Mark Ruffalo and Leonardo DiCaprio in Martin Scorsese's 'Shutter Island'.

As far as directors go, Martin Scorsese is one of the greats. With films like ‘Taxi Driver’, ‘Raging Bull’ and ‘The Departed’ up his sleeve, his name alone is enough to get moviegoers in seats.

So to heard that ‘Shutter Island’ had been pushed back four months — due to Paramount not having “the financing in 2009 to spend the $50 to $60 million necessary to market a big awards pic like this” — came as a bit of a surprise. February has never been a huge opening box office month for studios.

Fortunately, working in its favour is the the fact that buzz surrounding James Cameron’s ‘Avatar’ has finally begun to slow.

So how does Scorsese’s latest flick stack up against his growing list of iconic films?

‘Shutter Island’ is based on a novel by Dennis Lehane, whose previous novels have been turned into Academy Award winning/nominated films ‘Mystic River’ and ‘Gone, Baby, Gone’.

The film centres on two US marshals, Edward “Teddy” Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio) and Chuck Aule (Mark Ruffalo), who travel to an island off Boston Harbour to investigate the disappearance of a patient from a hospital for the criminally insane.

On the island, they meet the hospital administrator Dr. John Cawley (Ben Kingsley), who they find is unwilling to provide them complete access to the facility throughout their investigation.

The plot begins to thicken when a hurricane hits the facility, leaving them trapped on the island. During this time, Daniels begins to piece together a series mysterious clues, which lead him down a path to uncover what’s really happening on the island.

Despite being marketed as a edge-of-your seat horror flick, ‘Shutter Island’ is really more of a deeply threaded psychological thriller.

Scorsese pulls out all the tricks, from dark and harrowing environments, to long foreboding shots. It appears like an homage to an old Hitchcock thriller.

The biggest let down is the film’s feeble plot, which when you take into consideration all the build up and atmospheric conditioning which Scorsese has carefully crafted, the ending unfortunately fails to meet its own expectations. There’s far too much exposition, for what is considerably a less than earth-shattering plot twist.

Having said that, ‘Shutter Island’ is so precisely crafted, from a technical and directorial standpoint, the film is a beautiful work of art.

Curiously, one of the most memorable elements of the film was the score, which is actually an ensemble of previously recorded material. Scorsese re-teams with his long time collaborator music supervisor Robbie Robertson to create a rather cohesive soundscape. It lacks the subtly of traditional original score, but memorable none the less.

Cinema aficionados will appreciate the film’s strong self-awareness as a genre piece, while average moviegoers are likely to leave satisfied knowing they’ve witnessed more than just an edge-of-your-seat horror flick.

The film isn’t likely to win Best Picture at next year’s Oscars, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see a few nominations in the creative categories like Best Cinematography or Best Editing.

3.5 out of 5 stars

Sam Worthington

The widely held consensus from the more senior of filmgoers these days can be summed up with the old adage “they don’t make movies like they used to”. It is of course most commonly attached to films with an overload of special effects that take precedent over story and characters.

Having been on a self-imposed hiatus for the better part of the last decade, James Cameron certainly wouldn’t have been the first choice in a director to make a comeback with the intention of completely blowing said expression out of the water. But, within minutes of Avatar starting; nay, before the opening title card even appears, everyone who has ever seen a movie will be saying they don’t make movies like they used to anymore. Thank you, Mr Cameron.

Its without question that Cameron has invested everything he has into this. You can only imagine the technical dexterity required to create what in all reality is one of the most strikingly original, and utterly groundbreaking, examples of visuals on offer here. The detail and scope in the imagery that Cameron has created is incredible. He’s created a world unlike anything cinemagoers will have ever seen, and his achievement in this is nothing less than a revelation in the advancement in animation, cinematography and motion capture technology.

Knowing full well the time and effort taken to create this world and the characters that inhabit it, the millions of dollars spent – its been rumored to be the most expensive movie of all time – and the development of said technology from the ground up, the evidence is all there on the screen. In glorious 3D nonetheless, no expense has been spared and its perhaps even more incredible than you could even imagine.

As groundbreaking visually as the film undoubtedly is, personally there is still the undeniable feeling of animation niggling in the back of your mind. For something as hyper-realistic as it strives to be, I found it at times hard to be fooled. Its hardly a flaw though, as the wow factor is distracting enough throughout for it to remain nothing more than an after thought.

There are other criticisms here though amongst the inherent brilliance of the film. Firstly, and perhaps most obviously, there are some reservations regarding characterizations. You wont be in for many surprises as the relationships between characters evolve, particularly Jake (Sam Worthington) and Neytiri being (Zoe Saldaña) central to the movie. But even moreso the archtypical characters themselves; the war-mongering smack-talking military colonel hell-bent on destruction, the money-hungry businessman with no morals, the scientists who are hopelessly devoted to the indigenous Na’vi and their plight against the destruction of their home. Knowing all that, they rarely venture off the well-worn path and everything pretty much follows on where you’d expect as the film progresses.
Which of course leads into the plotting; much like the obviousness of the characters, the film as a whole is generally unsurprising in regards to the unfolding of the story in its most basic form. Boy meets girl, boy stuffs something up, girl gets angry, girl forgives boy, queue big fight scenes, live happily ever after once big bad guys are dead/gone.

In its defense though, none of the negatives here sully the experience at all. Despite its well worn chestnuts, it never feels quite so tedious considering Cameron’s background primarily in the action film genre. The balance is handled quite well, mixing the subtle romantic elements of the story amongst the evils of humanity through destruction of natural resources for financial gain. It will feel heavy handed to the cynics out there, but its really never that bad.
Cameron’s creation of a rich history for the Na’vi people also help enhance the plots more one-dimensional aspects. Not to mention the rousing action, battle scenes complimenting the beautiful, intricate details of the world that are equally as inherent in the film.

Ideally, Avatar is an experience that is best felt with minimal knowledge of the surprises that lay in store. Even knowing the weaknesses of the story, its entirely possible to enjoy this on its purely superficial points as they are so immersive and just so incredible. James Cameron has proven that even going without making a film for over 10 years he can still impress. Simply amazing.

5 out of 5 stars

Kristen Stewart and Taylor Lautner

It is still hard to fathom the mass rabid hysteria that the Twilight franchise incites in its fans. The problem isn’t so much that people enjoy the films, as there are people who enjoy stuff that’s much worse than this, but more that its hard to gain a grounded, well balanced perspective to the franchise – its basically a matter of picking your side and swooning as such.

So for those who have yet to be blinded by the dreamy awesomeness of these films, here comes your less fanatical-more grounded eye on what’s going on here.

As if anyone was doubting the possibility, New Moon offers very little difference to what its predecessor essentially set up. Its just the next instalment of the hyper-romanticised, exaggerated vampire love story for young girls. No more and no less. For the cynics out there, it’s difficult to say its harmless puff-cinema as its suggestive nature sways more to the obsessive side of romance. The literary-light musings of its characters through deep, longing, dramatic verses and gazes are just as expertly crafted here as they were in Twilight to maximise the effectiveness of said romantic appeal. To say that its not designed as such is the extent to which the obsession of these movies extends.

Okay, so this kind of narrative style isn’t to everyone’s appeal. The films aren’t meant for that kind of wide reaching demographic; let the girls have their dreamy undead and wolf-like male protagonists. For all the exploitative female characters in cinema that men get, a couple of guys taking their shirts off for the ladies really isn’t going to balance the scales anyway. Basically, this kind of thing either appeals to you, or it doesn’t.

For most everyone else though, that aren’t caught under the spell of this, it may well be a chore to sit through. The dialogue mostly borders on ridiculous, in particular much of the tripe that heartthrob Robert Pattinson has to spout in the effort of getting the young hearts racing. Wolf-boy Taylor Lautner fares better when paired with Kristen Stewart who has to carry much of the film’s weight on her shoulders; she too struggles under material that is well beneath her acting abilities.

Visually, the movie looks as you’d expect, Chris Weitz’s camera focusing completely on what helps sell the appeal of the movies. Compared to Catherine Hardwick’s direction in Twilight, Chris doesn’t deliver anything all that groundbreaking. If he should be praised for anything, it’s the lack of high wire forest vampire running that cheapened the first movie. There are also a few key scenes here that are actually rather good to watch, all of which work mostly because of the best element of the movie altogether; the soundtrack. Again, still probably not worth paying to see at the cinemas unless you are a fan of this franchise already, but certainly a good example of the bar being raised somewhat after the first film. Overall the film is more than adequate in the technical stakes, but certainly not worth the the price of admission just to admire it.

In the end though, films like this are essentially review proof. That is, weather its panned or celebrated by critics (or anyone for that matter), the film is designed to be the massive pop-cultural phenomenon that it was always going to be no matter what anyone says. This is pure popcorn cinema for girls, and with an already well-established blood-thirsty fan base of them ready to see this in droves, the ramblings of cinematic cynics and their mostly meaningless point of view will never be a match for that.

You know weather these movies are for you by the very fact that you have any idea of what its all about. New Moon follows on from Twilight closely enough to keep fans satisfied which is all that matters. If you aren’t one already, you wont be one after this, and you won’t be missing out on anything that will change your life either.

3 out of 5 stars

James Marsden and Cameron Diaz star in Richard Kelly's 'The Box'.

Where do you begin with a movie like ‘The Box’? Well, forget the stunt casting of Cameron Diaz in the lead role; she’s just the cherry to get people who would not otherwise have given ‘The Box’ a chance the opportunity to see something like this. The name to remember is Richard Kelly, the helmer of a little movie called ‘Donnie Darko’ that’s become the cult coming-of-age-slash-sci-fi-slash-superhero movie of the last decade. He is the real reason to sit down to ‘The Box’.

Having blown minds with the mind-bending ‘Donnie’, his follow up was the stunted straight to DVD release of ‘Southland Tales’. Boasting a massive cast of people who had no idea about any of Kelly’s grand ideas, the film tanked majorly with its incomprehensible plotting, overcrowded characters and generally over-ambitious clashing of styles and genres.

If ‘The Box’ was supposed to be the movie where Kelly comes back licking his wounds after ‘Southland Tales’, there is little evidence of that here. What starts off almost rudimentary quickly dissolves into something much more quixotic, as Kelly brings out his customary bag of tricks. The premise; a struggling suburban family in 70’s America is offered a million dollars to press a button and in the process kill someone, somewhere on the planet that they dont know – is simplistic enough on the surface, but clearly no movie can hold up a two hour running time on such a thin device. There is much, much more, going on here than meets the eye, which also too becomes apparent in due time.

Kelly, penning the script from a short story that was adapted to a ‘Twilight Zone’ segment, applies layer upon layer of depth to the at-first shallow story. He makes it easy to feel confused, but its all rather superficial in many ways when you think about it a little more. The trick is that there really isn’t much depth at all, because Kelly has given us little to work with. Like the simplistic box itself, its the irrational fears in people that the box represents that is the point. Is getting rid of your troubles as simple as pushing a button? Not likely.

Kelly taps into an authenticicy that encapsulates the times this is set in; visually, tonally. His direction has uniformally been very good, even in ‘Southland Tales’ where things went a little nuts. Fittingly here though, ‘Twilight Zone’ afficionado’s will immediately see the homage-like execution, right down to the cheesy retro-horror scoring that has just works in its own nostalgic way. But while this looks and sounds the part, the simpler question is why?

Why go to all this trouble, creating a plot that has so many seemingly unncessary aspects to it, just to teach its protagonists the devestating effects their moral choices can have? Well, it comes down to personal taste really. Kelly’s fondness of sci-fi, human paranoia and the world of the unknown, runs throughout all three of his films now, and clearly its an aquired frame of mind. While this certainly has its sinister elements, especially in the final act, its confronting methods fit within the parameters of ‘The Box’s’ intentions without being as shockingly exploitative as something like the Saw series.

Diaz’ stunt casting is odd though. This is hardly the debacle that Southland Tales was, but in its wake its easy to see Kelly would not have been able to make this without someone big to attract studio backing. At times its hard to take her seriously when she struggles to take her role seriously. Her muted performance seems to fit quite often though so its not a total watershed. Marsden fares better, but its Langella as the shadowy stranger with an offer too good to refuse who’se restrained cool appears here effortlessly.

‘The Box’ isn’t sold on its stars though; its Kelly’s overly warped imagination that is really on show. He might have raised his own bar too high with ‘Donnie Darko’; ‘The Box’ isn’t up to that standard, but thankfully its a massive improvement on his misfired follow up to the D-wonder. As compainion pieces, you couldn’t find two better movies to sit side by side with each other.  Thematically, both exist in the same realm of hightened science-fiction awareness that is just pure indulgence for the sci-fi lover who wants something more challengeing to devour. But dont let the premises red herrings throw you; even though this is Kelly’s most accessable film, it’ll still be a challenge for those unprepared. Its definatly not to be taken lightly.

4 out of 5 stars

Peter Sarsgaard and Carey Mulligan

There is no doubting ‘An Education’s’ ability to subtly seduce you with its charms. Without a doubt, its way of working around the questionable themes without being exploitative is one of the very intelligent standouts of Nick Hornby’s great screenplay.

Yes, this does show the burgeoning relationship between a 16 year old girl and a 30-plus year old man. Yet, perhaps more shockingly than the relationship itself, is feeling that it doesn’t seem all that bad… to begin with anyway.

Jenny is equal parts bright and naive, studying at school and just about ready to take the leap to university. The air of boredom in her monotonous life is then gently given a nudge when she meets the effortlessly charming David. He has everything she wants; the attraction of a life free of burden and expectations at seemingly no cost. It is too good to pass up as she falls deeper into the allure of good music, food and art.

However, Hornby peppers the plot early on with a few hints to suggest things aren’t exactly all what they appear to be. How coincidental was their first encounter? How exactly does David afford this wonderful life? We don’t know the specifics at first, but we all know what the story is and the plot eventually takes us right to them. It’s a tough lesson to learn for young Jenny, and all it takes is one moment to destroy any chance she has at her dream life.

It comes across a tad preachy at times regarding its comment on education itself, but the whole idea of trust, love and attraction through the eyes of youth is handled very well here. While it perhaps takes a few liberties here and there; to suggest teens would be as honest as Jenny is with her parents is a little much, the depiction of how easily people can deceive others is the real dramatic uptick. When you consider this is set in the 60’s, before the advent of the internet, the level of deception required for such trickery here puts into perspective the simplicity of such a charade these days.

Sarsgaard is his usual excellent self as David, capturing the subtleties and idiosyncrasies of such a character with a scarily accurate demeanor. It’s Carey Mulligan as Jenny who is the real treat to watch though. The older-than-she-seems qualities exude the kind of sensibilities needed for such a role, giving more credence to the character than would otherwise have been. While none are as well developed as the leads, Hornby also gives enough material to supports, including a brilliant Olivia Williams as Jenny’s teacher, to ensure they are more than just catalysts reacting to the events happening in the foreground.

While the character elements of the plot are pretty well honed here, the story itself nigglingly doesn’t lend itself to as much accuracy. Even though its set in the early 60’s, it does feel like a stretch at times that her parents could be so easily lead by David’s often forced eager-to-please appearance. And when David is exposed, considering the effort put into hiding the truth, it feels kind of thankless the way it’s all revealed in the end.

Even the ending itself feels kind of rushed. Once its point is made, it does kind of run out of steam and take the quick way with its resolution.

Showing honesty in the face of dishonesty though is what its all about though, and ‘An Education’ paints it with broad strokes. If it feels slightly exaggerated, it’s only to illuminate its ideas. You don’t feel uncomfortable about the relationship until it turns sour. And that it never exploits the situation to the point of uncomfort lends itself to the fact that there is romance at its heart. It’s a feeling that extends throughout the movie, and makes it better for it. It’s definatly a lesson worth indulging in.

4 out of 5 stars

Ellen Page

Many would have thought at some point in her career so far that Drew Barrymore would have directed at least one film. She has her own production company, starred in over 50 films and worked many of Hollywood’s most famous. But she actually hasn’t – until now.

While in many ways this would seem like a very low-key choice for a directorial debut, its easy to see why Drew took the helm. Of course, obscure sports movies are nothing new – the “boy’s club” perspective has been well and truly run into the ground thanks to the Will Ferrell’s of the world. But with its colourful dose girl power and teen movie smarts, Whip It is a whole other kind of ball game… in that, its not actually about a ball game at all.

It’s about roller derby; you’d be forgiven for not knowing anything about the game. Its as niche as it gets; even when the rules are explained, you’ll still be scratching your head at exactly how it works. While the game certainly is central to the plot, you can get by without the exact details of what is going on. And thankfully, its not really the point of the movie. As emblazend on the one-sheet, its about being your own hero. In this case, straping on the skates, blowing off the pagent-obsessed mother and taking down the competition in on the track is what it takes to be a hero.

All the girl power gusto definatly gives this all the more authenticity, but generally though its the predictability of the character arcs and the whole plot in general that keeps this from being as engaging as it should be. Whip It goes to great lengths to get have a good time thanks to its free-wheeling tone, but the more serious moral moments ever so slightly undermines the well-intentioned messages. Put it down to Shauna adapting her own novel to the screenplay.

Thankfully, Barrymore has been around the traps long enough to learn a few things, and it comes out in the traditional direction. But for a simple film, there is no need for flashy and it works in her favour. She’s also not afraid to get into the race during derby scenes which works quite well too.

Casting is pretty much spot on. Indie darling Page taps into her usual sardonic characteristics for leading lady Bliss; this is a walk in the park after Juno. Harden is also great as the pagent obssesed mother.

Drew putting herself into the film in a rather prominent slapstick role as one of the team members seems a little forced, but she’s careful enough to steal the scenes necessary and stand back at other times. Lewis in particular is great as arch nemesis Iron Maven, likewise Arrested Development’s Shawkat as Bliss’ archtypical BFF.

For all the minor quibbles, Whip It still remains a charming little movie mostly thanks to its reliability on convention. It balances the right attitude, the right cast and the right director with conviction, and maintains its infectious, fun feeling throughout. Which is more than can be said about most churned out teen movies of recent times.

4 out of 5 stars

Michael Gambon and Daniel Radcliffe star in the long awaited 'Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince'.

After being held back six months due to the writer’s strike leaving a rather large gap in Warner Bros. US summer release schedule, ‘Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince’ is finally here.

It’s been one of the most anticipated films of the year and early box office sales only seem to confirm this statement. The US midnight opening raked in an estimated $22.2 million, the biggest midnight opening ever. It even beat the studios’ previous record of $18.5 million for ‘The Dark Knight’.

So here we are six films into the series and it appears the magic is still there. The peak of the ‘Harry Potter’ mania has well passed, yet people are still flocking to the cinemas to see the latest instalment and after seeing ‘Half-Blood Prince’ it’s easy to see why.

From the get-go you know you’re in for a much different film than any of Harry’s previous adventures. David Yates who directed 2007’s ‘Order of the Phoenix’ returns as director for what is arguable the darkest ‘Harry Potter’ film yet.

Probably the biggest difference in the latest film and to a lesser degree ‘Order of the Phoenix’, is that the films are now simply pieces to a larger overarching story. Unlike the first four films they can no longer be taken as standalone stories, rather a fair bit of prior knowledge is not only assumed, but required.

Fans of the books will probably find this latest film to be quite a good screen adapation, while newcomers to the series will no doubt find it a littler harder to grasp on to. That being said, there are some truly wonderful things in this film worth non-readers time.

There are great performances from a number of the films cast, including Michael Gabon as the wise and protective Albus Dumbledore, Helena Bonham Carter as the psychotic Bellatrix Lestrange and Jim Broadbent as the new potions master Horace Slughorn.

The junior cast rise to the occasion with some great comedic performances by Rupert Grint as Ron Weasley and newcomer Jessie Cave as Lavender Brown. We also finally get to see Draco Malfoy as more than just the school bully, portrayed brilliantly by Tom Felton.

Romantic comedy takes centre stage in this film, as the characters begin to realise the feelings they have for each other. While some of these relationships lack the subtly they had in the books, they make for some truly entertaining moments.

Visually, this film is in constant darkeness. Some scenes are almost completely pitch black, silhouetted, or simply lit by the moon and/or characters wands. You don’t really get as sense of “magic in the air” like you did in previous films, instead the world seems rather stale. While this goes with the territory of the books becoming darker, as a film, it’s much harder to become engaged when everything is so dark and drab. It feels like they were trying for a more gothic Buton-esque style, though the end result wasn’t nearly fantastical enough.

Steve Kloves who wrote the screenplays for all of the previous films, sans ‘Order of the Phenix’, tries his best to make something fun and enjoyable out of a rather depressing story. Still, we’re able to laugh and become engaged by these characters we’ve grown to love over the last five films. Kloves was able to give the film a constant sense of movement and impending danger, despite the story relying on a fairly expositional reveal towards the end. While this film never really reaches an ultimate showdown for Harry, you do start to see the pieces begin to fall into place for what is to become the final battle between Harry and Voldemort.

The biggest let down in the film series so far is the direction the music has taken since John Williams left. The oscar winning composer, who created the wonderfully magical soundscape of the ‘Harry Potter’ universe, left after ‘Prison of Azkaban’ due to scheduling problems. In came Patrick Doyle who brought a brassy British sensibility to the ‘Goblet of Fire’ score. While many fans were initially outraged with Doyle’s effort, looking back on it now, it’s hard to argue that Doyle did in fact create some really bold and iconic themes.

‘Order of the Phoenix’ and subsequently ‘Half-Blood Prince’ brought in Nicholas Hooper, a long time collaborator of director David Yates. Hooper’s musical take on the series so far has been pretty much unmemorable. While he’s been somewhat more open to translating some of Williams’ original themes, the lack of his own iconic themes has left the series feeling musically bland. There’s nothing thematic to grab onto. Everything feels rather monotonous with the sole purpose of serving the current scene, rather than building its own overall identity. By now there really should be an iconic theme for Voldemort, but it’s nowhere to be found. Even Doyle managed to create a strong brooding theme for Voldemort in the one film he scored.

‘Half-Blood Prince’ really manages to hold up quite well in comparison to its prequels, if not exceeding them. It has its own strong identify which is both entertaining and emotional. Yates has really managed to ground the film in a reality which could otherwise be lost to farce. It has an ease and flow about it, in which some of the previous films have struggled to do so eloquently.

To sum things up, ‘Half-Blood Prince’ probably isn’t the magical adventure previous films were, but its dark and moody and it sets up an excellent launch pad for the final two installments. The ending leaves us begging for answers and we can only begin to anticipate what the final chapters will bring.

4 out of 5 stars

Megan Fox and Shia LaBeouf star in "Revenge of the Fallen", the follow up to 2007's smash hit "Transformers".

Following on from the hugely successful 2007 smash hit “Transformers”, comes “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen”, the second film based on the Hasbro toyline by the same name.

Director Michael Bay (‘Armageddon’, ‘Peal Harbour’) returns to helm the multi-million dollar blockbuster with stars Shia LaBeouf, Megan Fox, Josh Duhamel, Tyrese Gibson and John Turturro.

So where do we begin with “Revenge of the Fallen”?  Well, let’s start with the action.

Let’s just say there’s plenty of it. Loud, messy, chaotic action. The film jumps from city to city destroying everything in its path. Not unlike is prequel.

You can’t go past Michael Bay when it comes to action blockbusters. He’s the king, right?

Well, unfortunately for “Revenge of the Fallen”, as great as the action is, its almost like one giant ego-stroking rehash of every other Michael Bay film. Whether this was intentional, or perhaps I’m just too familiar with Bay’s previous work, there really wasn’t anything in there that hasn’t been seen before. Asteroids, sinking warships, you name it. It’s all in there.

Half an hour into the film and you’ve pretty much filled your action quota. There’s just too much of the same action and nothing really stands out.

That being said, the visual effects are truly unbelievable. Industrial Light and Magic have absolutely nailed a visual style for the Autobots and Decepticons which is both realistic and other worldly.

The Witwicky clan are back to fill your ears with plenty of mindless banter. Shia LeBeouf (Sam Witwicky), Kevin Dunn (Ron Witwicky) and Julie White (Judy Witwicky) provide reasonably strong comedic performances, which help break up the excessive action scenes.

John Turturro (former Sector 7 agent Seymour Simmons) and Ramón Rodríguez  (Sam’s college roommate, Leo Spitz) also provide some comic relief.

What made the first film so great, was its ability to not take itself to seriously, thanks to its strong comedic cast. However in “Revenge of the Fallen” you start to feel as though the film is almost trying too hard to be funny and sometimes actually verges on annoying.

Megan Fox (Mikaela Banes) resumes her role as the resident hottie, a role which everyone knows she does all too well. Michael Bay clearly intended to up the ante, by strategically dressing her in even more scant clothing.

Australia’s Isabel Lucas (Alice) adds a second layer of sex appeal, just in case Megan Fox straddling a motorcycle wasn’t enough for you. Lucas has never been the strongest actor in our books and “Revenge of the Fallen” is no different. If it weren’t for her looks, would she have been cast? Doubtful…

What lets “Revenge of the Fallen” down so much is its rather poor storyline. Everything is made out to be so eventful, that by the end, nothing stands out.

Hollywood writing duo Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci, who’ve brought us a number of Hollywood blockbusters over the last few years including “The Ledged of Zorro”, “The Island” and “Mission Impossible III”, resume their writing positions on “Transformers”.

While “Revenge of the Fallen” was in development, Kurtzman and Orci were also hard at work writing “Star Trek” and co-creating television series ‘Fringe’ with J.J. Abrams. They were also making final (but uncredited) script revisions to Zack Snyder’s “Watchmen”, serving as producers on “Eagle Eye” and executive producers on romantic-comedy “The Proposal”.

Perhaps the fact that they’ve been just so busy with so many projects is why “Revenge of the Fallen” fails to hit the mark. The storyline feels so thinly stretched between all the rampant collateral damage, if someone asked me what the film is about, I’d really have to think hard to try and remember.

So, what’s the bottom line?

“Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” is a great action blockbuster for those who love fun popcorn flicks. Its even a little easier to sit through from just a motion sickness inducing persecutive, thanks to less chaotic camera work. But for anyone who was expecting something different to the first or a little more in terms story, then perhaps you might leave a little disappointed.

2 out of 5 stars