed warden (James Gandolfini) is the setting for this action drama.

A disgraced three star military General (Robert Redford) is sent here to serve a sentence for a miscalculation that led to the deaths of a few of his troops.

Things tick along okay for a while, but soon Redford and Gandolfini cross paths and the rest is history. Military history.

Redford leads a rebellion against the warden, and soon wins the respect of the other men. This leads to one of the most fun finales that I've ever seen in a film - where the prisoners fully rise up and take on the guards.

Things start out a little slow, which might put off fans who are looking for pure action, but as we reach the second half of the film things begin to pick up.

There's also a subplot where Delroy Lindo plays one of Redford's colleagues, and the two men still have a good companionship. As Gandolfini's nefarious antics hit a fever pitch a lot of the film focuses on getting the audience hopes up that Lindo will arrive in time to help save the day.

The cast here is great and, in another world, The Last Castle could easily have been a classic - however it falls short, hence my 7/10 rating. Some films have that 'wow' factor that can't be predicted or can't be measured, and The Last Castle doesn't quite have that.

We kick off in New York and right away, we're hit with the 'apparent' suicide of a very frightened security guard. It's not quite clear, as yet, why he's so afraid - but we see something weird in the mirrors near him.

Mirrors has a lot of potential, but like many a courier near Black Friday, fails to deliver in a lot of places.

Our protagonist is an ex-cop (Kiefer Sutherland) who takes up a position as night watchman for an old asylum. In some rather on-the- nose dialogue with his new boss we learn that he has that classic backstory of a drinking problem, and a tragedy that affected his career.

He's somewhat estranged from his wife (could be divorced, I forget) and his two young children, and seems to be in something of a downward spiral.

Soon things begin to get weird at his new job, and there's something wrong with the mirrors. Fleeting glimpses of unusual things in the glass catch his attention, but the creeping terror hits a crescendo when our hero's sister is rather unceremoniously dispatched in her bathtub by a malicious entity.

From here on in, it becomes the classic man-on-a-mission-to-escape-impending doom tale. The stakes are high as his children and (ex)wife are also under threat by whatever it is that's stalking the world behind the mirrors.

The search for the truth takes him to, among other places, a weird farmhouse and a nunnery - but, will he become a victim of a horror that he can't comprehend or will a deus ex machina jump in to save the day?

Mirrors is very average - it had the premise to have been a lot creepier - however, sadly, the producers rely on a lot of jump scares and a team of run-of-the-mill special effects artists to generate any kind of shock value. Low budget filmmaking has its limits, for sure, but creating tension and dread isn't something that's limited by this, and it's really a case of laziness on the director's part.

Don't get me started on the ending either, an attempt at intelligence that felt a little contrived.

Still, Mirrors would hold up to a late night viewing and I think my 5/10 is more than a fair rating - the plot is just about cohesive enough to follow, for a low budget flick, and you'll probably jump a couple of times. But, ultimately - we're all left with a premise that could have been something truly scary.

I think the thing that first drew me to horror films is how, very often, things seem so happy and bright at the start...that you almost wonder how anything could go wrong for the characters at all.

This is how The Chernobyl Diaries starts...although thanks to a great use of sound a sense of foreboding and dread slowly seeps in as the creepy events start to unfold.

Let me be clear - this isn't a perfect film, and if it wasn't for the use of sound, I'd have probably given it a five star 'average' rating.

The plot centres around a few characters who are travelling Europe, they head to Ukraine where a family member lives. He convinces them to go on an 'extreme tourism' excursion to the site of the Chernobyl tragedy.

Needless to say, things go a little wrong and they soon find themselves in the supposedly deserted city overnight.

The camera-work is varied - ranging from 'handicam' shots to 'found footage' from a digital camera. It can mean things are a tad disjointed in places - and, as with many low-budget films, the story has a few plot holes or stupid moments. However, I was able to overlook these as it's far from a boring film. There's always something going on and it keeps you guessing until near the end as to what the horror is.

I appreciate different endings to different films - whether they be good or negative. However, I felt that the ending was a low point in the film - I won't spoil it for you of course, but if you're like me you'll spot it coming a mile off - and I did hold out a little hope that I might be wrong.

There are two types of rom-coms. There's the fluffy, cheesy kind of rom- com where opposites attract or an unusual couple are brought together and then there's the other type that actually explores the rules of attraction a little bit more. This film, for me, firmly falls in the latter category.

As the story goes a young couple get married and soon realise that maybe their relationship isn't as perfect as they thought it would be. And the story wraps up well, it has some good laughs and some memorable sort of moments. Stephen Merchant is also brilliant in this as the awkward best man, Danny. A lot of what he says sounds almost like a stand-up routine, so whether this was written in the script or whether this was improvised/additionally written by Merchant himself isn't clear. But what is clear is that he is brilliantly funny, although having said that he may be a little too awkward for some people.

As another reviewer said a lot of the humour is rude - but, as this reviewer also said, this is common place now for modern films. There is a particularly hilarious scene where the husband(play by Rafe Spall, son of Timothy) goes to desperate lengths to stop his in-laws from seeing some naked photos of him and his wife. Very funny and also it's the kind of thing that you could imagine happening in your in-law's cosy sitting room.

I must admit that I found both the lead characters a little annoying, almost to the point of being unlikeable. The wife is cold and highly strung a lot of the time, and while this is of course her character, I found it hard to actually root for her - even in some of the more emotional scenes that she was. As for the husband, well, he was the more bearable of the two although there were times when his immaturity bordered on idiotic - although in retrospect that was probably the writer's intention.

Awkward social humour is very popular now in both TV and film but it is used to brilliant effect at times here. The scene where Spall is describing "Dr Quinn Medicine Woman" is hilarious at first but sadly borders the line on going a little too 'OTT'.

With all this being said I enjoyed "I give it a year" and found myself really laughing at some of the scenes. Particularly Merchant's scenes, who does play an over the top version of himself. Olivia Coleman also has a funny cameo as a crazy marriage guidance counsellor.

Normally when watching a comedy I'll chuckle here and there, but not as noticeable as I did while watching this. While the story isn't all that new at times the directions they go with it are different.

I had just watched last year's (2012) Texas Chainsaw and Netflix recommended I watch Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2, as the original was undoubtedly a classic of the genre I agree and settled to watch it - the fact that an actor of Dennis Hopper's calibre was in it made me think it might be even better - even though we all know that often horror sequels are no good.

What I sat through was quite frankly terrible. I'm by no means a prude when it comes to cinema, I have see countless B-movies and schlock films but this, well, I just couldn't enjoy it at all.

What is it that is so bad about it? Well, to put it quite simply, this is actually in the horror/comedy genre and not in the 'its so bad its good' way. Why on earth they would possibly want to make the sequel to what was such a gory, dark and disturbing film a comedy is beyond me. All I know is that it doesn't work at all.

Basically two drunken losers, who are driving to a party, call into a radio show and won't get off the line. The presenter ends up hearing them die at the hands of the Texas Chainsaw family and for some reason she thinks this tape of random sound effects will help the police. She meets Hopper's character - a Texas Ranger who is hot on the trail of the family due to some family member's murder. The two have very little screen time together but still try and work together to sort things out.

Having said that there are two scenes that are actually disturbing - one of them is when Grandpa is trying to hit the Radio Presenter with a hammer and the other is when she finds her friend LG towards the end. But you'll see what I mean if you are unfortunate enough to watch this.

So yeah, there we go a horror comedy that isn't funny and might have worked with a better script and the realisation that it would be better suited as a straight out horror piece.

I didn't see much of Luther when it was actually on, in fact I think I only ever saw one scene however so many friends recommended it to me that I knew I'd end up watching it at some point, and as I write this I've just finished the last episode.

As an aspiring TV/Film writer this really switched me onto how original series can still be made using such unoriginal themes as 'a tough detective fights crime'. While that simple sentence could describe the plot in a nutshell there's so much more to it. Rarely has a show ever paid so much attention to the psychological impacts of crime and police work, while still showing plenty of thrills and action.

In every scene he's in you are completely rooting for John Luther and as the odds seem to be impossibly against him you just can't help but think that he'll find a way to tip them in his favour and just about keep his head above water. Trust me the guy goes through all sorts - loss of loved ones, friends, murder attempts, internal affairs investigations etc and as the viewer you really do go through this with him.

Alice, played brilliantly by Ruth Wilson, is one of the most original TV characters I've seen in years. She's a psychopathic young woman who has murdered her family, Luther knows this but can't prove it. Now in most shows she'd be the villain, but not in this - she becomes Luther's accomplice and actually helps him through several of his challenges. Most shows wouldn't have dared characterise a psycho in such a way, but Luther breaks the mould and I'll be damned if I wasn't rooting for her in some of the scenes where she is in danger.

Warren Brown is also worth a mention for his portrayal of Ripley, Luther's partner. He never knows quite what to make from his boss, but even when Luther's name is dirt he still sticks loyal.

The villains are like no other in this. They're not black & white characters, there's a lot of depth to them and why they're committing their crimes. It is also worth noting that instead of just using the brutality that could come quite easily to a man as big as Luther (6'2 1/2 and built like a tank) he often uses a psychological edge against the criminals, which nearly always works in his favour.

I was going to rate this as 9/10...but let's make it 10/10.

Massive fan of time travel stories and films, and also a fan of Denzel so it seemed a good choice to watch Deja Vu.

A ship containing a load of navy officers and their families is blown up and AFT agent Denzel Washington arrives on the scene to investigate. He soon gets mixed up with a special crime investigation unit who claim to use some kind of mechanism to look back in time. As it turns out there's a little bit more to it than that, and Denzel finds himself falling for one of the female victims of the disaster.

I don't want to spoil the plot too much but it's the kind of film you need to watch twice to get the full low-down on the plot, I do need to go back and watch it when I get the chance. Also look out for Jim Cazviezel, he also starred in Frequency - another great time travel film which might just be a tad better than Deja Vu.

In some parts it is a sophisticated thriller, whereas in others it ends up being a tad OTT - lots of explosions, classic Bruckheimer style. But don't let that take it away from it.

Val Kilmer is also in this, although he is wasted really - he gets a lot of screen time but his character does little to help the story. But there we go.

Also, for those who have seen it - what about that ending, ey?

Oh sure, let's get this out of the way - this film is never gonna be a blockbuster or an Oscar winner. Let's not be expecting heart-wrenching monologues, dramatic tear-jerking moments or anything like that.

However as an enjoyable film with some cool visuals, it sure does deliver on that account.

I never really got too into MIB I must say, but I've seen enough of it to say that RIPD can stand on its own, although there are of course similarities. But, hey, do you know how hard it is to make something original these days? In case you don't - it's very hard.

Ryan Reynolds stars as a slightly corrupt cop who is gunned down before his time, leaving behind his girlfriend and his partner (played by Kevin Bacon - I had no idea he was in this until he popped up!). But instead of going to Heaven or Hell he finds himself drafted into the Rest In Peace Department. A bunch of deceased lawmen and agents who work together to capture 'Deados'. Deados are the souls who manage to escape judgment and try to live on Earth, often causing trouble as they do so. Reynolds is partnered with ex-wild western enforcer Jeff Bridges and together the two realise that something very sinister is afoot...

It's a buddy cop movie first and foremost, with a great and fun monster story behind it. What works here is the humour between Bridges and Reynolds. As is the cliché with most of these films neither of them get along, but neither of them are very competent at times - which is different to the cops of such films as Lethal Weapon.

When the two men are down on earth they are both perceived differently to humans, in order to protect their identities - Reynolds as an elderly Asian man and Bridges as a 6 foot female supermodel. Some of the bits involving their identities are genuinely funny and the audience were laughing at them. Bridges' character is very much like the version of Rooster Cogburn that he portrayed in True Grit.

It's fast, it's funny and the plot holds together, although doesn't really offer anything new. Is the execution as bad as some of the pessimists are saying? No. Film critics are tough masters to please. One scene that did make me cringe is at start when Bacon and Reynolds are discussing something - all I'll say is the dialogue is so on the nose and unsubtle that I did inwardly cringe. But, hey, even Titanic isn't perfect is it...?

For the first hour of this film all I could think of was how average it was, I even had an average review written in my head for it. However, there are certain scenes, thrills and aspects - e.g. the ending predicament that are actually pretty good and will throw you.

Eddie Murphy plays a 'wisecracking' hostage negotiator, although tbh he's very much the 'serious' Eddie Murphy for most of the film. I prefer the fun Beverly Hills Cop guy, but there we go. There is a scene where he's talking about being in a thong and being seen by his mother's friends that is hilarious though. Plot-wise he basically gets on the wrong side of some nutter and his cousin and they conspire to make life hell for him and his English girlfriend. The female lead is a tad weak in this, and I must admit I've never ever heard of her (although I was 7 when this film came out - maybe she was big then) but she looked good - Carmen Ejogo she is.

Michael Rapaport is in this as well, as an intelligent sniper who is paired up with Murphy. Now I thought, judging by the cover etc, this was gonna be a buddy cop movie but Rapaport (an actor I like) is underused really. Don't get me wrong he's in the film a fair bit but his character has next to no personality. All I learnt was he's polite, sharp, from the Swat team and is a sniper. That's it. The film could have been done without his character if they wanted to save whatever fee he commanded.

Whoever plays Eddie Murphy and Carme Ejogo's dog is good in this though. Stellar, powerhouse performance reminded me of Hanks in The Green Mile or Orson Welles in Citizen Kane.

So yeah, mixed bag really - there's hate for post-80s Murphy films sure, but this is one of the better ones. It's a solid watch (on netflix atm) and there's some good action and the bad guy is easy to hate, so there's a lot worse out there. I won't strongly recommend but I'll say it's worth a shot - you know what you're going to get.

Had seen this circulating on Netflix for a while, was only persuaded to watch it when I realised Alison Doody from The Last Crusade was in it. Even though she's old enough to be my mum she did look good back in the day!

Pierce Brosan stars in the titular role as a tough-as-nails Irish debt- collector. He's a fairly realistic depiction of the 'local tough guy' who sure as hell knows how to get the job done. He gets in a little over his head with some thugs but is able to use his brains as well as his brawn to overcome the odds.

Performances are good and well acted, Brosan and Doody especially. Although some of the accents are a little hit and miss. Even though those two are both Irish they don't actually sound it at times, whereas other times they do. Although maybe that's just me...

Years ago I heard a brief plot summary of this film and thought it sounded a little boring. However, when I finally came to see it earlier this year - I was very surprised. I've not actually read the book, so I won't go into that - although it is on my 'to-read' list.

What I liked most about this is the way it plays out as a supernatural adventure, a lot of horror films nowadays are more worried about creatively killing off characters and using snapcuts. But this film builds up a dream-like feeling of dread and sustains it the whole way through, with some truly memorable and disturbing scenes. Although I must say that the battle at the end is a tad over the top, but I'm not cynical enough to let that change my positive review too much.

Bill Pullman's lead character is a kind of geekier Indiana Jones, and as much as I say 'geekier' he is still able to scrap with the best of them - he has no hesitation when it comes to smashing someone over the head with a bottle certainly.

In short this is a well-worked adventure story with subtle, creeping horror themes running throughout it - put down that slasher film and watch this.

I had no expectations for this, but it definitely holds your attention for its (short) running time, and there are definitely a few laughs along the way. While things do get a bit farcical at times it provides a rewarding experience if you can look past it.

Basically Martin Freeman plays a cynical TV producer who lives with a bizarre, French artist called Bob. One day he heads out and leaves Bob to look after the house, and speak to some estate agents who are coming round to price the place up. However a local gangster, along with an American 'connection' need to use the toilet and end up holding them all hostage while one of them gets the runs. No, seriously - that is the plot!

There are better films out there, sure, but this little hidden gem is definitely worth a watch, particularly if you like the kind of thriller that has a paranormal tint to it.

McGregor is very good here (although he seems to possess the weirdest accent out there) as is Josh Brolin and Nick Nolte. The plot concerns a young man who takes the job as the night watchman at a spooky morgue. Things start to play on his mind, and as they do the bodies begin to rack up as a serial killer is on the loose. Is it McGregor? Or is his mind playing tricks on him, and if so who is the killer?

Watch and see!

From what I'd seen critics had lined up to pan this film, so for several years I didn't worry about it, and admittedly I've not seen the original version.

However it's been bouncing around netflix recently and so I thought 'why not give it a go!?' - and do you know what? I was pleasantly surprised. It's never going to win any Oscars - but then again, I don't think it was made with that in mind, but for what it is it's a very solid film.

The reason why I've given it a seven instead of a six (and it's not just due to the fact that Jessica alba is gorgeous) is because it does something that few horrors do nowadays, it actually builds a feeling of dread and suspense, playing off of the main character's blindness and sudden ability to see things very well. I'm not one for jumping normally but the sound is used to great effect here, and as I was listening through headphones I got it full throttle!

Even though it has two huge stars in it I'd never heard of this flick until I happened to watch it earlier this year, randomly. I think it was on netflix or something.

Basically Travolta and Williams are two business partners and Williams ends up having to look after children, which drags the two serious businessmen into a whole host of silly situations.

It's a kids' film, but its one of those kids' films that has a lot of humour that adults can appreciate too. So, if you'd like to watch a film that both you and your kids will enjoy then get ahold of this. It's definitely not perfect but there are some great scenes - particularly the one where the two adults mix up their medication.

It was summer 2007 and I went to the cinema with some friends thinking that we were about to see a horror film called 'Superbad'. Bear in mind that Cera, Hill and Rogen weren't that famous (at least in the UK) then - I had no idea what was coming.

Raunchy comedies about teens/young adults looking to get laid are nothing new. But just occasionally comes a film which has a bit more to it, a film which is as deep as it is 'gross-out' and funny. In the 1990s/early noughties we had 'American Pie' and now we have Superbad.

It takes place in the run-up to a big party (being hosted by the stunning Emma Stone) and a pair of losers are looking to get booze so that they can get their possible dates drunk and go from there. Their friend Fogell (who becomes McLovin) agrees to help them - but of course, as with all comedy, what must go wrong will go wrong. But unlike many comedies it never gets tedious.

Whenever I watch the ending I always wish there could be a sequel where the two characters are at college, but then again sequels often ruin good films.

Woody Harrelson is one of those actors whose movies I never initially set out to watch, not in the same way I would for Robert De Niro or someone. However just recently it's occurred to me that most of the films that I've seen of his I've enjoyed.

So when I saw he was in Defendor I thought why not give it a go? I was expecting a kind of Kickass style superhero flick about a bumbling idiot who ends up a hero. And in many ways, at least on the surface, you could say that that would be a decent one line summary of the film. However there's far much more to it than you'd expect.

Harrelson plays Arthur Poppington, a somewhat homeless man who appears to be suffering from a few learning difficulties. He is helped a lot by his friend, Carter, who has given him a job and some kind of construction site. However after being majorly influenced by comic books Poppington sets out to take to the streets and take revenge on some of the drug lords in the city.

He lacks any sort of super powers, but what he lacks in power he makes up for in sheer determination and as much as Poppington is slightly frustrating to watching he is also a character that you can't help but root for, with Harrelson playing him to perfection. One of his exploits he comes across a drug-addicted, teenage prostitute (Kat Dennings) who he sort of takes under his wing - although at times she appears to be irritatingly ungrateful and at the same time Poppington manages to annoy a local corrupt cop (who looks an awful lot like a bald Robert De Niro) as he sets himself up to take on a man who he believes to be his arch-rival, Captain Industry.

Does Defendor a.k.a Poppington manage to thwart the villains? Does the city embrace him as a hero? Does Kat Dennings ever thank him? I couldn't spoil it for you. However all I'll say is this really is a touching character study at times and is perhaps as close to life as a vigilante "superhero" type might ever actually be. If only this film was marketed better at the time I think it would have found a good fan-base, however it isn't really a popcorn film and by not being so genre conforming it does lose some of its possible audience.