2013 - an obligatory review of the year..!

Seeing as Christmas is looming, and New Years is not soon after, as it seems customary for those of a film-going disposition - here's a 'Review' of 2013. It's usually the case that people will try and assemble a list of what they thought were the 'best' films, or order them by preference - I'm just going to pick out my favourites, in no particular order; I'll also pick out other film-related things which have had an impact on me this year.

First, here (in no particular order) are My Five Favourite Films of 2013 - to start with, 'IRON MAN 3'.

This film deserved to be the most successful blockbuster of the year - not just financially, but critically too - as it was a tremendously entertaining action-comedy-thriller, which managed to be smart, and occasionally subversive, too.  I know more than a few comic fans were really put out by the portrayal of The Mandarin in this film - however I don't think anyone would argue that getting a comic-faithful take that would not look either racist or anachronistic to the rest of the Iron Man films would have been nigh-on impossible.  Along with some great action sequences, funny dialogue, and a non-nauseating pal-up with a kid, this was one of the master-strokes which proved that Marvel Studios have still got plenty to offer after the success of 'The Avengers'.

Next up is 'THE WORLD'S END' - it's a shame, though perhaps understandable, that this didn't get the same level of Box Office success as the same team's previous cult-classics 'Shaun of the Dead' and 'Hot Fuzz'; the humour in this is more low-key (though no less effective) than those films, and the ending less likely to leave you with a glowing feeling (it's pretty down-beat).  However, I really believe that this represents the team's most intelligent and thought provoking work - not only in the portrayal of friendships, addiction, growing up, but also bigger sci-fi themes such as technology and collectivisation vs the individual.  This is a film, I believe, really needs more than one viewing to appreciate - I'm hoping I get a copy in my stocking this Christmas so I get the chance to do that!

My next choice is 'GRAVITY', which has deservedly won many plaudits as one of the best films of the year.  A remarkable technical feat (you'd be forgiven for thinking they DID actually film it in space!), visually stunning, tense and thrilling - this is an important and entertaining piece of film making.  It's rare that technical wizardry is married to an intelligent approach to theme and visual metaphor, so this film is truly special.  Alfonso Cuaron's technical achievements with this film are not the only reason this film should be held up as one of the year's most important films - respect should be given to Sandra Bullock too, whose central performance sells the drama, terror and tension of the situation, and pulls of a believable arc for the main character.

The most flat-out fun I've had at the cinema this year was 'PACIFIC RIM'; this film totally wears it's heart on it's sleeve, and has no pretension as to what it is about - an entertaining block-buster featuring giant freakin' robots fighting enormous frikkin' monsters!  Yeah, the script could have been better, the characterisation given more depth, perhaps a tighter plot line - but to be completely honest, if you're wanting those from a film then this isn't the place to look!  Some have complained that the film could have been darker and more mature, but Guillermo Del Toro stated he wanted to make a film kids could watch, to give them the same experience he had as a child watching Japanese 'Mecha vs Kaiju' movies.  I think kids who watch this film, and continue watching it as they grow up, will realise there are suggestions of deeper, more serious ideas (rationing, social divisions meaning the rich can escape the Kaiju while the poor can't) which will resonate more with them over time.  But as it is, this was just pure fun, and with 'The Battle for Hong Kong' it had my favourite action sequence of the entire year.  Seriously, this sequence was so good, that I genuinely believe if the film had been the box-office success it deserved it would have made Michael Bay re-think his involvement with the Transformers franchise.  And as an aside, can you imagine what those films would have been like if he had brought the same amount of passion and just pure LOVE for the subject, as Del Toro did to Pacific Rim?  It does make you wonder...

Finally, I round out my Five Favourite Films with 'THE CONJURING'.  My expectations were quite low for this movie going in to seeing it, so I was pleasantly surprised that not only did it turn out to be far more than an uninspired tread-through of Horror clichés - it is in fact a masterfully crafted thrill-ride of jumps and chills - but that it was so much fun.  Kudos to James Wan for making what, I think at least, will be regarded as a benchmark for future haunted house movies over the next few years.

Obviously, it isn't all good any year at the cinema - whilst the bad films have been so obviously bad that they don't warrant attention (though, sadly, in some cases it's not been an obstacle to box office success), sometimes a highly anticipated film can really let you down.  I must say that for me the most disappointing film of the year was 'STAR TREK: INTO DARKNESS'.  Now don't get me wrong, I'm not a die-hard Trekkie who is hating on Abram's take on the franchise - his reboot was tremendously entertaining, and the cast he assembled have slotted in to their characters masterfully.  And it must be said that, for the most part, 'ST:ITD' was also a fun, energetic, briskly paced romp - up to a point.  The part which, for me, and I realise I'm not alone in taking this view, lets the film down is a couple of decisions taken near the end which try to pull off the same type of moment as the franchise's benchmark 'Wrath of Khan'.  Only, in this film not only is it kind of sign-posted, it also comes off as a pretty misguided story-telling decision on the part of the writers.

I can understand why they wanted to harken to 'Khan' - not only, as stated, is it the best 'Trek' film, the ending is regarded as one of the most powerful in any franchise.  But the way it has been aped in 'ST:ITD' comes across as slightly disrespectful perhaps at worst, but it shows that the writers don't truly have confidence in the franchise - they seem to feel that they have to harken back to specific moments in order to do 'justice' to Star Trek.  And that is a real shame - as a friend of mine put it, you show respect to Star Trek by making a good Star Trek film.  This rebooted franchise shouldn't need to try and emulate previous high-points in the franchise - they've got a great cast who really pull off their roles, the visual look is spot on (though perhaps not so much of the lense flare, ok?), and the potential for exciting and entertaining stories is tremendous - next time, if the writers just try to write the best story they can to suit the characters and the actors portraying them, then they can make a much better Star Trek film.

Finally, I'd just like to close this post with my favourite piece of movie score this year; whilst Steven Price's 'Gravity' score was the perfect match to the visuals, tension, terror and drama portrayed on screen, and Ramin Djawadi's theme for 'Pacific Rim' was something of an ear-worm for me - my favourite single piece is 'Flight', from Hans Zimmer's score to the (partially successful) Superman reboot, 'Man of Steel'.  As we look forward to 2014, hopefully there'll be many great, memorable and entertaining movies that soar as high as Kal El did to this theme.

Till then, Merry Christmas/Happy Hanukkah/Season's Greetings & A Happy New Year!

Trailer Reaction: The Amazing Spiderman 2

If you're of a film-watching persuasion (you must be, you're reading this!), then you'll no doubt have noticed that yesterday saw the premiere of the first trailer for The Amazing Spiderman 2.  If not, here it is:

This trailer has prompted no small amount of discussion amongst fans of Spiderman, comic book movies and blockbusters in general.  A lot of this has been devoted to 'Easter eggs', background details which have suggested future villains Spidey will face in the next films (Sony are looking at making this a four film series - AFTER WHICH THEY'LL ALLOW MARVEL STUDIOS THE RIGHTS TO INCLUDE HIM IN AN AVENGERS MOVIE - sorry, I don't know what came over me then!).  Immediately clear are Dr Octopus' arms, Vulture's wings, there's also tiny, tiny details referring Venom and Morbius.

These have been discussed in detail in other places (like here, here, and Empire‘s excellent breakdown here) so I just want to pick out some other things which struck me about the trailer.

Firstly, the visual look is much brighter.  The first Amazing Spiderman movie was mostly set at night - I think this was probably the studio executive's idea of making the film 'darker', because they apparently wanted to match the serious and dark tone of Nolan's Dark Knight Batman Trilogy.  Whilst that approach worked for that character, Spidey ain't Batman - not to say you can't get a serious portrayal of the character - outside of his villain show-downs, Peter Parker's life could be lifted out of a soap opera/drama!  Bright doesn't have to mean more 'comic', in a negative sense - but bringing Spidey out in to the light of day will benefit the character.

Secondly, it looks like the plot will be more coherent than its predecessor.  Watching 2012's reboot, you could tell that it was a film the director and writers were being 'interfered' with right until the final cut.  Story-lines were set up, and then abruptly left; entire characters went missing without explanation.  It is clear they wanted to set up an over-arching story involving the disappearance of Peter's parents, however by the final act of the film this had been forgotten (apart from a mid-credits stinger).  Not to mention the hunt for his Uncle Ben's killer, supposedly the trigger for his heroic, do-gooding vigilantism, which was also forgotten!  This sequel looks to be heavily based around the death of Peter's parents though, so while it probably won't resolve the entre plot until the fourth film, hopefully it'll handle the development of this narrative thread more effectively.

Thirdly, there'll be three villains - can this film balance them more effectively than others have?  The 'failure' of Sam Raimi's Spider-man 3 was largely blamed on the inclusion of three different villains (although I think the over-all lack of narrative and tonal coherence was more at fault), also it's seen as one of the biggest problems with the late 1990's Batman films (again, they had WAAAAAY more problems than that..!).  In this case, seeing as they're clearly wanting to build to a series-concluding showdown with the villain team Sinister Six, having more than one villain makes sense - it's how much is devoted to each which will be the issue.  Apparently Electro is the main villain (although you'd be forgiven for thinking otherwise from this trailer) - which makes the inclusion of Rhino and Green Goblin an interesting prospect as to how they'll be handled.  Although sometimes it is important to give villains depth and breadth in their narrative development (especially as many of Spiderman's foes are 'dark reflections' of what could have happened to him, and in most cases are themselves victims of tragic accidents/circumstances), this isn't always the case.  A murderous thug with a grudge against Spidey, who gets his hands on some military grade armour, is pretty self explanatory!

Fourthly, this film feels more like a proper 'Spiderman' film than its predecessor did.  While Andrew Garfield's portrayal of the sarcastic, loved-up, teenage Peter Parker is widely accepted as a more realistic and better acted portrayal than Tobey Maguire's (although I think Maguire has done some solid acting work in Raimi's films and others he has been in), Raimi's films just seemed to capture the character and stories (in the first two films anyway) better than the prequel.  The only moment in the 2012 film where I really felt like I was truly watching a Spiderman movie was the (superbly executed) high school-set fight against The Lizard.  The way Spiderman crawled over objects and fought was in some-ways closer to the comics than many of the scenes in Raimi's films.  Aside from that, there just seemed something missing from the portrayal - more of that type of action.  It almost seemed that, in the attempts to make a 'darker' or more 'grounded' Spidey movie, they were actually embarrassed about making it a Spidey movie!  From the looks of this trailer though, the second film is a lot clearer about what it wants to be - that is, an unashamed Spiderman movie.  And that is very welcome!

Finally - and this is my biggest reservation - I still don't feel like they've done enough to justify the complete series reboot.  Despite embracing the character and trying to build an ongoing story with him, I'm still not convinced that there was any need to start from scratch with his origin story; the only problem from Raimi's films was his unfortunate tendency to kill off villains, so that seems the only justifiable reason for taking this approach.  Of course, the producers wanted to ape the tone of the Nolan Batman films (as stated above), but it's clear they've realised this doesn't suit Spidey - making it a bit redundant, really.

Because of this, and the concerns about rushing to include three villains in this film, I must admit I'm worried that Sony don't really know how to properly treat Spiderman.  There is part of me that wishes Disney/Marvel would simply buy the rights back from them - seeing how well the Marvel Cinematic Universe has been developing, they clearly know how to get their characters spot-on; so imagine what they'd do with Spidey!  Beyond this, there'd be so much more cross-over potential - and I'm not just talking about Spidey appearing in an Avengers movie!  You'd have Norman Osborn and Oscorp tussling with Tony Stark and his company, as well as him hiring a rogue's gallery of Marvel villains to take on the Avengers.  It's a real shame that no one though of this potential when different studios bought the rights to various characters, instead of the Marvel Universe as a whole...

Movie Review: The Hunger Games Catching Fire - the odds of franchise greatness are in its favour...

Possibly the biggest problem faced by any film adaptation from a source novel is the line between being too faithful, and not faithful enough.  'Catching Fire', adapted from the second novel in Suzanne Collins' 'Hunger Games' trilogy, succeeds confidently, if not entirely, in pulling this off.  And this is no mean feat, when you consider that the source material is the middle section of an ongoing saga - and is also a slow build-up to another trip to the arena, which might have been an excuse to retread the original.

This is a long film, and anyone who found the first half of the preceding movie, prior to the events of the games itself, to be slow and uninvolving, will likely struggle also with the first half of this film.  But, as anyone who has read the novels will tell you, there are machinations here - both within heroine Katniss Everdeens' (Jennifer Lawrence) personal life, and the wider political setting of the novels - which are vital to set up the events of the final novel.  However, there are two positive things about this section which, to my mind, makes this film an improvement on the original.  Firstly, there is time to explore the emotional fall-out of Katniss and Peeta's 'victory' in the arena in the first film - how they have been affected by the traumatic events, and how this - and their 'love affair' - has affected those closest to them.  Secondly, as the film offers opportunity to open up the narrative scope beyond the book's focus on Katniss' perspective, we get to see more of Donald Sutherland's President Snow and Philip Seymour Hoffman as the new Games Runner, Plutarch Heavensbee.  Sutherland especially has some better scenes than previously, and we get a nuanced take on what could have been a simple villainous turn.  Ruthless dictator he may be, you can't help but like him - which is often the case with these types of political leaders, as they win over great support despite their vulgar abuses of power.  Despite these positives, anyone who felt the portrayal of the television and media to be tonally jarring in the last film will most likely feel the same way about the similar scenes here - however the series as a whole carries powerful messages about the power of the media and propaganda it's hard to see how the films would work without them.

The second half of the film, as with the novel, had the potential to be the weakest part, as Katniss and Peeta are sent back to the Arena to be part of the 75th Hunger Games.  This could have easily been a simple rehash of the first film, but thanks to a great ensemble of supporting actors, and solid direction from series newcomer Francis Lawrence, this section works very well - and in some ways is more enjoyable than its equivalent in the previous film.  There were many raised eyebrows at the choice of Lawrence as director on a franchise like this, given the mixed response to his previous work.  However, he has proved to be a shrewd choice - whilst his direction is hardly ground-breaking or virtuoso, he handles the action and effects solidly, and gives each supporting actor enough space so that they are able to make the most of what might have been quite limited or sketchy roles - especially Jena Malone as Joana Mason, and Sam Claflin as Finnick Odair (especially as their back-stories are not fully revealed until the final novel).  Although Jennifer Lawrence is the head-liner of this film (and an Oscar winner to boot), it is a credit to her and her supporting cast that no other character feels underused or underdeveloped.

'Catching Fire' does enough to overcome most of the problems it could have had - although some might feel the first half could have been trimmed down more, once they've seen the next films it's easier to appreciate that it would have been difficult to. As the middle part of a trilogy the ending may not be satisfying to all viewers, but there's no denying its power.  It makes the prospect of the next two films an enticing one -and this is the sign of a great franchise, where you want to see more. 'The Hunger Games' is shaping to be an essential blockbuster franchise, with engaging performances from the leads and supporting actors, and underpinned by powerful social and political commentary.  'Catching Fire' takes the series from strength to strength, and if you've read the novels, you'll know that the most powerful and affecting parts of the story are yet to come.

The Most Relentlessly Awesome Films Ever: Inception

Here's an article I've been meaning to write for a while, carrying on what will eventually become a semi-regular series.  Enjoy!  But be warned, there are SPOILERS!!! so proceed with caution if you've never seen this film...

THE MOST RELENTLESSLY AWESOME FILMS, EVER - PART TWO

INCEPTION (2010)

"You Bastard!!!"  It's probably not the response director Christopher Nolan was intending to elicit with the ambiguous ending to his film; but those are exact words spoken (quite loudly) by a male cinema-goer sat somewhere behind me, in that moment between the screen cutting to black and the credits started with the film's title in large, white letters.

I just smiled.  On the one hand, it provokes an inevitable debate as to whether Dom Cobb (Leonardo Dicaprio) was genuinely awake, or still dreaming.  The spinning totem stumbles for a moment, but carries on, creating many unanswered questions, infuriating (and amusing) some.  On the other, to me it completes a beautiful symmetry - Inception is full of dreams within dreams, and as Nolan's masterpiece ends, the viewer is 'awakened' from the 'dream' that is the film watching experience.  If you go with this metaphor, it simply adds another level to one of the most impressive films of the last few years.

I love 'Inception' on several levels.  Firstly, as a piece of high-profile, blockbuster cinema entertainment, it raises the bar.  Certainly, there is spectacle - cities fold, collapse, or crumble in to endless seas; fights take place in skewed gravity as a room twists around the combatants; and there is action - as the plan plays out like a daring heist, or military raid.  But there is emotional heft that under-writes this - a son emotionally estranged from his father; a father separated from his children due to circumstances beyond his control (but in some ways, by his own making).  Add to this the way the film examines how Cobb's psyche may be fracturing as he deals with his own guilt at the loss of his wife, there is a depth to 'Inception' which sets it apart from almost every other Studio tent-pole Summer movie.  And that's before you start to consider the genius way in which the film tries to examine the way our minds organise and work through dreams.  There is a profound truth, not touched upon before in cinema, that time does seem to expand during dreams - we've all woken from a dream which felt to have played out over hours, and found we've only slept for a few minutes..!

Guns can't kill you in dreams, but getting shot still hurts, apparently!

Secondly, 'Inception' is a subtle blend of several genres, using the cinematic language of the Thriller, Action Movies, Science Fiction - making them work together effortlessly to serve the story which Nolan is telling.  It works brilliantly in each of these - the heist-like plan of bringing a team together to create 'Inception' in someone's mind, or the elements of espionage which under pin it, would feel at home in great films of the Thriller genre.  Similarly, Nolan's love of Bond movies is evident, as in the final act there is an action sequence which could have come straight from a number of that series' better efforts.  All of these are hinged upon a Sci-fi device - the ability to enter another person's dreams, to shape them and, in turn, be affected by them.  Other films would bog themselves down in trying to explain or justify, to make plausible, this device - yet with a very simple prop (can you imagine other Sci-fi films centring a significant mechanism on a couple of vials in a suitcase and a few IV drips?), and a few lines of dialogue, it is clear how entering another's dreams is possible - and there is no cause to question this.

This scene is all the more impressive when you consider it was filmed practically, without CGI!

And yet, at the same time, whilst being an action sci-fi thriller would be the raison d'être of most blockbusters, Nolan cleverly subverts these by making them serve the emotional and psychological drama of the film.  That is the third reason why this film is so great.  I know one or two critics felt that the action and spectacle of the film was underdeveloped, thatit lacked the impact of contemporary summer tent-pole movies.  But that's part of the point: the thriller, action and sci-fi elements are there to serve the emotional and psychological journey of the characters through the plot - unlike most other films, where it is the other way round.  It's almost as though Nolan set out to make a blockbuster that wasn't really a blockbuster, but did it in such a way that you didn't notice.  There's something subversive and at once ingenious about that, which is another thing I love the film for.  This is an action blockbuster that is not about conflict, not about saving the world - it is really a story about a man dealing with his grief, his estrangement his children - and his efforts to get back to them.

I've not even yet touched upon the performances of the actors in this film, and they are noteworthy.  Firstly, the dramatic heft of the plot would not have any resonance were it not for the key performance of Leonardo Dicaprio, whose understated and believable Dom Cobb centres the film in a sympathetic and quiet manner.  He is surrounded by solid turns from Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ellen Page, Ken Watanabe, Marion Cotillard,  and Cillian Murphy - who all help to make the story Nolan has crafted not only believable but one in which the viewer can invest emotionally.  Standing out from the supporting cast is Tom Hardy in his breakthrough role, stealing the show on more than one occasion with his wry delivery and knowing lines.

Here's Mr Hardy as Eames... if you listen carefully, you can hear my wife swooning! :-p

Another thing which makes 'Inception' so remarkable is Hans Zimmer's incredible and influential score.  It is rare that I emerge from a cinema showing of a film thinking 'I must buy that soundtrack!', but this was definitely one of those occasions.  Zimmer's score complements the film perfectly, providing moments of emotion, drama, and a sense of pace and action exactly when needed.  When I listen to the soundtrack (quite often when I am at work, with my headphones in), it always strikes me that this is a score that at times evokes other great movie scores - the great Bond themes of John Barry, or Vangelis' 'Blade Runner'; and that feels to me entirely appropriate, as the film has elements which show not only the influence of these, but a sharing of concepts and vision.  It was recently voted the Best MovieSoundtrack of the Decade so far, and it is an accolade that is greatly deserved.

Often a truly great film is one that impacts you in different ways each time you watch it; you may be drawn in by an actor's performance on one viewing, a superbly executed action sequence on the next; or it might be an impressive piece of cinematography, or a special effect that makes you wonder 'how on earth did they do that?'  Or it may be a moment in the story which affects you in a way you hadn't considered previously.  Each time I watch 'Inception', I always find that to be the case.  It draws from, and stands alongside, several different genres - but it never feels derivative; it is cerebral, without being aloof; it is emotional and moving, without being sentimental or manipulative.  It is a film that demands your attention and rewards it richly.  If only other film makers would show the same breadth of vision, story-telling skill, and technical expertise that Nolan did with this film.  But then, it's precisely that this film stands so far above its contemporaries that highlights what a unique talent Nolan is.  And he still has many films ahead of him..!  He may never equal 'Inception' - but neither will almost any other director.

Movie Review: Gravity - a space odyssey, a triumph of film making..!

At one point during 'Gravity', having survived several catastrophic events, Doctor Ryan Stone (played by Sandra Bullock) finds brief respite in a Russian Space Station.  Exhausted from her ordeal, suspended in zero gravity, she curls in to an almost foetal ball and allows herself to sleep, if only for a few minutes.  With this image, director Alfonso Cuarón establishes the key theme of his latest movie - that by going through and overcoming adversity, it is possible for an individual to experience a kind of 'rebirth', as they discover depths of resolve, and/or a renewed sense of purpose in life.

If lofty visual metaphors aren't what draw you to watch a movie, then perhaps the mere fact that 'Gravity' contains the most incredible visuals and special effects work you will see this year should convince you.  Technically, this film is astounding - it is easy to believe that the entire film was actually filmed in space, and that the actors themselves were sent up in spacesuits.  In fact, they were suspended in special harnesses, operated by the same puppeteers that brought 'The War Horse' to life on stage.  There are some magnificent shots, at once epic in scope and humbling in their beauty: astronauts, tiny white specks against the darkness of space, floating above the Earth - one side slowly illuminated by the dawning sunrise, the other marked by pockets of yellow light where cities lay, thousands of miles below.  There is also spectacular camera work - in one long take, the camera pans around the floating astronauts, pulling in on Dr Stone, passing in to her helmet so that we see the catastrophe from her view, before panning out again.  All this is seamlessly integrated with effects work which is amongst the most realistic put to film.  Technically, this film marks possibly the most significant development in film since 2009's 'Avatar'.

You can only imagine what a nightmare it was for the effects team to create all that debris... their work has more than paid off however!

However, like that film, technical wizardry and invention combined to make jaw dropping visuals aren't entirely enough to cover up flaws.  For some, the characterisation may be too vague - on the one hand, the focus is on Bullock and George Clooney's seasoned astronaut Kowalski, so this is understandable; but at the same time there are only a handful of instances which give an indication of their motivation (beyond staying alive) and back-story.  Bullock's Dr Stone only has one key moment of background exposition, without giving too much away, but it allows a broad 'brush stroke' which suggests a certain amount regarding why she would be working in space; it also serves to highlight the key theme of someone being transformed, re-born if you will, by their experience of adversity.  In as technically focussed a film as this it would be easy for Bullock's performance to be lost, but she does enough to keep the viewer rooting for her, and to feel knuckle-tightening tension with each moment she comes close to oblivion.  Clooney's performance is serviceable, yet ultimately it just seems as though he is being George Clooney in a space suit.

While some viewers may feel the characterisation lacks enough depth for full emotional investment, there is no denying the power of the several scenes where potential catastrophe befalls the characters.  There are a number of points I found myself flinching as debris sweeps towards the camera - I'm pretty certain my wife almost jumped out of the seat next to me at least once!  In a year when wide-scale destruction has become so regularly presented in several films, these scenes truly have impact (no pun intended!).

If you have the opportunity, this film should be seen in IMAX - these visuals deserve to be seen on the biggest screen possible, so that they can be truly enjoyed and appreciated.  If not, this film should still be seen at the cinema - not just because it represents another step forward technically, but because it is an assured, visually stunning, triumph.  Films like this don't come along very often, so take the opportunity to see it on a big screen while you can!

Idle Speculation - How Marvel might bring other Characters back to their Cinematic Universe...

I've only just posted a Comic Book Movie related article, but I couldn't help myself - here's another post about them!  This time I want to turn my attention to Marvel Studios' recent re-acquisition of the rights to Daredevil and The Punisher.  Although these characters have had a fair crack of the whip with regards to film adaptations (3 times, in ThePunisher's case!), neither have been entirely successful from a commercial, critical, and fan perspective.  Surely, though, now could be the time to get them right.  Now, I had planned to write about re-integrating Daredevil in to the Marvel Cinematic Universe - however, this was blown out of the water by the announcement that Marvel & Netflix aregoing to collaborate on several TV series - including Daredevil, Luke Cage, Iron Fist, Jessica Jones - who will team up to form 'The Defenders'.

Although Marvel Studios are firmly ploughing ahead with getting The Avengers back on to the big screen, and bringing in new characters such as Ant-Man and Doctor Strange as part of their 'Phase Three', there's a good chance that in due course Marvel will seriously consider whether, and if so, how, they'll give other characters another shot at their own movie.

Of course, if/when they do, the question is how they'll integrate them in to the established (and expanding) Marvel Cinematic Universe.  If I had the opportunity to pitch an idea for these characters to Kevin Feige and the rest of the head-honchos at Marvel Studios, here are my ideas for how they could successfully adapt these characters, after previous mixed efforts.

The first challenge is fitting them with the established cannon of Marvel films - the approach I would take would be to establish a 'side franchise', based on the conceit that S.H.I.E.L.D. have tracked individuals of note since before the emergence of Iron Man - and back in the 1970's and 1980's Matt Murdoch (Daredevil) and Frank Castle (The Punisher) came under the radar of the organisation.  This could be used as a framing device which ties these films to the 'present day' of the existing cannon - some S.H.I.E.L.D. checking over the organisation's secret archives are recounted the stories of these characters by a veteran agent (possibly Samuel L Jackson as Nick Fury?).  Although in the comics both characters have had their associations with the various other characters of the Marvel Universe, taking an approach which fully does them justice, and picks out their best stories, would arguably require them to stand apart from The Avengers etc.  Using S.H.I.E.L.D. as a way to tie them to the ongoing Marvel Cinematic Universe would allow service to both elements.  However, given that Daredevil is getting his own TV series, the extent to which they'll tie his escapades as a vigilante in New York's 'Hells Kitchen' to the wider Marvel Cinematic Universe is up for debate and speculation - it could be set in the '70's, it could be set in the 'now'.  Given that it's likely he'll team with Cage, Iron Fist, and Jones as part of The Defenders, it'd be a push to have each set in differing eras!

2003's 'Daredevil' was certainly a mixed bag, which mostly didn't quite work...

Secondly, following from this, one of the elements of Marvel's ongoing success is they treat each of their films as being an example of a different genre.  Ironically, before Fox had to relinquish the rights to Daredevil, 'A-Team'/'The Grey' director Joe Carnahan had pitched a 70's set Daredevil movie, with a strong feel of the gritty crime thrillers and exploitation movies of the decade (he even cuttogether a 'sizzle reel' to pitch the idea to Fox's executives) - something of this vein would be ideal, giving the character a setting which would feel right and a style to fit with his story - the vigilante bringing justice to the tough streets of New York's Hell's Kitchen.  This could set up a confrontation with The Kingpin (portrayed by the late, great MichaelClarke Duncan in the 2003 version - they got the physicality right, though I'm not sure the portrayal did the character justice otherwise - much like other characters in that film...), who tries to take him down.  If Daredevil had been given his own film again, I'd have tied it to the Marvel Cinematic Universe by having S.H.I.E.L.D. represented - maybe with a cameo by a young Nick Fury?? - but set up by a brief appearance in a preceding movie as an older Murdoch, working as a legal advisor consulted by S.H.I.E.L.D. or another Marvel character.  What is for sure is that his TV series WILL make use of the Hell's Kitchen setting, and promises to be a 'gritty' take on the character and setting.  Again, no ideas whether it'll be set in the '70's or now, but it's nice to see they're keeping with what could have potentially been an element of a new movie version of the character.

If the 70's setting and take on genre staples of that era could have worked for Daredevil, then arguably The Punisher's movie should be a 1980's set action revenge thriller - the type of muscular action flick which were the staples of Schwarzeneggar's, Stallone's, Norris' etc careers during that decade.  Whilst there was some over the top cheese during that decade, we got bench-mark, genre-defining classics such as Die Hard.  You see, the problem with The Punisher is that he is potentially the darkest of Marvel's characters: when taken seriously, as he was by writers such as Garth Ennis during the 1990's & 2000's, there were some very serious and adult stories told using the character.  Imagine Batman without the restraint, at his most violent and uncompromising - The Punisher will, torture, maim and kill in his quest to punish the perpetrators of crime against the innocent.  Given that Disney own Marvel Studios, and they've stuck to keeping their films PG-13 or lower, I sincerely doubt they'd take that tone with any potential Punisher movie.  However, the 80's action movie template could prove to be the ideal vehicle for Frank Castle's story, that of a revenge-driven one-man war against the criminals that murdered his family - you could acknowledge the potentially dark aspects of the character and story, but handle them in a way that doesn't require them to be exploitative or unnecessarily graphic.  Also, as classically, Frank Castle is portrayed as a veteran of the Vietnam War, so setting the film in the 1980's would keep things realistic.  The film could be tied to S.H.I.E.L.D. by having the organisation turn up in the aftermath of Castle's revenge spree, to clean up, cover up and investigate who was responsible for the carnage!

The most recent Punisher adaptation tried to stick to the more recent comic's visual style, but still failed to quite get the character right...

Finally, if it were down to me, I would make The Punisher movie stand-alone.  There'd be no reason why he, and other characters, couldn't have cameo appearances in other movies (or TV Shows!) in the Marvel Cinematic Universe; but I think if just one movie absolutely nailed the characters and their most memorable, or definitive, story-lines, then that should be sufficient for fans and the studio.  After all, there are so many great characters and stories that Marvel can draw from for the films and TV series, they should make use of them in the right situations.  And after the mixed results of these particular character's previous adaptations, they really deserve to get it right, if only just once.  But if a movie isn't sufficient to allow this, then TV may be a better path - which makes it all the more exciting that Daredevil is getting a series, and one which will tie him with other great Marvel characters.  Perhaps this is the route they should go with The Punisher too, at some point in the future..?

Of course, Marvel Studios have got enough on their plate with their ongoing plans for Phase 2,3 and beyond - it may well be that they decide they simply don't have room on their slate for other characters like The Punisher.  But, if it were up to me, I think taking the approach I've described above might be the key to successfully adapting these characters and slotting them in comfortably to Marvel Studio's existing oeuvre.  And as yesterday's announcement shows - there's always TV...

Well, that's not all I've got to say on comic book movies at the moment - though I promise it'll be the last word for this month!  At some point in the future though I may well write about why Marvel are currently so successful when Warner Bros are struggling to get DC characters other than Batman and Superman off the ground; and why Marvel need to buy back the rights to (at least) Wolverine, Spider-man and Fantastic Four...

Movie Review: 'Thor The Dark World' - Brotherly Love..!

To be fair, as far as the current series of Marvel Studios movies are concerned, you're either with them or you're not, so at this stage - their 8th release in their own right, and the second of their 'Phase 2' release - there's probably not much here to convince you of the merits of their 'Cineverse' if you're not already a fan. It goes without saying I am a fan, and although before 2008's 'Iron Man' I enjoyed the better comic book adaptations, I've been converted to a proper Marvel geek; the type who snaps up any tidbit of information relating to their future movies, and speculating about what variety of characters and storylines these might contain.

Having said that, Marvel Studios' releases wouldn't have won me over had they not paid as great attention to the characters, getting the right people to play the characters, and the right directors/writers for each, as they have done so far. Arguably, why Marvel are enjoying so much success when other studios who hold the rights to other Marvel franchises have stumbled occasionally, is that they realise it is the characters that should be the focus. What makes so many Marvel characters awesome is not just their super powers or abilities, but the stories and development they go through with each adventure.

So with 'Thor: The Dark World', the strongest elements are those which concentrate on character building, development - and the relationships between key characters. This film has a slightly different visual look than its 2011 predecessor - the setting is not so shiny, and has a more lived in, 'Lord of the Rings' vibe to it. Whilst there are some large-scale battle scenes, there's nothing in the action sequences that really blows you away (although a sequence towards the end, involving gravity portals between wells, is very well handled and makes for an interesting confrontation). Also, the story feels inconsequential somehow - there is a great threat, a substance called 'the Aether' which has the power to destroy the entire universe (or something) - however the science-technobabble behind it feels vague and under-developed, as does the motivation of the mysterious 'Dark Elves', led by Christopher Ecclestone's Malekith, to wield this substance.

The film moves at such a pace though, throwing action scenes and some effective humorous asides (if only David Goyer had realised you can take a Superhero seriously AND find some humour with them, when he was writing 'Man of Steel, eh?) that you don't really dwell on it. Where the film really starts to feel substantial is when Loki is brought back in to the plot, and the interplay between these two 'brothers', and their love/hate relationship is brought back to the fore. As with the other Marvel Studios films, the casting has been part of their success, and Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddlestone have absolutely nailed the dynamic between these two characters - it's a shame that they didn't have more scenes together.  And it is further credit to their performances and conviction in each character that, by the end of the film, you really get a sense of growth in each character, something which surprised and pleased me. The Thor and Loki at the end of 'The Dark World' are two very different people than at the start of their first film.

Really, this is a fan's film, and whether it's specifically Thor, Loki, or the Marvel Cinematic Universe as a whole that you're interested in, if you're already won over you won't be disappointed. That includes me, and all I can say after this is: roll on the next Marvel Studios movie! Surely they can make more than two a year, can't they?

Movies to watch before Halloween - Final Part!

Before I present my choice of films I'd want to watch in a Halloween Triple-Bill, I'll give a few honourable mentions for films which I could have included amongst the others I've suggested this month:

Se7en (1995)- Autumnal, but perhaps a bit too bleak, it's still a classic Horror/Thriller, best known for that gut-punch ending (which, when I saw it at the time of release, made me want to do that to the writer if I were ever to meet him!) (The gut punch, that is, not cut off his head and put it in a box!)

The Blair Witch Project (1999) - found footage has been so overdone the last few years that the impact of this film has diminished, but watched at night in the dark it still can deliver the chills!

Scream (1996) - whilst I enjoy films which poke fun at genre conventions, I think this one does it a bit too much for my liking, hence I didn't include it in my list.  However this film had a tremendous affect when it came out, and is still - rightly so - highly regarded.

Saw (2004) - whilst you could fairly blame this for kicking off the torture-porn fad of the last decade, it's easy to over-look that this plays out as a well-told mystery - and isn't as gory as people remember; it actually holds back from showing a lot of the gory details!  I think the continual sequels have devalued this film, but in a few years people will look back at this as a genre classic, much like other Horror franchises marred by countless inferior sequels (e.g. Halloween, Friday 13th, Nightmare, etc.)

I'm sure there are loads more I could have included - perhaps I'll do another list next Halloween?  Anyway, without further ado, here's my choice for a Halloween Triple-Bill - in running order, no less!

Donnie Darko (2001)

As I previously posted, when I was a kid Halloween was more about the anticipation, the build up to the night, more than the actual holiday.  If I had to pick out one film which I feel reflects that it would be this one.  The atmosphere, the underlying weirdness, just captures the feelings I'd get looking at all the Halloween decorations for sale in the shops, which fuelled my anticipation and excitement about what the night would bring!  Aside from the fact that Halloween is a prominent date in the movie's plot (it is, of course, the date the world will end!), in a lot of respects it doesn't seem like a logical choice to be on here.  In its own right it is a brilliant film, if hard to categorise: is it a sci-fi? A super-hero story? A religious allegory? Or is it simply a drama about how your teenage years can at times really, really suck?  It's all of those, of course, and more.  I've chosen this as the first film I'd watch in my Halloween Triple Bill because of the atmosphere and how it captures the build-up and anticipation to Halloween.

The Shining (1980)

Enough superlatives have been thrown in the direction of this masterpiece without me adding to them, but I think this remains possibly the most chilling ghost-story put on film (and that's not just because of the wintry setting - that's right, not 'Autumnal', for a change!).  I have included this in my Halloween 'Triple-Bill' because I think there should be at least one very serious horror; 'The Shining' is without doubt exemplary in this respect - there's levels of psychological horror (Jack's mental decline, the implied abuse of his wife and son), visual horror (The Twins, The Woman in the Bath), atmospherics (the implied menace of the empty, labyrinthine hotel; the elevator of blood), and tension & shocks ("Herrrrrre's Johnny!" Dick Halloran's death).  I think you'd be hard pushed to find a more perfect ghost story and horror film to spook you and give you chills on Halloween night!

Re-animator (1985)

After the intensity of 'The Shining', to finish off my triple bill I decided to lighten the mood (slightly!) I decided to go for some ghoulish fun - there are a number of films I could have chosen (some are in this list!), but ultimately I plumped for this one.  It has a black, slightly sick sense of humour (be-headings AND cunnilingus all in one scene?!?), but it is archetypal of horror films of its era.  When it gets gruesome, it is with a wild, infectious sense of glee, so you know this is for laughs as much as it's intended to creep you out.  I figure what better way to bring Halloween night to a close but with something that will leave you cackling with maniacal laughter at the end..?

Well, these are my choices, I'll be very surprised if anyone else would have chosen the same three movies.  Ironically, I won't be watching any of these films this Halloween as I'll be away on holiday with my family.  But if you choose to watch some suitable movies on Halloween night, I hope you have a creepy, ghoulish, scary, fun evening!

Movies to watch before Halloween - Part 4

Here's the penultimate part of this series, before I reveal my ideal Halloween night 'Triple-Bill' next week!

Shutter Island (2010)

Films in which Leonardo Dicaprio plays someone who may (or may not) be losing their mind were like buses in 2010 - in the same year he did this, and 'Inception'..!  Joking aside, this is, despite its bleak story and harrowing revelations, a joy to watch - it is beautifully and evocatively shot, every performance is excellent, and the story just draws you in.  For me, this is one of those films that if you happen upon it while flicking through the channels on TV, it doesn't matter how far along it is, I have to watch it.  With its stormy, wind-swept setting, this is another of those films which really feels autumnal, so to me it is very much at home in this list of films to be watching right now.

A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)

I feel sorry anybody of the current generation who's first exposure to Freddie Kruger was via 2010's utterly forgettable remake; having said that, there was a point in the late 1980's/early 1990's where Freddie had become more of a jokey anti-hero.  But in the original 1985 movie, it's easy to see why he became an instant icon of horror: a terrifying, indefatigable, and nigh in-escapable character - with a wicked and sadistic sense of humour to boot.  Although this movie established some genre formula which the director, Wes Craven, would go on to poke fun at with the 'Scream' films, here there is a gleeful brutality to the deaths which mean their impact isn't diminished.  I use that word 'gleeful' deliberately - although this film succeeds in being an effectively scary horror movie, it is also a ton of fun, and it knows it - it really demonstrates how the '80's were a heyday for horror movies which could entertain as well as frighten you!

Halloween (1978)

I'm sure that quite a few people would wonder why I've not included this in my final 'Halloween-night Triple Bill'; obviously, it is an auto-include on any list of films to watch in the run-up to Halloween.  And deservedly so - not just because it is synonymous with the holiday (well, duh!), but because of what a bench-mark it is in the horror genre: there were 'slasher' movies before this, but until this film none had the impact that this did.  The funny thing I find when watching this movie now is that it's pretty clear that it wasn't filmed around the time of year when it's set: all the trees are still covered in a lush, green spread of leaves - so it's not really one to include in this list because of an 'Autumnal' feel!  Despite the fact this is a tremendous film, I've not included it in my 'final three' because I've chosen another classic horror, which like this one plays the scares seriously, and is also a high bench mark for the genre.

Slither (2006)

This movie is a loving, big-budget tribute to the grimy, gruesome, yet gleefully fun b-movie shlockers which were a staple of '80's video rental stores.  The cast are clearly enjoying this - from Michael Rooker's alien-infected Grant Grant (yes, really!), Nathan Fillion's heroic Sheriff, to the under-appreciated Elizabeth Banks as the tenacious damsel-in-distress Starla, all play it at just the right level to make the jumps shocking, the horror gruesome, and - above all - the humour just the right side of parody.  The balance of horror and tongue-in-cheek, slightly black comedy is spot on in this film - it's not necessarily the most frightening horror film, but it certainly is one of the most fun of the last decade.  Halloween is about having fun after all, so that's why 'Slither' is in this list.

Well, that's it for this week - more to come in the last few days before Halloween is actually upon us, thanks for reading!