Melancholia

It is infuriating how much Lars von Trier let's his ego and big mouth ruin many of his films. Sure the whole Cannes debacle surrounding this film might have been surprising, but it wasn't shocking. From von Trier, it is almost to be expected. As a result of episodes like this, I find it even harder to like his already difficult films; almost as if I don't want to like them. The man shows nothing but contempt for his audience, so why should I show nothing but contempt for him? Von Trier's last film Antichrist, was horrific for all the wrong reasons. Very unpleasant and shocking only for the sense that he put those unspeakable things on screen merely to provoke than for any true artistic statement. However he has proven himself to be capable of memorable works before, as I'm sure he will be again. It's just that I wish his gobby mouth wouldn't make me question the validity of his work; is he a clueless sap, who occasionally lucks out by working with talented people, or is he a true revolutionary genius in cinema? I've not made up my mind and in truth I probably never will. His films will continue to provoke outrage and debate. One thing is for sure; they will always be memorable. Here he finds himself working within the loose realm of science fiction. Not that true science bears any effect on the storyline, von Trier decides rather to have it metaphorically inform the picture and instead focus on the social embarrassment and human melodrama that he specialises so well in. Here that metaphor as macguffin is the rather enormous rogue planet of Melancholia, that threatens to engulf planet Earth any day now. Of course, it is almost half way in until anyone even mentions this; von Trier instead opens on a (disastrous) wedding in part 1 and introduces our two sister characters, along with a range of entertaining supporting characters. The melancholia here is Dunst's Justine; struggling with depression and destined to forever push away those she loves. Symbolism is rife and when the destructive planet rears it's head in part 2, it is merely an extension of Justine's psyche made physical. There is nowhere to run, nowhere to hide, melancholia will eventually engulf all. Von Trier is about as suble as a hammer to the head, but to his credit, he explores Justine's mental state very well. Dunst is stunning and in the more showy of the two roles (Charlotte Gainsbourg thankfully is stretched no where near her Antichrist limits) she handles it beautifully, eliciting both emotion and understanding from the audience, even when she does some pretty unforgivable things. As Gainsbourg takes center stage in part 2, we instead focus on the isolated estate as the impending doom draws ever closer and the stakes are ratcheted up. We are in fairly straightforward von Trier territory here and there is nothing as polarising as some of his previous features have been. While events are still pretentious (it's a Lars von Trier film!) it is somehow relevant to the gloomy goings on in both the film and planet. Apart from a quite beautifully shot and surreal opening, the man shies away from anything too ostentatious and instead let's the films themes do the talking. It is certainly dour throughout; (in a film called Melancholia how could it not be?!) but thankfully there are a few moments of understated humour highlighting the innate ridiculousness of it all. At the end of the day the film is absolutely stunning to look at and features fantastic acting from all involved. It's just that the inherent kitschiness of it all engulfs proceedings at times. What is certain is that after watching the beauty of Melancholia, it won't be forgotten in a hurry.

Verdict: 7/10
Handsomely shot with a stunning performance from Dunst. Von Trier courts controversy wherever he goes but where he not so prone to incomprehensible ego-laden outbursts, his films would have a better chance of standing up for themselves. Anyone who hated the man before should stay well away, but for others this is an original and very memorable dissection of depression. God certainly loves a Trier.

"Melancholia" Trailer

Rise of the Planet of the Apes

I don't think anybody saw this coming. That a reboot/prequel of a forty something year old franchise would go on to become the best blockbuster of the Summer completely came out of left field for me. Sure, that first glimpse of CGI from the film was incredibly photo real but a good film is not made on special effects alone. Added to this, the first trailers released seemed hokey and moronic. Now while I have never seen any of the original Planet of the Apes films (minus the horrid 2001 remake), I couldn't see how a film like Rise could or would ever be relevant to cinemagoers today. Well this has turned out to be one of the films biggest strengths - low expectations. Everybody was more fixated on giant fighting robots, boy wizards and Captain Jack Sparrow this season, than a film about CG monkeys. Despite it's few minor flaws, this late addition to Summer is frequently visually stunning, offers a strong plot and features one of the most gasp inducing scenes in recent memory. Director Rupert Wyatt made waves with his debut feature The Escapist in 2008. Filmed primarily in Dublin's Kilmainham Jail, it was notable for it's fantastic ensemble cast, a rare lead for Brian Cox and how accomplished it was despite it's low budget roots. After a number of directors had come and gone for this gig, Wyatt finally got the unenviable job of crafting another chapter in the somewhat sullied Apes franchise. Here, he aces it, proving that The Escapist was no fluke and that he is just as home with huge budget effects laden extravaganzas as he is in more intimate character driven features. That his film is the success it is is down to one very important thing; Andy Serkis. Despite his British theatrical roots, Serkis has garnered more critical success with his CG animated characters, than any of his live action ones. The words 'oscar nomination' have been bandied about since this films release and upon viewing the film it is easy to see that such claims are not exaggerated at all. Serkis is simply remarkable, breathing impressive life into a simian who can barely communicate. His Caesar is not only a true watershed moment for CGI, but also for performance capture. It is after all, a true performance, eliciting genuine emotion and true depth behind those eyes. Using very little other than his movements, Serkis manages to imbue his CG character with important character tics and traits to staggeringly real results. It is magic come alive on screen.

The plot concerns Dr. Will Rodman (James Franco) as he tries to discover a cure for Alzheimer's, as he watches his father (John Lithgow) slowly succumb to the disease. Through his many tests on Chimpanzee's we see it having a side effect and making one in particular, more intelligent that the rest. As can be guessed from the title, events lead to a full on simian revolt against the humans but what surprises the most is how easily Wyatt manages to make even the more far fetched elements of the script, plausible. Whereas those trailers seemed daft and illogical, the film takes the time to fully develop it's themes, so that when some of the more outlandish things happen, they are entirely inevitable in the plot. The respective monkey poo does indeed hit the fan here, but Wyatt manages to stay focused on the story side of things, never leaving the films core relationship of Will and his pet Chimp Caesar (Serkis) off screen for too long. To say the effects are stunning is an understatement; throughout they constantly dazzle and impress, but crucially never overwhelm the story. There are many instances were the various assortment of Chimps and Gorillas are actually photo real. Throughout, each simian performance fully convinces and while any casual observer on set must have had some alarming thoughts on why such a large group of middle aged men are dressed in leotards acting like baboons, the finished result is nothing short of miraculous. The films protagonist isn't it's human Will, it is entirely Caesar. It is he who shows a true character arc and whom the audience fully emotes in - Franco is there to better sell the Chimp action to the audience. Sure there are flaws; Freida Pinto's girlfriend gets nothing to do, while the films assortment of bad guys: David Oyelowo, Brian Cox and Tom Felton have no depth and come off more as villainous pantomime characitures. But overall this is a film that asks interesting questions about animal testing using it's technical accomplishments to further the story, rather than over power it. Sure the other Apes films had more social/political undertones enriching any allegorical context, but we are after all only on film one of a new proposed franchise. There are plenty of directions to take Caesar in which none of the bigger themes will be shied away from. In evidence of this, a sequel might not be such bad thing for once.

Verdict: 8/10
A fantastic addition to the Apes canon and perfect as a stand alone story for anyone unfamiliar with the franchise. Incredible special effects, stylish direction and a stunning performance from Serkis makes this, hands down, the best film of the Summer.

"Rise of the Planet of the Apes" Trailer

Cowboys & Aliens

Following on from the likes of Snakes on a Plane, Alien Vs. Predator and Ernest Goes to Africa of films that let you know their plot from their title, we have Cowboys & Aliens; a film that does pretty much exactly what it says on the tin. While I am not usually a fan of these titles that do the marketing teams job for them, I have to admit, something about cowboys facing off against aliens intrigued me, as it would the young boy in any cynical, jaded young man. Then it was announced that none other than both Indiana Jones and James Bond would be taking these alien marauders on and I suddenly sat up and took notice - boyhood dreams are made of this. Unfortunately the final product does not wholly deliver on those rabid fanboy expectations. Director Jon Favreau could have had a gleefully wild and fun adventure ride, and instead the film takes itself too seriously, which only ever expands on it's flaws. Not that it isn't a fun night out, rather the film seems tonally unsure of itself and never truly knows in what way to play these two opposing genres off against each other. Despite a stellar line up of talent both in front and behind the camera, it seems that everyone was betting everything on this films title rather than a fully rounded concept. Favreau has himself, promoted the film through old fashioned ways; rather than the film being presented in nice and shiny 3D with a million bells and whistles, Favreau decided to shoot on film and have only his two leading men's star power as being sufficient enough to entice audiences. It worked for me, but there is a whole other generation that doesn't hold Harrison Ford close to their hearts as we do and Daniel Craig hasn't been seen in any (action) roles in three years. Will it be enough? Well the answer is both yes and no. You see while there is a certain amount of nostalgic delight in seeing Ford in a fedora again and extraterrestrial predators falling prey to Indian arrows, there just isn't enough adventure on display to this journey.

Craig plays Jake Lonergan, a wanted criminal who wakes in the middle of the desert, with no recollection of himself or how he got there, with a mysterious clunk of mettle slapped on his wrist. As his townsfolk is suddenly attacked by strange flying shapes in the night sky and family members abducted, Lonergan must join forces with enemy Colonel Dolarhyde (Harrison Ford) to save the day and find out about his mysterious past. Throughout, Craig is all grimaces and scowls. As The Man With No Past, he says very little and carries a 'don't mess with me vibe' that comes in handy when those aliens show up looking for their bracelet back. He is effective as the lead but doesn't wholly gel with Ford. As much as it pains me to say it, there are times when the once Dr. Jones' performance seems off. He is always value for money, but he fails to carry any sense of conflict either about getting his son back, Craigs loose cannon team mate or this historical first contact with the miners from a different Galaxy. Any initial tension between Lonergan or Dolarhyde quickly seems forgotten and the film never derides any hostility or unease between the two. Olivia Wilde looks misplaced amongst the grit and her character only provokes a million more questions about her past while all Sam Rockwell seems to say is 'they took my wife'. However, it is a good cast. In between Craig and Fords superstardom everyone else is filled up by a nice line of reliable supporting character actors. What carries everything through is that same central idea. While Favreau still seems unsure of how to direct action he delivers the Western side of the genre very well without playing it up or making fun of itself. As a result everything is quite gritty and much more tough than you might expect. The sci-fi side of events unfortunately has more than it's share of plot holes. If it's aliens are so smart and powerful than why don't more of them use their weapons instead of ripping everyones throat out? Why are they really here for? Just where did Olivia Wilde come from? The film never satisfactorily answers these questions, but it is fun and interest in events is maintained. It seems that while the script seems unsure of which way to play things, Favreau was right all along; it was it's cast's mere presence that help sell the action, and it's simple title that would get you into the theatre in the first place.

Verdict 5/10

The film is fun, but never fun enough and has a tonally unsure script to match it's plot holes. However, you gotta love that cast and in it's concept alone, there is plenty to see on screen which hasn't been seen in a while.  The western works just fine, but the sci-fi needed more polish.

"Cowboys & Aliens" Trailer

Super 8

Inevitably and almost unfairly Super 8 has to be able to stand up to some of the greatest films ever made. JJ Abrams certainly has set the bar high for himself. You see, by crafting something as deliciously nostalgic and warm as Super 8, it must first come out out of the shadow of it's forebears and stand on it's own. That shadow is Steven Spielberg, the man who's DNA permeates every frame of Super 8. Abrams has made a film-cum-love letter to the man and for 112 minutes, we are in one epic homage to the legend. Not many filmmakers could stand up to such glaring reverence on screen, but Spielberg has influenced so many directors now, that it seems a film like Super 8 was inevitable. And while the man himself has not made a film since 2008, this is certainly the Summer of Spielberg. He has produced many of the years tent pole releases and the rest owe a great deal to him. The one thing that ties these films (Cowboys & Aliens, Transformers 3) together is extraterrestrials; a genre that has always been synonymous with the man. Here it reaches it's apex in Super 8, a lovingly crafted throwback to simpler times and better movies. So while Spielberg produces, Abrams has taken it upon himself to try and recreate some of the magic the bearded man has put up on screen. As a result, the film is a perfect hybrid of both their styles. Abrams wrote and directed and it is obvious the story is personal to him. What is surprising that for such an 'event' film like this, it is the story and characters we take away from it, rather than it's set pieces. Not that this film doesn't have any 'wow' moments; far from it, but they refreshingly occur at the service of the plot, rather than being for the sake of it just to keep the young 'uns interested.

We all sat up and took notice at that that trailer last year. The teaser with the giant train crash. Abrams immediately courted interest and efficiently drummed up plenty of hype with a simple unannounced and unknown teaser trailer. After that the film was coated in secrecy. No one could tell you a thing about the film and speculation about what had escaped from that destroyed carriage, took root in message boards all over the internet. Not that there was any big secret about the film; rather Abrams simply wanted the audience to walk into the film and not feel like they had already watched the damn thing. Plenty of films this Summer had shown their hand in promotional materials well before their release; Super 8 is notable for the fact that it is the only one we knew quite little about. It's hype came from the not knowing. So what we now know is this: set in 1979, the film centres on a group of young boys that are filming their own super low budget DIY zombie film. Upon filming one night, the boys (and girl) are caught in the midst of a catastrophic derailing of a train and from that wreckage, a mysterious creature emerges and begins to wreck havoc on a small town. In between the vicious alien attacks and frequently stunning (but low key) special effects there is the very simple story of one young boy, Joe (Joel Courtney), struggling to come to terms with his mothers untimely death (the fractured family is a Spielberg mainstay) and reconnect with his workaholic Father (Kyle Chandler) by way of getting the girl and catching the 'evil' monster. Abrams cast the young group impeccably. In a film in which most of the characters are under 15, you better make sure that A) they can act and B) they aren't annoying. While some deliveries and moments of humour are a bit off, they are all wonderful for the most part; impressively cussin' and hollering - reacting as most kids would to the larger than life situations they find themselves in. While the third act of the story doesn't wholly deliver on what had gone before it and raises just a few plot holes, the overall effect is unexpectedly moving and touching. Aided by Michael Giacchino's best John Williams impression, the score is suitably grandiose and intimately heartfelt. Overall this is a very welcome and exciting blockbuster that favours story and character over bombarding it's audience with explosions and violence. And in that train crash we glimpsed in the trailer we have the best action scene of the year; heart stoppingly tense and incredibly executed. As all the hulking shards of metal tumble into each other and collapse over the fleeing group, it is that human element which helps sell the danger - we care about these kids.

Verdict: 7/10
The group of kids (The Goonies) all nail their characters. The emotion (E.T.) is touching. The sci-fi (Close Encounters of the Third Kind) is suitably mysterious and the monster (Jurassic Park) is a ferocious treat. Abrams set out to out-Spielberg Spielberg and while the mans oeuvre is too classic to touch, he still does a pretty decent job. Taken on it's own merits, Super 8 is a wonderfully made and lovingly retro hark back to a long gone era of film making. He also turns in the best blockbuster this Summer so far.

"Super 8" Trailer

Captain America: The First Avenger

Well it's finally happened. Marvel have dropped the ball. In setting all sights on next years epic superhero team-up The Avengers, they have been racing to get all story lines in order before it's release. It was bound to happen really. So far each of the four films in the Marvel Studios Universe (Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, Thor) has done their job to the best of their ability in succeeding being stand alone films first and teasers for The Avengers second. But here in Captain America, shows for the first time that they were clearly more preoccupied with getting all those heroes in the one room for next year, than actually developing a decent story for Steve Rogers et al. Director Joe Johnston has made a career out of being a poor man's Spielberg. Long before JJ Abrams came along with the homage to end all homages in Super 8, Johnston was the go-to-guy whenever getting Spielberg was deemed too expensive. As a result, he turned in such efforts as a poor mans Indiana Jones (Hidalgo, The Rocketeer), a poor mans Jurassic Park (Jurassic Park III, Jumanji) alongside Honey, I Shrunk The Kids and last years contender for worst movie of 2010: The Wolfman. Not exactly an impressive track record. And yet Marvel decided he was perfect for Captain America. Each of their choices so far to helm these huge budgeted superhero flicks has been both interesting and fitting. Jon Favreau and Kenneth Branagh both seemed left field choices to take on films of this nature and yet they knocked their efforts out of the park and both Joss Whedon and Shane Black set to continue that trend with their upcoming efforts across the next few years. And yet when Johnston was announced, I didn't think 'how interesting'; rather a sickening groan of 'oh no'. However, while I had my serious doubts about 2011's previous contender Thor, that actually turned out to be surprisingly good fun, so surely the Captain couldn't be as bad as I might have thought? He is after all, one of Marvel's last untouched top shelf superhero's that they have not yet adapted for the screen in their new line. And so I reigned in my doubts for 'Cap'. How wrong I was....

Captain America has a distinction from most other recent superhero films; it is set almost entirely during World War II. We open with a small, skinny and sickly Steve Rogers (Chris Evens) as he repeatedly tries to join the army, to no avail. Here is a man who detests bullies, stands up for what he believes in and has great values of good and justice. It is for this reason, that Rogers is selected by Dr Abraham Erskine, (Stanley Tucci) to be a contender for some sort of super soldier serum. The serum turns Rogers into the all powerful and muscular Captain America. Meanwhile, evil Nazi's dubbed HYDRA (basically even badder Nazi's than usual - hiss!) have set their sights on an all powerful tesseract with the power to win the war and take over the world. Being led by the sinister Red Skull (Hugo Weaving - he looks exactly like he sounds) nothing stands between them and total world domination. That is, apart from Cap and his team. The cast do their best with the lacklustre script yet fail to add much gravitas to any of the action on screen. Weaving snarls and delivers evil one liners with relish but amounts to little much more, while romantic interest Hayley Atwell contributes zilch to proceedings and is obviously shoe-horned in to appeal to the female demographic. Other supporting roles don't fare much better. Not one character makes any impact on proceedings and each one is vastly under developed. Evans works well enough I guess, but can't really do much with a character as bland as the Captain himself. With Thor, everything was played as a fish out of water comedy to balance out it's more fantastical action and help sell the inherent ridiculousness of such a character - a very wise move indeed on Marvel's part. Captain America has always stood as a cheesy, patriotic, flag waving square to everywhere outside of the US and was always going to be a tough character to swallow for most (that the film is merely named The First Avenger in many territories of the world speaks wonders at how unsure Marvel were to sell their brand). However, instead of playing up just how much of a nerd the man is, Johnston fully indulges him. Within him, there is no confliction or darkness, just an over eager appetite to do good no matter what. This shreds the character of any depth or interest he might have had. This might have been easier to overlook if the man was actually truly super. Compared to the Hulk's might, Thor's power and Iron Man's vast gadgets, Cap does.....very little actually. Apart from running faster that is. Even his shield seems more super powered than the man himself. Throughout, I kept on waiting to see him stretch his powers and do something truly incredible but it never came. This almost certainly will see him stick out like a sore thumb along his more fantastical team mates next year. Action sequences are all poorly staged and have no originality to them - most occur for no other reason it seems than someone deciding 'we need an action scene, let's do one here'. Also, despite it's PG rating, the film is by far the most violent Marvel film to date, with deaths well up into the double digits. I guess when it involves Nazi's you can do whatever you want with them and avoid the pesky wrath of the MPAA. The film carries a pleasing retro vibe throughout, which makes things that bit more tolerable and Tommy Lee Jones is his usual craggy, reliable self, but as the film goes on, it sinks further into it's unimaginative stylings. Not that any of those Marvel films so far were high art, far from it in fact - but they were at least fun and entertaining. Captain America had plenty of potential and only a small percentage of which has been delivered on. Some things work along the way and those looking for nothing more than an effects laden action film could do worse but with so much riding on this guys introduction, he should have landed harder. Thor is a missplaced God with Daddy issues, Hulk is a tragic take on Jekyll & Hyde and Iron Man has his egotistical mouth to match his impressive arsenal of weapons - what does Captain America have? A guy who wanted to be strong and now he is so he beats people up if they're bullies? Not exactly the stuff of legend is he?

Verdict: 4/10
Impressive retro stylings and special effects do not mask what is a clunky mishandle of a character that had plenty more to offer than what is seen here. Under developed and poorly written, this Captain would have been better off being kept frozen.

"Captain America: The First Avenger" Trailer

Transformers: Dark of the Moon

So it is entirely fair to say, that 50% of people reading this have already made up their mind on whether not they want to see another "Transformers" film. This polarising viewpoint stems from how you feel about Michael Bay in general. There seems to be some sort of vendetta against the man; pretty much all of his films have garnered average to bad reviews from most critics and cinema scholars turn bright red at the very mention of his name.  And yet he remains one of the biggest and most successful directors of all time. Like it or not folks, Michael Bay is here to stay. So what is it about the man that provokes such extreme responses? Is it that his name is a byword for dumb, noisy, crass, commercialism crap? Or is it a Bayword for a good ol' fashioned rollicking time at the movies? I happen to believe that while such important things like plot, character and dialogue is the very last thing on his mind, he sure knows how to present a shiny picture on screen. He is also one of the best directors of spectacle working today. What is undeniable, is that he is an auteur. You always know when you're watching a Michael Bay film and this is what I believe, gives him the edge over other similar commercialistic whores such as Stephen Sommers, Brett Ratner, or the dreaded McG. They may peddle the same absurd, mindless junk, but they could be anybody behind the camera. They have no stamp. If you hated the last two "Transformers" films or indeed, Michael Bay, then stay well away; the man has not learned from any of his past mistakes. In fact "Transformers: Dark of the Moon" may be the most 'Bay' film Bay has done. He has outBayed himself. Haters will be Baying for his blood with the amount of Bayhem he unleashes on screen. Baysically, the film is utter tosh - but my oh my, is it entertaining tosh. And there is nothing anybody can do - despite all of the negative press the film has received, it has already made squillions of dollars.

The plot as it stands again follows Sam Witwicky (LeBeouf) finding himself under appreciated just because he can't get a job despite the fact that he has giant alien robots for friends, has a new lifeless, wooden sex doll in the shape of Rosie Huntington-Whiteley (by far the only truly grating thing in the film) and that he, y'know, saved the world twice . His sentient alien robot friends discover there is a thought to be long lost Autobot shuttle that had crash landed on the moon in the 60's holding the key to the salvation of Cybertron along with the remains of one of their old leaders, Sentinal Prime. Then explosions happen, Decepticons show up with a nefarious plan and all story gets thrown out the window in favour of more explosions and huge CG robot scraps. 'Genuine' actors show up along the way such as John Malkovich, Frances McDormand and John Turturro to gurn and make broad jokes and then collect their HUUUGE paycheques after promptly leaving. There are a million plot holes you could drive a big red truck through and everything is needlessly complicated and drawn out. OK, it is beginning to sound like I'm criticising everything, when in fact I actually thoroughly enjoyed this film. It features stunning special effects, and fantastic stunt work. This is a Summer Blockbuster through and through and you'll be hard pressed to find better action all year. This is down to a simple stream lining of plot that brings everything back to a straight forward alien invasion on Chicago. Sure, it takes far too long to get there, but when we do, Bay unleashes an hour of adrenaline pumping, non stop action for it's climax. If you paid to see giant robots fight, then that is what you are going to get here and then some. The 3D is easily the best seen since "Avatar" with a jaw dropping wing suit skydiving scene into an urban war zone being the stand out. This film proves that when 3D is done right (ie, not hastily converted after filming) the results are easily worth it. Again, this all comes down to a simple view point of whether or not you are into this sort of thing. There are plenty of reasons to dislike this film, but why waste your energy when it is easier to just go along with the ride? Whether it be women, shiny cars, CG effects, the military or Shia LeBeouf's over-acting, Michael Bay's camera never fails to exploit everything it see's. It may not be rocket science, but there is a nice warm fuzzy feeling when you knowingly give yourself over to advertising disguised as cinema, especially when it is done as well as this - and besides, where else are you going to see a SWAT Team escape a building as it falls over, whilst still stuck inside? Let's see art house do that.

Verdict: 6/10
Overlong, over dumb and overstuffed with CGI, this is nontheless, an often exhilarating ride of pure and utter destruction for nothing other than shits and giggles. Those who hated Bay before will be pulverised into brain dead submission long before the credits roll, but for everyone else this is fantastic Summer popcorn fare and almost better than the first entry in the series.

"Transformers: Dark of the Moon" Trailer

X-Men: First Class

It might be churlish of me, but where was Matthew Vaughn five years ago? Making "Stardust" probably; a reasonably successful fantasy/romance hybrid. But more importantly he was not making "X-Men: The Last Stand". You see when Bryan Singer decided to make the eternally lamentable "Superman Returns" and ditch the franchise that had been his calling, he left a very big void in his absence. Of course, everybody knows how bad that decison was in retrospect: arguably Singers career has not fully recovered from the response that film received. After working steadily up with some classy and stunningly well made indie thrillers, his jump to the big time resulted in (along with "Blade") two films that kick started the craze for comic book films that have been ever popular for over a decade now. "X-Men" was fantastic success for a number of reasons. It appealed to people who thought they didn't like comic books, it led to one of the best sequels of all time, and it proved that comic book movies could be a valuable commodity. So after two highly successful movies Singer was faced with either making the third and possibly fourth chapter in the franchise, or with rebooting Superman for a new generation. Fox denounced him to do both and so Singer chose Superman and placed a young up and coming director in his place. Someone he could trust with the franchise. Someone with an eye and a vision on where to take it all. Vaughn, fresh off the success he had with his directorial debut "Layer Cake" was that man. And he.......didn't take the job. After all that, the man walked away from the project. Vaughn cited the reasons for his departure as the simple fact as that he was still learning the ropes of his profession. The deadline for the release of "X-Men 3" was rapidly nearing and the time he was alloted to film the movie was too small. So Vaughn walked and Fox brought on board hack for hire, Brett Ratner to helm the final installment and thus irrevocably screwed up the entire franchise; destroying any possibility for a fourth chapter and beginning the downward spiral continued by "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" three short years later. Early last year and word comes that Fox are planning a prequel/reboot to their franchise. Gossip hinted that none other than Singer was back on board to save the flailing franchise. But then wouldn't ya know it, yet another film steals him away. That film "Jack, The Giant Killer" is not due out till next year but that still left a void in who would take over for First Class. Enter yet again, one Matthew Vaughn, riding high on the critical and cult success of "Kick-Ass", a gloriously morally questionable and hilariously anti-superhero film. Now this is where it gets ironic. With just a little over a year to deliver the film (most of these types of big budget and effects laden extravaganzas usually take two years to finish) the man actually takes the job. So in a round about way, it brings me back to my original point: Where was he when we needed him? It seems odd that he is a directing a film that has the same deadline as the very similar one he stepped away from did, five years ago. Where was he then? As this film testifies to, he is more than up to the job and could have saved us the travesties of the last two films. But is his return too late?

Prequels, by their nature have an uphill struggle ahead of them. Put simply, fans of the original films will always know how a prequel must end, if it wants to segue effortlessly in with it's older siblings. However, more times than not this robs it of any natural tension the story line should have. It is one of the main reasons why Lucas' new "Star Wars" films didn't work. We knew how everything would turn out. So going into this, we have a certain expectation for the characters in knowing how they are going to get to the people that begin the original film. This is a problem that "X-Men: First Class" very neatly manages to sidestep almost entirely throughout it's running time. Sure there were a few moments here and there I caught myself anticipating a plot point as a result of having seen all the other films that happen after this one, but for the most part Vaughn and writing partner Jane Goldman's script managed to keep me enthralled. In this film we follow a young Eric Lensherr (a typically fantastic Michael Fassbender), better known to you and I as Magneto, and Professor Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) and find out how they became friends, before turning into the characters from the original trilogy. Set during the Cuban Missile Crisis, this is the first film in the franchise to successfully have a distinct look and feel, completely separate to that which has gone before it. Vaughn has great fun with his swinging 60's, putting the soon to be called X-Men into all sorts of adventures by way of the old James Bond flicks. The main bad guy even has his own villainous submarine. So as evil Kevin Bacon plots to start a nuclear war for his own nefarious reasons, it also coincides with the discovery that there are those in the world with mutant super powers. Vaughn takes time introducing his cast, contrasting following Prof X as he tries to find more of his kind with Lensherr on his own personal man hunt to get revenge on the Nazis responsible for all sorts of horrible antics to him when he was a child. To be fair, Lensherr is the more interesting of the two; barely containing a past full of intense rage and sadness. So while we get to know Prof X and Magneto fairly well, some of the other mutants feel slightly short changed, with only an extremely cringe worthy scene in a mess hall serving as to introduce them. Only Beast (Nicholas Hoult), Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence) and Banshee (Caleb Landry Jones) make the most of their limited time to truly make an impression. Everyone else feels entirely forgettable. Worse still is poor Kevin Bacons 'Hellfire Club'. Sure his Sebastian Shaw is an acceptable villain - his subordinates are atrocious. One mute (who's name I'm nearly certain is never mentioned) does nothing but make poorly rendered CG storms, Azazel (Jason Flemyng) does nothing but look cool and Emma Frost (January Jones) seems completely lost in the mix. Jones drowns amongst the cast, serving as the only real weak link among them all. In fact, it stands out more when the casting is one of the main reasons the film works as well as it does. With such a huge ensemble and interweaving story line to work from, Vaughn had an awful lot to fit into the running time, even at it's 2 hours and 20 minutes. But somehow, just when it seems like he's going to drop the ball, he manages to keep everything on track. But as much as the film is good, it never really manages to feel anything less than rushed.

Vaughn had an extremely tough deadline to make this film. Initial glimpses of characters seemed atrociously photoshopped together as an afterthought. For more proof, see the main poster up above. Fox had no time to market this film as they would have liked. Every interview Vaughn gave from set told how unforgiving the schedule was and how he was feeling the pressure of it all. But somehow, I kept the faith in the movie. And how right I was, because even though the film has it's fair share of faults, it goes some way to getting the franchise back on track. The film has a few plot holes, (why exactly is Shaw doing what he's doing?) characters are forgotten (where does Rose Byrne go for the second act?) and some lines of dialogue are pretty harsh on the ears (baby Xavier and baby Mystique's first meeting comes to mind) but overall, the film is pretty darn enjoyable. A fantastic split screen montage of the newly formed X-men training their freshly honed powers works far better than that opening bonding moment mentioned earlier. The main dichotomy between Magneto and Professor X is what gives the film it's soul. Xavier's naivety mixed with Lensherr's frustration at being an outcast is always compelling. An interesting argument about acceptance that is only fueled by the fact that both are neither entirely right or wrong in their opinions. Vaughn paces the film incredibly so you won't have time to pick up on continuity errors (linking it into the films gone before it casts immediate 'No, it couldn't have happened like that because in [insert X-Men film here], [insert X-Men character here] is doing/saying [insert impossible X-Men continuity error here]' over all the other films) and other minor quibbles. Anyway, by the time that fantastic extended action climax happens you won't care too much about such things. However after it's underwhelming opening last week, it might be a case of too little too late from Fox. Fans have been burned by two sub standard "X-Men" films before and might be unwilling to take another chance on one. It's a shame, as this film mixes interesting discussion on themes of intolerence and discrimination, fun fan boy details (love that cameo!) and fantastic effects-laden action sequences. If this is what Vaughn can do with such a small amount of time, then imagine what he'll do with the sequel.

Verdict: 6/10

Matthew Vaughn manages to turn in the complete polar opposite of his last comic book movie. The film is always fun and interesting and gets the franchise on track in a big way, but some annoyances in plot and dialogue only enhances the fact that the film could have been something really special, had they just had a little more time.

"X-Men: First Class" Trailer

Attack The Block

It seems appropriate that Joe Cornish made his name on late night Channel 4, hilariously parodying various famous films through the means of fluffy animals. In a sense those sketches on the 'The Adam & Joe Show' all those years ago were his true directorial debut. Of course, toys and action figures are a lot easier to control and govern than real people. And yet all these influences can be seen in his true debut "Attack The Block". Substitute the toy figurines for an ensemble cast of first timers, homaging films instead of spoofing them and fluffy toys for 'big alien gorilla wolf mother fuckers' and you get a sense of what he set out to achieve in "Attack The Block". This is fitting that the man made his name on late night TV on the sort of show you had to stumble across yourself, before falling instantly in love with it. "Attack The Block" could easily be one of those films you would find in the early hours on a Saturday night. A film you might stumble upon, and find yourself growing ever more entertained by, before fighting away the yawns to see it to it's exciting conclusion. Well thankfully you don't need to stay up until unreasonable hours of the early morning to see it, as Joe Cornish has released a uniformly confidant and original debut, that you can see in most multiplexes over Ireland and the UK from last Friday. Whether or not audiences will appreciate the retro-homaging on display and its vying for 'cult status' charms remains to be seen. What is undeniable, is that along with Richard Ayoade's "Submarine" a few months ago, British TV seems to be harboring more and more interesting and original talent just waiting to break out.

Borne out of a real life mugging that happened to Cornish, it quickly set him to wonder about his attackers and how they might handle themselves in increasingly fantastical and far fetched situations. This in turn led to a beautifully simple idea. What would happen if a South London council estate found itself under attack from alien invaders. So before we have "Cowboys Vs. Aliens" we have 'inner city vs. outer space', as it's tag line beautifully puts it. What Cornish achieves so well with this, is in finding time amidst it's ever escalating action to develop it's gang of hoodlums. Initially beginning as quite an unlikeable group we get to know them more (mainly the silent but strong leader Moses, cheeky boy Pest and brains of the group Jerome) as they find themselves increasingly outmatched and out of their depth against the alien marauders. With recent 'ASBO youth of today gone wrong' films like "Eden Lake", "Harry Brown" and "KiDULTHOOD" it was beginning to seem like the UK were on some sort of vendetta against their adolescent offspring. "Attack The Block" refreshingly paints its central characters as misunderstood hoods defending their home turf by way of eventual action heroes that you'll be cheering along come the end. Although trailers and TV spots have painted the film as a comedy, it actually is an unashamedly sci-fi cum home invasion picture; except here, it's invasion comes from another world. Just because Cornish includes frequent witty dialogue throughout, does not mean that the aliens themselves are any less of a threat. Completely jet black ('blacker than my cousin' one of the group hilariously observes) apart from their glowing green fangs, they are an original and effective design fully in keeping with Cornish's low budget DIY roots. The distinctive electronic roar they give off is sure to be remembered in cult science fiction circles for years to come. All the no name cast are fantastic. Painting an instant picture of camaraderie, the gang all fully convince as street hoodlums who are all too quick to stand up to anybody on their turf, whether they be police or alien. Along for the ride is Luke Treadaway as an hilarious wannabe hoodlum but instead posh toff caught up in the action and Emily Browning as a young nurse (re: the audience) who slowly and reluctantly begins to trust the boys as the threat escalates.

For a first time director, Cornish shows genuine chops behind the camera. Of course having Edgar Wright (who Executive Produces) as a friend certainly helps. However as obvious as his influences are, he shows real flair here, managing to deliver on his original idea. He builds his film nicely, starting rather low-key before you find yourself getting more and more drawn into proceedings. So while his sci-fi leanings (everything from "ET", to "Aliens", to "Predator") are obvious from the outset, what is surprising is where he takes his more urban undertones from ("The Warriors", and mainly "Assault on Precinct 13") which is where the film truly gets it's unique feel from. In fact he shows here what a true progenitor he is to John Carpenters throne in how he builds tension and plays against audience expectations of characters. It's score also owes more than a lot to the great master, as the Basement Jaxx take a few leaves out of his song book in developing their electronic soundscapes. Along the way he litters his film with laughs which only add to the pure escapism on display. It may have taken the man more years than expected to deliver his feature film debut, but his late blooming shows how he developed and learned his craft as best he could before applying himself to it. On the evidence here, Edgar Wright should be looking over his shoulder; there's another director for the nerds in town.

Verdict: 8/10

Excellent escapist fun from start to finish. Joe Cornish may have made his name in no budget spoofery, but here he steps up to the plate and delivers one of the sure to be favourites of the year, and a genuine cult classic for the ages. Betta believe bruv.

"Attack The Block" Trailer

Thor

So officially, the Summer Blockbuster Season is now upon us. So as we settle down for the next three to four months of overused CGI, shoddy storytelling and horid dialogue with the occasional gem thrown into the mix (fingers crossed "Super 8") we have first to set it off with a huge bang. Now some may argue that it was last weeks "Fast & Furious 5" which started things off. I however like it to be as close as possible to the real Summer (April 21st is still Spring!), even if Hollywood is insisting that it gets earlier and earlier each year. It has been said elsewhere of the oversaturated and heavy competition of this years Blockbusters, so that points to why Hollywood is racing forward before the green light of actual Summer has even been lit. So before we have alien invasions, giant robots, nefarious pirates, mutant superhero teams and a boy wizards last battle for his school, we have...........a Norse God with girly hair in a red cape. Yes, incredibly Marvel Production Company has decided, in raiding their entire back catalogue of (lesser known) Superheroes, to settle on 'Thor' as their next multi-million dollar property; a mythic norse god who wears a pointy helmet, throws a giant hammer about, and lives in a different realm to Earth, as being worthy enough to bestow a $150 million franchise on? I mean, I'm sure the guy has his fans in comic book circles, but is betting quite a lot on him for the Summer, and not to mention next Summers "Avengers" film (more on that later) taking too big a risk? Well incredibly and astoundingly, the answer is no. Marvel must be thanking their lucky stars, for their biggest risk and potential laugh inducing super hero film for this Summer is actually rather good fun.

That "Thor" is not the misfire many (including myself) thought it would be is down to its director, and its directors choice of leading man. "Thor" was always going to be a risky sell to audiences, but when news came in that Marvel had hired Kenneth Branagh as its director, eye brows were raised. Of course Marvel now have a track record of picking unexpected, but nontheless perfect choices or their films. Following on from Jon Favreau (who's directing career went stratospheric after "Iron Man") and Joss Wheadon (who just screams out as the only director who could potentially get "The Avengers" movie/behemoth right) Kenneth Branagh seemed at once both unthinkable and perfect for "Thor". Well now you can see how right Marvel were in hiring the man. He brings gravitas in the more dramatic scenes, while also later playing up Thors inherent ridiculousness. Mixing epic fantasy with the sci-fi of most other comic book movies was always going to be a tricky hurdle, but Branagh pulls it off. With a brief prologue introducing our earth bound heroes Dr. Natalie Portman (natch), Stellen Skarsgard and the sardonic Kat Dennings, Branagh wisks us off to the aethereal realm of Asgard. Narrated by Odin (Anthony Hopkins) we are swiftly brought up to date on the Nine Realms, Frost Giants and the fact that we Earthlings have been protected by these Gods for hundreds of years. And as if all this wasn't enough information to take in at once, we have also to be introduced to our mighty hero Thor (Chris Hemsworth) and his shady younger brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston), just before a peace treaty is broken and our Asgardian heroes have to travel to Jutenheim to confront those pesky Frost Giants again before a huge effects laden skirmish breaks out. Phew. And thats only the first fifteen minutes or so. To be fair Branagh moves things along as fast as they need to be. Asgard is just not that fun a place to be. Sure, initial glimpses of the city and palace are pretty impressive, but the longer we spend there, the more dreary it gets with CG fatigue quickly setting in. Only when Thor's actions force his father to banish him from Asgard and down to Earth does the film begin in earnest. This is where the second reason the film works is revealed; Chris Hemsworth. Pretty much unknown for those who don't watch Home & Away or are Trekkies; here he arrives as a fully fledged star. His initial scenes on Asgard, while effective doesn't allow him to reach his potential as when he arrives on Earth. Those fish out of water moments are part of the films charms, as Thor has to find a way to adapt to his new surroundings. The film balances this wonderfully and doesn't push it too far and begin making a caricature of their hero. Sharing an easy chemistry with Portman, Hemsworth effortlessly glides into the character. All dashing smiles and muscles for the ladies; while still wielding Mjilnor (that's his giant hammers name for you 'norms') with plenty of conviction for the guys.

However, just because it overcomes its biggest obstacle does not mean it doesn't falter over others. Tom Hiddlestons performance is a little too 'low-key' to really register, there is a huge over abundance of CG, and all these names ('Jutenheim', 'Heimdall', 'Mjilnor') and talk of intergalcatic portal and bridges soon becomes a little too daft. The mythology is too big and the story sometimes struggles to fit it all in. However the film is light and breezy which is something always to be welcomed when more and more blockbusters are going darker and darker; mistaking dim lighting for something genuinely deep and transcendant. What happened to Blockbusters being simply fun? For all its faults "Thor" does not forget to have a good time. One other minor niggle is Marvel linking all their films together in order to set up all their heroes finally uniting next Summer. Now a brief nod here and there is fine, but is it just me, or is all this just beginning to seem like a very expensive and long trailer for next years Avengers film? Don't get me wrong, I'm looking forward with baited breath at seeing all those heroes (and cast) sharing the screen together, but Marvel need to remember that these should be all stand alone films films first, and set ups for next years epic smack down second.

Verdict: 6/10

Marvels riskiest gamble is pulled off in fine form by Branagh and a star making turn from Hemsworth. A knowing sense of humour and fun is brought to proceedings and it nicely sets up Julys "Captain America". Daft, silly and forgettable but enjoyable nontheless. Now just bring on "The Avengers" already and stop teasing us.

"Thor" Trailer

Source Code

There will inevitably be some who feel a little cheated by Duncan Jones' new film. With his 2009 cult classic "Moon", Jones very successfully created a very original and low budget science fiction drama which offered plenty of room for thought and urged you to replay scenes in your head to work out its many hidden depths. In traversing his new film, doing the same again will only point out some glaring plot holes upon its denouement. It should be made clear that Jones has not set out to make 'Moon .2'. "Source Code" is an obviously more commercial piece, more concerned with its high concept set-up, than answering many of the questions it asks in its plot. Now this is by no means a bad thing as I will tell you, rather it is something that must be expected when going into see this film. While there are many out there who might see this as the first eventual slide into crowd pleasing commercialism from Jones, they should first look at what he has crafted here, rather than base it on expectations they have for his career. Judge the film on its own merits and you will be very rewarded. Those going into "Source Code" having not seen the directors previous work, and therefore having no expectations apart from wanting to see a good film will be very satisfied indeed. "Source Code" is not "Moon" but it is the most clever and engaging blockbuster since "Inception".

Now a synopsis of the plot without passing into spoiler territory will be difficult (not to mention very hard to describe) so I will give the bare minimum. Capt. Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal) wakes up on a moving train amongst strangers, not knowing how he got there. Events get more confusing as Colter realises he is actually inhabiting the body of a different man, one that the commuter sitting opposite, Christina (Michelle Monaghan) seems to recognise as Sean Fentress. Then the entire train blows up killing everybody onboard. Stevens suddenly wakes up talking to Capt. Goodwin (an always luminous Vera Farmiga) and Dr. Rutledge (Jeffrey Wright). Your confusion is as great as Stevens when he is told he is to be continuously sent back into the body of Sean, to find out who was behind the bombing of that train which occured just outside of Chicago earlier that morning. With us so far? So this sets up an engaging "Groundhog Day" dynamic as Stevens must contend with the same repeated scenario again and again, in the hopes of saving a lot of people. Gyllenhaal is fantastic and the best I have seen him in a while. He plays Stevens growing confusion and panic very well and helps ease us into this world caught on an endless loop. In fact, while it's repetitious nature does occasionally become trying every now and again, it is the performances that help keep you involved. It is only Wright who seems to overact his part a little too much, and doesn't help any of his exposition and already far fetched dialogue with his delivery. But then, this is the Bowie Jr. show, and Jones proves that "Moon" was no fluke. The man has genuine chops behind the camera and easily overcomes that 'difficult second film' curse.

If there is one common thread that seems to be developing in his work it is in Jones' fascination in themes of existentialism and what it means to be 'you'. This gave "Moon" a lot of its emotional weight and it does much the same here. In fact, Jones' biggest success is in succesfully traversing big budget effects shots while still never once forgetting the all important human story, so important to its structure. As a result the film is disarmingly emotional; something I never expected from a science fiction film about exploding trains. After this Jones' career will only grow ever more exciting. He is the sci-fi genres new saving grace. He can do thoughtful low budget affairs with big issues, and he can do more action and effects driven features just as effortlessly. Now with his pick of Hollywood, we have the emergence of a genuine true talent and along with Neill Blomkamp, science fictions new saviours, both offering something the genre is in desperate need of. Vision.

Verdict: 8/10

Duncan Jones overcomes second feature jitters, complicated CGI effects and a 'think-about-it-too-much-and-it-makes-no-sense' plot to deliver an exciting and original science fiction film. The cast deliver and the film has genuine emotion to go with its explosive thrills.

"Source Code" Trailer

Paul

Nerds all over rejoice-Simon Pegg and Nick Frost are back. The two are poster boys all over the world for geek culture; two regular guys from the Midlands done good. In fact this is a part of their appeal for many, including myself. They are relatable guys you could easily imagine having a pint with. Of course the fact that they are very talented also adds to the appeal. They perfectly mix influence and homage from their many icons with great storytelling. Every joke and winking nod to pop culture feels like it was designed specifically for me. You feel apart of their outlook because they themselves are geeks and wear it proudly like a badge of honor. Today, that badge is "Paul", their first film writing together and as you might expect from the two, it offers in-joke, after knowing gag, after spoof, after homage to many of their favourite science fiction films. Unfortunately something is missing from the team. That person is Edgar Wright, the director and brains behind their previous classics "Shaun of the Dead" and "Hot Fuzz". After taking a brief break from each other to work on some solo projects (Wright: 'Scott Pilgrim', Pegg and Frost: 'Paul') before they complete their seminal 'blood and ice-cream trilogy', the lads handed over the gig to Greg Mottola. Veteran of "Superbad" and "Adventureland", with "Paul" he finds himself stretching his directing muscles, being that the film is effects heavy and high on adventure; something his previous films (even the misleadingly titled "Adventureland") lacked. As a result, the film feels like the perfect hybrid of the two; Peggs and Frosts unique British comedy sensibilities and pop culture nods, and Mottolas gorgeous, all American vision mixed with his lucky charm actors, Seth Rogen and Bill Hader. However, for all its fun and humour, "Paul" finds the two desperately missing Wrights cinematic vision and assured writing. It is a problem that the film fails to break out of for most of its running time.

The film finds two life long friends Clive (Nick Frost) and Graeme (Simon Pegg) on a road trip through America. Life long sci-fi fanatics, their tour of old alien sites is given an authentic boost when real life alien Paul (Seth Rogen) shows up asking them to protect him from hot on his heel agents. Of course the alien here is entirely CG, something that could have been the complete undoing of the film for everybody involved. However, what could have been to the films downfall is actually the films biggest success. Paul is an absolute perfect creation and completely believable throughout. Using Seth Rogens voice was masterstroke; here he is funnier than anything he's been attached to in quite a while. The foul mouthed, weed smoking, smart arsed guy is the films strongest suit, and offers most of its amusing moments. Able support is given by (funniest woman alive) Kristin Wiig, Bill Hader, Jason Bateman and Joe Lo Truglio. However, despite its very talented and funny cast, the film never fully gets off the ground. Mottola shoots his love letter to Spielberg very well and events build suitably to its exciting and action packed climax. Despite the copious amount of references to the genre the film is surprisingly broad. I'm sure with all the money going in to making Paul (the character) a success, Pegg and Frost did this intentionally. To risk alienating the majority of their audience could have have sign posted that "Paul" might not have been the box office success it was this week. Put simply they have their core geek friendly fans, those who will show up based on the Pegg/Frost brand alone. But it would not be enough for box-office, so subtlety and genuinely clever and original gags go out the window. The film is great fun, and sorely needed after the last few po-faced Oscar weeks, but when we have learned to expect so much more from these two, then why should we settle for less?

Verdict: 7/10

A very humorous and entertaining film, and with a classic CG character to boot. Just don't go in expecting it to scale to the dizzying heights of either Shaun or Fuzz.

"Paul" Trailer

Never Let Me Go

There is something irresistibly fresh in the tragic beauty of "Never Let Me Go". It is not often you see a film blend seemingly contradictory genres together and yet this film succeeds admirably. Science fiction and drama are mixed with period detail to create a wonderful and hauntingly subdued film. Possibly not to everyones taste as evidenced by its poor box office in America, it is nonetheless a very worthy cinematic experience. The film paints an alternate dystopian history, and yet for all its subtle sci-fi musings, the film is primarily concerned with romance. Kathy H (a heartbreaking Carey Mulligan) grows up in a boarding school with life long friends Tommy (Andrew Garfield) and Ruth (Keira Knightly). Throughout the years she finds her feelings for Tommy grow while the seemingly jealous and calculating Ruth becomes romantically involved with him first. As the young adults progress we see how their restrictive fate mixed with Kathys eternal unrequited love for Tommy affects their lives. There is a strong sense of tragedy running through the film. The films chief existential questions weigh heavy on our heroine. What does it mean to love? What does it mean to have a soul? The film is not a cheery watch, and yet if you work for for it, its low key charms will soon reveal themselves and linger inside long after the credits have rolled. Director Romanek, known more for his flashy music videos, here uses an effective and simple technique, filtering his rain drenched England through a system of grey and blue hues. Make no mistake, that while the film may sound uneventful and dull, it offers plenty of tantalising questions for the audience to answer. The cast are all uniformly brilliant handling the trio of characters superbly. While some of their actions, especially the initially nefarious Ruth, may seem hard to condone, they are nonetheless understandable. Of course sci-fi as a genre is based on asking big questions and this is no exception. With writer Alex Garland (working from the original novel by Kazuo Ishiguro) it is no surprise that the results are as thought provoking as they are. And yet the film has so much heart running throughout, making its weepy third act all the more effective. The film earns your emotional attachment to it. This is grand intelligent film making on an emotional and engaging level. It's poor showing in the states hopefully might not be the same over here, but it is a very tough and strange film to market. Not many people may initially think they want to see a film like this, but it is more than worth it. Films like this rarely come along and must be treasured when they do, otherwise Hollywood runs the risk of making every science fiction film stuffed with explosions and over sized robots. In a genre chocked full of predictable and stupid trappings, this breathes fresh life into it.

Verdict: 8/10

A haunting and frequently devastating oddity. It blends several genres together, to create an original yet understated thought provoking experience. This deserves to be mentioned with some of the greats come the years end, and its ignoring this awards season is criminal. A very special film.

"Never Let Me Go" Trailer

Splice

From its promotional campaign, you could be forgiven into thinking that "Splice" is just another trashy B-Movie Creature/Horror extravaganza, just like "Predators" was only a few short weeks ago. Ironically both also feature Adrien Brody as the male lead, but whereas the films are similar in genre and in dealing with alien forms of humanoid life, both are tonally, very drastically different. "Predators" offers the more shallow nights entertainment. You bought a tickets for very scary looking creatures attacking humans and thats what you get, nothing more or less. However buying a ticket and going into "Splice" you could easily be forgiven in thinking that the same nights entertainment lies in store for you. This is because "Splice" is an entirely different beast altogether (pun intended). A thoughtful and sometimes uncomfortable probe into humans obsession of genetics and cloning, it features conflicting themes of raising children in modern day America, while simultaneously being a "Frankenstein" story for the 21st Century. As a result, its nature is quite divisive, leading to potential reactions from being very thoughtfully impressed by the deep themes this film attempts to go into, and those who dismiss it as laughably cheap and ridiculous to the point of extreme. I fall somewhere in the middle.

Bio-Chemists and partners Clive and Elsa have created life by splicing together the DNA of various different animals as research into curing different diseases and plagues of the world. The large maggot like creatures they dub Fred and Ginger offer a glimpse into the future of genetics and where it could take them. However, the two push this research into morally questionable territory when they add human DNA into the mix and they give life to a new type of creature; not entirely human, but not all animal either. The life form matures at an alarmingly fast rate and it is not long before the two find themselves, in attempting to keep their creation hidden, raising the child 'thing'. They name their creation 'Dren'. So while Elsa loves it in the ways her own Mother never loved her, Clive finds himself growing ever more attracted to the creature. Clive and Elsas background and relationship problems will come to feature predominantly and eventually lead to whether the two can actually control and raise this creature, while trying to keep her secret. The film for the most part is at the very least, very original in its ideas, which in 'Sci-Fi' is always far more important than spectacle. Director Natali focuses on characters above all else and in humanising its main creature, makes Dren at turns incredibly sympathetic, whilst keeping tabs on the fact that she is also incredibly dangerous. This is a B-Movie, albeit a very thoughtful one, that might lead to its downfall in some audiences. The film will not play well to all, rather only those who are willing to go along and explore the various psychological undertones that this film has to offer. This all mixes schlocky and 'icky' thrills, with sometimes uncomfortable questions about human nature in how they react to not only each other, but also their ability to simultaneously create and destroy. Everyone has tremendously selfish flaws. Everyone, even Dren is dealt in very human terms. It simply wont play to everybody and many will snigger at some of the antics on screen.

I however found parts to be very entertaining and thought provoking. It plays on levels its genre should, but also brings in some very dark notes of humour. That it offers the audience some very uncomfortable questions to ponder, adds to its surprising originality. Brody and Polley both deliver strong work. Brodys submissive and weak minded character works well with Polleys all controlling and domineering bitchiness. Both offer subtle character details important for actions later on in the films and as events turn ever more outlandish, our basis in the two leads grounds the proceedings. However, the films secret is Dren, played by Delphine Chanéac. At turns an alarmingly sympathetic but frighteningly alien being; she is excellent and a great creature. In a film of this nature, its success lies in its monster and Dren is one of the best in recent memory. Possessing agile hind legs, three fingers on each hand, gills, wings and a long tail with a spike able to dispense poison on her victims, her effect is stunning. A wonderful combination of CG, and prosthetics work, actress Chanéac brings Dren to life to great effect. All the more impressive considering she has only her stunning expressions and features to gain the audiences sympathies. Effects for the creatures are all top notch and initial scenes in the labs offers some squirm inducing splatter for the gore hounds.

Director Vincenzo Natali and producer Guillermo Del Toro offer shocks in body horror that would make Cronenberg proud, yet never forget that crucial human element. The idea is fantasically played out to sometimes shocking effect. However it is only during the climax that the film dramatically falls apart. Up until this point, the film has been anything but stereotypical, yet it soon transforms into predictable and lazy horror territory. It's almost as if its makers lost interest come the final third. It does not fully manage to ruin the entire experience; if you have been with the film up until this point, you will forgive it. However, it is just a shame the film takes such a nose dive in its final few scenes. In walking a very fine line between exploitive and intelligent film making throughout, the film always threatens to let its outlandish and sometimes uncomfortable ideas devour proceedings. For the most part, it is a very fresh take on the sci-fi horror genre. Brody shows more range a million miles from his tough guy soldier in "Predators" and Polley takes a risk with her icy and psychologically damaged 'mother'. Chanéac helps create one of the finest movie monsters in recent memory and all effects for the creature are thoroughly convincing. It's weak climax and often unusual tone threaten to derail things, but for the most part "Splice" offers a refreshing take on the Frankenstein story.

Verdict: 65%

The cast all do strong work and in Dren we have a stunning new movie creature creation. Vincenzo Natalis subversive take on the sci-fi monster genre will divide audiences but for those willing to accept its outlandish themes, a very thought provoking, uncomfortable and sometimes shocking foray into horror is waiting for them.

"Splice" Trailer

Inception

Christopher Nolan works above almost every other Director working today. He exists with a rare few, who seem to achieve the impossible with almost every film they direct. His films are at turns, brain bustingly clever and original, but most important of all, entertaining. He does not pander to his audiences; rather trusts that a clever and original story well told will be all they need to grasp onto the world he puts them in. Don't forget that Nolan never tries to wrong foot or trick his audience (The Prestige aside), rather he is just asking them to go along with his characters for the ride. His stories are straight forward. His own original spin he puts on them, is what separates them from the norm. Whether it be "Memento's" detective story told backwards, "Insomnia's" shifting good/bad guy dynamics, "Batman Begins" audacity in (for once in it's long history in cinema) focusing on the highly complex title character, "The Prestige's" box of tricks non-linear narrative or "The Dark Knight's" obsession with how far can a hero stoop to stop an enemy threatening everything he stands for, Nolan tells conventional stories, in the most unconventional ways. In his new film "Inception" he does so in ways far more daring and thought provoking than anything he has explored before. In fact, there are things in "Inception" which I have never seen attempted in cinema before. Nolan has always loved playing with time and daring linear subterfuge, along with audiences perceptions of that which he puts on screen before them. Here he almost outdoes himself on everything he has achieved before. Not bad work considering he has yet to make a bad film and his last, is one of the highest grossing of all time. I will say off the bat that I consider "Inception" a masterpiece. I show nothing but unashamed love for this film. It plays on levels far beyond what Blockbuster entertainment should be and offers epic visuals, Art House cinema could never have the budget to muster. Apologies for those unhappy with the arse licking that is going on display here and for those who disagree with this review, however I will go on to describe just how and why "Inception" is the best and most important film this year.

For those who haven't yet seen this film I will say bypass this review. The films success is best achieved knowing as little as possible and just letting the world this film has to offer unfold around you. The plot exists in a world where 'dream-sharing' exists. This allows people to break into the dreams of certain 'marks' to then steal important information which can then be in turn used against them. We follow dream expert Dom Cobb (DiCaprio), as he and his specially assembled team, then break into a persons mind, for that one last elusive job. Of course there is far more going on than this, which would be too cruel to spoil here. That the film has plenty of surprises up its sleeve is an understatement. It is the most original heist movie you might ever see. DiCaprio is very ably joined by Joseph Gordon-Levitt as his right hand man, new 'Mad Max' Tom Hardy as a 'dream forger' and Ellen Page as 'the architect'. Page in particular acts as the audiences introduction into the world while also balancing an emotional counterpoint, crucial to DiCaprios character. We learn what the rules are, how it works and what the dangers are of dream sharing through her. Irish actor Cillian Murphy turns up as the unassuming 'mark' who DiCaprios team are trying to subconsciously break into. Ken Watanabe impresses as the client who originally offers the job to Leo's team along with the tantalising prospect of Leo's character finally being able to return home upon its successful completion. Marion Cotillard shocks (however to speak much about her part, would spoil too much of the story) and even Michael Caine turns up in a small role as Leo's professor. The cast are all uniformly excellent. Nolan works his ensemble so that everybody gets something to do and is very memorable in their own right, without ever losing track of the overall story. Murphy in particular entices (and is given the only other character arc of the story other than Leo's) as the young entrepreneur struggling to come to terms with the death of his Father. No mean feat considering he has a lot to do throughout films running time. Hardy also impresses and gains most of the films laughs as the sly Eames, while Gordon-Levitt is given the most awe-inspiring action beat of the film, as one of the most original fist fights ever staged is conducted in a revolving hallway. Even as the screws tighten, and the film grows ever more action packed and tense, Nolan never loses sight of character and emotion. Some have crticised the film as while being technically stunning, lacking in emotion and depth. How this could be argued is beyond me. It is Nolans most emotional film to date and this drives the entire narrative. It is about one man trying to get home to see his family. It is about the dark secrets of regret and angst that everyone carries around deep inside them. It is about learning to let go of the past and come to terms with your world as it is now. In essence, it is all about emotion. That, and huge explosions.

Nolan had been working on the script for over 8 years. It was only with the astounding worldwide and critical success he had with 'The Dark Knight' that he suddenly discovered how to complete it. The fact that he also was given over $170 million to achieve his vision, I'm sure also helped. Forever fascinated with the inner workings of the mind, Nolan loves making his audience think. When the film was first announced it came with the tantalising prospect as being 'a sci-fi thriller set within the architecture of the human mind'. 'What the hell could it be about?!' we all pondered aloud to each other. This again is part of the Nolan way; he never once set out to deceive us. This is exactly what the film is about. That it is that and so much more may not come apparent until seeing the film itself. The story is very straight forward and apart from a few brief flashbacks is almost completely linear. But this is where something quite extraordinary happens as Nolan, within the rules he has set for himself in his dream world (as most of the film is set) is able to stage sequences on top of each other, each set in different realms of the same dream. If it sounds complicated, it isn't as Nolan ensures that in between all the car chases and gun fights, the story is kept resolutely clear at all times. The only thing is that the story is so unlike anything we've seen in quite a while and provides almost limitless ideas for the film and our own minds to follow, and as a result, is quite a mind bender. Nolan has the audacity to at some stages of the film work 4 different action scenes on top of each other, in 4 different dream realms all at once. That each dream level has longer stages of time than the one prior, means that he plays around with time in a way that I have never seen attempted before in a film. I believe this (in the same way "Memento" was noted for) ability to play around with readily established timelines and means of telling a story in such an original manner deserves to be studied for many years to come. Nolan really is that good. Or that may just be the arse kissing I warned you about earlier again.

Leonardo DiCaprio, for the second time this year is a revelation. From his beginnings as the heart throb of the month well over a decade ago now, he constantly challenges and exceeds expectations in every role he commands. In fact his earlier film this year "Shutter Island" could work as a nice (brain bending) double feature with "Inception" as both films deal in similar themes of warped reality and distorted perceptions about what we believe to be real around us. Here he offers untold depths and distressing memories and regrets about the past. However, what separates it from his detective in "Shutter Island" is that the audience gets to physically travel into his subconscious, to better understand the inner workings of him and his traumatic past. His complex and very weighty emotions is what drives the plot. That "Shutter Island" is my second favourite film this year speaks wonders about his talent and ability at picking stand out parts. I am however sure at this stage that he must be aching to do a comedy after all these po-faced roles.

So arse licking all over, what we are left with is a stunning thriller. In a year seemingly devoid of originality and excitement in the theatres, Christopher Nolan has once again captured what films full of good story telling, acting and originality can achieve and it is far more than 3D or mindless CGI can muster. Nolan doesn't make movies for the Summer, he makes films for the ages as all the best auteurs do. In the lacklustre year of cinema it has been, along with excitement generated by "The Dark Knight", Nolan had a lot of hype to live up to. Maybe that he exceeded it is not surprising, seeing as he has done it so many times already, but that the film is a success in all the unforseen ways it is, should be applauded. In selling their biggest film of the summer without any previous tie-in to any film or comic before it, Warner Bros. took a huge risk which paid of handsomely for them. The film never pauses for one moment and yet incorporates character and emotion seamlessly into its narrative to stunning effect. It's most minor criticisms stem from not much characterisation from those after Murphy or DiCaprio, and its long running time. All of this is insignificant however. Nolan once again achieves the impossible in cinema in glorious fashion. This is a film to be watched and studied many times over, to work out its many stunning idiosyncrasies. It is a film that will not leave your mind after first watching it. It is a film as this review will tell you, I love. If we see any film until Nolans 'Batman 3' that even comes close "Inceptions" excitement and stunning film making, then we will be very lucky indeed. This is not a dream, "Inception" is indeed, far and away the best film you will see this year.

Verdict: 91%

Christopher Nolan returns with an epic study of emotion, regret and loss. His first original work since 'Following' over a decade ago, and it's a belter. Shot with Cinematographer Wally Pfisters stunning eye, another classic score by Hans Zimmer and the most exciting action you may yet see all year, Nolan is back showing was can be done with the magic of cinema.

"Inception" Trailer

May/June Round-Up: Iron Man 2/ Sex & The City 2/ The Killer Inside Me/ The Collector

I haven't been writing for the last few months and have missed out on a few releases. So for anyone interested, here is my take on them.

Iron Man 2

The first big tent pole release of the Summer went off with a bang. Our hero Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) has to face off against new enemies in the shape of a psychotic Russian 'Whiplash' (Mickey Rourke), who possesses the same power as the Iron Man suit and rival arms manufacturer Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell), who is hell bent on acheiving the same success that Stark has. Other turmoil comes from Starks discovery that his suit is also slowly killing him, and tension between him and best bud Rhodie (Don Cheadle). If that sounds like a dark and convoluted super-hero extravaganza (a la, Spider-Man 3) then rest assured that Director Jon Favareau manages to keep proceedings as light and breezy as the first chapter. Downey remains as likeable as ever, and the new additions to the cast all deliver, especially Rockwell as Starks business rival, who is far too desperate to be like him in every way. The material could have become too convoluted for its own good, so kudos to Favreau for keeping an eye on things and easily matching the first in terms of excitement and fun which is all the series ever set out to do in the first place. Also in that Monaco sequence near the start, he delivers the action scene of the year thus far. Problems include Scarlett Johannsson getting lost in the mix, and that the film never rises above its 'fun' origins, means it never fully gives the adrenal glands the work out it should, however in a Summer full of lack lustre releases, this can stand above them all. Until Inception is released that is.

Verdict: 69%

Sex & The City 2

If, upon the original success of the show back in the late 90's, you had told its fan base that the once insightful, clever and witty formula, would dissolve into a camp, bloated and very cynical juggernaut, would any of its viewers have actually turned off? We find the 4 girls, for the second time in the series' history, not feeling fully fulfilled after becoming 'happy ever after'. A rut in marriage, the complexities of juggling a career and family, the sheer hell raising children can be and the eternal battle to stave off old age are all dealt with by our leads. Unfortunately for Jessica Parker, Cattrall, Davis and Nixon is that these so called problems all come off as whiny and selfish. These could have been dealt with far more intelligence, as to give a decent meditation on any of these subjects could provide interesting observations on life for 40 plus women. Unfortunately, the film seems to be far more concerned with fashion and Liza Minnelli singing Beyonce, than any true drama. Not for a second the realistic take on 'women' that the show once set out to be, it has become a parody of itself. Hell, there is even very little sex and practically no city, as the girls (and writers) struggling to keep things fresh, decide to take a sojourn to Abu Dhabi. This is where the franchise reaches its low point. In trying to inject fresh life into it, the film becomes ever more shallow, stupid and almost offensive to the point of ridiculousness. Contrasting and compromising the differences between West and Middle Eastern women should have been ripe fodder for some interesting and yes, witty observations on the differences. This just comes off as being naive to the extreme. If the series is meant to be fun, then where are witty exchanges that made the show famous in the first place? In fairness, the leading ladies all gamely try and inject fun into proceedings (they have been playing these characters for far too long to not be able to), but it is no where near enough. The series has become as tired as Kim Cattrall and should be put out to the pasture. The fact that it didn't make quite as much money as the first in theatres, shows that fans may be slightly in agreement, that this is surely, one trip too far.

Verdict: 25%

The Killer Inside Me

To release this film smack bang in the middle of the Summer Season is quite odd. A slow burning and occasionally sadistically shocking study of a very disturbed mind, it does not scream 'summer crowd pleaser'. To say this film is its own beast, is an understatement. It plays entirely on its own terms. In fact those of you can stomach the brutal bouts of violence, and quiet intensity, might not even like what they find come the end. Casey Affleck proves yet again, what an actor he has been the entire time, while his brother hogged the lime light and media glare. There are a few moments in his performance where it is are quite disturbing to see what a true monster lurks behind his good looks and soulful eyes. That Affleck conveys these small moments so well is a tribute to his skill. The plot is set in the 1950's and centers on young Deputy Sheriff Lou Ford. He attempts to blackmail the local town head honcho, which spirals steadily out of control. This is all a facade however, as the film really concerns itself with the psychotic inner workings of Ford himself. An unreliable narrator, we see the world through his eyes entirely, which must be remembered come the films close. A very damaged individual, all the films drama stems from his thirst for murder and intense hatred of women. He is joined by a surprisingly capable Jessica Alba. Kate Hudson also manages to escape her bland filmography and apparant lack of acting skills and they both engage as the women who attempt to love Ford, without fully knowing what he really is. The film, however will be mostly remembered for its shocking bouts of violence. Now, it must be stated that for all the headlines this film grabbed about its excessive (hardly) and shocking (very much so) violence, is that there is very little of it in the actual film. It is all simmering under the surface of Fords facade, threatening to brim over, and when it finally does, it can be very tough to watch, even for this battle hardened veteran of violent film extravaganzas. The film has also been accused of misogyny, which it is. However, the main reason for this, is that that is what Ford is and it is through him we experience everything in the film. As a result, throughout watching it, I see-sawed in between hating and being quite intrigued by what I was seeing. Director Michael Winterbottom is a master of switching genre whenever he feels and must be applauded for his ruthless adaptation of the original 1952 novel. However, as curious as the end result is and the strength of every performance, especially Afflecks, it just may seem, that you may not be willing to spend as long inside the head of a man like Ford, for the films duration. File under as one of the most curious releases of the year.

Verdict: 59%

The Collector

For whatever reasons I initially went to see this film, I could not remember come the films end. Another (yawn) excessively violent torture porn yarn, this one gets more kudos than it deserves thanks to a genuinely tense and inventive first 45 minutes. After the film descends into grand guignol and people start losing limbs left right and center, you will be become completely immune to the shocks and scares that this film initially threatened to offer. That the film has an inventive idea at its core reeks even more of a missed opportunity. Diamond thief Arkin breaks into a remote and apparently empty mansion to steal from the family he has been casing out. However, upon his arrival he discovers that something far worse has got there before him and are holding the family who live there at bay to torture and maim them. What follows is an interesting idea as our hero becomes quite conflicted in his feelings to either stay and try to save those he initially tried to rob, or to save his own skin. That the leather masked murderer also laced the house with inventive and deadly booby traps to prevent anyone from escaping adds to the tension as it becomes a warped version of 'Home Alone'. Unfortunately this is where the film decides to become a daft exercise in torture porn as tension gives way to blood red viscera that is no more shocking or scary than Macauley Culkin's antics were. The film grows ever more stupid and tiresome until it finally peters out. That it is from the writers of 'Saw's 4,5 and 6 show you all you need to know about the film. When are horror screenwriters going to remember the lost art of things hinted at, are far more terrifying than anything they could ever show us? After its rapid downhill descent you will be begging for the Collector himself to come take you away.

Verdict: 35%