Alien, Bond, Superman and more: How Franchises come back after disappointing movies

Change of tack with this article – but yesterday’s exciting confirmation that ‘District 9’, ‘Elysium’ and ‘Chappie’ Direct Neill Blomkamp would be directing a new entry in the ‘Alien’ franchise got me thinking.  There have been other long running Movie Franchises that have been marked by ill-considered decisions (usually at the behest of the Producers) leading to poorly received, and (in most cases) out-right poor movies.  Sometimes franchises can simply run their course due to story reasons (such as Star Wars, until the Disney purchase of Lucasfilm), or because the creative talent behind it chooses to move on.

This article will outline each franchise, its entries, where the dip in quality occurred, and who is viewed as responsible (and why) – and, where this has been the case, how the franchise has got itself back on track.  Let’s start at the obvious place first…

The ‘Alien’ Franchise

This on needs no introduction, but given the quality of the first two entries in the franchise, it is staggering that since then it had – until today – been allowed to decline in quality so badly.  The first film is beyond iconic and influential, due to H.R. Giger’s incredible and terrifying designs, Ridley Scott’s career-making direction, and one of the most shocking scenes in the history of cinema.  Followed by one of the greatest sequels of all time (and, in my humble opinion, possibly the greatest movie of its decade), after these films there was so much to work from in terms of setting, story-telling with substance, and great characters.

The Decline

The next two films sadly didn’t live up to their predecessors – and even though both films have many fans quick to defend them, even they would acknowledge this.  ‘Alien 3’ is notorious for having one of the most troubled development periods of a major movie, changing setting and characters many times.  Even during production, director David Fincher was continuously being undermined by the studio, and the result is a film that - despite having some good ideas, a striking visual style, and a couple of interesting scenes – feels like it cheapens what has come before slightly.  Despite the apparent death of Ripley at the end of this film, the studio went ahead 5 years later with ‘Alien: Resurrection’ – and another production which saw the director (Jean-Pierre Jeunet) and screenwriter (a certain Joss Whedon) bemoaning studio interference.  It doesn’t help that the design didn’t live up to previous efforts – even Giger himself stated the new alien design ‘looked like shit’.  Seemingly, enough had been done to make the studio feel they had done enough with Ripley’s story.

In a shocking move however, that wasn’t the nadir for the franchise.  The Alien films, as well as the two entries in the Predator series, had inspired a series of Comics and acclaimed Video Games, in the form of ‘Aliens vs Predator’.  Seeing an opportunity to carry on the franchise but clearly not thinking it through, Fox went ahead and in 2004 released a Paul WS Anderson directed ‘Alien vs Predator’ movie.  This film, bizarrely, discarded one of the draws of the comics and video games – gone were the Colonial Marines that were part of what made ‘Aliens’ so iconic, and the series’ future setting.  This film took the dumb decision to use a modern setting – and the even dumber decision to play down horror and gore to get a lower Age Rating (in theory to get better box office).  The result was something of a mess that should be quickly forgotten by everyone who had the misfortune to waste 2 hours of their lives watching it – but unbelievably, it got worse for the Alien series.  Believing the lukewarm response to the first AvP film was due to the lack of ‘R’ rated gore and horror, the studio enlisted self-confessed Aliens and Predator fan boys The Brothers Strause.  They vowed to put these elements back in – sadly they also forgot to put in a decent story, characters, or effective film making in any way, shape or form.  ‘Aliens vs Predator: Requiem’ is rightly regarded as an abhorrent pile of trash, and was so bad that the franchise quickly even distanced itself from it.

Turning the corner

The setting, imagery and mythology of the Alien franchise was simply too good to be left alone, so the decision was made to go in a new direction – to explore the background of the mysterious ‘Space Jockey’ whose body is found in the Alien craft where Kane is ‘impregnated’ in the very first film.  Original director Ridley Scott came back, promising to make a film that would go in a new direction and explore bold themes about creation, gods and humanity’s place in the universe.  The final film - ‘Prometheus’, though an infinite improvement in the previous franchise entries, was still mixed – although visually impressive, it seemed unsure what it wanted to be – hard sci-fi? Horror-sci-fi? Religious allegory?  Whilst this film also has its fans, it would be hard to fight the claim that this film was ultimately unsatisfying due to it leaving so many questions unanswered, and creating even more.  The future of the franchise still seemed uncertain until today’s confirmation of a new entry, as Director Scott has been attached to a Prometheus sequel for some time, with no news of any movement on the production.

Who was to blame?

Well, as stated, ‘Studio interference’ was cited as a problem by the directors of Alien 3 and ‘Resurrection’; but some fault must lay in the lap of the producers who chose to move forward with the two trashy AvP films; it’s shocking that Walter Hill, who presided over the very first Alien films, would allow his name to be associated with those entries.  As for Prometheus, a lot of people cite writer Damon Lindelof as the main culprit, who brought his ‘Lost’-style of aimless, unresolved mystery for the sake of mystery, over Jon Spaihts’ apparently better one (which was more clear about its ties to the Alien series).

…And the future?

Well, nothing is concrete, but following Blomkamp’s posting of some concept art that depicted an Alien film carrying on the story of not just Ripley, but surviving Marine Hicks from ‘Aliens’, there has been no small amount of excitement on movie sites and social media.  Whether or not the Studio will allow Blomkamp to follow this initial vision is yet to be seen, but it is clear that the Director wants to do something that is worthy of the first two films, respectful of the characters, and to continue their story in a way that is more satisfying than many of the franchise entries.  There is potential that this could be the film franchise fans have been waiting for – if you don’t believe me, look at the concept art Blomkamp posted again…

The ‘X-Men’ Franchise

Released in 2000 and 2003 respectively, Bryan Singer’s first two X-Men films were arguably the first comic book adaptations to treat the setting and characters with the respect it deserved, as well as realise the potential for action and visual spectacle effectively.  ‘X2’ is widely regarded as one of the best comic book movies ever made, and is in its own right a great sequel.

The Decline

After the critical and box-office success of ‘X2’ the Studio quickly announced the release date of a third entry.  The first bump in the production came when Bryan Singer was tempted away by Warner Bros to direct their new Superman movie (see below).  Then there were various names passed around to replace him, including Joss Whedon, before Matthew Vaughan signed on – however, he baulked at the short time allowed for production and post-production due to the Studio’s reluctance to move the release date.  Finally Brett Ratner stepped in, and wasn’t entirely welcomed with warmth; although he had directed a version of Hannibal Lector novel ‘Red Dragon’ in a manner that tried to match the visual tone and style of ‘Silence of the Lambs’, he was best known for buddy-action-comedies of the ‘Rush Hour’ series.

The resulting film, ‘X-Men The Last Stand’, although the (international) box office pinnacle of the series until last year, wasn’t as well received critically or by fans.  The film felt a let-down compared to ‘X2’, not helped by cramming in too many new characters and mishandling a beloved story from the comics (the ‘Dark Phoenix’ saga) in order to tie up a ‘Trilogy’ of films.  This decision to approach the X-Men series with a ‘Trilogy’ mind-set was later acknowledged by producers as a mistake, but even back then they realised the X-Men license offered too many opportunities for bringing stories and characters to film to stop there, so a prequel focusing on Wolverine (a fan favourite, and thanks to Hugh Jackman’s charismatic performance, an essential part of the franchise’s success) was put in to production.  Sadly, none of the lessons about including too many characters in ‘Last Stand’ had been heeded by the makers, and the resulting film was a mess that somehow managed to make Wolverine’s origin story uninvolving, and waste a number of potentially great characters (yes, Wade Wilson, that’s you I’m referring to).

Turning the corner

Box office takings for ‘X-Men Origins: Wolverine’ were down on ‘Last Stand’, and that combined with poor critical and fan response fortunately made the series’ producers and Studio realise that they needed to change their approach.  Other prequels, including one focusing on series villain Magneto, were quickly discarded in favour of a more straight-forward prequel that showed how Charles Xavier and Erik Lensherr would form the first X-Men team – before quickly turning adversaries.  Vaughan, returned to direct and Singer came back on board as a producer, both clearly realising they had to atone for jumping from ‘Last Stand’.  The resulting film, ‘X-Men First Class’, boasted an excellent cast, a fun use of period setting, and began to restore the franchise to its previous levels of critical and box office success.  This was followed by the solo Wolverine outing that Jackman and the fans had been clamouring for years, based on the highly regarded Claremont/Miller comic series, and ‘The Wolverine’ continued the rebuilding success.  And to top it all, Singer returned to adapt an adaptation of one of the comic’s greatest stories for 2014’s ‘X-Men Days of Future Past’, gaining ecstatic reviews and tremendous box office, in the US and Internationally.  It seems that all involved had learnt a valuable lesson – to trust in the strength of the characters and their best stories – and to bring together the best talent in front of and behind the camera to realise them on the big screen.

Who was to blame?

Well, things started to look bad when Singer walked away from ‘Last Stand’ – but fault must lie with the Studio for announcing a release date even before work had started on the script.  It’s inevitable that the story, and production, suffered due to the pressure to meet that deadline.  Also, although the Wolverine ‘Origins’ movie had a pretty messy story, it seems that the production wasn’t easy for Director Gavin Hood, who has since cited there was a great deal of Studio interference during the production.

…And the future?

For the X-Men franchise, the future is looking rosy.  The next film, currently about to start filming, is ‘X-Men Apocalypse’, featuring one of the comic’s best villains, and returning Singer and the ‘First Class’ cast to ‘complete’ the telling of the establishment of the X-Men team.  As well as this, there will finally be a solo Deadpool film, satisfying his vociferous fans, the ambitions of Ryan Reynolds, and everyone else that felt his treatment in the Wolverine ‘Origins’ movie was generally terrible.  Beyond this, there are still dozens of memorable characters and storylines the producers and Studio can adapt - there are talks of making a film based on the ‘X-Force’ run of comics, as well as plans for a third solo Wolverine outing.  If they continue to treat the source material with the respect it deserves, and putting the money and talent behind it, the X-Men franchise should continue to go from strength to strength.

The ‘Spiderman’ Franchise

You’ll notice a pattern emerging here: two critically acclaimed, fan-beloved, and financially successful entries established this series.  Sam Raimi’s love and respect for the character was there to be seen on screen, and the films were well realised thanks to a great cast, some fantastic action sequences, and a story that showed a great appreciation of the characters.

The Decline

You’ll notice another recurring theme here – the critical and box office success of sequel ‘Spider-Man 2’ buoyed the Studio so much they very quickly announced the release date for another sequel, ‘Spider-Man 3’.   Whereas this led to a lot of problems for ‘Last Stand’ (see above), it seems the issue here was that this was the point the Director and the Producers started to pull in different directions.  The focus of this was fan favourite character Venom and many fan’s desire to see the ‘Black Suit’storyline from the comics realised on the big screen.  Unfortunately, Sam Raimi made no secret that he was not a fan of Venom, and wanted the film to be based on another of his favourite Spidey villains, Sandman.  The Producers put their foot down on Venom but allowed Raimi to include Sandman.

It’s safe to say that the resulting film is not very highly regarded.  Although the franchise’s pinnacle in terms of financial success, the ‘Spider-Man 3’ is regarded as a major disappointment – something that even Raimi himself agrees with.  Its flaws can be put down to a plot that doesn’t do justice to either Sandman or Venom, whilst struggling to tie up the ongoing Green Goblin/Harry Osborne arc at the same time; add in to that some pretty abrupt and jarring changes in tone, and a general feeling that new characters aren’t given enough space – there’s no doubt that this film was a major let down compared to the films that preceded it.

This was only the start of Spiderman’s problems on screen.  For three years after the release of ‘Spider-Man 3’ discussions went back and forth between Sam Raimi and the producers about what they wanted to do with another sequel – then, finally, in 2010 Sony announced that they were going to reboot the whole series.  Gone would be Raimi and his regular cast, and a new director and actor would be brought in.  The first eyebrows were raised when it became evident that reboot literally meant starting from scratch – and that the new film would re-tell Spiderman’s origin story; also, wising up to the success Marvel Studios were having with their linked universe of characters, the producers decided it should plant the seeds of an on-screen Spiderman universe.  The resulting film, ‘The Amazing Spiderman’, had a lukewarm reception critically and financially.  Whilst the performances of Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker and Emma Stone as Gwen Stacey were rightly praised, the film was at times a mess, with plot holes, unresolved story-lines and disappearing characters.

When production started on ‘The Amazing Spiderman 2’, the producers acknowledged the flaws with its predecessor, and also stated their intent to set the foundations for future films in the Spiderman universe such as ‘Sinister Six’ and ‘Venom’ spin-offs.  Clearly, they had no idea what they were talking about with the first point, because that film ended up being an even bigger mess than ASM, wasting not one but 3 villains, as well as yet more excellent work from Garfield and Stone.   Although the film took over $700 million internationally, in the US it had the lowest takings of all the Spiderman movies.  Safe to say, it didn’t go down as well as hoped.

In the background, there were further problems for the studio itself – there was the Hacking Scandal, and out of this it emerged that Marvel Studios had approached them to negotiate Spiderman’s incorporation in the Marvel Cinematic Universe…

Turning the Corner

It’s hard to say exactly what was the biggest factor – the perceived failure of ASM2, the increasing fan demands it should happen, or wider problems in the Studio – but earlier this month it was announced an agreement had been reached to allow Spiderman in to the MCU.  Sony would keep the rights, but crossovers would feature in both series, and a new Spiderman would first appear in a forthcoming Marvel Studios movie.  What is crucial about this is, firstly, Marvel Studio’s Head Kevin Feige having a significant creative input in to future Spiderman movies.  Secondly, the producers behind the previous Spiderman movies would no longer be involved, and in my opinion, that was no bad thing…

Who was to blame?

If you look at what started to go wrong with Spiderman from ‘Spider-Man 3’ through both ASM movies, a big, big amount of responsibility should sit with Producers Avi Arad and Matt Tolmach.  They oversaw production on these films, Arad pushed Venom on Raimi, and they both were involved in foisting the failed attempts at universe building that, frankly, crapped over the solid work of Garfield & Stone and the good intentions of Director Marc Webb.  To what extent these decisions were influenced by other producers and head people at Sony has yet to be seen, but as they were the main people overseeing these films, much of the blame lies with them.

…And the future?

Well, at this stage it’s difficult to see – however, with Arad and Tolmach gone, and Feige replacing them to guide the creative direction of new Spiderman movies, it’s easy to be more optimistic.  Yes, it has to be acknowledged that the disappointment of previous efforts is still fresh in everyone’s minds – but if the writers, directors and acting talent working on the next Spidey film stick to the character, and draw on his best stories, then there’s no reason this franchise can’t get back on track.

The ‘Bourne’ Franchise

After a middling but modestly successful entry with ‘The Bourne Identity’, this series kept going from strength to strength under the direction of Paul Greengrass with the next two films, ‘Supremacy’ and ‘Ultimatum’.  Although this third film was intended by Greengrass to complete a trilogy, the story didn’t feel as though it had really ended in a definitive way.  However, Greengrass stated he had done all he wanted with Bourne, and star Matt Damon said he’d only return to the role if Greengrass directed – so it seemed that that was the end for the Bourne series.

The Decline

But, as these films had been a box office success for Universal Studios they couldn’t leave the franchise when the potential to carry on making money was still there – but without Damon & Greengrass, they couldn’t continue Jason Bourne’s story.  So they decided to take a side-step, and make ‘The Bourne Legacy -  a story suggesting that the CIA had other covert programmes to make ‘super-spies’ like Bourne.  They assembled a solid cast – Jeremy Renner, Rachel Weisz, Edward Norton – and brought back some from the previous films, such as Joan Allen and David Strathairn.   Sadly, the finished result showed that the idea wasn’t actually that strong – and continuing to mention Jason Bourne just made you miss the character, and the opportunity to see his story properly concluded, even more.  Despite their efforts, the film felt a bit pointless – it merely existed as an opportunity to make money above all else.  The film was a modest success at the Box Office, enough to ensure a sequel was greenlit – but since then it has all gone quiet, as though the Studio were aware that the new direction wasn’t working as intended…

Turning the Corner

Acknowledgement that ‘Legacy’ was a bit of a misfire seemed to be more apparent with reports that Universal were trying to woo Greengrass and Damon back to the franchise – and a few months back it was announced they had finally succeeded in persuading them to return.  Apparently a story idea had been proposed that Greengrass felt happy to direct, and with him back Damon felt he could return.  Greengrass’ work on ‘Supermacy’ and ‘Legacy’ showed that he was the right person for this franchise, so bringing him and the actual star back is good news.

Who’s to blame?

You can tell that all involved gave ‘Legacy’ a really good go – but without Jason Bourne himself, it’s just hard to justify a wider franchise.  So you could argue this is down to the Studio really, wanting to carry on making money from the ‘Bourne’ name.

…And the Future?

Well, there are no details on what the story for the next Bourne film is, or when production will begin.  But it feels to be back in the right hands with Greengrass at the helm, and might be the chance to tie up the Jason Bourne story in a definitive and satisfying manner (or carry on his adventures) is arguably the best direction for the franchise.  However, the sequel to ‘Legacy’ is still on the cards, so there is a danger the franchise could yet be further weakened if it feels as unnecessary as the last one.  We’ll have to see how this one turns out…

The ‘Superman’ Franchise

The first comic-book superhero movie that effectively and faithfully brought a beloved character to the big-screen, ‘Superman’ is also possibly the most influential in the genre.  It was followed by a sequel that was just as good, and upped the action whilst still treating the character with respect and care.  However, starting a trend in comic-book movies that would continue for 30 years, things went downhill from there…

The Decline

‘Superman 3’ is considered a disappointing sequel, largely because it is, well, pretty silly.  Some of the special effects weren’t particularly great for that era either.  It was considered enough of a disappointment that Warner Bros let the rights slip, allowing an upstart Studio called Cannon – known for their low-budget action flicks and thrillers – to pick it up.  They lured Christopher Reeve back to the role of Superman, promising to allow him more of a say in the character’s direction and portrayal in the sequel.  However, at that time Cannon were playing fast and loose with their finances, and had gambled on some bigger budget films that didn’t work out.  As a result the budget for ‘Superman 4: The Quest for Peace’ was slashed by almost half, and the resulting film looked cheap (Milton Keynes standing in as New York?!?), including shoddy special effects.  That seemed to be it for Superman.

But Warners regained the rights, and in the 1990’s tasked Tim Burton with bringing a new Superman film to the screen.  ‘Superman Lives’, which was to star Nicolas Cage in the title role, never got beyond development.  Then another new version, known as ‘Superman: Flyby’, was out in to development, with names such as J.J. Abrams and Brett Ratner attached at various points.  Finally, in 2003, the studio decided to move ahead with a film that would keep the continuity of the superior first films – and they brought Bryan Singer in to make, for him, a dream project: a loving tribute to one of his favourite films.  ‘Superman Returns’ was considered one of the most expensive films of all time when it was released – it just about made a profit, but reaction was largely negative.  Although many critics warmed to Singer’s ability to lovingly evoke the very first Superman film, most of the criticisms were aimed at a lack of action, and of some weak casting choices (Kate Bosworth especially seemed miscast as Lois Lane).  Again, hopes for a sequel were dashed – and Warners hit the reboot button.  But it took some encouragement from a certain Christopher Nolan, who at the time was completing a trilogy of films featuring a certain Dark Knight, before it took off (no pun intended)…

Turning the Corner

In 2013 Warners released the Nolan Produced, David Goyer (co-writer of the ‘Dark Knight’ Trilogy) penned ‘Man of Steel’, starring Henry Cavill as Kal El/Clark Kent.  The film, though divisive*, was considered a box office success, and plans were put in place for a sequel.  Obviously witnessing the success Marvel Studios has had with their MCU, and rather fortuitously holding the rights to EVERY DC Comics Character, Warner have seized upon the opportunity to make ‘Man of Steel’s sequel the foundation of their DC Cinematic Universe – introducing a new Batman, Wonder Woman, and a host of other characters.  Exciting times for comic fans!

* If you asked my opinion, I’d say ‘Man of Steel’ is about 2/3 successful – Cavill is very good at Kal/Clark, and does a good job of showing him wrestling with his dual identity and whether he should reveal himself to the world.  I think the film shoots itself in the foot with the level of destruction in the final act; personally, I’d have saved Zod for the sequel, but instead have Superman reveal himself as he tries to avert another (possibly man-made) disaster.  Still, what’s done is done, and the ‘Batman v Superman’ film promises to explore the implications and fall out of the end of ‘Man of Steel’, so it may redeem those story-telling decisions yet.

Who’s to Blame?

Superman’s cinematic journey has had so many twists and turns that there isn’t anyone culprit to blame.  Whoever came up with the story for ‘Superman 3’, and decided that a Superman film needed a comedic turn from Richard Pryor; Cannon for mishandling their own finances and trying to make a Superman film on the cheap; the writers of ‘Superman Returns’ for, err, not putting enough action in, I guess?

…And the Future?

Superman will be returning to the big screen 3 times before the end of this decade, and if ‘Batman v Superman’ and a two-part ‘Justice-League’ film are the successes Warner Bros, and comic fans, want, then there’ll definitely be more Superman movies.  Cavill himself has said he wants to play the role for as long as he can.  It seems that only if these three films turn out to be disasters, there’ll be a lot more of Superman coming to cinemas.

The James Bond Franchise

Ahh, Bond – the story of this franchise is one packed with almost as many twists and last-minute escapes from a fate worse than death than the adventures the spy himself has had!  It has survived the role being recast, changes in tone, disappointing entries, and continues to be one of the best loved franchises – with each new entry garnering a huge amount of excited anticipation.

The Decline

With Bond, it’s possible to point a number of times where the series hasn’t done as well as hoped – either at the box office, or through overall reception – and there have been some changes made.  The first came in the 1970’s, as the series started to base itself on an archly knowing feel, as if prompted by Roger Moore’s suggestive eyebrow, and Bond’s adventures became more and more outlandish: stopping a villain in their sub-aquatic lair in ‘The Spy Who Loved Me’, before taking to space in ‘Moonraker’ to prevent a villain launching biological Armageddon on the world.  The producers realised things were getting too silly, and in 1980 brought back a more grounded espionage tale in ‘Fore Your Eyes Only’.

As that decade came to an end, Moore had been replaced with Timothy Dalton, and the series went in its most gritty direction yet – sending Bond on a personal revenge vendetta in ‘License to Kill’.  At the time it was considered a disappointment, although now it is looked back as one of the series’ most underrated entries.  However it the reception was lukewarm enough that it would be Dalton’s final film in the role, and it was 6 years before Bond would be back.  1995’s GoldenEye was Pierce Brosnan’s first film in the role (he’d play Bond another 3 times), and the result was a critical and box office smash.

Things started to go the other way in 2002 when Brosnan’s final film in the role was released.  ‘Die Another Day’, though another Box Office success, was derided for some daft story-telling choices, and some pretty poor special effects.  As a result, the decision was made to re-cast and take the series back to more grounded and gritty adventures for Bond.  When Daniel Craig was cast there were a few raised eyebrows, but any critics were silenced by his intense and driven performance in ‘Casino Royal’.  Bond was apparently back on form, and what could stop him now?

A Writer’s Strike, that’s what.  The sequel ‘Quantum of Solace’ was put in to production just as the Writer’s Strike of 2007 happened, meaning that no one could make any amendments to the script because of the strike.  The script had been rushed to beat the strike, and during the production Director Marc Forster and star Craig apparently became frustrated as they became aware of flaws with the story and script, and couldn’t make any improvements or amendments to it (mind you, Forster’s decision to film action sequences in annoying shaky cam didn’t help, either…).  When it was released in 2008 it was considered a massive disappointment following ‘Casino’, but still did well enough at the Box Office to guarantee another Bond.

And, just as in the films, Bond was not to be defeated – he bounced back 4 years later with ‘Skyfall’.  Although I’m not a fan, it was a massive, massive success (the biggest of the franchise), and fans delighted in the return of franchise stalwarts such as Q and Miss Moneypenny.  The next Bond film, ‘SPECTRE’, is currently in production, and boasts an impressive cast – as well as the return of some classic villains from the early films in the series.

Turning the Corner

I guess the secret to Bond’s longevity is how the producers can keep the character fresh by recasting every so often, and shape each new entry based upon what worked well (and what didn’t) from previous films.  Bond is an institution, beloved by a legion of fans, and it’d take some shocking mishandling of the franchise to kill it entirely.

Who’s to Blame?

I’m going to be very controversial and say that a lot of Bond’s problems have been caused by the audience/fans.  For every group that says they want his films to be grounded, gritty, and to probe the psychology of the character, there are as many who say they want fun, silliness, one-liners, Bond-girls and Gadgets.  I can remember seeing Daniel Craig being interviewed at the release of ‘Quantum of Solace’, and looking absolutely exasperated when asked about when the Bond-girls and gadgets would be brought back to the series.  After all, it was the audience reception that made ‘License to Kill’ seem like a failure – when it’s now regarded as one of the series’ best entries.  Having said that, the producers have tried to follow audiences and fans’ demands by lurching from extremes to seriousness – Bond works best when someone can get the right tone for him.

…And the Future?

Well, the new film is out in November this year – if Director Sam Mendes can balance the ‘classic’ Bond feel with a better story, and without overshadowing Craig’s brilliant performance as Bond, then this one should be another solid entry for the franchise.  Either way, anticipation for it is huge, showing that – just like in his movies – however many times Bond gets knocked back, he always carries on and does his job!

Well, that was a bit of an Epic article, but I hope you’ve enjoyed it.  If you want to discuss any other Franchises that have overcome dips in quality, then please leave a comment below.  Thanks for reading!

Movie Review - Fifty Shades of Grey: Surprisingly fun & funny - when it's not trying to be sexy...

I'll happily admit being a biased critic when it comes to some films.  For example, you know I'm going to geek-out over the latest Marvel Studios release.  But aside from that I do try to approach any film I see with an open mind.  Generally it seems that most critics don't do that - they've been quick to savage 'Fifty Shades of Grey'; and, being honest, I can understand why.  The book upon which it is based is - how can I put this kindly? - not exactly at the high end of literature.  The book trilogy has been criticised for its portrayal of what can be argued to be an abusive relationship; some would argue that it might actually be contributing to women remaining in abusive relationships because of some romantic fantasy that they might change and tame their abusive partner.  Well, I'm not sure to what extent that is true if at all - but I do know that the books ARE a fantasy - and for the many, many fans that have devoured the Trilogy and obsessed over central character Christian Grey, it is a Fantasy that has captured their imagination.  I should know, I happen to be married to one of these fans - who also tried to get me to read the books.  And I gave it a go.

I didn't get very far - less than a third in to the first book; in all honesty, I just found it so unintentionally hilarious that I couldn't read it.  It doesn't help that - I must admit I'm with some of these critics - it's not exactly well written (no, making your characters have conversations about Brontë or 'Tess of the d'Urbervilles' does not make you a literary great, Mrs James).  The characterisation doesn't ever scrape any more depth than rice paper in most places.  And I didn't even find it sexy at all - in fact, when a character orgasms because Grey tells her to, that was when I had to put the book down for laughing too hard.

Despite this I wanted to approach this movie adaptation with an open mind.  Unlike a lot of movie critics - who are like lions waiting to savage the lame wildebeest at the back of the pack, so much do they delight in opportunities to maul certain films - I was willing to give this film a chance.  For the uninitiated, the Trilogy is the story of the relationship between literature grad student Anastasia/Ana Steele (Dakota Johnson) and Billionaire Christian Grey (Jamie Dornan).  A virgin when she meets him (!), he initiates her in to his desired relationship, where she is his submissive and he the dominant.  Cue scenes of vanilla 'kinky' bondage and sex that are probably not kinky at all compared to what a few clicks on Google could likely find you (or so I'm told *cough*).

Dakota Johnson's portrayal of Ana improves a huge amount on the source material...

Immediately there is a chance for this film to improve on the source materials, in terms of adding depth and believability to the characters.  In the books Anastasia is pretty much an avatar for the reader to project themselves, and their fantasies, on to - she believes herself to be plain and not attractive, she's a bit awkward and clumsy, and in comparison her friends look like supermodels and have every man they want; but secretly every man that knows her desires her - though none of them appeal to her that way, as she is waiting for 'the one' who will 'spark that desire'.  Besides that there is little else to her, she says 'oh my' and bites her lip a lot.  The opening title montage, which switches between Ana and Grey getting ready for their first meeting together, indicates early on that the film is about to take this route; Ana in her dowdy button up dress and cardigan, her hair slightly - though crucially, not completely - unruly (it's noteworthy that it becomes glossier and more manageable as the film goes on though....), she sets off to interview Grey to cover for her pretty, blonde, model looking friend, who was supposed to go but has flu.

The first few scenes are unsurprisingly faithful to the book, and the film looks as though it might follow with the source material's flaws due to unintentionally humorous and sledge-hammer abrupt symbolism.  At the meeting with Grey he seems to become interested in her when she rubs the tip of her pencil against her lips (yes, really), and at the end of the meeting she runs out side to a conveniently timed rain shower (because she either needs to cool down, or symbolising that... never mind!).  This continues when she is at work at a hardware store, and Grey tracks her down.  At this point Grey does come across as somewhat creepy, just as many have criticised the character for being, and there's an unintentionally hilarious moment when Grey makes a male co-worker physically back away from Ana.  It plays out almost like some strange, almost psychic, moment of male dominance; or like watching a snippet of a wildlife film with two rival Lions eyeing each other before they fight over the females in the pride.

Had the film continued in this vein, unknowingly sending itself up, then it would have been - in its own terms - quite a disaster.  But at this point the writers and directors begin to have fun with it, it starts to develop a wry sense of humour about itself - and at once becomes more enjoyable for the right reasons.  During this scene fans of TV Series 'The Fall' will appreciate a nod to Dornan's role in that as he's buying rope and cable ties.  If you've read the books, as most of the audience seemed to, this scene manages to be played with a bit of self-aware humour - Ana doesn't know what it means, but everyone else does.

It's after this scene that the film's greatest strength becomes clear, and it is surprising: Dakota Johnson brings a lot more wit, humanity and believability to the role of Ana than it should arguably be possible, based on how she is portrayed in the book.  She is genuinely funny in a scene where she makes a drunken phone call to Grey, and in possibly the films' most intentionally funny scene, where she discusses the Submissive contract with Grey.  At this point she is no demure, naive woman - she is confident and assured, playing with Grey, not letting him have the upper hand.  I also have to mention this scene as it provoked an uproarous reaction from the audience with its discussion of fisting - and also because I will probably never, ever get the chance to write 'fisting' in one of my reviews again..!

Johnson plays Ana with the right mix of confidence, vulnerability and innocence to elevate her character above the source novels.  She also bravely commits to a role that requires a lot of nudity.  In fact it surprised me that she spends a lot more of the film naked than Dornan as Grey - especially as the appeal of the book to most of the fans was how Grey is supposed to be the epitome 'male perfection', with his dark, handsome looks, chiseled and athletically sculpted physique, and *ahem* other well-endowed attributes.  Dornan's shirtless a lot, and there are few shots from behind, but there was no Fassbender style full-frontal shot (sorry to disappoint you, ladies).

Jamie Dornan spends approximately 15% of the film shirtless.  It might not be enough for some ladies..!

On top of this, Dornan's portrayal of Grey contrasts with Johnson's Ana almost totally; whilst he has the dark, brooding looks that most people probably want from the character, he almost looks like a dead-eyed robot, delivering lines that elicit laughs as though he doesn't realise they're meant to (or would anyway).  During the sex scenes he doesn't look as though he is being driven by any kind of lust, or desire, or passion.  His performance made me think of a Terminator - you could almost imagine Grey actually being one of those Cyborgs sent back by Skynet, not with a mission to kill but to engage in kinky sex..!  (In actual fact I do think he'd be perfect for the role of a villainous robot in a future movie in that series...)  As Grey is so central to the appeal of the Books, it's disappointing here that he isn't given more depth beyond a narrow portrayal of a wealthy, physically 'perfect' man who came from a background of abuse.

Another flaw is that the 'eroticism' which was the Novel's controversial draw is, well, actually a bit boring here.  Just when the film builds a sense of fun from Johnson's performance and how it knowingly deals with source material, a glossily shot but not-at-all titillating sex scene detracts from this.  In fact, the unintentional humour creeps in to these moments on occasion - during one of the sex/bondage scenes Grey sniffs Ana's underwear, which prompted a hearty chuckle from a man sat somewhere behind me; this, in turn, set me off giggling, and I was barely able to suppress my laughter for the remainder of the scene.

The sex scenes almost feel like a distraction from the main part of the film, which is Ana and Christian's relationship.  If this adaptation fails to capture the 'mummy porn' aspect that made the books popular, it has no such problems with the 'lifestyle porn' elements.  Helicopter rides, flights in gliders, collections of fast expensive cars, outrageously expensive apartments with tasteful decoration and city views - this part of the fantasy of dating a Billionaire has made it to screen well and truly intact.  The film is glossily shot, like a high value '80's Bruckheimer/Simpson movie, with a similarly glossy and high-value soundtrack of big popstars (Beyonce, Ellie Goulding, etc).

So, is this film actually any good then?  Surprisingly it is fun at times - and I don't just mean the times that fidelity to the source material means it is unintentionally so.  Dakota Johnson invests her character with a better performance than you'd expect, or would believe the book deserves; if anyone will breakout and become a star form this film, she would deserve to.  And watching this movie with an audience that is familiar with the material, and takes the funnier parts in the spirit they're portrayed, actually makes for an entertaining trip to the cinema!  But having said that, it arguably doesn't do enough to overcome the problems of the source material - this film version could have done with focusing more on the non-sexual part of Ana & Christian's relationship, and might even have provided an effective love story, giving Grey more humanity and an arc in which Ana's love for him helps him move on from the traumas of his past and fetishised behaviour.  Unfortunately, with a pre-built audience that has so far devoured this adaptation enthusiastically, the need for the Movie Studio to set up a profitable Franchise outweighs the need for interesting story-telling - so this film does have an unsatisfying climax (sorry..!).  Above all, if you were already a fan, this adaptation will no doubt satisfy you; if you were a hater it won't do anything to change your opinion.  For the rest of us, it's something of a curio that doesn't quite fulfill its potential; there are other films that have more convincing romances/love stories, that manage to be genuinely erotic, and/or explore a BDSM relationship in an affecting way.  The brilliant 'Secretary' springs to mind - it does all these better than 'Fifty Shades' has managed.

Movie Review - Selma: an effectively portrayed, and excellently performed History lesson

 

As a depiction of the US Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's, 'Selma' leaves you in no doubt as to how much of a struggle it was.  Against entrenched, often violent racism, and intransigent political will - and not to forget militant voices from their own community - it took the movement years to achieve its aims of overcoming segregation and winning protection of the right to vote for Black people.    And they achieved this under the leadership of Martin Luther King Jr (played here by David Oyelowo), guided by non-violent principles, inspired by the Christian faith of many at the forefront of the movement.  This film makes for a powerful history lesson, one that has relevance to recent news events, and is anchored by great acting throughout.  However, if you're not aware of the exact historical context that much of this film takes place in, it is easy to feel lost in the midst of historical figures that the film does little to clarify.

Oyelowo stands out in his superlative performance of Martin Luther King Jr.

Selma is the name of a town in Alabama where the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) - the lead activists of the Civil Rights Movement - plan a series of protests to highlight that Black people are being obstructed from registering to vote by unreasonable restrictions and requirements laid down by the White-run registrars in many parts of Alabama.  King asks the incumbent President of the time, Johnson (Tom Wilkinson) to press for legislation to make these obstructions illegal.  Whilst the President is supportive of Civil Rights as a whole, he has his own political agenda which he'd prefer King would get behind.  But the Civil Rights leader will not be moved, and so a series of peaceful demonstrations are held, including an attempted march from Selma to the State Capital, Montgomery, to further highlight the issue.  Along the way there is police brutality towards the peaceful Black protesters, and the racist element of the local White population.  To make matters worse, President Johnson requests the FBI try underhand tactics to discourage Luther King from carrying on with the protests - by trying to contribute to the cracks in his marriage with Coretta (Carmen Ejogo).

The film is honest about the strains in King's marriage to wife Coretta (Ejogo)

Initially, coming to this subject with only a vague knowledge of Luther King and the Civil Rights Movement, I found it hard to keep track of the various figures and locations; for example, I thought Wilkinson was playing President Nixon at first!  It doesn't help that little time is spent identifying each of the leaders of the SCLC.  However, this initial disorientation doesn't last long - firstly, due to a number of shocking acts of violence that leave you in no doubt about the urgency of the movement and what it stands for; and secondly, because all of the performances are uniformly great throughout the film.  It is understandable that, as the figurehead of the movement, the film focuses a lot on King himself, and Oyelowo's performance is fantastic.  He plays him with a quietly burning determination, softly spoken and a times thoughtful when he is one-to-one with people, and of course the inspiring orator when he is addressing a congregation or a rally.  The film effectively portrays the burden on his personal life by his involvement and steadfast commitment to the movement, addressing the difficulties in his marriage, including acknowledging that he was unfaithful to his wife.  Similarly, the movement as a whole is depicted as having had issues to deal with, such as the militancy represented by Malcolm X (appearing here as a cameo played by Nigel Thatch), disagreements about delaying a protest or not, and alienating the leaders of a local student organisation that had been campaigning on the issue.  On the whole though, there is little in the way of dirt-dishing carried out on either King or the rest of the movement's leadership - whilst this might feel like a missed opportunity to some, it would be disingenuous in the face of the struggles the movement faced and what it achieved through non-violence.

On the whole, the film is an effective and enlightening portrayal of a specific moment in the history of the Civil Rights movement - like many other recent biopics, it is respectful and knows when to evoke the right emotions to keep the audience invested.  Occasionally the script might feel like it crosses a line from authenticity to edification - a couple of short monologues about the need not to respond to violence with violence reinforce the ideals of the movement, but seem a bit too neat to feel like they were likely to have been said at that moment.  Also, with such a large cast not everyone is allowed enough time to move beyond a sketchy outline; and it's disappointing that the only weak link acting wise is the unconvincing, almost caricature of a southern drawl affected by Tim Roth as the Governor of Alabama.

But these don't detract from a thought provoking and well-made depiction of an important moment in the history of the US Civil Rights Movement, and of its talismanic figurehead.  Oyelowo is the stand out from this uniformly solid cast, it is still unbelievable he has not received many Awards nods for his performance.  But most of all the film has contemporary resonance, following a year in which US cities have seen protests regarding questionable acts of police violence towards unarmed Black people.  The relevance extends to my home country, the UK: in the final speech, King talks about people who are left to live in poverty being distracted from this by leaders who convince them of their superiority over another group of people. I couldn't help but think of how, in this country, we have a media, controlled by self-interested wealthy elites, that frequently tells the masses that people on benefits or immigrants are the cause of their problems - whilst the gap between the rich and the rest of us grows steeper.  With this in mind, it seems in this country there is still a lot we could take from King and the Civil Rights Movement.

Monthly Marvel Musings - Spidey's in the MCU, and Agent Carter should be on UK TV now...

This month's Monthly Marvel Musings article was supposed to hit in a week or so - but then this happened, so my plans have changed slightly...

MONTHLY MARVEL MUSINGS

I had planned to discuss the recent Marvel Movie (& TV!) Trailers - Age of Ultron, Fantastic Four, Daredevil and Ant-Man, about how they've each emphasised tone and mood over story (or, with Ant-Man, the opposite); but now it's official that an agreement between Sony & Marvel Studios will see Spiderman join the MCU, well I think that calls for some discussion, and pointless speculating, don't you?

As well as that I wanted to mention how ace the 'Agent Carter' TV series is - and how the British TV Networks are out of their minds for (so far) passing it over.

But let's look at the big news first...

It's Official - Spidey will be swinging in to the Marvel Cinematic Universe

So sue me, I used Marvel's own picture from their announcement - it was just too cool not to, though...

Following months of speculation in the wake of problems at Sony, including rumours Marvel Studios would get the rights back completely, the two studios have agreed to share the character.  Although last month I speculated how Marvel Studios could have given the character a clean slate to bring him to the MCU, I think this news will keep many, many people happy: comic fans, super-hero movie geeks like me, and - not insignificantly - Sony's Shareholders.  We have the exciting prospect of seeing Peter Parker as Spiderman onscreen alongside Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, Hulk, etc, which is many a fan's dream come true.  There is a downside to this - in order to give space to a new Sony produced Spiderman movie, Marvel Studios have pushed back most of their Phase 3 slate after Doctor Strange and apart from the two Avengers: Infinity Wars movies.  This will lead to, puzzlingly, Inhumans being released after Infinity War Part 2 - surely the final act of Infinity War would have made the better conclusion, not just to Phase 3, but what looks like the involvement of Downey Jr, Evans, Hemsworth etc (as their contracts expire with the Third Avengers outing)?  There's still a few years before those movies, and release dates can change, so perhaps there'll be some other release date moves; but in the meantime here's some speculation about how Spiderman might impact the MCU.

Firstly, which film will he debut in?

The most logical place would be Captain America: Civil War, due to Spidey having a significant role in that comic story-line, moving from Tony Stark's side then to Captain America's.  But it was believed that Black Panther was going to play that role, with a lot of setting up for that character apparently taking place in Avengers Age of Ultron.  Also, Civil War starts filming in less two months, and it may be too late in the day to re-jiggle scripts to fit Spidey in.  The alternative then is Doctor Strange - although the supernatural realms and foes the Sorceror Supreme deals with might seem as far from the daily struggles of Parker and his alter-ego as can be, they do have one element in common: both are based in New York.  A cameo for Spidey could be used to establish that supernatural threats are crossing in to the MCU, and that heroes such as the web-slinger are completely out of their depth and unable to deal with them - so demonstrating the need for Doctor Strange to face them.

Could we see the New Avengers?

Apologies, recycling images, but this one  neatly illustrates my next point...

Given the rumours that the current Avengers line-up changes by the end of Age of Ultron, and if the next Captain America movie sticks reasonably close to the comic arc, it could be highly likely that at the beginning of the two-part Infinity War movie the New Avengers could have been established.  In the comics this team has stepped up when, for various reasons, the normal 'classic' Avengers team-mates have either not been able to, or not wanted to, get together.  One line-up came out of the aftermath of the Civil War story line in the comics, and (with the exception of Wolverine) most, if not all, of these characters will have been introduced and established in the MCU by the time the first part of Infinity War hits.  I think at this point, it's not unreasonable to speculate this team will be in place when the Infinity War begins - but so great will be the threat posed by Thanos and his Infinity Gauntlet that, come Part Two, Iron Man, Thor, Cap and Hulk will come back to help take him on.  Well, that would be fun, anyway!

But what about the Spiderman franchise?

Of course, in the midst of all of this, it's easy to overlook that the announcement is an acknowledgement on Sony's party that they have mishandled Marvel's most famous and popular character.  It's interesting to note that the name of Avi Arad was missing from the official press-releases.  Arad had a hand in bringing the X-Men and Sam Raimi's Spider-Man films to the screen as a Producer, and also the recent Amazing Spiderman films.  Clearly, he started off well, with the first two films of each of those franchises - but it's arguable that many of the decisions that negatively affected the Spiderman franchise (putting Venom in Spider-Man 3 when Raimi didn't want the character, trying to set up a cinematic universe with ASM) are down to him.  And it's hardly surprising - Arad came to producing those films as he was the director of a toy company making action figures of Marvel Characters, and pretty much let the sales of specific characters affect decisions regarding their on-screen portrayal.  But he's gone, and Marvel Studios head Kevin Feige will be taking part in guiding Spiderman's future movies, as well as his MCU appearances.  Although there Feige is only one part of a team responsible for guiding their Marvel characters to increasing success with each film, he clearly respects the characters and is keen that each film reflects this.  This can only benefit future Spiderman movies.

Playing Spidey clearly meant a lot to Andrew Garfield - here he is, dressed as Spidey, at Comic Con - but it's unlikely he'll be back in the role...

So a new Spiderman movie has been announced for July 2017, but the belief is that it's likely to star a new actor in the role.  Which will be a shame, as Andrew Garfield's performance as a sarcastic, New Yorker teenager was one of the few things that were positive about the last two films.  Aside from this, there's a very good chance that a new Spiderman film will want to distance itself from the poorly received films in the series without rebooting the origin story over again.  So it won't be 'Spider-Man 4', and it won't be 'The Amazing Spiderman 3', either.  My money is on it being entitled 'Spectacular Spiderman' - as David Koepp (writer of Raimi's first Spidey film) recently stated, the differently titled comic runs of the character each have a different tone, so using another of the comics fore-titles makes sense for a slightly different take on the character - one that fits in with a shared universe of other Marvel characters.  The other option is to call it 'Ultimate Spiderman', though this could cause confusion with the Miles Morales version of the character.  On the other hand, the currently running and popular cartoon series has used that name, and is centred on Peter Parker - albeit having him part of a massively linked Marvel Universe of characters.  With that in mind using 'Ultimate' as the fore-title could work, if they're evoking the TV series.

But time will tell what future Spiderman films - and MCU appearances - will follow.  It's not as though there aren't a plethora of great story-lines they can take inspiration from.  And the prospect of seeing him swing in to action, potentially alongside Iron Man, Captain America, et al, is one that will make geeks very happy.  Now, we just need to hope that Marvel Studios and Fox can sit down and get the Fantastic Four and some X-Men to appear in Infinity War; this would be the place where such a cross-over would most make sense, but that's speculation for another time...

TV's 'Agent Carter' is totally ACE and should be on broadcasting in the UK NOW!!!

Even though I'm an avid viewer, I'll be the first to admit that 'Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.' hasn't really lived up to its potential.  The first series was a rambling 'mystery/investigation of the week' procedural that lacked a compelling focus - until almost two-thirds in, when the events of 'Captain America: The Winter Soldier' impacted on it.    Midway through the second series, there have been some fun episodes, and it's cool to see them laying the groundwork for the Inhumans, before their big screen debut in 2019(!).  But it's fair to say it needs to improve somewhat before it is really delivering a quality TV show that also satisfies fans of the MCU.  Launched as a stop-gap to fill the mid-season break of 'Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.', 'Agent Carter' has so far not had any of that show's weaknesses.  In fact, it is a tremendously enjoyable TV show, and it's a shame more people in the UK haven't been able to see it yet.

Agent Peggy Carter returns, along with Howard Stark (Dominic Cooper) - but this series is so fun it doesn't need MCU cameos to keep your interest.

Set in the late 1940's, before the founding of S.H.I.E.L.D., the series focusses on Peggy Carter from the first Captain America movie, played by Hayley Atwell.  It retains some of the slightly pulpy, period elements and feel of that film, but adds in some noir-ish elements, such as the way some scenes are shot, and how the fellow agents at the SSR dress and speak.  Throw in some gender politics (Agent Carter is frequently over-looked and under-valued by her male colleagues), a few Easter eggs for the MCU (including possible ties to characters such as Black Widow), and a well handled conspiracy mystery, this series is consistently entertaining and fun, where ' S.H.I.E.L.D.' occasionally felt a bit tedious.  Hayley Atwell is great in the role, and Carter is a really watchable character - fusing that traditional 'stiff-upper-lipped' British attitude associated with that era, alongside her capabilities and resilience as a military operative and agent.  Even if you got bored of 'S.H.I.E.L.D.', this series should not disappoint - it certainly hasn't disappointed me yet.

Agent Peggy Carter investigates a conspiracy, aided by Howard Stark's Butler, Jarvis.

So it's a real shame that, so far, no one has picked it up for broadcast in the UK.  I guess Channel 4 were put off after seeing their ratings drop for 'S.H.I.E.L.D.' - in which case BBC, ITV, Five and all the others are missing a great opportunity.  Unlike a lot of other US series, this is only an 8 episode run which actually works in its favour - without the need to stretch a story to 13, or even 20++ episodes, it has managed to keep focussed on moving central plot elements and character development forward without having to throw in filler episodes to pad out the season length.  To top it off, all the supporting cast are a lot of fun (even when they're pretty archetypal), especially James D'Arcy as Howard Stark's Butler, Jarvis (that's a familiar name...).  Whilst UK viewers aren't able to watch this series legally it's missing out on vital ratings and income that would justify a second season - which would be most welcome.  The series ends later this month in the US, prior to the return of ' S.H.I.E.L.D.' in March - hopefully UK viewers will be able to (Legally and legitimately) watch this series at some point soon.  Trust me, it'll be worth the wait!

That's it for this month - now back to the regularly scheduled program of film reviews.  Coming this week - a review of 'Selma', starring David Oyelowo as Martin Luther King Jr.