Trailer Reaction: 'Guardians of the Galaxy' - Marvel's biggest gamble yet...

Marvel Studios continue to ride high on the crest of a wave - following the incredible success of the awesome Avengers movie, Iron Man 3 and Thor were both critical and box office hits, and anticipation of the new Captain America movie 'The Winter Soldier' is high following two acclaimed Trailers.  Part of Marvel's continued success is their willingness to treat each film as different in its own right, instead of formulaic carbon-copy sequels, each one has been significantly influenced by different genre movies.  They're also willing to take pretty big risks on unknown or unlikely actors for lead roles, as well as unlikely directors for their films.

But the apparent 'risk' they've taken in the past is nothing compared to the absolutely huge gamble they're taking with the next release after the new Captain America; 'Guardians of the Galaxy' is not exactly their best known comic, by a long run.  And to say it's got a far out concept is to really understate things: a team of intergalactic bandits, which consists of a human, three aliens (one of whom is a walking tree) and a gun-toting raccoon.  Yes, you read that sentence correctly, especially the part about the tree and the raccoon.  So, you've got space adventure which is likely to be even more far-fetched than anything we've seen in the Thor movies, and some really bizarre characters - none of whom are going to be known to anyone but the most ardent Comic fans.

So, many people are looking at this as the first significant test for Marvel Studios, their first real gamble (since they started out in 2008 with Iron Man, to a certain degree).  People are looking at this in one of two ways - either it will win audiences over, despite the wacky concepts and characters, and be a hit - or it will be Marvel's first major flop as a Studio.  And everyone agrees, there is significant work to be done in getting audiences on board - which has now begun, in the form of the film's first trailer now released on-line:

And, the general consensus has been positive - there are flashes of humour to this, as well as some flashy space-bound bits, which sell the fact that, yes, this is space-set sci-fi - but there's also a sense of irreverence and fun about it.  Now, Marvel Studio films don't forget their sense of fun, but it looks this one will have the humour really at the fore.  It's hard to tell from this trailer, as it doesn't delve in to the story at all, but it's likely there will be some 'serious' elements to it - Comic fans will be able to draw connecting threads from this to Thanos (the red guy who briefly appeared during the mid-credits scene at the end of 'Avengers'), prompting speculation that this is leading to the third Avengers movie being based around The Infinity Gauntlet, which has featured in a few significant comic story-lines.  If this is the case, then despite the humorous approach, the stakes will be high in 'Guardians', and will have an impact on future Marvel movies - which is all part of what makes their films so exciting.

Although there's little suggestion of the story, this trailer not only gets the fun tone across, it plays an important role in presenting the central characters to the average cinema-going public who won't be aware of the comic. These are Peter Quill (who'd prefer to be known as 'Star Lord'), played by Chris Pratt (currently voicing Emmett in the tremendously fun LEGO Movie); Drax the Destroyer (played by MMA/Wrestler turned actor Dave Bautista - you may have spotted him in the recent Riddick movie); Gamora, played by Zoe Saldana (best known for Avatar and as Uhura in JJ Abram's rebooted Star Trek); Rocket Raccoon  who will be voiced by Bradley Cooper (no doubt bringing snarky attitude like he did in 'The Hangover' and 'The A-Team'); and finally Groot (who will be voiced by Vin Diesel - possibly taking the easiest pay-check of his career, as the character is noted in the comics for only being able to say one phrase - 'I am Groot').

The trailer focuses on Peter Quill (sorry, Star Lord!), clearly wishing to show audiences there is a strong human connection as far as this story is involved.  The trailer doesn't give a lot of his back-story away (apparently he was taken from earth as a child, which in the Marvel Studio's timeline would be the 1980's - hence his attachment to his Walkman!), but it does show how Pratt will be playing the character - kind of like Han Solo's goofier, but none-the-less scoundrel-ish younger brother.  We then get introduced to the rest of the team - and this is where repeated viewings of the trailer, in 1080p, are essential, because what the two 'space police officers' from the NOVA Corps (comics fans will know who they are) - played by the great John C. Reilly and Peter Serafinowicz - don't mention in their voice-over is shown on the screen.   We get an insight in to Grax's motivation (revenge for the death of his family) and his powers (strength and regeneration), and those of Gamora also - but what it doesn't say about her is her personal connection to Thanos, as comic fans will all be aware of...

Not your Usual Suspects...

Then we come to what has the potential to be the real wild-card of the group, and this film's secret weapon - Rocket Raccoon.  Aside from his introduction, we don't get to see enough of this character in action for my liking - but seeing as he's going to be realised with CGI, it's understandable there may not actually be that much in the way of finished footage to use.  The trailer quickly sets out that he's quite the criminal, but if you pause the trailer you get a better idea of why there is a gun-toting raccoon in this film - he's described as a 'cybernetic/genetic experiment on a lower life-form' who has a 'tendency to bite'.  Apparently, in the comics he is one angry, wise-cracking little critter, and it looks like that's going to come across here.  Out of everything in this film, this character is the one I'm most excited about - there is something that is so awesome and crazy about the idea of a bionic, genetically enhanced, gun-toting raccoon which just simply brings a smile to my face.  I can see Rocket Raccoon being a bit hit with kids of all ages (the little 'uns will respond to the cute factor of a raccoon  while those a little older will respond to the fact he has attitude), and if he doesn't steal this movie with his potential awesome-craziness I will be more than a little disappointed!

If this Raccoon doesn't blow everyone away this summer - and I'm not just talking about the villains in this movie - I'll be sorely disappointed...

Finally, we have Groot, the walking tree - who we're told is a 'Humanoid Plant Inhabitant of Taluhnia', and is Rocket's bodyguard/muscle (oh, and houseplant).  On his own, the concept of this character is even more bizarre than Rocket - however, the trailer has already established that this film takes place in a galaxy of numerous alien races, so bearing that in mind, Groot isn't that hard a concept to sell.

Then we get a few shots from throughout the movie, showing some action beats and spaceship stuff that looks as impressive as anything from Star Wars.  There's little of the villains on show, although we do get a couple of glimpses of Karen 'Amy Pond off-of Doctor Who' Gillan as Nebula (that's right, she shaved her head for the role!), but nothing of Lee Pace (best known as Thranduil in the over-long Hobbit trilogy) as big-bad Ronan the Accuser.  All of this is played out to the most obvious soundtrack for a sci-fi adventure: no, none of those Zimmer-esque 'BARRAHHMS!!!', the song used is a '70's track called 'Hooked on a Feeling' by Blue Swede.  If THAT doesn't tell you that this is a sci-fi movie unlike any other, than what else will?

This film could end up being a complete mess, or it could end up being completely triumphant fun - it's still too early to tell from this trailer.  But what is true is that Marvel have a lot of work to make casual cinema-goers care about this film, and this crazy team of characters - what this trailer does do is convey the fun tone they're aiming for, and introduce us to the team.  Considering the buzz that's surrounding this trailer, it seems that Marvel Studios are off to a good start.  But we'll find out for sure in August...

Movie Review: The Lego Movie - Everything is... I'm sure you've got the idea by now...

There's a point in 'The Lego Movie' where the silliness of the whole thing - the zany, seemingly ADHD-driven plot; the scatter-shot jokes; the mostly over-the-top characters - almost becomes too much.  You'd almost be forgiven for expecting one of the Monty Python team to show up in army uniform decrying the levels of silliness.  But then - and no spoilers here, so don't worry - comes a twist which proves to be the film's greatest stroke of genius.  Because, yes this is a film about a line of toys - but rather than simply being a 90-minute long commercial for the brand (I'm sure their sales aren't going to be hurt by this film), it becomes a celebration of imagination, playing together, and the wonderful disorder with which children approach these - something that, as an adult, it doesn't hurt to be reminded of.

This is a film which will connect with children and their parents.  For the young 'uns, it is fast, colourful, funny and tremendously eye-catching (after a few minutes I was so wowed at the sight of an entire Lego City realised on the Big Screen that I seriously wondered why no one had ever considered making a feature film with Lego until now!).  For parents, they'll be reminded of all the fun they had playing with Lego as a kid, have fun with the nods to some of Lego's big name licenses, and laugh at some references to the kind of Lego they'll no doubt played with back in their childhood.  But there was that further element, all to do with that twist, which I'm sure will connect with how grown-ups see Lego now - and also the world.  My own experience of Lego now that I've got a 6-year-old son is very different to when I was a kid; I loved Lego, and got just as much enjoyment out of building what you're supposed to from each set, as I did taking it apart again to build something else from it - then doing it all over again.  Last year we got our son some of the Super-hero branded Lego, seeing as he loves Spiderman, Batman, Iron Man, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles etc.  I then made the mistake of checking eBay and seeing how much people are willing to pay for these Characters realised in Lego Minifigure-form - and I developed a strange kind of OCD, following my son around each time he had his Lego sets out, rebuilding them when he tried to dismantle them, gathering them up and trying to keep them in their respective sets...   So the strange thing about this film's 'twist' is that it struck a chord with me - it made me realise there's a bit of the film's villain, Lord Business, in me - and that really, I should just let my son PLAY with his Lego and enjoy it...

Lego Batman swooping in to rescue the Heroes from robots and a Bad Cop in the Old West is one of the relatively least surreal moments of the film...

It seems appropriate that in the midst of the fun, crazy, surreal, jokiness of the film that there is a moment which puts it in to perspective and really clarifies the whole thing.  Well, if you're an adult at least - I should imagine children will just be swept along by the jokes, action and fast pace of the film.  The film-makers have thrown enough jokes and visual gags in that, even when some don't catch, there's another along within seconds which more than likely hits it's mark.  One thing I will say though, is that this is one of those films that is sadly spoilt a little by its own trailers - a lot of the best jokes have already been in those.  Also, given the break-neck pacing, and zaniness of some of the characters, in some cases it feels like more could have been made of a few of them.  For example, I think a real opportunity was missed to make more of Superman, Green Lantern and Wonder Woman, as well as Batman; but then again, given the hasty way that Warner Bros appear to be trying to shoe-horn as many DC characters in to the next Superman/Batman movie as possible to set up a future Justice League film, it's quite likely that deep down they realised not even that could've matched the awesomely fun prospect of a proper Lego Justice League team-up in this one...

These are minor faults, because really this is a film which should be watched by a) all children, and b) anyone who has ever built anything from Lego during their life - so, pretty much, the entire human race.  If you have children to take to see this, they will be entertained by one of the best animated films put on the big screen for several years - and for their parents - and  any adult, really - just when you're worried the brash zaniness might become too much, there'll be at least one moment which will connect in a way you won't have been expecting.

...and yes, that song WILL be stuck in your head for days afterwards...

Watching TV's 'The Walking Dead' is frustrating when you've read the books...

WARNING: This article contains **SPOILERS!!!** for the TV Series up to the beginning of Season 4.5, and the Graphic Novels, so proceed with caution!

Ah, 'The Walking Dead', that run-away ratings winner which is going down a storm with TV viewers in the US, UK, and elsewhere.  It's had some great moments so far - some really shocking ones too, which befit the series' depiction of people trying to retain their humanity in a world where civilisation has collapsed due to the perpetual threat of the flesh-eating undead.

For example, do you remember that bit where Dale dies an heroic death, after being rescued from Cannibals, and delivering an epic speech thanking Rick for everything he's done to try to keep the group safe?

Or what about the bit where someone is threatening Rick at gunpoint, someone who used to be a close friend - before Rick's son Carl shoots him through the throat, leading to a truly heart-breaking Father-son moment?

Or Rick's impassioned speech which sums up the themes of the whole series - that it is not the zombies, but the survivors barely clinging to the shreds of human decency who are, in fact, 'the walking dead'.

Or who can forget my favourite Walking Dead scene - where Michonne, after having been imprisoned and subjected to daily beatings and torture, escapes and exacts her revenge on her captor - in a manner which would make the people who made 'Saw' and 'Hostel' run away weeping and possibly heading off to toilet to empty the contents of their stomachs (probably because she doesn't just use her iconic sword, but cutlery and a blow-torch, too...)?

No?

You DON'T Remember those scenes?

Oh yes!  That's right, I forgot.  Those are some of the incredible, hard hitting and unforgettable scenes from the series of Graphic Novels upon which the show is based, that the makers of the TV show decided NOT to include in their programme.  And that's despite the fact they're important and iconic moments in story-lines which have already run (for example, it's Shane who was shot dead by Carl, and the Governor who imprisoned Michonne and upon whom she enacted her revenge), or feature characters killed off before their best story-lines have had the chance to take place (there were many fans of the comic rightly infuriated when Dale was offed without the chance of having the truly epic death the character had in the Books).

Even before Michonne gets to work on him, The Governor in the Books bears little semblance to David Morrissey...

Despite the consistently high ratings and massive fan-base, even amongst regular viewers there are those who have to admit this TV series has had patchy moments - most notably the fairly static second season, mostly based at Hershel's farm.  This hasn't been helped by the studio's (AMC) puzzling decision to repeatedly sack the show-runner and slash the show's budget (because realising the zombie apocalypse and the fall of civilisation can OBVIOUSLY been done on the cheap, right?)  But despite this, viewers have stuck with it, and taken the characters to heart.

I can't help but wonder though: if everyone watching the series had read the Books too, would they be as disappointed at times as I have been?  Now, I appreciate that it is par for the course, and indeed necessary, to make changes from any source material to make something work on TV or film.  I have no problems with introducing entirely new characters, or making changes to existing characters, or even to the story itself - so long as it makes sense and doesn't spoil the essential themes and feel of the source material.  Whilst for the most part 'The Walking Dead' TV series has managed to avoid doing this, there have been omissions like these - or outright changes - which come very, very close to actually undermining what's important.

Original character Daryl (played by Norman Reedus, left) has turned out to be a fan favourite, and  an example of how adding new characters not in the source books can benefit an adaptation for TV or Film.

Take the Prison/Woodbury saga - in the books this is the point where Rick's group truly realise that the zombies are far from the most dangerous things they can encounter in this new world.  The Governor is meant to be a dark reflection, or a warning almost, of what Rick might become - a leader who has completely lost his humanity, and capable of any level of evil.  When Michonne gets her revenge, yes it is horrific (possibly deserved for such an evil character!), but it goes to demonstrate how simply surviving in the apocalypse has damaged some individuals.  Above all, it is a really hard hitting episode, which is in keeping with the themes of the series, and also reinforces that this is a horror story, through and through.  This sequence comes to a tragic climax, and Rick loses his wife and baby (though it's suggested she might not even be his daughter...).  On TV though, despite the portrayal of the Governor being more nuanced (and rightly so), I felt the potential of the storyline was undermined by missing out the torture, or even the moment when the Governor cuts off Ricks hand (within moments of meeting him for the first time!).  I was gob-smacked the first time the 'forces' of Woodbury attacked the Prison because neither the Governor nor any of Rick's crew died - in fact it was utterly anti-climactic!  Thankfully, they brought back the Governor, hooked him up with a new crew (including - yes! - a tank), and culminated the Prison story with a far more gripping and satisfying conclusion (I'm glad they retained the shocking beheading - albeit of a different character - and the Governor's exhortation to "Kill them all!", even if more of Rick's group should have died...).

In the Books the Governor is flat-out evil, and when his group attacks Rick's at the Prison it's major turning point in the Books' storyline; the TV series almost fluffed this key moment.

Of course, it's not to say that at some point they might incorporate Michonne's torture and revenge in a future story line (although I expect they'll REALLY tone it down from the depiction in the Books...), or give Dale's epic death to another character.  I sincerely hope they do.  But I really feel that this series can, and should be, more hard hitting - and by showing restraint when it comes to the Books' more extreme moments, the series producers are robbing the story of some of its potential, and in danger of compromising the themes that are central to it.  Having said that, the Book series does have its flaws (I've not read the last 4-5 books, as at the point I've read to the story has just had what I'd describe as a 'shark jumping' moment which, for me, has almost totally undermined the 'believability' of the Book series), so it is only right that when it is appropriate the TV series makes its own course.  Just so long as it doesn't skip, or waste the potential of, the best story-lines it can draw from...

Movie Review: Dallas Buyers Club - I like your style, Doc...

There are films which belong to the director; there are films which belong to the screen writer; there are even films which belong to the special effects team.  Such can be the impact on a movie that when one or more people brings something to elevate a piece, it can tower over the input of everyone else involved.  In the case of 'Dallas Buyers Club', the two key performances of lead actors Matthew McConaughey and Jared Leto are so remarkable, they simply tower over the entire movie - and in some ways almost elevating the entire film above some of its flaws.

Much has already been made of McConaughey's performance, not least due to his shocking physical transformation to play HIV/AIDS victim Ron Woodroof (he is, at times, as thin as a corpse), but also because he is strongly tipped to win an Oscar for his portrayal of this real-life person.  For me however, the real revelation was Jared Leto as Transvestite Rayon, who is also an HIV/AIDS victim.  Leto portrays him as a fully rounded person, capable of strength and sass, but also incredibly vulnerable at times; he gets one of the film's most moving scenes as Rayon meets with his estranged father.  So good is Leto in this to be honest I wondered why he doesn't just chuck in the whole rock band thing, and do more acting - so great is his performance.

But there's no denying that this is McConaughey's film, his performance as Woodroof feels truthful and even handed; Woodroof is introduced as a pretty shady character, taking and dealing drugs, scamming his friends out of money in false bets, having sex with groupies underneath the stage at the rodeo.  It would have been very easy to portray him in a completely negative manner, but McConaughey brings out enough humanity so that you never end up disliking the man entirely.  It is possible to see that in other hands Woodroof's progression from someone acting out of total self-preservation, to developing some semblance of compassion for those who, like himself, were given short-shrift in trying to have their disease treated - even when most of these people were Gay (and the film makes no qualms about openly showing Woodroof's homophobia).  This sort of character progression has been done in many other films, and most often it is done in a cack-handed and corny manner.  But McConaughey's warts and all approach to playing Woodroof means that it never feels forced, or convenient, or schmaltzy.

Leto and McConaughey are virtually unrecognisable in this; but their performances as unforgettable.

Although the lead performances are outstanding, they are never showy, and the rest of the film takes a similar low-key approach.  Whilst this benefits the performances, it doesn't always do the same for the film itself - the first act feels like it is unsure what it is aiming for, as Woodroof's life spirals after his diagnosis - losing his job, his friends (who see the illness as a 'faggot's disease', in their words), his home.  At the same time his attempts at getting treatment do not succeed and he ends up in Mexico, being treated by a disgraced former Doctor.  At this point I could help but think maybe the film was going to become a sort of medicinal 'Breaking Bad', with Ron smuggling drugs over the border in to the US!  It is not until Woodroof hits upon taking unapproved medicines back to the States to sell to those with HIV, that the film feels like it has found a narrative, as Woodroof tries to get round the limiting and near-sited Food & Drug Administration (FDA) rules on the medicines that HIV/AIDS patients have access to by forming 'Buyers Clubs' (instead of buying the medicines which would be illegal, members pay a monthly 'fee' and are given the medicines whilst they are in the club).  Here the film becomes a little heavy-handed too, as the FDA, and the links to pharmaceutical companies, are shown in a very critical light.  Rightly so - the only available treatment at the time was a trial of the drug AZT, which was being administered in such doses it was actually hastening the patients' demise; and despite many protests for wider access to appropriate treatment, the FDA staunchly blocked everything apart from AZT (due to, in no small part, the fact that the company making AZT were paying the FDA for this position).  It is right that the power and influence of 'Big Pharma' is highlighted and challenged, but in almost making them the 'villains' of the film, it almost strays in to melodramatic, 'daytime movie' territory.

The direction as well is generally no frills, apart from a couple of moments of visual allegory/metaphor which veer close to predictability and cliché.  But having said all this, none of this detracts from the astounding central performances, and the fact that Ron Woodroof's story IS a powerful and at times moving one.  This film should be seen for McConaughey's and Leto's brilliant acting, and also for an important insight in to a chapter in recent history which poses difficult questions about the treatment of minority groups, those with little-understood diseases, and the potential abuse of wealth and power by large pharmaceutical companies.  Even if you don't come away dwelling on any of that, you'll remember the acting in this film.  If McConaughey walks away with an Oscar next month, you won't hear any complaints from me.

The Most Relentlessly Awesome Films Ever: John Carpenter's 'The Thing'

I've decided to make this series a more regular one - hopefully one every two months this year.  Here's one to start:

THE MOST RELENTLESSLY AWESOME FILMS, EVER - PART THREE: 

JOHN CARPENTER'S 'THE THING'

Even though he doesn't have anything to do with this film - or indeed films in general - I'll start off the article by quoting the late, great (and still greatly missed) John Peel.  He once said of his favourite song - 'Teenage Kicks' by The Undertones - that it was 'perfect' because "it can't be improved by adding anything or taking anything away from it."  I guess that there is no such thing as a truly 'perfect' song, or book, or film.  But as I come to reflect on my favourite film of all time, John Carpenter's 'The Thing', I think John Peel's definition of 'perfect' as it applies to that song sums up how I feel about this classic film.  As it stands, it is an outstanding benchmark in genre film making, featuring an excellent ensemble cast whose performances perfectly convey the sense of dread and paranoia the story demands; some of the greatest practical special effects ever filmed; and an intelligent, gripping horror which has thought-provoking subtexts which continue to be relevant, even 30 years after the film's release.  There's nothing I can think of which would improve the film by adding or taking away from it.

To anyone with more than a passing knowledge of the film's history, there's not a lot more that can be said than has already been well stated: that the film, released the same summer as 'E.T' The Extra Terrestrial', was a noted critical and box office flop at the time - but since then it found an audience through screenings on TV, VHS, Laserdisc and DVD.  There have also been entire books written about 'The Thing' - analysing the subtext (the paranoia relating to the decline in trust throughout society, the body-related horror suggesting the terror caused by the then newly-discovered AIDS virus), celebrating the special effects, which many argue still surpass today's computer generated effects (from the genius of Rob Bottin, with input from the late great Stan Winston), and its overall place in a great run of work from director Carpenter, and that of the horror genre in general.

The Arctic setting helps compound the intensity of the claustrophobia the film evokes...

I don't think there's more to say than has already been written - instead I wanted to put a personal perspective on why, of all films, I consider this one to be my favourite.  To say that this film had an immense impact on me from the first time I watched it would be an understatement; I saw it over ten years after its original release one night on TV.  I was home alone as the rest of my family were away on holiday - and I've got to admit that it is one of only two horror films I have watched as an adult (I was 18 at the time, so an adult in the eyes of the law at least!) that have freaked me out enough that I've had to sleep with the night on for at least a couple of nights!  At that time I was quite inured to horror films - they either made me laugh at the clichés and stupidity of some of the characters, or physically repelled me at unnecessary gore; not since I was a child had I seen anything in film or TV which had frightened or disturbed me in any way.  It was the combination of what is, admittedly, a quite gory and repellent monster - so realistically brought to life by the work of Bottin and Winston - and the paranoia inducing fact that it can take the shape of anyone, and could be anywhere; that night I went to bed and daren't look underneath it in case slime-dripping, tentacular entrails suddenly lunged out to engulf me!

It's not just the execution, or the gore, that makes this creature work so well at creeping me out - it's like a tick box of phobias and disturbing images:

Insectoid limbs and mandibles? Check.

Tentacles, pseudopods and suckers? Check.

Massive tissue trauma and damage?  Check.

Strange form, mixing animals, insects and god-knows-what-else, which goes against virtually every earthly law of nature?  Check, check, check!  And that's before you get on to the sound - a creepy mix of unearthly breathing, insect chittering, tortured howls and strange slobbering noises...

Rob Bottin, the genius who created most of 'The Thing's astounding creature effects.

On its own the concept and execution of the titular alien creature is horrific enough, but what really sells the terror of the situation is the claustrophobic setting - an Antarctic Research Station isolated in the depths of winter - and above all else, the portrayal of the fragmenting trust amongst the group of men stationed there.  Not only is the ensemble cast excellent in its own right, but each actor gives their character a depth which might have otherwise been missing, as the script gives the bare essentials to define them.  Each are recognisably and realistically human, reacting to each other and the situation in surprising yet believable ways: the ones we think would be the natural leaders either don't seem to cope or completely relinquish the role, the ones who seem the most calm and level headed become the most violent, and the seemingly sympathetic ones are capable of making the most cold and heartless decisions.  So when the reality of the situation becomes clear to them, the relationships in the group fall apart in frightening and realistic ways.  It helps immensely that each actor plays the whole situation very straight - other actors or directors might have played up the B-Movie aspects of the premise, which would have undermined the atmosphere and terror.  So it is not just the astonishing and disturbing depiction of the creature that makes this film so scary, but a tremendous ensemble cast that makes it all the more affecting, making the viewer think about that 'what ifs?' of the scenario.

What if someone I knew was really a shape-shifting alien?  What if EVERYONE is?  What if there's already one in my house, hidden in some dark hide-away, waiting to grab me and absorb me?  As outlandish as those thoughts are, upon my first viewing of this film the paranoia and tone had got to me that much I was truly unnerved when I went to bed that night.  I can't remember how many nights I ended up sleeping with the light on, but certainly that night, and possibly till my family got back from holiday!

'The Thing' was one of several legendary collaborations between director John Carpenter and actor Kurt Russell.

Of course, it no longer makes me check under my bed or closets and sleep with the light on - but it was the first film for several years which had made me do that; and having said that, each time I watch it, the impact remains undiminished.  The paranoia and tension still remains gripping, the special effects still disturb, frighten and amaze (even after watching all the documentaries and listening the commentaries which give away the special effects secrets); quite simply, this film just does what it does so well.  It has clearly influenced other work in cinema, novels, comics, and video games - yet it remains a unique film which can't be equalled (just look at the disappointing 2011 prequel...).

'First Goddamn week of winter...'

Going back to what I said earlier, there can't really be a 'perfect' film - and this one does have its flaws.  I think the most significant one is potential plot holes, though these don't really spring to mind until after a viewing of the film.  These mainly revolve around when, and how, certain characters are assimilated and become the alien.  Perversely, I actually think these add to the film - they're a true mystery which simply serve to fuel the paranoia of the film even further.  Another potential flaw is the entirely male cast.  I've been interested to note that this film doesn't seem to impact on female viewers on the same level as men; perhaps it's the lack of a character they can empathise with, or maybe it's because the horror of this film affects men more than women.  Perhaps there is an argument that the film could legitimately have had one or more female characters - scientists or another role - but perhaps the film is merely reflecting the source material (the Novella upon which it is based, written decades before, has an all-male cast of characters), and the times in which it was made (perhaps it was more likely for men to want to take these sort of roles in an inhospitable and isolated place like Antarctica).  I think this latter makes sense, as there are suggestions that each of the characters are in some way choosing to isolate themselves from normal society.  Kurt Russell's Macready even goes so far to live in a detached shack away from the rest of the camp!

One of the reasons this film works so well is the superb ensemble cast.

Either way, such debates are entirely moot whenever I watch the film - I am always enthralled by everything which makes it so great, and so widely regarded as a classic.  As the years have gone by, I - like many other people - have grown to appreciate the aspects which make the film work so well (the effects, the script, the cast, the direction), but for me it remains my favourite film of all time because of how it affected me on that first viewing.  Very few Horror films genuinely disturb or frighten me, and this managed to do both.  And, to varying degrees, it still does every time I watch it; for which I continue to love it!

'You gotta be fuckin' kidding..!'

In tribute to Philip Seymour Hoffman

Yesterday the film world was rocked by the news of the sudden death of Philip Seymour Hoffman, at the age of 46.  Many of his contemporaries and key figures inthe film industry have spoken warmly in tribute.  I just wanted to add to that, as he was one of those rare actors - uniformly brilliant in anything he did, and as at home in a low key Indie-movie as he was in a start-studded blockbuster.  Not only that, his presence could often elevate anything he was in.  His death is so untimely, it seemed he surely had so many great roles, so many great films ahead of him.  And he was only just being introduced to a new generation of cinema goers in his role as Plutarch Heavensbee in The Hunger Games Saga; I particularly enjoyed his scenes with Donald Sutherland's President Snow in the latest of those films, 'Catching Fire'.

I just wanted to pay tribute to PSH by remembering two of my favourite roles from the many he played.  Firstly, in Todd Solondz's very, very black but impeccably observed comedy-drama 'Happiness'; in the midst of a great ensemble playing very flawed characters, struggling to overcome the problems they faced in their lives, PSH fits perfectly as the awkward, sweaty phone-sex pest.  It is a mark of that film that all the characters, despite their sometimes grotesque failings, are portrayed in a human and almost compassionate way - but PSH's role here shows his lack of fear and commitment to his role and material.  It's not always a comfortable watch, but 'Happiness' is an off-beat gem which is worth checking out - and a prime example of how good PSH was.

The other role I wanted to mention was from one of my favourite films, the under-rated and oft-overlooked 'Almost Famous'.  PSH plays a real-life figure, music journalist Lester Bangs; though it's a supporting role he makes an unforgettable impact on the film - both capturing the gonzo, rock and roll spirit of the legendary music journalist, but also as the mentor figure to Patrick Fugit's William Miller - delivering wisdom and truth about life, art and rock 'n' roll.

Those are just the tip of the iceberg, but anyone who has seen any of his many role with frequent collaborator PT Anderson, or enjoyed him as the villain in Mission Impossible 3, or in his Oscar-winning role as Capote, will tell you what a tremendous actor he was.  It still seems unreal to be writing about him in this way, and it still makes me sad to think of how many great performances film fans will never see now.

Philip Seymour Hoffman made a huge mark in his more-than 20 year career, and we can only be thankful to have seen such a great talent at work.  Sincerest condolences to his family and friends; may his work continue to be enjoyed for many, many, years to come. Rest in Peace Philip Seymour Hoffman.