My Favourite Films This Year: A Review of 2014

The odd thing about doing end of year round-ups is that I tend to find it easier to be disappointed with the films I've not managed to see during the year, than to actually pick my favourites from those I DID see!  So despite my best intentions I managed to miss a number of critical big hitters this year (Boyhood, Under The Skin, etc), but there were a lot of other strong films I did manage to see, fortunately.  In fact, it was quite hard to finalise this list, but I think I've chosen 5 films that really have stood out in my mind, and gave me a very memorable movie viewing experience.

I don't like to try and put any of my picks in any particular order - I think these films are all tremendous in their own rights, so I think it's unfair to judge them against each other - but I'll start with the not one, but two films that (if you follow this blog) are the most obvious...

Captain America: The Winter Soldier / Guardians of the Galaxy

Despite coming from the same studio, it further highlights just how well Marvel are handling their properties when these films are so different, yet both so successful in their own right.  The Winter Soldier was quite a surprise, due to the way it attempted to say something about current affairs and politics (in the light of increasing surveillance and drone warfare) - something Marvel films had previously not tried to do.  As well as being a smart thriller, it had killer action scenes, and a BIG twist that really shook up the Marvel Studio's movies in a big way.  It even became a pop-culture event as 'Hail Hydra' began trending its way across social networks etc.  And to think, some people say Captain America is Marvel's most boring character..?

Guardians of the Galaxy doesn't need any introductions - which is weird to think that, earlier in the year when the first trailer dropped, it was still considered a huge gamble for Marvel Studios.  But it proved to be an absolute juggernaut - dominating the Box Office, earning high critical praise, and gaining a big fan following.  And deservedly so, as it was possibly the most flat-out fun you could have at the movies this year.  It put Director James Gunn on the map, made a star from lead Chris Pratt, and proved that Marvel Studios, at the moment, just cannot put a foot wrong.

Here's what I said about The Winter Soldier and Guardians of the Galaxy earlier this year...

The Lego Movie

Yeah, sorry, you've got that song in your head now, haven't you?  But before this year, who would have thought that a) a film based on Lego would work AT ALL, and b) that it would be as outrageously good as it is?  A true Family film, one that can be enjoyed at many levels and speaks to adults and kids (of all ages); it has a wild visual style, and is genuinely funny - and gets funnier with repeat viewings, as the makers densely filled it with so many background visual gags and one-liners.

My review of The Lego Movie from back in February...

Pride

The best British film of the year is one that is uproariously funny, uplifting, sometimes moving - but has a relevance to today's society and politics.  If there was one film that should be watched by all audiences this year, it should be this.  Not only does it provide great entertainment, hopefully it might make people reflect on the current state of politics in this country, and encourage us all to work together to address the problems we face - and not to single out and blame people who aren't the cause of them.

Here's what I said about Pride back in September...

The Babadook

One of the best offerings of its genre in years, this was a genuinely affecting Horror due to the way it handled a very real and relatable situation, at once wringing every ounce of fear, dread and tension from it - whilst never losing the perspective of its two central characters.  Helped by two superb performances, effective production design, and understated yet creepy effects work, this film gave me genuine chills.  It cleverly evokes primal childhood fears at the same time as highlighting very real ones any adult who is a parent might have.  And, crucially for a Horror, the titular spook gave me cold, fearful sweats...

My other thoughts on The Babadook from October...


As I said, it was tough to pick this list as there were other films I really, really enjoyed this year and would recommend - honourable mentions should go to '71, The Guest, X-Men Days of Future Past, Edge of Tomorrow, Nightcrawler, The Grand Budapest Hotel, The BoxTrolls, and Dallas Buyer's Club amongst others...

I know some critics like to pick the 'worst' film of the year - if I know a film is going to be terrible (e.g. the latest Adam Sandler 'comedy' vehicle) I try to avoid it.  But having said that there will inevitably be films that don't live up to expectations.  To that end, I would have to say that the film I was most disappointed with in 2014 was...

The Amazing Spiderman 2

Looking back I was, perhaps, too harsh with my review - I know a lot of people enjoyed it, and I can admit that it is a moderately entertaining, passable blockbuster, with a few moments of thrilling effects and action spectacle.  However, given that Spiderman is probably in the top three most popular and recognisable Superhero characters, with 50 years of history and some truly great and memorable story-lines and moments in his comics, 'moderately entertaining' and 'passable' really are not good enough.  It is pretty tragic that Sony seem to be wasting the potential of this character and his franchise, as exemplified by the fact that this film not only made the same mistakes as its predecessor (leaving some plot lines open, whilst tying others in an unsatisfactory manner), but it also committed the cardinal sin of making an absolute convoluted mess of its plot.  By comparison the disappointing Spider-man 3 is a successful film - at least that one knew which story it wanted to tell, and did so without leaving loose ends.  It is a real shame, also, that the tremendous work of Andrew Garfield (this role clearly means so much to him) and Emma Stone is overshadowed by the plot problems.  Some people might have been able to overlook the narrative issues (and that's before you get on to the wasted and at times campy portrayal of the films villains), but when you're dealing with a character of this calibre, who has so many potentially great stories to put on screen, the effort was simply not good enough.


So that concludes my review of 2014.  2015 is looking an exciting year for big event movies, but hopefully there'll be some real gems from the rest of the movie world in between them, too.  Thanks for reading, and see you in the New Year!

Films you can watch at Christmas - that aren't actually Christmas films...

Okay, whether you're a Scrooge or a Kris Kringle, you can't avoid it - it's that time of year, and whether you step foot outside or stay in and switch on your TV, Christmas is going to hit you about the face until you submit to the time of year.  I've always enjoyed Christmas as a time of year to get together with family, enjoy some nice food, and have a bit of time off work - though I find the weeks-long advertising bombardment (usually starting early November) hugely annoying.  There are several movies that, especially if you have kids, are great to watch in the run up to Christmas if you're looking to get in a festive mood - depending what generation you are, there are highly regarded favourites such as 'It's a Wonderful Life', 'A Christmas Story', 'Scrooged', or 'Elf'.  But is it still possible to watch a film to get in to the Festive mood, without getting overwhelmed by heart-warming happy endings or (occasionally) saccharine over-sentimentality?

Fortunately, the answer is yes; yes you can.  For there are several great movies that are as far from being Christmas Movies as it it's possible - but because of being set at this time of year, they are completely acceptable to watch in the run up to Christmas.  We're talking Action thrillers, Superheroes and pitch-black humoured Dramas - yet each one of them are almost guaranteed to put you in a Festive mood!  Here are just some of my favourites, and nary a Reindeer or 'real' Santa in sight!

Filth: depicting a corrupt Police Detective's sex, drink, and drug fuelled mental decline, this film has a subject matter that's as far from your usual heart-warming Christmas fayre as possible.  But the fact that much of the film is set during the Festive Season - with trimmings around many of the sets, and Christmas parties being part of the shenanigans - it makes it perfectly acceptable to watch at this time of the year.  Besides, if there ever was a reason to re-watch James McAvoy's superb performance as Bruce Robertson, then Christmas is a good excuse!

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang: Christmas parties, trimmings and Christmas displays in Toy Stores give this sharply scripted and witty modern-noir a distinctly festive setting.  Shane Black directs form his script, and Robert Downey Jr gives a great performance which arguably put him on the come-back trail, contributing to his rise to super-stardom as Iron Man!  Speaking of which...

Iron Man 3: Shane Black scripts and directs again, and the guy clearly has a thing for the festive season - not only do Christmas presents (over-sized stuff rabbit?!), and Christmas a fireworks display (as his suits self-destruct), but the film starts at a New Year's Party - and the biggest one in recent memory, as it was the Millennium Eve!  For me, personally, there is never a reason NOT to watch any of the Marvel Studios movies, but this one is tailor-made for this time of year...

Die Hard: for me, this is THE perennial Christmas Movie.  In my household it's not Christmas until John McClaine has shot some terrorists and written 'NOW I HAVE A MACHINE GUN. HO HO HO' on the sweatshirt of one of their corpses..! Not only is it one of the greatest action movies ever, it's also a legitimate Christmas movies due to it being set on Christmas Eve, and many scenes having Christmas trees and trimmings in the background.  It also uses a classic festive song to unforgettable effect: altogether now - 'Oh, the weather outside is frightful...'


I'm sure there are others - I've kept away from horrors like 'Black Christmas' as, even though they're not uplifting Seasonal fayre, they're still OBVIOUSLY Christmas films...  If you can think of any other movies that are perfect Christmas viewing - despite not being Christmas films! - then please leave a comment below.

And it goes without saying, have a great Holiday Season, whether you're celebrating Christmas, Hanukkah, or just the prospect of time off with family and friends - and a good film (or two)...

Sadly, the very brief cameo by this psychotic santa (on a day off from directing in Middle-earth) means 'Hot Fuzz' can't feature...

Movie Review: The Hobbit The Battle of Five Armies - a muffled flourish to a misjudged trilogy...

 

Now don't get me wrong, but I loved The Lord of the Rings Trilogy.  I had never read the books, but the efforts of Peter Jackson and his dedicated crew of artisans, technicians and actors made Middle Earth and its occupants a place that, like so many fans of the novels, I was sucked in to.  I cared about the characters, and marveled at this epic piece of story-telling; and, yes, I shed manly tears at points as 'Return of the King' drew to a close.  These films were an undisputed triumph, and gave Jackson pretty much a free pass to do whatever he wanted.

Sadly, people will look back on his second Middle Earth trilogy less fondly.  Whilst it has had its admirers (not to mention strong Box Office), many of those would be hard pressed to admit that these films fully justify spreading the comparatively-slightest Middle Earth book to a Trilogy.  The first film ('An Unexpected Journey') just about made it, due to the way in which it evoked a lot of warm nostalgia for how immersive and lovingly made the Lord of the Rings Trilogy was - though it almost collapsed under Sylvester McCoy's unfortunate cross-eyed wizardry.  The second film, 'Desolation of Smaug', really demonstrated the folly of stretching this book over three films, with a number of aimless shots of characters walking from one side of the screen to the other, and an infuriatingly pointless romantic sub-plot.

'The Battle of Five Armies' therefore has a difficult job - to make up of the short-comings of the previous film, and justify the decision to stretch one book over three films (besides Box Office takings...).  At the very least it promises a stonking great battle, and Lord of the Rings demonstrated that Peter Jackson is very good at pulling those off.  Whilst there is some spectacular action and battling going on, sadly this film doesn't really resolve some of the additional plot elements added to the source material in convincing manner.  There are also a couple of plot holes, and issues like forgotten characters demonstrate that Jackson and his writing team don't quite have the story-telling skill required to expand The Hobbit in to the Middle Earth prequel they were wanting.

Thorin is about the only character who gets anything approaching a development arc in this film...

The film starts with a couple of scenes that really should have been the finale to 'Desolation of Smaug' (and arguably might have made that film a more satisfying experience) - the Dragon's attack on Lake Town, and the rescue of Gandalf from Dol Godur and the clutches of The Necromancer (the saga's true big-bad, Sauron).  One sequence is arguably the more effective - the showdown with Smaug is tense and doom-laden, almost apocalyptic.  Whereas the confrontation with the Necromancer is disappointingly brief, especially after the return of beloved characters from the original trilogy, culminating in almost psychedelic and bewildering flash of imagery.

Things are then maneuvered in to place to set up the titular confrontation, and whereas the Lord of the Rings managed to successfully balance a multitude of characters and locations without ever losing the audience's investment in any of them, this film doesn't quite pull off the same feat.  Whilst there is enough development in some characterisation that makes certain actions and choices understandable, in other characters this isn't the case - which makes their appearance, and choices seem a tad convenient.  For example, as Thorin (Richard Armitage) is initially consumed by 'Dragon's sickness' and greed for the treasure, it's never made clear why the other Dwarfs don't see the problem the way Bilbo (Martin Freeman) does, nor try to intervene.  Herelies one of the significant areas this trilogy fails in comparison to its predecessor - several of the central 'Dwarf Company' are pretty much background characters and rendered almost forgettable; unlike the Lord of the Ring‘s 'Fellowship', where each was clearly defined and given moments that showed growth and change resulting from the journey they've taken - as well as some fun and often air-punchingly great heroic moments.

Yet strangely, even when they're little more than window dressing, each actor seems fully committed to their role, and to the depth and richness of the world Jackson and his team are committing to film.  Because Middle Earth and its varying landscapes, settings and cultures look as great as ever.  And, initially, the battle scenes are as spectacular as those in the first trilogy.  The sight of massed ranked infantry, thousands of warriors, assembled on vast plains before great edifices, are spectacularly realised; and the moments when battle is joined, and warriors connect in a clash of blade on armour, is especilaly thrilling.  Sadly this impetus isn‘t sustained as well as it was in the original trilogy - the battle moves to an urban setting which at once creates a negative comparison with the Siege of Minas Tirith from 'Return of the King', and suffers from a lack of geographical focus, making it difficult to follow what is happening or where.  The battle is almost entirely abandoned for an isolated showdown between the film's heroes and villain stand-ins Azog and Bolg, and then is resolved by the convenient arrival of Eagles.  It almost feels anti-climactic, which isn't helped that, as stated above, not enough is done to define all the characters or justify their storyline.

Middle Earth, and its armies, look as good as they ever have done across all six films...

So, does this film justify the decision to spread this book over a trilogy?  Well, despite the fact that it doesn't feel as unnecessarily stretched as 'Smaug' did, there are still scenes and the odd shot that feel like they could have been left out and make no impact on the story overall.  Beyond that one of my biggest bugbears witht he last film - the annoying Elf/Dwarf Romance subplot - is not resolved in any manner that is either satisfying or justifies its inclusion.  I think this Trilogy's biggest problem is that, without either the need to faithfully condense a trilogy of Novels in to a faithful yet coherent series of films, or the sound basis that those Novels provided, Jackson's tendency towards self-indulgence has got the better of him.  Even with the expanded material - The Necromancer sub-plot - to tie this to its predecessor, it can be argued that there was still insufficient material to make the one book three films.  Two was a stretch, but three is too far.  Making this expansion seems to have put it beyond Jackson and the screenwriting teams' story-telling ability; for example, Legolas and Tauriel could have been left out altogether. And the showdown with the Necromancer should have been moved to the climax - this would have given the battle greater stakes in Sauron's plans to retake Middle Earth, and added a greater sense of tension as to the oucome of the battle (not to mention given the Trilogy a more persistent and charismatic villain than those Orcs...).

Worst of all, despite the title, and Freeman's best efforts, this trilogy feels like it loses focus of Bilbo - when the actual book is very much told from his perspective.  This means that a number of potentially fun and adventurous moments from the novel feel like missed opportunities; for example, when Bilbo resuces the dwarves from the Spiders of Mirkwood is a great moment in the book, one that when I read it I felt would make for an exciting and thrilling cinematic moment; instead it was handled in a puzzlingly constricted manner.  Why rush these potentially great action moments, then pad out the film with uneccessary characters and aimless shots of people walking?

Perhaps one day someone will return to these films and edit them down in to two (or maybe even one) more focussed and effective adaptation - not forgetting the fate of certain characters (Billy Connoly's Dain, I'm looking at you), nor significant Maguffins (Thorin literally loses his mind over the Arkenstone, yet it's forgotten once the Battle starts).  As things stand, Jackson has come dangerously close to doing to his own reputation what George Lucas did to his.  You can only wonder what Guillermo Del Toro would have done with these films, had things worked out as originally planned...

Monthly Marvel Musings - Casting Updates, and what's happening with 'Sinister Six'?

Time for this months'...

MONTHLY MARVEL MUSINGS

This month it's been relatively quiet on the Marvel movie news front, although there have been some interesting casting announcements, which I'll discuss below.  As well as that, even though it's a DC property, I'll discuss what the implications of that Suicide Squad movie (what a cast!) are going to have for Sony's planned Sinister Six movie...

Some Casting News Round-Ups

Although it wasn't made official at the Marvel Event in October, it was pretty well known that Benedict Cumberbatch was in talks for the role of Doctor Strange - following on from other contenders including Joaquin Phoenix, Ewan McGregor, Jared Leto, and Ethan Hawk.  Marvel Studios head honcho Kevin Feige has said that Cumberbatch has the "depth and sincerity" to play the 'Sorceror Supreme', so it seems this film has a pretty solid lead locked in now.  With the announcement of some Avengers: Age of Ultron reshoots in the new year, there's speculation we might see Doctor Strange briefly in that film, but we'll definitely see him in July 2016.  I know one thing - if they ever get Strange and Loki in the same MCU movie, on screen together, then a few ladies I know might explode with excitement..!

As well as this, then next X-Men movie has found its titular villain, Apocalypse, in an actor who has seen a growing amount of acclaim heaped on him in the last year: Oscar Isaac.  After getting praise for his work in the Coen's most recent 'Inside Llewelyn Davis', and the forthcoming 'A Most Violent Year', he'll also be seen in the next Star Wars film (you can spot him in the Trailer piloting an X-Wing).  It shows the strength of what Fox has done with this franchise that they can cast a an actor based on their qualities and skills as an actor, and no one complains about their physical resemblance to the character - something that isn't as much of an issue in some cases, but still rears its ugly head (see some of the recent commentary on some of the DC characters casting).  But this casting signals they want someone to bring a nuanced portrayal of this villain to this movie, which is befitting with the recent quality of this franchise.

Spidey's not the dad, by the way - that's (yet to be cast) Luke Cage...

Another piece of casting that will affect the MCU, but might not have garnered as many headlines, is the choice of Kristen Ritter for the role of Jessica Jones for Netflix's series that will link with Daredevil (currently in production), Luke Cage & Iron Fist (both of whom have yet to be cast) for an event series called 'The Defenders'.  Ritter is probably best known for a role in Breaking Bad, and the comedy 'Don't Trust the B*tch in Apartment 23'.  She's an interesting choice, as she's a physically diminutive actress but this isn't your typical 'Superhero' role; rather Jones is someone who gave up on using her powers after personal tragedies, and is haunted by PTSD; instead she became a private detective.  Judging by her previous work she should be able to pull off the 'emotionally scarred woman with troubled past' angle without a problem.  This character is a relatively new Marvel creation, launching in the early 2000's, but she's had ties to Luke Cage and The Avengers.  But with this Netflix series there's the potential we'll see all of these characters on the big screen in the future - as the Infinity War story in the comics featured just about every Marvel character, a lot of fans are hoping to see the Defenders in the two-part Avengers Phase 3 finale.  Time will tell, but it just goes to show that it's an exciting time for Marvel comics fans.

Well, perhaps with ONE exception...

Have DC beaten Sony to the punch with Suicide Squad, their Villain Team-up Movie?

...what a cast!!! (Pic from JoBlo)

This time last year Sony were so confident of success with their Amazing Spiderman franchise that they were announcing plans for a number of spin-off movies, including one based on a team of super-villains formed to take on Spidey - the Sinister Six.  Apparently the plan was to have them brought together not to fight the web-slinger, but on a mission to 'redeem' themselves.

But then The Amazing Spiderman dropped to lower than expected (but not underwhelming) Box Office, and a pretty negative fan reaction (yup, that would have included me).  As a result, The Amazing Spiderman 3 was moved back, and everything sort of went quiet on the spin-off front - even though Sony are still saying they will make their Sinister Six movie.  Well, following the casting announcement for Warner Bros' DC adaptation Suicide Squad last week, it'll be interesting to see what Sony will do now - because they've effectively been beaten by a movie that has got the same premise (super-villains given the chance of redemption by doing some covert, government ordered missions), and has already announced shooting and release dates.  Not only that, but Warners arguably don't have the connective tissue in place that Sony have for their Sinister Six - should they choose to include them in the line-up,  they've already established The Lizard, Electro and Green Goblin.

Warners on the other hand have not only got a new take on The Joker (Jared Leto is a brave, brave man for agreeing to follow Heath Ledger in that role) to establish without the easier option of introducing him in an actual Batman film, but they've got four characters that have virtually no recognition outside of comic-fan circles.  And the only pre-established connection is Man of Steel, a film that only hinted at a wider DC cinematic universe.  Despite this, Warners have beaten Sony at the first hurdle - and helped by a surprising (and surprisingly good!) cast, and a Director straight off the back of an acclaimed and modestly successful WW2 drama, they've already generated a tremendous amount of interest and maybe even anticipation for a fairly obscure title.

This could be the first time the Sinister Six have been defeated by non-Marvel characters..!

So where does this leave Sony with Sinister Six?  It's all been quiet from them.  But they've got an even greater mountain to climb if they want to go ahead with their Sinister Six movie - not only have they got to justify it in the face of a backlash over their treatment of the Spiderman franchise in general, but they'll be doing it amidst feeling that Warners have done this type of film first.

And this is all a shame, as Spiderman is truly one of the flagship Superhero characters, and his films should be able to stand shoulder to shoulder, quality wise, with the X-Men and Avengers movies (even if they're not in a shared universe with them).  Perhaps instead of trying to force a shared universe franchise a la Marvel Studios, Sony should cancel Sinister Six and the other spin-offs, and just concentrate on getting the main character's films right.  The future of the Spiderman franchise seems to be even more up in the air, following leaked e-mails between Sony and Marvel that confirm rumours that the two Studios were discussing sharing the rights (it didn't work out, sadly).  The only thing that's clear at the moment is Sony have quite a job on their hands to restore Spiderman back to the status he previously had...

That's it for Marvel stuff this month - there'll be more in the New Year!

Iconoclast: why I had big problems with Bond's 'Skyfall'

Today, at a greatly fan-fared press event, the title and cast for the next (and 24th) Bond movie was announced: SPECTRE.  And what a great and diverse cast it has - Christoph Waltz, Monica Belucci and Dave Bautista amongst others.  But what will the story, and eventual film be like?  Hopefully, in my opinion, better than the last Bond movie, Skyfall.

Now, I know that a LOT of people loved that film (indeed, it has been the most financially successful Bond movie to date), but I felt there were so many problems with it that it pretty much spoiled my enjoyment of it  In the first of another occasional series, here I play 'Iconoclast' and highlight the flaws of an otherwise highly regarded move.

Bond Is Overshadowed By Almost Everything:

Now don't get me wrong, I enjoy the Bond movies, and I think that Craig is excellent as Bond.  When he made his debut in the Role for 'Casino Royal' he instantly made the role his own, and the film put him front and centre: it was all about BOND (capitals, Bold, Extra-large typeface), no gadgety gimmicks or over the top sets of villain's lairs required.  And Craig was irresistible, especially in the tense casino games taking on the villain Le Chifre at card games.  The series rightly got itself back on track by making the portrayal and characterisation of Bond the focus.  Although follow-up 'Quantum of Solace' was hamstrung due to the Writer's Strike of 2007, Skyfall could have built upon the strengths of 'Casino Royal'.

Instead, at almost every point, Bond is overshadowed throughout the film: by the cinematography, by a classic Aston Martin, by the villain, bringing back 'classic' elements like Q and Moneypenny; and even by Albert Finney with a shotgun.  To me it felt like a backward step for the franchise, making the film another reboot when Casino Royale was supposed to be one for the character.  These elements just seemed to push Bond to the back, when Casino Royal had done so much to push him front and centre, and make him awesome again.  Apart from one moment where Bond takes out several henchmen in a matter of seconds, you never feel there is a moment that makes you cheer for Bond at the same level.

Sure, it looks good - but when the main character gets lost in the visuals, you have to ask if it looks TOO good...

Bond is No Longer a Spy Anymore?

The plot, ostensibly, is kicked off by the loss of a hard-drive containing details of every MI6 undercover operative worldwide.  Yet if finding it was as easy as finding the person who apparently stole it, it's hard to see the need for Bond.  Especially in the scene that introduces Q, where he basically says to Bond 'here's the person we're looking for - oh, and he's going to be here, so go get him.'  I'm sorry, but isn't the point of Bond that he goes undercover to find the whereabouts of people, and maguffins, in that way?  Isn't he supposed to gather intelligence, not turn up and have it given to him?  This film took all of that away, and in effect reduced Bond to being a mere government-sanctioned hit-man.

And that's before you get to the fact that, once they've located the film's real 'villain', this hard-drive (and the risk it presents) is completely abandoned by the plot - so was it really that much of a problem?  And that brings me to another of the film's issues...

The Villain is a More Sympathetic Character Than Bond:

Despite being introduced in a creepy (and arguably homophobic) manner by having him make a pass at a bound and prone Bond, when we discover his motives - that he was abandoned to torture, disfigurement and left for dead by the actions (or inactions) of Judi Dench's M, it's hard not to feel that, well, actually he might have a point.  Okay, he threatens (and succeeds in) killing MI6 operatives, but put his motivations alongside the callous manner that Bond dismisses the death of a woman he's only recently slept with, and it makes you question who you're supposed to be rooting for.  Yeah, I get that part of Bond's character is that he is heartless when it comes to how he uses and discards women, but you can excuse this when you put him alongside a really nefarious villain; Silva's (Javier Bardem) motivations were too relatable to be an effective counter to Bond's worse aspects.

In Bond movies you should never get behind the Villains motivations... surely?

Add to that an irritating theme song (surely someone could have asked Adele to tone down her Cocker-knee accent so it didn't sound so much like she's singing about trifle and apple-crumble?!?), plot holes like those I've stated above, and predictable not-at-all surprises like the 'reveals' of the new M and Moneypenny; in all, these things simply stopped me from being able to enjoy this film.  I know I'm in a minority though - and I certainly look forward to the new Bond, despite my reservations about its predecessor.  I just hope it doesn't share any of these issues with it...

Albert Finney's a great actor, but you don't want to see him upstage Bond in a Bond movie, do you?

Trailer Reaction: Star Wars The Force Awakens

I have a confession.  I went to see 'The Phantom Menace' 8 times at the cinema.  Yeah, madness, I'm sure you‘ll agree; however at the time I was in the middle of a strange kind of depression so that film clearly gave me the escapism I needed.  At the time of their release I also enjoyed the other Prequel films - though now I wouldn't thank you to watch them.  Their flaws are well documented, from story, script, direction and acting.  Even the much-bally-hooed CGI effects haven't aged well.

But that‘s not the biggest reason I've felt nothing but ambivalence towards the prospect of a new Star Wars movie since it was announced.  Each rumour and announcement has failed to evoke the same excitement and anticipation I felt back when the prequels were in development - or that the Marvel Studios movies do now.  You see, I'm still not convinced that the word actually needs a new series of Star Wars films (aside from making Disney more money, that is).  As flawed as the Prequels were, they at least told a story that made sense with the original Trilogy and felt complete: the Saga of Anakin Skywalker and his redemption through his son, Luke.  Beyond that, is there any story that is worth telling?

So when the trailer dropped yesterday I was genuinely surprised at how much I enjoyed it: it brought a huge smile to my face, and at times I had goosebumps.  It has genuinely thrilling moments, and most of all it truly feels like Star Wars.  And this is despite the fact it reveals nothing really: no story, no details on who these characters are, nor what they're doing.

But interestingly the first characters we see are all new ones - despite the presence of franchise stalwarts Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher and Harrison Ford.  There's a pretty clear message here - these are the people who will be going on the adventures this time.

(All my pics are lazily pilfered from the trailer breakdown Empire Online did...)

First, we see John Boyega in a Storm Trooper uniform.  Is he actually a Storm Trooper?  Or is he disguised as one?  Yes, Storm Troopers feel Star Wars, but I am a little concerned that there are still Storm Troopers (and later, Tie-Fighters) around 30 years after we saw the Empire defeated.  Of course, there are no story details, but perhaps after the deafeat of the Emperor the military resources of the defeated Empire were merged with those of the Rebels?  I hope that's the case, otherwise for me it cheapens the end of the original Trilogy.

Then we see a little Droid - at once familiar but entirely new.  The head is a domed shape reminiscent of R2D2; but the body, whizzing past, appears to be a sphere.  And, boy, can it move!  The message here seems to be it‘s still the same galaxy, but things have moved on.

Next we see newcomer Daisy Ridley, and another image that anchors the film emphatically as a Star Wars movie: with a slightly determined or desperate look (is she being persued?  Has she just seen something and needs to report/warn someone?) she sets of on a speeder.  Again, a familiar Star War image, but given a new design.  In the background we see what appear to be ship parts - could it be that this girl has built the speeder herself from this scrap?  If it is, she's clearly a resourceful and intelligent character.

The next couple of shots sold this trailer for me - because, you see, when I was 5 and first discovered Star Wars, my favourite part above all else was Luke Skywalker piloting the insanely cool X-Wing Fighter and taking part in the attack on the Death Star; at that age, when I grew up I wanted to be an X-Wing pilot.  Here we get our first glimpse of Oscar Isaac piloting - yes! - an X-Wing, here seen flying in a formation, skimming over a body of water.  One of the best thing about the original Trilogy is how it took familiar settings - deserts, forests, jungles, but made them feel exotic and otherworldly.  This shot captures that feel effectively.  But seein the X-Wings really sold this trailer to me, and I could sense a new feeling about this film emerging: could that be a bit of optimism?

Then we see what appears to be (at least one of) the film's villains - is it a Sith?  Well, he has a brutal looking 'Saber with a nasty hilt...  This apparently is Adam Driver, and even though we don't see his face, I loved how this shot shows how his performance will convey him as a potentially classic villain.  He is slightly hunched, stumbling slightly - but when he clearly detects a threat he immediately reacts, and looks very dangerous.

Finally, after that, that familiar, iconic theme blasts from the speakers, as the Millennium Falcon (YES!!!) blasts across the screen.  And what a phenomenal shot that is.  The original Trilogy gave us so many jaw-dropping and ground-breaking shots and visuals, from the opening moment of 'A New Hope' when that immense Star Destroyer slowly sweeps over the screen.  You could argue that the Prequels failed to deliver as much of the same, but the shot of the Falcon in this trailer arguably demonstrates that Director JJ Abrams clearly wants to push the visuals as much as possible, like the original Trilogy did.  This shot is absolutely fantastic as the Falcon zooms round in an arc, flipping from upside-down, to face some on-coming Tie-Fighters.  The camera movies like it's mounted on another ship, struggling to keep up (and not creash whilst doing so!).  You could say that this trailer doesn't deliver anything as provocative and mind-blowing as Darth Maul's double-ended Saber did at the end of the first Phantom Menace trailer - but this final shot was absolutely fantastic, and suggests that, if nothing else, it will look superb (especially in IMAX 3D, I‘m already drooling at the prospect of seeing it in that format)!

As well as this there's a mencaing voice over, which many believe is either Andy Serkis or Benedict Cumberbatch - my money's on the former seeing as he's oficially part of the cast.  But really tying the whole thing together is the sound - with each shot there are snippets of Ben Burtt's definitive aural benchmarks for the trilogy: Imperial Code, droid chatter, the whoomph of a speeder, the familiar buzz of an X-Wing's engine; and of course, the sound of a Lightsaber being activated.  These are used sparingly, but you could have played the trailer without images, and just those sound queues on their own would have been enough to indicate that this film is definitely Star Wars.

So I really enjoyed this trailer.  But without any details of story, am I still ambivalent towards this, and other new Star Wars films?

Well, lets just say, I am feeling cautiously optimistic now.  This film most likely won't be the generational and cutural defining event the originals were.  But it certainly looks like it should be a fun and entertaining trip to the cinema; and that's what Star Wars always has been.

Movie Review - The Hunger Games Mockingjay Part One: Does enough to justify the split in two. Just...

When you consider 'The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part One', it is quite remarkable that the biggest controversy is not its surprisingly graphic portrayal of the horrors afflicted upon innocent civilians during war; nor that it is most emphatically an anti-war move, made by a big Hollywood studio, from a country where there are some in power that have a vested financial interest in the continuation and profligation of armed conflict.  No, what has really got people fretting is the decision to split the final novel of the Hunger Games trilogy in two parts.  I can understand this - it is, in some cases, an annoying and unnecessary emerging trend in movie-making.  Even many die-hard Twilight fans were critical of that series' final novel being split, for no apparent reason other than to make more money.  And don't get me started on how disappointed I was in the second of 'The Hobbit' films, which seemed to pad out the running time with countless shots of characters walking from one place to another - there just didn't seem enough content to justify the split to three films.

So, straight off the bat, people are being more critical of 'Mockingjay Part One' than they might normally be, due to that fact.  I will say that, broadly, the film does just enough to justify the split.  Apart from perhaps one or two short scenes, there is little here that feel superfluous - in fact, because the film goes beyond telling the story through the perspective of heroine Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) as in the novels, it allows portrayals of moments which broaden the scope of the series, and gives the growing rebellion in Pan Em a bigger impact on the viewer.  But as this is only half of a book, not everything is tied up in terms of narrative, another cause of concern.  However, to my mind at least, the ending is no less open than that of the previous film in the series, 'Catching Fire', and also involves a clever adaptation and expansion of the source material.  And as the stakes for Pan Em, and Katniss, grow bigger, more dangerous and potentially deadly, it feels like the right place to pause before the second part; especially as this series grows ever bleaker and harrowing.

If that is the elephant in the room, so to speak, how does the film measure up in its own right?  To be fair, I would say a lot of your enjoyment of this will be based upon how invested you are in the fate of Katniss and Pan Em following the previous films, or if you have followed the novels.  This movie broadens the scope and detail of the setting, and includes a number of visually striking scenes - ranging from horrific images of the aftermath of bombing, the tranquillity an abandoned ruin overgrown by wilderness, or the destruction of a dam.  While doing this and introducing new characters such as President Coin (Julianne Moore) who intends to be the leader of this rebellion, the film succeeds in keeping the focus on Katniss.  If the first films were about her survival and efforts to escape from the games, we learn here that she is still trapped - she is only useful to Coin and the people of District 13 as 'The Mockingjay', the propaganda figurehead of the rebellion.  If she realises that she cannot escape this, or the growing conflict, her efforts turn to protecting the people she cares most about.  The underground military bunker that houses the people of District 13, with its seemingly endless central tunnel, grey and dimly lit concrete walls, makes for a suitably oppressive visual metaphor for Katniss' situation.

Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) is torn between protecting those she cares most about, and standing up with the people of Pan Em against the injustices of the Capitol...

By this stage the established cast, led by Lawrence, are assured and comfortable in their roles.  Some of the new characters are better established than others, but justifiably so: Coin plays a significant role as the President of District 13, and the script cleverly allows her more moments of interaction with Katniss than in the book.  Another welcome addition is Boggs (Mahershala Ali), head of security at District 13 and a capable soldier.  Though a man of few words he makes for a commanding presence especialy in a tense rescue scene that expands upon the novel.  Sadly, with so many characters not all get as much time as you'd like, but overall this doesn't stop the narrative moving, which is just as well.

With so much going on there are a couple of moments that the struggles of Katniss herself almost seem a little lost - as with the novel, the 'will-they-won't-they' romance with Gale (Liam Hemsworth), doesn't do anything but give Katniss another person to fret over.  Also this film has a more deliberate pace than the previous films, and if you've read the book you'll appreciate how most of the 'action' as the story draws to an end is weighted that way.  It's possible to use this as a case against dividing the novel in two (as some reviews have done), but taking things slower works by allowing time to flesh out the brewing conflict and politics of Pan Em; as well as creating space to dwell on some of the surprisingly graphic images of the devestation wrought by conflict.  Aside from at least two repetitive shots of rubble, there doesn't feel to be the padding of the second 'Hobbit' movie.  I'm also sure that when audiences have seen Part Two, they will appreciate having the breathing space of having two parts - because as bleak as this film gets, things do get tougher for Katniss and her friends before they get better.

The film is dedicated to Phillip Seymour Hoffman, who tragically died during the filming of 'Mockingjay'.

For a lot of people, the fact this is the first of two parts precludes a satisfying ending to the film, and yes things are not resolved - however the script expands on a scene that is only desribed second hand, to tense and gripping effect.  This still gives the film a sense of finale, even if it is not a conclusion.  Interestingly, the previous film 'Catching Fire' ended on something of a cliff-hanger - more-so than this film - but few had a problem with that..!  'Mockingjay Part One' is, I would agree, not the best film in the series, and neither is it an easy entry point for those who are new to the franchise.  It does push, however, push it in a new direction; and although some might miss the typical blockbuster action-finale that the Quarter Quell provided previously, this film offers some uncompromisingand thought-provoking scenes addressing the horrors of war.  This alone is one of the reasons that 'The Hunger Games' will be remembered as a vital and timely series.  If it isn‘t apparent in this film, so long as the second part follows the same uncompromising commitment to the message of source material, then next year it should be abundantly clear.

Time for a new regular feature: Monthly Marvel Musings!

Frequent visitors to my Blog (c'mon, I know you're out there... somewhere!) will be aware of my fondness for the output of Marvel Studios.  That is an understated way of saying that I am a huge fan-boy for them who geeks-out with every announcement and movie release..!  From time to time (quite often, let's be honest) I am taken to write about the Marvel Studios movies, discussing trailers, news and speculating pointlessly on their forthcoming releases.  Due to the frequency with which I find myself doing this I decided to make it a regular feature of my Movie blog.  So behold this, the first instalment of *takes deep breath*

MONTHLY MARVEL MUSINGS 

(Yeah, I like alliteration, so what???)

In this month's instalment I will write about my reaction to Marvel Studio's recent Phase 3 movie announcements; look at the up-hill struggle Fox's Fantastic Four reboot is facing to win people over; and speculate about what may take place in the next Captain America movie: Civil War.

Get your Calendars ready - release dates for Marvel Films for the next 5 years!

If you're in the UK, those dates are wrong - we get several of them a week earlier..!

So on Tuesday 28th October at a special press eventMarvel Studios boldly, and to enthusiastic reaction at the scene and across theuniverse internet, announced every one of their Phase Three movies.  I myself was one of the internet throng losing their geeky mind over the prospect of more Thor, Guardians, two new Superheroes joining the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), and a two-part Avengers sequel: Infinity Wars.  Firstly, it goes to show how Marvel realise they're on to a great thing when they can make a highly fan-fared event out of this announcement, when Warner Bros in contrast put out their DC Superhero movie slate in a shareholders' meeting.  This is only backed up by the fact Marvel can announce films starring less-known characters like Black Panther and Captain Marvel to a flurry of excitement, when DC's slate - which includes major players like Wonder Woman, The Flash and two Justice League films - was met with a far more muted response.

Marvel Studios Head Kevin Feige, with Robert Downey Jr, Chadwick Boseman (who will play Black Panther), and Chris Evans, at the Marvel Event.

Secondly, although there had been rumours about this line-up circulating prior to the event, and the 'Civil War' announcement had some of its thunder stolen by revelations about Robert Downey Jr being cast in it a few weeks previous, it was still genuinely exciting to see what Marvel Studios has planned.  There were some slightly disappointing omissions - for example, who'll be playing Doctor Strange - but it couldn't dampen enthusiasm for these forthcoming films - topped off with the mouth-watering promise that Avengers: Infinity War will see ALL of the MCU characters team-up to take on the plans of Thanos (yes, including the Guardians of the Galaxy, and maybe even The Defenders from Netflix's series).  These are exciting times for fans of Superhero movies, comic book movies, and of just generally high-quality blockbuster entertainment.

In case you've not already added them, you might want to put these dates your diary..!

Fox, Fantastic Four, and a steadily brewing fan back-lash...

A new Fantastic Four movie is due out next Summer, a reboot following two largely derided movies form 2005 & 2007 respectively.  Fox, who have the rights, are keeping their cards close to their chest about it though, only announcing a Director (Josh Trank, behind the successful 'Chronicle' movie) and a cast.  Despite the fact principal photography has wrapped, there has been nary an image or production still circulated - only two bootleg photos of a maquette of The Thing and of Doctor Doom against green screen, both of which were swiftly hunted and taken down at the behest of Fox's lawyers.  But where it gets really head-scratching is that the only other source of any information about the films is from the cast and director, responding to rumours or answering questions in vague, contractually adherent ways.  And with each statement comic fans have been left, to put it mildly, scratching their heads.

The Fantastic Four - pictured here in their 'Ultimates' versions - have been retooled and rebooted in comic format, so I have no problem with changing their ages, or any of their ethnicities...

I'm not going to get in to the issue of changing Johnny Storm's race (Michael B Jordan is right for the role, I don't see the issue) - but other statements have been put out there which have provoked the ire of the fans.  Firstly, Kate Mara's statement that she didn't have to read any comics in preparation for the role, as they weren't 'following any of the comics or comic storylines'.  Then news that the film would be similar to Trank's found footage style used in 'Chronicle'.  And finally, to top it all, Toby Kebbell spoke about the take on villain Doctor Doom he would be playing in this film - gone is the dictatorial ruler of Latveria, instead he's an American computer hacker.

Fantastic Four's talented cast - Miles Teller, Kate Mara, Michael B Jordan and Jamie Bell.  Still no pics of them on set or production stills, this was apparently taken when they were celebrating the finish of filming...

As these broke they were met with various amounts of ire and incredulity from the fans - all of it stemming from an impression that Fox are being unfaithful to the source material in a disrespectful way.  Whether or not this is actually the case is yet to be seen - the film may actually turn out to be a decent piece of work.  But what is interesting is that Fox are making no effort to try and defuse the negative reaction.  There's no synopsis, no pictures, no stills, no trailer - not even a satisfactory explanation as to why they're taking this approach to the characters (beyond 'people didn't like the other films, we assume it was because they were a bit far-fetched, so we decided these should not be far-fetched').  This could be a disaster for Fox, who have clearly spent a lot of money on retaining the license to these characters, on top of the costs of developing and shooting this movie.  Despite the marketability of the Marvel brand (observe how prominent the Marvel logo was on international posters for this year's X-Men film, despite it not being a Marvel Studios movie), there is the chance that negative perception of how the studio is handling certain characters can hurt the film's box office.  There was something of a backlash against Sony's handling of Spiderman following this year's film, to the extent that they've been re-thinking their long-term plans for the franchise - although financially successful internationally, tellingly US revenues were down.  Negative reviews and reactions from fans clearly played a part in this, so it's not implausible that the same could happen with Fantastic Four.

Whatever happens, I can't escape the feeling that however good or disappointing this movie turns out to be, the full potential of Fantastic Four is being wasted outside of Marvel Studios.  It would be, erm, fantastic to see Doctor Doom and Galactus - the franchises biggest villains - part of the MCU; not to mention The Thing's bromance/rivalry with Hulk.  If that ever happens, it'll be a long way off as things stand...

What to (possibly) Expect from 'Captain America: Civil War'  - and what not to.

I might have misgivings about the manner in which RobertDowney Jr has upped his role in this film, but it's confirmed that the next Captain America instalment will be inspired by the comic run of the same name.  I say 'inspired', as (most likely due to licensing) this film can't be a straight-up adaptation - and this is probably just as well, as it's a story in which almost no one comes out of in a particularly good light.  Tony Stark is portrayed as duplicitous and at times heartless, and Captain America is portrayed as slightly pig-headed and needlessly aggressive - neither of which really fit with their cinematic portrayals.  However, there'll be a good deal to take inspiration from; all this has been complicated slightly by the announcement of Daniel Brühl's casting as a villain (who will also be in Doctor Strange, so lots of people think he'll be Baron Mordo), and reports that Crossbones (played by Frank Grillo in The Winter Soldier) will be the main villain.  Add to that they've got to make room for Bucky/The Winter Soldier, because at the end of the latest Cap film he was about to try and find his former friend; and hopefully there'll be more from Sam 'The Falcon' Wilson, Black Widow, and maybe even Hawkeye!

Because the comic relies draws on just about every Marvel comic character - especially ones that aren't in the MCU - I think there'll only be the bare bones of it carried over to the film.  As Tony Stark is involved, it's pretty fair to say it'll be based around the introduction of the Superhuman Registration Act, or some variant of it.  The prompt for this is a catastrophe which kills hundreds of civilians when a team of trainee superheroes take on a team of villains.  I think this will be changed to make Cap more personally involved; perhaps he is leading a team in a similar mission that goes wrong, or maybe he is set up to look like it's his fault - this would justify the presence of villains beyond Stark being the main 'antagonist' for Cap.  Or maybe it's Bucky who is framed, and Cap goes head-to-head against Stark to clear his friend..?

If any, we'll only see a handful of the characters pictured above actually end up in this film..!

I've touched on the licensing rights (Spidey and Fantastic Four are pretty central to the comic, obviously they'll be absent here), but there are a multitude of characters involved in this that Marvel haven't even introduced yet.  At the Marvel Event Feige revealed that Black Panther would be introduced in this film, prior to his own movie, and people have speculated that he'll take the role Spidey plays in the comic: initially siding with Stark and the Registration Act, upon witnessing the lengths he is willing to take to put down those resisting it, he swaps sides.  It'll be interesting to see how they introduce this character, as he won't come with the same level of awareness and emotional draw as Spidey did in the comic.  However if they use this character in a similar way, it's likely the trigger for him to join Cap's side will be the same - Stark will deploy a powerful weapon he can't control, with unexpected consequences.  The details of this might get changed again form the comics, as to be fair it sounds very much like the plot to Avengers: Age of Ultron!  With that in mind, it's might be that Stark himself doesn't have an involvement in this, but it comes from another player in the pro-Registration side.

Although the comics have them using a Thor clone, I think it's highly doubtful they'll use this in the film, but it's plausible there'll be something along similar lines that will have same results as the comic: the death of a superhero.  In the comic it's Goliath, but he's not yet been introduced in the MCU.  This could be the opportunity for them to do something truly shocking and kill-off a long standing but supporting character - but who?  Also, if they don't use the Thor clone, perhaps instead this could be an opportunity for them to introduce Red Hulk to the MCU.  This would make sense, based on what we've seen of Avengers: Age of Ultron (Iron Man takes on Hulk), and the talk of changed roster for that team.  Perhaps coming out of that conflict, Stark or someone else uses the opportunity to try and re-create a new, more easily controlled version of Hulk.  But, being a 'Hulk' it can't be controlled - leading to the death of a super.  That's just pure speculation on my part - though I think it'd be awesome if at somepoint Marvel introduced Red Hulk, but if Marvel Studios want to introduce him, then this could be a good chance to do so..!

The only other thing which I can 100% guarantee we'll see in this film is a great punch-up between Cap and Iron Man.  In the comic there's two, in the first Iron Man has his suit record and counter Cap's fighting moves, in the second The Vision deactivates this function of Stark's suit and Cap gives him quite a beating.  I think you'll only see one fight between these two in the movie, though - but if they take inspiration from the comics it'll be a bruising encounter - not to mention emotionally impacting.  In fact, I expect it will resonate more greatly with audiences than the other superhero face up arriving in cinemas later that year...

RDJ and Chris Evans look ready for their on-screen dust off..!

Besides from that, this will have little in common with the comic - and probably just as well.  I think this is one of the trickiest stories for Marvel Studios to handle, but then again you can say that about each of their films - and they have, in most cases, succeeded emphatically.  That alone gives me confidence they can pull this off, despite my concerns and reservations.  By picking the best elements of the stories, while adhering to the arc of the characters, this could well have the same impact that The Winter Soldier did earlier this year - not only to the MCU, but also critically, financially and in popular culture.

That's it for this month - as the title suggest there'll be more of this sort of thing at some point next month.  Until then, thanks for reading!